SKT Sky Network Television Limited.

[steveb]

Sky's assets alone would enable a leveraged takeover,as long as Sky are making enough money to pay for the finance costs it should be easy.

[Ogg]

List of potential buyers.

-Comcast
-Newscorp
-Telstra
-Vodafone
-Vocus Group
-Nine Entertainment Co.
-Trilogy International Partners

[mistaTea]

, I am an investor. If I could get 60 cents today, I should thank my lucky stars because the market is not giving that to me today.

Imo these two sentences contradict each other. I don't want to write a sermon on the difference between the type of investor who is interested in market value (who more often than not is actually a speculator) versus the long-term investor. But for the long-term 'value investor' market value is largely irrelevant. If your independent analysis of the company leads you to believe that it is worth, say, $1 per share minimum...then 60c is a non-starter. It is irrelevant that it happens to be 2x the current market value.

When I say that I do not care about the quoted value of the businesses I own - I am not kidding. I literally don't care. Appreciate that there will be many holders of Sky shares that don't share my perspective, but I don't think I am alone either.

As financial theory goes, "the best predictor of tomorrow's price, is today's price".
And you may be right and the market may be wrong but that "wrong market" can last longer than most investors can stay liquid/sane/patient etc.

Efficient Market Theory and Modern Portfolio Theory works very well for those who own a basket of stocks without any real understanding of the underlying companies that make up the basket. For them, all that matters at any given point in time is the quoted value of the portfolio. So at any given point of time, the total market value is the value of the portfolio. If they could get 60c per share it would be a huge boon (they wouldn't pause to ask themselves how Sky TV could suddenly be worth twice what it was 'worth' yesterday - it wouldn't be relevant to them).

But for those who have analysed the company, and have purchased a share of the business based on a sound understanding of the business (which includes understanding the wider industry, competitors, threats, opportunities etc...) the market value of the stock is completely irrelevant (other than being a buying opportunity when it seems low relative to intrinsic value or a selling opportunity if it is ridiculously high relative to intrinsice value).

I fit into that category. I wouldn't be itnerested in a price unless it at least approached IV. And I am not alone.

Ah, Christ! I ended up writing a sermon in the end didn't I?!

[winner69]

Keith Smith be a good Director won’t he?

Might bring a bit more common sense to the Board

Amazing that Handley still on the Board.

[Entrep]

Maybe, maybe not. The question I keep asking is, why is the price 31 cents. If investors were so convinced, then the price would not be trading where it is.

Same boat here. Debt is worrying and price has been down in the doldrums for so long. Look at the chart too.

That is a boon for investors like mistaTea however, as they themselves say they are confident in the underlying business, don't care about price for now, and can buy more "cheap".

I would have definitely had a punt a few years ago, not so much these days.

[blackcap]

Imo these two sentences contradict each other. I don't want to write a sermon on the difference between the type of investor who is interested in market value (who more often than not is actually a speculator) versus the long-term investor. But for the long-term 'value investor' market value is largely irrelevant. If your independent analysis of the company leads you to believe that it is worth, say, $1 per share minimum...then 60c is a non-starter. It is irrelevant that it happens to be 2x the current market value.

When I say that I do not care about the quoted value of the businesses I own - I am not kidding. I literally don't care. Appreciate that there will be many holders of Sky shares that don't share my perspective, but I don't think I am alone either.

Efficient Market Theory and Modern Portfolio Theory works very well for those who own a basket of stocks without any real understanding of the underlying companies that make up the basket. For them, all that matters at any given point in time is the quoted value of the portfolio. So at any given point of time, the total market value is the value of the portfolio. If they could get 60c per share it would be a huge boon (they wouldn't pause to ask themselves how Sky TV could suddenly be worth twice what it was 'worth' yesterday - it wouldn't be relevant to them).

But for those who have analysed the company, and have purchased a share of the business based on a sound understanding of the business (which includes understanding the wider industry, competitors, threats, opportunities etc...) the market value of the stock is completely irrelevant (other than being a buying opportunity when it seems low relative to intrinsic value or a selling opportunity if it is ridiculously high relative to intrinsice value).

I fit into that category. I wouldn't be itnerested in a price unless it at least approached IV. And I am not alone.

Ah, Christ! I ended up writing a sermon in the end didn't I?!

No worries, always good to be on the receiving end of a sermon

Tell you what, I will sell you my shares for 60 cents.. obviously a bargain

[macduffy]

Ah, Christ! I ended up writing a sermon in the end didn't I?!

But it was a pretty good one, mT!

I disagree on one point though. If the market price of your stock becomes low enough to attract an unwanted - in one's eyes - takeover bid, and worse still if the bid succeeds, then the price suddenly becomes very relevant!

[moimoi]

Not many, if any, takeovers have occurred on the NZX @ 5 X current market value a la today's post's about $1.50.

[mistaTea]

I disagree on one point though. If the market price of your stock becomes low enough to attract an unwanted - in one's eyes - takeover bid, and worse still if the bid succeeds, then the price suddenly becomes very relevant!

Sure, an unwanted takeover - if successful - could mean that even the most diligent investor who has done all of his homework ends up realising a loss. There is always some risk.

But the investor doesn't really dwell on those possibilities when taking a position.

So, for example, when Sky TV was 70c a share recently... if, after a thorough analysis, you formed the view that 70c represents a significant discount to long-term IV... what do you do?

Do you sit there and say "Sh1t, I better just wait because the market value might drop further...and then that could spark an unwanted takeover, and I might actually lose money if the offer price succeeds but is lower than my purchase price!"

?

Now you are not being an investor anymore - you are being a speculator. Nothing wrong with that, so long as you are self-aware.

If I took that approach I would never buy anything though! And I don't believe that way of 'investing' would likely lead to long-term success overall.

[macduffy]

No argument on that mT. I was only making the point that there is at least one situation when the shareprice ceases to be "completely irrelevant".