Share price would drop to 40 cents again, and SFF shareholders would lose over $200 m to make a few persons happy who would grab up SFF cheaply. Poor farmers! Beginning of the end for the FTA with China.
Printable View
Share price would drop to 40 cents again, and SFF shareholders would lose over $200 m to make a few persons happy who would grab up SFF cheaply. Poor farmers! Beginning of the end for the FTA with China.
Interesting information on John Shrimpton's involvement in purchasing land in Canterbury.
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/3...-deal-sff-says
I watched Stephen Joyces response to Winston Peters parlimentary question today.
Stephen seemed to so delighted with mocking Winston Peters that he was oblivious to the spluttering fuse on a barrel of gunpowder this issue is.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
One commentators take:
http://meatexportnz.co.nz/2016/05/03...-of-democracy/
When they tried to sell 50% to PGW in 2007, they needed a binding vote of 75% to do this and only just scraped in. This time around the vote wasn't actually needed and was non-binding.
What if SFF and Maling partnership fails?
1. Goldman Sachs will still collect fees ($ xx millions?) for making the deal. Would the fees be shared by SFF and Maling? or all to be paid by SFF?
2. Grand Samuel's forecast of the NPAT of $46.6m for FY2016 was based on the assumption that Maling's capital of $261m was injected on 1 October 2015 to save a financial cost of $12.8m. This was a ridiculous assumption and the interest saving in any case cannot be realised. Would a NPAT of $35m for FY2016 achievable?
3. If a $30m NPAT could be achieved sustainably year after year it would be better not to form the partnership with Maling. The questions remain if SFF could afford paying the fees to Goldman Sachs and penalties to other parties, and whether banks would continue lending.
4. Blocking the partnership with Maling sounds good if SFF could survive alone. Otherwise a share price of 40 cents is expectable in near future.
Anything wrong?
Allan Barber posted an opinion on SFF on website, here is the link:
http://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news...rs-silver-fern
Apparently some are betting Goldman Sachs and SFF Board have made mistakes in legal aspect and thus shareholders could make the partnership agreement with Maling voidable.
I would bet the partnership deal will be completed soon. The reason is simple: Goldman Sachs is not as stupid as some SFF shareholders hoped, and the shareholders' assumption that the market would remain the same if the agreement is made voidable is unlikely true. SFF and its shareholders cannot afford the penalty cost (in relation to GS) and the non-trade barrier consequence if the agreement fails.
What the unhappy shareholders can do is to vote Mr Rob Hewett out of the board in the next election. Meanwhile, they could consider who would compensate their loss after the partnership agreement is made void. Can they blame John Shrimpton?
It won't be going ahead and SFF board are in panic mode. The level of deception from understated forecasts through to 'restructuring' are unbelievable. There will be carnage and while it might be precipitated by Shrimpton the blame lies elsewhere. Won't be much longer to wait by all accounts.
Stuff headline;
Financial authority rejects NZ First complaints over Silver Fern Farms deal
Here is how it seems to work. If I sell someone a harbour bridge and they complain to the Financial Markets Authority its not mine to sell Mr Colin Magee the FMA head of conduct contacts me. I then create a document that says movie stars don't do that sort of thing. Mr Magee then says "Thats fine, by the way can I have your autograph?"
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
"Details of special meeting" announced.
At the end of special meeting on July 11, I guess some shareholders would demand:
1) Mr Rob Hewett resign from the the board; and
2) Mr John Shrimpton put his shares on unlisted market for sale.