STU - Steel & Tube Holdings

[hummerh40]

The yield is definitely attractive at these prices. Not too many companies on the NZX (except the REITs) offer this kind of a %

[macduffy]

I was starting to regret having sold out of STU last year, but........

http://beta.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=11871113

[BlackPeter]

I was starting to regret having sold out of STU last year, but........

http://beta.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=11871113

Quite sensationalist reporting from the Herald - they didn't even bother to get (or refer to) a statement from STU.

If you look at today's response from STU:

https://www.anzsecurities.co.nz/Dire...spx?id=4448159

The Commission's charges against Steel & Tube in regards to compliance with
the testing Standard relate to the application of testing methodologies only,
not the performance characteristics of the seismic mesh.

I.e. no evidence that anything would be wrong with the product. My understanding is that a contracted testlab in China performed some tests they were not accredited to do - invalidating these tests.

Does however not mean that the test results are wrong and does certainly not mean that the product is inferior.

As well - to the best of my knowledge nobody claims that STU knew about this mix up anyway. Sh*t happens.

The investigation and the likely outcome is known to the markets for months. In my view just a storm in a teacup.

Discl: holding;

[t.rexjr]

Gawd this issue was detected and rectified over a year ago and they only now get charges laid against them.

It's my understanding there was never anything wrong with the product only the testing proceedure. Absolute storm in a tea cup is right!

[Hoop]

Triggered my TA sell signals....so I got chucked out this morning....I Sold half with the Mid March gap down and realised +2% profit ..sold the other half this morning for +0.5% profit not including the good yield 9c/share (~3.75%) divvy on that half of it... Overall, a disappointing, hopeless 4.5 month TA investment and what makes it worse is the fact my investment happened during a building boom...

[percy]

Triggered my TA sell signals....so I got chucked out this morning....I Sold half with the Mid March gap down and realised +2% profit ..sold the other half this morning for +0.5% profit not including the good yield 9c/share (~3.75%) divvy on that half of it... Overall, a disappointing, hopeless 4.5 month TA investment and what makes it worse is the fact my investment happened during a building boom...

If they can't get it right during a building boom,sums up what an investment diaster STU has been..
So if my house foundations were built with non compliance steel mesh,who pays for the compliance foundations.?
Class actions should keep STU's lawyers in a job after the Commerce Commission has finished with them.
Expensive.

[BlackPeter]

...
Class actions should keep STU's lawyers in a job after the Commerce Commission has finished with them.
Expensive.

Only if somebody can prove that their steel is substandard AND if this fact caused a damage. Didn't happen yet.

If you buy a perfectly good product which has been tested by somebody without the correct accreditation, than you can't claim damages unless the product is substandard.

[percy]

Only if somebody can prove that their steel is substandard AND if this fact caused a damage. Didn't happen yet.

If you buy a perfectly good product which has been tested by somebody without the correct accreditation, than you can't claim damages unless the product is substandard.

Disagree.
They are before the commerce commission for selling an uncertified product.
Case proven.
If I had brought it as being uncertified, I have ever right to sue them,for not providing the product certified.
Class action would succeed in my opinion.

[BlackPeter]

Disagree.
They are before the commerce commission for selling an uncertified product.
Case proven.
If I had brought it as being uncertified, I have ever right to sue them,for not providing the product certified.
Case action would succeed in my opinion.

OK - lets test that. Let's assume you are selling books. They contain all the required copyrights in high quality print. They are not different from the "real thing" (same quality) but - unknown to you - they have not been printed by the licence holder but by some Chinese (or whatever) IP pirate and your usual distributor either didn't tell you or didn't know either.

Would you consider it proper if you pay not just a big fine and compensation to the licence holder (I assume that's what the commerce commission wants to achieve) but you are as well required to replace all the books you sold plus pay compensation to any student who ever looked into your book - not for learning the wrong thing (remember - nothing wrong with the content), but for looking into a correctly printed book with a forged copy right?

Sounds stupid to me ....

If the steel mesh is good enough it would be absolutely ridiculous to tear the buildings down (which would cause the damage ...).

If it is not good enough (looking at its physical properties), than the question is still who pays. I would however agree that in that case STU would stand pretty close to where the bucket is likely to stop.

[t.rexjr]

Disagree.
They are before the commerce commission for selling an uncertified product.
Case proven.
If I had brought it as being uncertified, I have ever right to sue them,for not providing the product certified.
Case action would succeed in my opinion.

Sue them for what?
No one as far as I'm aware has suggested the product wouldn't/doesn't comply. The issue is only accreditation of the certifiers and their testing method.
They believed their interpretaion of the testing standards were correct. Ambiuties with the standard were clearly there as MBIE had to issue clarification
At the end of the day, their is no issue known with the actual steel.

I'm wishing them the best for their defence

(not holding)