Auckland International Airport Limited (AIA)

[tango]

I think AIA failed us, I guess they need to pander to the big boys but small "retail" shareholders make the registry more diverse, probably more loyal and the bourse more interesting. The retail offer wasnt underwritten which suggests the first billion was adequate. For example a direct entitlement, taking only the money we apply for, is a smoother, less opaque process for retail shareholders. Also a minimum parcel, say 1000, could easily be bunged into their spreadsheet before scaling the rest, avoids some silly numbers. This is the least enjoyable offering Ive ever participated in and shame on AIA. Pity we have no say in the companies we own.

Disc1: no fan of corporate arrogance
Disc2: now own silly number

Exactly. They should give everyone an entitlement and then an option to oversubscribe for a set amount in the event others don’t participate. VGL are doing it that way.

This is laziness by the share registry and I’m annoyed my refund is tied up. They are allowing up to a week to refund- Friday 8

[Southern Lad]

Dibble, what’s the problem with owning a silly number of shares?

As a regular DRP participant, my Holdings report is fill of shareholding’s that don’t end in ,000 but so what? Never had a problem selling my precise shareholding. My spreadsheet is capable of calculating dividends and current value of my shareholding either way.

[dibble]

There's no problem Southern Lad, Im quite capable of managing odd numbers, i refer more to the instances above (incl me) who were allotted under 1000. It's a mathematically valid way of allocating, sure, and I failed tactically but I hate obfuscation. AIA didnt need us to oversubscribe and I think most people prefer clarity over mystery. If they choose the "apply for up to $xyz" over an allotment, a minimum allocation makes it clear for minnows what we can hope for and if we just want 1000 we dont have to second guess and apply for a lot more to get around scaling. Thats all. Less unnecessary mystery, happier punters.

[Stranger_Danger]

Sounds like some of you guys owned a tiny number of shares, presumably purchased so you could ask for the maximum amount possible in a SPP?

I can understand long term holders who suffered lots of dilution on a decent holding being upset, but someone who had 100 shares and then applied for the maximum under the SPP is just upset that the institutions gamed the system better than they did.

[tango]

It’s the lack of clarity. And tying up funds unnecessarily. I’ve owned AIA for a couple of years.

[macduffy]

Exactly. They should give everyone an entitlement and then an option to oversubscribe for a set amount in the event others don’t participate. VGL are doing it that way.

This is laziness by the share registry and I’m annoyed my refund is tied up. They are allowing up to a week to refund- Friday 8

Entitlements and allocations are set by the company and underwriters to the issue, not by the share registry.

[tango]

Entitlements and allocations are set by the company and underwriters to the issue, not by the share registry.

TRU are also allowing people to apply for up to $50k but scaling according to shares held. In that case it might make more sense as it’s less likely to be popular BUT at 5 cents per share $50,000 is 1 million shares. TRU are only fundraising $2 million so the 50 K Seems excessive. If you ask me it looks like TRU copied and pasted the AIA offer.

[Balance]

Sounds like some of you guys owned a tiny number of shares, presumably purchased so you could ask for the maximum amount possible in a SPP?

I can understand long term holders who suffered lots of dilution on a decent holding being upset, but someone who had 100 shares and then applied for the maximum under the SPP is just upset that the institutions gamed the system better than they did.

You have hit the nail on the head.

It used to be that anyone with shares in a company doing SPP automatically gets a minimum of say, $5,000 and then, pro-rata for the balance based on the number of shares held. So someone with $100 shares gets the first $5,000 worth - same as someone with $100,000 shares.

Brokers used to ring up their clients (like me) with opportunities like these and it was fantastic! Buy $100 of shares in several accounts and get several $5000 of discounted shares in a SPP. Easy money!

Companies wised up to the practice (after numerous complaints from existing and/or bigger shareholders) so the SPP structure used these days now reflects shareholding levels, and at announcements - rather than an ex-date in the future.

[horus1]

AIA have issued about 20% more equity . They are semi regulated . How are they goingto get a decent return on the increased No of shares when they are on reduced passengers for at least a couple of years . Or do they put up all charges.

[winner69]

You have hit the nail on the head.

It used to be that anyone with shares in a company doing SPP automatically gets a minimum of say, $5,000 and then, pro-rata for the balance based on the number of shares held. So someone with $100 shares gets the first $5,000 worth - same as someone with $100,000.

Brokers used to ring up their clients (like me) with opportunities like these and it was fantastic!

Companies wised up to the practice (after numerous complaints from existing and/or bigger shareholders) so the SPP structure used these days now reflects shareholding levels, and at announcements - rather than an ex-date in the future.

I’m pretty sure that everyone (well almost everyone) got their fair share and nobody should really be complaining they were short changed.

As you pointed out on the day it was announced the SPP was just under 18% of the total raise ...and it appears that retail investors held about that %.

I’m not complaining ...even accepting the fact that refunds not immediate.