PGC - Licenced to Bank

[winner69]

The information memorandium states"PGC will have net assets of approximately based on the proforma statement of $195mil @ 31/12/11."
The record date is 27/5/11
Distribution date 30/5/11
So the stuff article is correct.

You would hope Stuff was right - after all they were reading the same stuff as you percy

The question is though what is the real value of these assets .... the market doesn't see $195m worth at the moment

[percy]

You would hope Stuff was right - after all they were reading the same stuff as you percy

The question is though what is the real value of these assets .... the market doesn't see $195m worth at the moment

good stuff!!! winner69 I am sorry to admit I do not know what the assets are really worth,or what the market will value them in a years' time.My concern has always been that one ill informed ChCh broker quoted some very low figure,which I knew was not right.In all my posts I have stated that less than half of PGC's assets were going into BSH.I may have been slightly wrong,but that broker was miles out!!!. Country miles out.!! However you,me and other sharetrader posters are a lot better informed than that broker's clients.

[ETC]

Maybe someone down in Christchurch can go to the GM and ask them how they came up with the figure of $195m? I'd be very interested to hear the answer.

[Lizard]

Maybe someone down in Christchurch can go to the GM and ask them how they came up with the figure of $195m? I'd be very interested to hear the answer.

Looks reasonably clear in the documentation (schedule 4, pg 21). Amount is $165.1m excluding intangible and deferred tax assets.

However, all the figures are at least 4 months old now, so some limitations around that. The main assets are the PGW shares, $83m (at 60cps), the EPAM investments (EPIC and Torchlight Fund) $30m and the RECL properties $63m (properties acquired through security enforcement). All of these values could vary over time, as realisable value of non-current assets is always a tricky area in arms-length valuation.

[percy]

Thanks Lizard.As per all assets if someone can earn big returns on those assets the market should pay a premium to NTA.However if those assets do not show good returns they will lose value and the market should want a discount.Bit like buying chaff.Fresh chaff you pay a premium,while chaff that has been through the horse comes a little cheaper.!!!
What we all are waiting to see is what return on those assets Kerr can earn.Then we will know whether we have brought fresh shaff or just horse s..it.!!!

[winner69]

percy ... you mentioned a while ago Torchlight 1 Torchlight 2 and maybe many more Torchlights to come

Have you worked out how many Torchlights PGC own and how many are George's private investment vehicles?

Reading between the lines in a NBR article Torchlight does not always necessary mean PGC

The muddied waters are pretty clear now

[Lizard]

Reading between the lines in a NBR article Torchlight does not always necessary mean PGC

From what is available on the Companies web-site, there is nothing obviously tricksy that I can see. The Limited Partnerships will have Torchlight (fund 1 or 2) as the General Partner and any number of (wealthy investor) limited partners who will have an ownership interest. PGC interests are represented as a limited partner via 15% of capital. That means that IF (say) Torchlight Fund made $20m on the SCF loan, then PGC's share of the profit via Perpetual/Torchlight limited partnership is $3m gain on investment plus the management fees and performance fees earned by Torchlight as General Partner/Manager. Maybe George is a Limited Partner too, though not sure if that would need to be disclosed in related party?

For now, we don't have any info on Torchlight performance that I can see - it's still valued at the amount invested in the fund, i.e. $15m. There have been some figures for transaction and management fees, but early days and no % fees that I can find. Out of interest, the receivers reports for SCF show about $109m in liabilities to prior chargeholders (that include Torchlight amongst others), and then second report shows $175m paid out to prior chargeholders... so maybe more than Torchlight got a windfall if I read that aright?

[percy]

percy ... you mentioned a while ago Torchlight 1 Torchlight 2 and maybe many more Torchlights to come

Have you worked out how many Torchlights PGC own and how many are George's private investment vehicles?

Reading between the lines in a NBR article Torchlight does not always necessary mean PGC

The muddied waters are pretty clear now

Well,yes, well, would you believe I think NBR and I are both wrong....Ha Ha.Would appear there is just the one,part owned by PGC and managed by PGC.The link Lizard gives ,shows there is only one.Now,I do not think PGC shareholders would be very happy buying ALL ? kerr's manage funds interests, to find there were others that Kerr did not put into the deal. This is why Kerr became the major shareholder in PGC.Sold his fund management business into PGC so there was no conflict of interest.

[percy]

From what is available on the Companies web-site, there is nothing obviously tricksy that I can see. The Limited Partnerships will have Torchlight (fund 1 or 2) as the General Partner and any number of (wealthy investor) limited partners who will have an ownership interest. PGC interests are represented as a limited partner via 15% of capital. That means that IF (say) Torchlight Fund made $20m on the SCF loan, then PGC's share of the profit via Perpetual/Torchlight limited partnership is $3m gain on investment plus the management fees and performance fees earned by Torchlight as General Partner/Manager. Maybe George is a Limited Partner too, though not sure if that would need to be disclosed in related party?

For now, we don't have any info on Torchlight performance that I can see - it's still valued at the amount invested in the fund, i.e. $15m. There have been some figures for transaction and management fees, but early days and no % fees that I can find. Out of interest, the receivers reports for SCF show about $109m in liabilities to prior chargeholders (that include Torchlight amongst others), and then second report shows $175m paid out to prior chargeholders... so maybe more than Torchlight got a windfall if I read that aright?

Do not mind if you read it right or not,speculation will mean I will have sweet dreams tonight.Instead of counting sheep I will count dollars.!!!

[Lizard]

Winner, not sure if you read this one on interest.co.nz:
Companies with NZ$1.7b covered by the extended Crown retail guarantee confident they can wean themselves off it

Similar comments to what I saw when going through the books - although I didn't go through Wairarapa Building Society. Funny though - Combined Building Society has the best rating, but the greatest risk around re-investment rates. Wish we could get some update on that with data more recent than December-Jan when investors were probably still going for one more year under the guarantee and safer-than-the-bank.

Personally, find it difficult to believe that re-investment rate would stay the same for terms going beyond 31 Dec, as must at least be a proportion of debenture holders who were in there simply because of lower risk than banks at higher potential returns and will drift away without the guarantee.