Any comments on their new Ordinary Share structure, and does anyone own any.
A quick look suggests a market cap of 75m, with Net assets in excess of 200m
This is priced similar to Affco, which trades at a discount.
Printable View
Any comments on their new Ordinary Share structure, and does anyone own any.
A quick look suggests a market cap of 75m, with Net assets in excess of 200m
This is priced similar to Affco, which trades at a discount.
Silver Fern Farms to repay bonds early
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=1772
Silver Fern Farms has reported a net operating loss before tax for the 12 months ended 30$2,014m).
September 2010 of $800,000 (2009 profit $5.4m) from total revenue of $1,810m (2009
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=1799
Acquisition of Shares
Silver Fern Farms advises that it has purchased 39,843 of its ordinary rebate shares and 480 of its ordinary supplier investment shares from shareholders electing to surrender those shares in accordance with the Co-operative Companies Act 1996 and/or Silver Fern Farms’ Constitution.
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=1801
Declaration of a Taxable Bonus Issue
The directors declared a taxable bonus issue of 1 new ordinary share for every 5 new ordinary shares held at the record date of Tuesday 7 December 2010. The bonus issue will apply to all fully paid and partly paid “Ordinary Shares” (as defined in the Company’s constitution) and the bonus share issue price will be $1.00 per share.
The bonus shares will be issued fully paid from the Company’s retained earnings on 8 December 2010. Bonus shares will not be eligible to be voted in this year’s director election or at the Company’s annual meeting to be held on 27 January 2011, but will carry such voting rights thereafter.
The bonus issue will be fully credited with imputation credits, at the rate of 30%, and will also have resident withholding tax credits attached which will be paid by the Company.
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=1802
Silver Fern Farms 2010 Annual Report
Annual Report for the Year ended 30 September 2010
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=1814
Directors election result a vote of confidence in Silver Fern Farms’ leadership
See link for a news release pertaining to the outcome of the Silver Fern Farms’ recent Directors election, announced today at the 63rd Annual Meeting of Shareholders in Waipukurau.
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=1817
Silver Fern Farms makes more fresh water stores available for Christchurch
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=1826
Silver Fern Farms’ innovative new digital campaign a first for the red meat category
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=1830
Silver Fern Farms announces partnership with Annabel Langbein
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=1936
Good 12-month result, with a 10cps dividend.
Silver Fern Farms Director Election
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=2107
Silver Fern Farms sees positive signs in Europe
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=2117
Silver Fern Farms 2012 Annual Result
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=2128
Silver Fern Farms' Annual Report for the year ending 30 September 2012
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=2136
Silver Fern Farms’ Te Aroha plant opens
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=2143
Farmer Funding Decision
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=2159
Retirement and appointment of directors announced, along with notice of annual meeting and the results of scientific testing:
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=2299
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=2300
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=2301
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=2302
Nominations for director elections are posted:
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=2311
Annual results:
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=2314
Annual report and notice of meeting:
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=2335
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=2336
Two new directors have been appointed.
SFF announce the launching of direct lamb retail sales into China.
Silver Fern Farms host large Chinese delegation, new announcement.
New media release on SFF's 'new age of beef'.
Silver Fern Farms and Lowe Corporation have entered into aconditional agreement to sell the cooperative’s Napier hide processing plant aspart of a toll processing arrangement for North Island hides.
Leathers sale agreement confirmed.
An updated issuer has been posted for SFF.
SFF calling directors of the future.
News release on China office being opened.
Clarity needed on shareholder resolution.
SFF is in a trading halt since last week pending capital raising developments.
So who will it be?
The Chinese? The Brazilians? Or some dark horse from out of left field?
Any ideas? Any suggestions? Any preferences?
Investment is one thing, but control is another. If they give away control, think farmers will vote with their feet.
I blame a failure of governance by the farmer shareholders for Siver Fern Farms current siuation.
They should have used the outcome of the Bell Group & others v PPCS litigation as an excuse to clear out directors and management.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
Anyone thinking Chinese investment is a home run for Chinese access should look carefully at the sequence of Bright Investment in Synlait Milk and its insistence on control even when dropping under 50% shareholding. And the aggressive takeout of shareholders in Synlait Farms provides equally little ground for optimism for long term future of a farmer partnership with a large corporate shareholder.
How does an Investor get control and still be confident the farmers will supply. An interesting set of interests to negotiate through.
A farmer grows stuff to sell.
A corporate farmer generally looks at vertical integration. In the case of SFF, from the pasture to the plate. In the case of Exxon, from the oil well to the petrol pump.
It allows for much closer control of costs, and provides options as to where the profit can be made or declared.
It is not easy to see the interests of farmers and corporate farmers aligning closely over time.
Farmers want the best price for their sheep and cattle and the best profitability of SFF. How could it be achieved? Who forced SFF borrowing so much? Farmers, not foreign investors!
Neither Shanghai Maling, the now revealed purchaser, nor SFF seem to fit corporate farming in that neither company actually owns farms. However your comment as to options as to where the profit can be taken seems to fit well with both Bright and Shanhai Maling retail and wholesale distributing operations. Somewhat surprisingly with Synlait Milk, Bright did not seem to give any advantage to Synlait when NZ powder exporters were subjected to banning and later individual approvals.
This reminds me of the "old" days in the meat industry when overseas firms such as the Vesteys and Borthwicks had a large measure of control of the NZ industry. They, too, had the overseas contacts for distribution and sale to the consumers of the product. The wheel turns?
Appairs to be good for farmer shareholders now for the short term,longer term ??? Who would know
http://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news...-banks-plus-it
SFF doesn't own the farms. How then does SFF grow the beasts? The reality is the farmers own the farms and operate SFF as a co op to do the processing. Shanghai Maling/Bright is proposed to own half the processing and already has enormous retail and wholesale operations in China. As one commentator points out SH/Bright could still sell SFF products without owning half it. The question is whether the advantage Shanghai Maling sees in a stake in the processor will be consistent with the farmers interests in the long term.
Last year the financial cost of SFF was $37.4 m. Assuming everything remains the same, SFF share holders would get a $0.187 saving per year per share (50% of the financial cost/100 m shares) after Shanghai Maling inject capital. It would be good return to shareholders if the saving becomes divident.
Words from SFF Annual Report on Shanghai Maling investment: "The investment is now only subject to regulatory approvals in China and New Zealand. We hope to positively conclude these processes, and commence the partnership in the second quarter of calendar 2016".
The is no sign that the regulatory approval on Chinese side has been obtained or close to that. What if approval cannot be obtained in China (due to capital control or other reasons)? I would guess the promised special dividend would be impossible. Further, it seems that the agreement with Maling does not have a compensation clause as SFF did with PGG Wrightson many years ago. Would the banks still support SFF?
You would have to presume there is some compensation clause etc within their agreement.
All silent in recent months, but hasn't been an easy season - lamb markets are difficult and the kill gone - but less farmgate competition. Beef probably not really going to hit a peak kill = get farmer prices down and maximum plant efficiencies.
Would think the banks are looking at them more kindly but still with the hammer down. Looking at their cashflow from operations, over $100m out of $152m was from inventory and trade & receivables - so can only do this once.
I examined SFF's latest annual report and its "Notice of meeting and shareholder information pack"(Sept. 2015) and could not find a compensation clause (if Shanghai Maling discontinues investment in SFF) .
A recent article on NBR reported the receivership of Maling's subsidiary company in Czech Republic.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/silver-...-next-negative
Maling's share price has dived from around 14 Yuan at the beginning of 2016 to about 9 Yuan today.
http://data.p5w.net/stock/index.php?code=sh600073
Maling recently announced that it has closed two subsidiary companies in China, with big losses.
Although Maling is a big and thus unlikely to change its mind in establishing the joint venture with SFF, nobody from SFF has mentioned the consequence if the joint venture could not be established. Can SFF still survive without the investment from Maling?
SFF was extremely luck in 2008 when Craig Norgate made a mistake to sign an unconditional agreement to buy 50% SFF and could not borrow from banks. It got $10m compensation from PGG Wrightson (?).
$30m and 10m shares - https://pggwrightson.co.nz/~/media/D...409.ashx?la=en
The recent record of Other Chinese investment in the meat industry is less than stellar - Prime Range Meats and BX Foods.
As they say, watch this space.....
The June 30 deadline for settlement is approaching.
Six months after SFF shareholders voted for capital injection from Shanghai Maling, there is little news on the matter. would John Key's visit to Beijing next week catalyses the process of regulatory approvals on both sides? or an extention to deadline would be required?
Given the Bell Group and Others legal action and now Winston Peters wanting to re-run a Wine Box inquiry on SFF, being told there is someone at reception from SFF wanting advice on a matter of securities law any prudent solicitor would be wise to hide under their desk.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farm...-farms-conduct
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
I would believe it was a stupid business decision to buy half of SFF at $261m. If the transaction is blocked by NZ side there would be two implications: 1) SFF would not be able to find a new buyer who is willing to pay $261 for half of the company; 2) it gives Chinese an excuse to delay the FTA upgrading. The world is not short of protein supply. As recent as 2 years ago people believed Chinese would not survive without NZ milk. Look at the market now! Milk is flooding everywhere. Red meat would follow the milk story.
If anyone loves to own SFF they could achieve the goal by starting to buy SFF shares at unlisted market at $1.00/share. Eventually beef/sheep farmers would retire and they have to sell shares at $1 or lower.
I wonder if the difference in future outlook in supporting information given to farmers before the merger approval meeting and the positive profit announcement after the vote will end up biting the bankers who control SFF in the bum.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU160...requsition.htm
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farm...maling-meeting
Will this turn into a rerun of Bell Group and Others v PPCS?
Who advises these guys on securities law, Lionel Hutz?
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
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.
Statement from OIO last Friday suggests that approval would not be given before SFF special meeting. What's the point for OIO to make a decision if SFF shareholders have not decided? For the same token, Shanghai Maling would NOT bother to deal with OIO unless SFF special meeting re-approves the sale, which looks unlikely given the high hurdle of 75% approval rate.
The next logical issue would be how much SFF has to pay for the services of Goldman Sachs and others. It was SFF, not Shanghai Maling, appointed Goldman Sachs for capital raising.
Would SFF be able to continue to collaborate with Shanghai Maling after the special meeting? Probably not. The reputation of SFF board and mangers would not be regarded in China. Shanghai Maling learnt a lesson and would find alternative sources of beef from Australia and Brazil, rather than wasting time in NZ.
SFF would be 100% retained in NZ. I would expect a share price of 40 cents after the special meeting.
You hire a merchant bank for their expertise in mergers and aquisitions for which they charge a fat fee.
Having a merger(or whatever) go t*ts up because of an issue with the co-ops articles of association suggest the advice recievied was not worth the fat fee charged.
If I was Silver Fern Farms I would stiff them the fee on account of Goldman Sucks being useless.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
SFF CEO says Shanghai Maling is still in the hunt and announces delay to special shareholder meeting.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farm...as-walked-away
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
Edit: Gazumped by Sideshow Bob
According to the press release of Mr Peters on June 30, Goldman Sachs received $695,000 a month from SFF. It started advising SFF on capital raising on November 2014. When would its service end, 4 January 2017 (the revised settlement date with Shanghai Maling)?
Regardless of their votes on August 11, SFF shareholders have to pay Goldman Sachs a huge fee, possibly 26 months * $695,000.
Now I understand why SFF management said it was a huge waste of money to hold the shareholder requisitioned
meeting.
Here is the article......interesting.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA160...fern-farms.htm
Rural commentator Allan Barber has an item on the Interest web site discussing the latest developments on the SFF takeover saga.
http://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news...ing-date-allan
He says the Shrimpton Group will have hard time getting the FMA and Companies Office to change their minds. He is correct in his assumption as both these are do-nothing organisations whoose purpose is to deflect responsibility from cabinet ministers.
Mr Shrimpton and associates would be more successful if they head to court.
The danger is after the Bell Group & others V PPCS litigation the courts may take a view that SFF is a repeat offender.
Mr Bell makes an interesting observation in this NZ Herald article about the aftermath of this litigation;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...jectid=3581562
It is so applicable to current circumstances that I am going to quote it;
"Bell says he is not entirely convinced PPCS has learned from the messy takeover process."
He is 100% on the money and by the time it all plays out he will be the king maker next election.
It is the dream trifecta for Winston - offshore investment, domestic corruption and the big banks....
Sound bites aside - it is very ugly what is going on and it needs to be exposed.
Winston has another crack.....
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA160...fern-farms.htm
Sadly, with the New Zealand media descending into an urban, turgid, celebrity-driven bog, I doubt that Mister Peters will be able to get the traction required for this rural issue to make a difference.
Given their past record how can we be sure this break-even result won't magically change into a profit in a few months time?
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
PS. Mr Shrimptons PR consultant earning his fee;
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farm...ern-farms-deal
Plausable, I have a diferent spin.
The top brass at SFF are hunkered down inside the fort hoping the band of renegade Injuns attacking them will give up and go away.
If they anounce the storerooms inside the fort are packed with baccy firewater and muskets the attackers will be more determined in the assault.
Worse other Injuns would be encouraged to join in for their share of the loot.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
Quote Originally Posted by Sideshow Bob View Post
Or the break-even turning into a loss.......I think if they were making money they'd be telling people.....
Blue Sky Meats has announced a big loss. This is the 3rd time in the last 4 or 5 years, indicating how difficult to make money in the business.
All SFF shareholders can hope is that OIO approval is granted soon and the 50:50 partnership deal is reconfirmed before SFF's annual results are announced and Shanghai Maling goes away. I believe the deal would not go ahead as Maling executives are not stupid enough to make decisions that would make themselves jailed. I expect share price of SFF return to 40 cents.
From the Otago Daily Times;
"Mr Hewett said the SFF board remained unanimous in its view the 50:50 partnership with Shanghai Maling was in the best interests of shareholders......."
The SFF board was probably advised by the ghost of former US President Benjamin Franklin.
"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
Winnie still banging the drum, but not many are listening so far:
http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/5/258229
Keith Woodford
http://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news...rmance-it-time
Winnie still bangin' the drum!
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA160...aling-deal.htm
Still bangin!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay...ectid=11690303
Mr Peters will be unhappy.
http://www.unlisted.co.nz/uPublic/un...cement_id=2823
The flip-flop from she's gunna go under to nex minit huuge profit was arrogant cynicism.
If co-operative members are happy to be feed bull manure why should I care.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
The problem they have is that there will always be some disaffected. Only a portion voted (others may not have cared) but in the first vote 16% was against and in the 2ns 20% against. If they walk and go elsewhere, then it makes a material hole, especially when running a business with a heavy fixed cost. No stock = no business.
Doesn't give up!
http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/5/260411
Well, we're on, then.
Hopefully it'll be an interesting ride. . .