Xro - xero

[Beagle]

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/milfor...ting-th-210623

With link to actual letter at the foot of the article. I think Gaynor has a good point.

[peat]

I think Gaynor has a good point.

Yes he totally does. NZX so weak that it cant even enforce the rules that would serve to enhance their business.
It is hard to understand why Xero are so adamant to leave NZX and it seems to me (despite all the public statements to the contrary) that there must be some form of animosity.
The only benefit I can see is saving of listing fees and ongoing requirements to adhere to two separate regulatory environments. Surely these costs are not large enough to make them leave??

[Leftfield]

I agree with other posters on this. NZX needs to stand up and be counted otherwise it risks an erosion of it's credibility. NZ needs and deserves a strong Stock Exchange (and regulator.)

I also like this point in Gaynor's letter

1. "The alternative is to require Xero, under Listing Rules 5.4.1 (b), to buy back shares fromprejudiced shareholders at $34.05 per share, the company’s share price immediately before thepre-delisting announcement. "
   

[zgnz]

Props to Brian Gaynor & Milford for doing this.


I understand some benefits to what Xero are attempting to do. But considering 2/3rds of XRO's volume is traded on the NZX, the whole move seems very premature.


- Your typical NZ Punter (and Xero employees with shares) are going to be disadvantaged having to exchange between NZD & AUD when it comes to buy & sell (especially with the FX rates NZ Brokers charge to your average retail investor.)

- Passive & managed funds which are mandated to trade on NZX only are going to be forced to sell around the same time (and if there aren't enough buyers, guess what happens to the price..)


How the directors can make this decision without shareholder sign off baffles me.

[bull....]

Props to Brian Gaynor & Milford for doing this.


I understand some benefits to what Xero are attempting to do. But considering 2/3rds of XRO's volume is traded on the NZX, the whole move seems very premature.


- Your typical NZ Punter (and Xero employees with shares) are going to be disadvantaged having to exchange between NZD & AUD when it comes to buy & sell (especially with the FX rates NZ Brokers charge to your average retail investor.)

- Passive & managed funds which are mandated to trade on NZX only are going to be forced to sell around the same time (and if there aren't enough buyers, guess what happens to the price..)


How the directors can make this decision without shareholder sign off baffles me.

the brokers will make a killing on nz shareholders selling if it lists in aus only through the 1- 2c margin they will cream on forex.

$100000 xero shares at say 91c forex on time of listing if you sell later at 91c forex spot your broker might give you 93c so 2c forex loss = $2000

wow you just lost $2000 by selling at the same rate

[RGR367]

Forget about Gaynord and/or Milford as Intuit behemoth is the one that XRO should be looking after since they're saying that the Tanker has turned around https://digitalfirst.com/intuits-pla...sletter+011217

[Baa_Baa]

Forget about Gaynord and/or Milford as Intuit behemoth is the one that XRO should be looking after since they're saying that the Tanker has turned around https://digitalfirst.com/intuits-pla...sletter+011217

Agree, the Xero double down on the US market was essentially a poke at intuit, even literally Rod poked them. So awakened the giant Intuit, who sees the upstart Xero has some cool stuff and goes after them by basically replicating the strategy and online app/practice models. Is it surprising that Xero growth in the do or die USA market is so unimpressive? I think it's the festering sore on Xeros playbook and they could do a lot more to instil confidence that the double down play is working, or going to work, even after a couple of market strategy reboots. I didn't see that in the recent results/commentary, more so a veiled retreat or diminished focus on US market as the holy grail.

[Lola]

[QUOTE=Baa_Baa;694777]Agree, the Xero double down on the US market was essentially a poke at intuit, even literally Rod poked them. So awakened the giant Intuit, who sees the upstart Xero has some cool stuff and goes after them by basically replicating the strategy and online app/practice models. Is it surprising that Xero growth in the do or die USA market is so unimpressive? I think it's the festering sore on Xeros playbook and they could do a lot more to instil confidence that the double down play is working, or going to work, even after a couple of market strategy reboots. I didn't see that in the recent results/commentary, more so a veiled retreat or diminished focus on US market as the holy grail.[/QUOTE

HERO TO ZERO?
Pretty selfish strategy
There must be a wrinkle in Aussie takeover rules vis a vis NZX regulations that make this appealing to Rod and Peter

[moka]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/ind...ithout-a-fight
The NZX has turned down an appeal from Auckland-based fund manager Milford Asset Management to intervene in Xero's planned delisting from the exchange.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/ind...xero-delisting
Could the NZX have forced Xero to put delisting to a shareholder vote?
The NZX says it could have done, and it certainly appears to have considered doing so, but it decided not to require a vote, given the rights of Xero shareholders will be "substantially unchanged".
Xero says any vote could not have been binding on the company anyway, as it is only the listing that is changing, not the country in which it will be resident, which remains New Zealand.
The bottom line is that Xero would almost certainly have won any vote anyway as only 30 per cent of its shares are held by New Zealanders, and more than 40 per cent of those shares are owned by chief executive Rod Drury.
Shareholder votes rarely go against the board's wishes, so a vote would probably at most have only caused some embarrassment – arguably both for Xero and the NZX .

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/busin...nz-sharemarket
But Xero chief executive Rod Drury said the issue had already been settled with shareholders and the NZX. "What he (Gaynor) seems to be saying is that our corporate strategy should be dictated by the mandate of a small New Zealand fund that doesn't own that much of us," he said.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opi...e-it-both-ways
How can the rights of shareholders be 'substantially unchanged' when they have no say where a company they own is listed?
Drury recently won the Deloitte/NZME Top 200 Visionary Leader award. The judges said he demonstrated tremendous vision and achieved a real impact.
There's no denying he's exceptionally driven and clever, but I find his vision lacking.

[moka]

Xero to delist - whose decision is this? I reckon it is Xero’s as part of their corporate strategy, not the shareholders.
I can understand why they want to list on just one market. I can understand that they want to grow and moving to the ASX is the way to achieve this.
In the video below Rod Drury explains why Xero is delisting in NZ, which is that Xero has aspirations to keep growing and over that the next 3 – 4 years there is so much opportunity. They don’t want to pay dividends and want to invest in continuing to grow. They have struggled to get the really big strategic global growth investors to invest down here in NZ because it is a small scale market. And they really need those big global investors to grow. They need to consolidate the liquidity on one market to achieve growth. Well done Xero! I think Rod Drury has plenty of vision.

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nzx-re...ro-th-p-210659