At least 12 months!.Holders voting early with there feet and heading for the door.We like our companies to stand up for themselves but drawn out legal disputes are a bummer.GLTA.
Printable View
At least 12 months!.Holders voting early with there feet and heading for the door.We like our companies to stand up for themselves but drawn out legal disputes are a bummer.GLTA.
Lets agree to disagree and move on and discuss possible timetable. In the honorable Judge's ruling he says that parties should not expect a decision before the end of January 2021, lets say February 2021. We know Synlait's original high court decision was handed down in November 2018 and after being appealed to the Court of appeal is presently being heard in the Supreme court. Assuming the Supreme court hand down their reserved decision in say August 2020 that's 21 months from the date of the original high court decision until the supreme court hand down their decision.
If we assume this is a typical timeframe for a significant commercial matter to traverse the 3 upper layers of the judicial system then if one party or the other appeals all the way from the high court to the court of appeal and the supreme court this could drag into February 2021 + 21 months = November 2022 plus whatever time it takes to take enforcement action through European courts against EQT seeing as it is likely APVG is merely a shell company being supported by them. So we could get our $7 sometime in 2023 if this runs the full legal appeal process. Hmmm
I merely post this so people can focus their minds as to whether they really want to have that sort of dogged determination or not. On the other hand they could reach a settlement before it makes it to the high court in November 2020. I note Balance has stopped reminding us on a regular basis that a settlement is the most likely outcome so I presume he has lost patience already and sold out.
I am sensing that a certain @Beagle whose self professed lack of patience but profoundly expressed dogged determination to hold for the long term if the case is lost, is in a mental conflict, or perhaps has sold already?
Honestly who can be bothered tying up capital in a serial under-performer and market sector pariah on the off chance some day a year or so away, they may get a capital gain windfall, or be left holding the baby?
Opportunity cost anyone?
I suppose another way of looking at MET is to ask whether it is a good investment at current prices even if MET loses the case against APVG after incurring a few million in legal fees and gets a cost award for a similar amount awarded against them at the end of the day.
Clinging on with dogged determination. I am hoping for a negotiated settlement before this goes to court because the expert academic boffins at Harvard are on record as saying these messy MAC disputes usually settle out of court. This suggests to me a settlement in the six dollar something range is more likely than not.
I think they are worth at least $4.30 even if they lose.
one needs to see the whole picture being that its not too bad an investment at these prices - not too bad at all and probably even has room for a margin as one of our old favourite investors says.
It is true that it has shown to be not that great a company but all company's can be a reasonable investment. The fact there's something at play here makes the case sweeter than it otherwise would be, and enough to tip the scales in its favour I reckon.
I cant believe you guys are all wussing out already. If The Reneger sees this it will strengthen their resolve.
I'm not a pussy. Dogmatically hanging in there :cool:
I've also re-invested a second time and continue holding even though no divvies for 12months but suspect NONE of the retirement lot will be paying divvies anyway. That possible magic $7 been a great 64% incentive............. Otherwise imo well priced
bull stood alone that metlife would get no where in demanding the takeover , everyone was so bullish pushing the narrative and slowly and surely they are all folding.
Updated this after recent events
10% chance of takeover at $6.25 (mid point $6.00 to $6.50 - I just love midpoints)
10% chance of market love taking it $5.00
30% chance price hangs around $4.40
50% chance of price falling to $3.60
‘Expected’ target price in a years time $4.25
BaaBaa mentions opportunity cost ...should be considered as well
Maybe the mantra is now MET, heads you might win, tails you might lose a bit ....hmmm
Not a MET shareholder and not looking to get in. But from the sidelines this case has eerie parallels with my own investment 'adventure;' into Arrium on the ASX, the scene of my biggest ever sharemarket loss.
Arrium was an iron ore exporter, and financial viability centered on getting production costs down to a certain level as iron ore prices globally reduced. I took the gamble that they would be able to do this.. It was a touch and go situation and I knew what I was getting into, but I judged that the gap between production costs and market price would remain positive. In the end the margin did hold positive However the company was tipped into receivership anyway, because the directors formed a view that was honestly and reasonably held that the company might not be able to keep operating with a positive margin and that if that happened then the company could be trading while insolvent.
Whatever actually happens to MET profits, the fact hat the MET board applied for the wage subsidy indicated that the MET board believed a 30% fall in revenue from pre-covid levels had occurred. The bidders would be quite within their rights to see this as an honestly and reasonably held position -at the time-, regardless of whether the expected falls in revenue actually continued into the future. As it turns out, it looks like the projected fall in revenue of 30% was an over-reaction. But that is irrelevant. As long as the bidder had a view that was honestly and reasonably held at the time, a view conformed by the actions of the MET board applying for the wage subsidy, then the bidders are off the hook as I see it, I am not a legal expert. I am just speaking from a position of being on the receiving end of what I see as an analogous position.
SNOOPY
Thanks for posting Snoopy. Like you I've been watching the MET posts from the sidelines.
IMHO it is a very risky proposition to base ones investment on the possibility of a favourable legal outcome.
Whatever the likely outcome, there is a risk that the legal action will be protracted and divert the attention of the Board from other key business decisions.
GLH (Disc don't hold.)
Lets see where these Retirement stock go
$1.37.............Arvida Group
$6.34.............Summerset Group
$13.35...........Ryman Healthcare
$0.94.............Oceania Healthcare
$4.28.............Metlifecare
If I was a resident in a MET village I’d be concerned about having an owner who doesn’t really want to be the owner and maybe just wants to get as much cash as possible out of them ...rather then providing high standards of care/living
Lost in translation
Back to puppy school for me to learn how to bark more respectfully and at half volume.