TWR - Tower Insurance.

**shawsie** · 26-08-2009, 08:24 AM

so w69, Sovereign is the answer?

makes good sense.---

1.Tower needs a bank alliance after failed forays with ANZ and Nat, decimated general insurance book
2.ASB get Twrs new insurance software
3. standard back office function deduplication, a gpg speciality
maybe 4 ASB could use some cash to appease parent as times are (relatively) hard for poor banks, no visa ipo this year

i think that would turn twr into a buy. what do you think rights will trade at?

**macduffy** · 26-08-2009, 11:16 AM

That all makes sense, shawsie. If TWR aren't looking at Sovereign then they should be!

Theoretical rights price is 28-29c based on today's cum rights price so far but as for where they might trade........?

**macduffy** · 27-08-2009, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by belgarion

IAG might flick State ... Or even exit NZ completely?

Maybe, but I doubt it.

A lot of Australian companies get a bit vocal about their NZ business when NZ has a downturn. Then they realise that it's a very safe, if unspectacular place to earn steady profits compared to some of the alternative ways of spending their capital.

**Jay** · 27-08-2009, 04:12 PM

I think it might be Jacques Martin ASB are selling off Not Sovereign

**shawsie** · 28-08-2009, 01:29 PM

probably no survivors in mgmt of the last foray, with large consequential write offs.

do you have a target in mind? (an Aussie target not a price target)

the 2 plays that would make me sit up and take notice are merge 2 books, keep 1 back office; and public-private-partnership of ACC business.

**Ash** · 28-08-2009, 03:58 PM

It is Jacques Martin ....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...es-100-workers

**winner69** · 30-08-2009, 10:19 AM

Love headlines like "GPG's Tower fee psrt of 'insidious' practice'[/B] by Jenny Ruth which appears today in the SST

Apparently GPG get $577.750 for making an early commitment to participating in the raising - Goldman Sachs pay it out of their (outrageous) 2% underwriting fee

Even better Bruce Sheppard dscribes it as 'repugnant' - mainly because Tower isn't in any real strive etc and goes on to ask 'is GPG really that hard up? Because it does look rather silly and self-serving'

Jenny's conclusion is she sees this as an a fantastic opportunity for GPG to average down the cost of its Tower stake (didn't it pay $2.30 a share last year) and the $1,34 for the new shares is a lot less than that

With GPG essentially running this outfit who will be the winners out of this raising? Generally not the small shareholders