Rubicon

[sb9]

Sneaking out their result at end of business is not a good look.

Speaks very poorly of their management and governance.

[GTM 3442]

My understanding is that when Fletcher Challenge was split into the four "operational" companies (Paper, Forestry, Building and Energy), there was a perceived need to find homes for those with "non-operational" or head office roles.

Hence Rubicon.

The original rationale for the company's existence long since gone, and now it serves no purpose - an investment company with only one investment has no role in life other than to clip the ticket.

The next step seems obvious. . .

[whatsup]

What was the admin expenses of $16,800,000.00 made up of ?

[minimoke]

..........

[blackcap]

What was the admin expenses of $16,800,000.00 made up of ?

That's the bit that caught my eye too.

But mini does make an interesting point about sales...

[THEONE]

The report wasn't great, but I thought was ok. Underlying earnings growth looks good..

I thought thanking Luke Moriarity was a bit much though...Maybe he did work hard...Who knows..

I think would have been best to have kept quiet...considering the destruction of value over the years.

[SilverBack]

What was the admin expenses of $16,800,000.00 made up of ?

Good question seeing that this is nothing more than a holding company. Can I suggest that you put the question in writing to be answered at the AGM. That gives them a chance to give a proper answer but then you need to attend the AGM to take on the Board if you do not like the answer given.

Before you draft your question, you need to refer to notes 7 and 14 where there is more detail on administration expenses covering intellectual property. US$5.8M of expenses comes from write-off of intellectual property.

NZ$1.837M of restructuring costs relate to disposal of senior officers (Moriarty and Taylor) but this will not be brought to account until the 2020 accounts.

[SilverBack]

My understanding is that when Fletcher Challenge was split into the four "operational" companies (Paper, Forestry, Building and Energy), there was a perceived need to find homes for those with "non-operational" or head office roles.

Hence Rubicon.

The original rationale for the company's existence long since gone, and now it serves no purpose - an investment company with only one investment has no role in life other than to clip the ticket.

The next step seems obvious. . .

Agreed but the next step could be expensive and now that they have reduced RBC's costs with the new structure I am happy to defer on this. Reducing the number of RBC directors is probably appropriate all the same. Shoud RBC take-over Arborgen and remain listed in NZ or should Arborgen take-over RBC and then list in the US? There will surely be tax implications in any such move. Listing fees on a US exchange are substantial. At the end of the day Arborgen is a very small company for the US.

[minimoke]

..........

[minimoke]

...........