sharetrader
Page 131 of 150 FirstFirst ... 3181121127128129130131132133134135141 ... LastLast
Results 2,601 to 2,620 of 2987
  1. #2601
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,430

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by macduffy View Post
    Agreed, winner. Any serious suitor would have surfaced by now.
    Maybe the classic tactic of exaggerating other interest, to squeeze more dough out of the one party that was actually seriously interested.

    As our own Barfoot Beagle has posted - real estate prices are amazingly still going up (well the median sales prices at least.) So the impact on MET is less likely to be at the level required to trigger the MAC.

    England recently reported its biggest monthly drop in house prices for 11 years. So perhaps in NZ the rise may be due to a combination of a more successful Covid policy, a healthier economic outlook prior to Lockdown and fewer active real estate purchasers reliant on servicing mortgages from incomes affected by the Covid measures? However it could be that the drop in interest rates is most successful in NZ at supporting real estate rather than the economy - at least initially?

  2. #2602
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    30

    Default

    So I wonder how focused MET are on running and building the business versus pursuing APVG through the courts? If their case is successful, they will get $7, if they put in a heap of effort to make MET more successful in the interim, they still get $7. While they are pursuing APVG and saying the deal needs to proceed, can they even entertain another offer from elsewhere should one come along or have they essentially precluded this by their stance that it's already a done deal with APVG? As noted, a lot of time before there is a ruling and it may not be in their favour, that's a lot of time they could be and should be capitalising on the still booming real estate market here.

  3. #2603
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    In the trough
    Posts
    386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beagle View Post
    One thing, by the time this does see the light of day in court APVG claims of massive destruction in asset value and earnings may look like a complete fictional nightmare fantasy that only exists in their own minds !
    Yes, I was thinking that APVG hold all the cards at this point and it's in their interests to drag this out as long as possible...kind of a heads they win (sale called off), tails they still win as they get more for their $7 in two years time when there is a conclusion. However, as you point out, the longer this does drag on, the weaker their MAC argument gets, assuming we keep Covid at bay and property doesn't come back too significantly. Given this, here's hoping both parties can come to the negotiating table and reach an agreement.

    I'm currently not in favour of lining lawyers pockets for the next 2 years. I'd rather see MET move on and concentrate on sorting out the business. With OCA's price heading north the way it is, MET is soon going to be the only RV stock trading (well) south of NTA, and chasing this deal is likely to become a long term handbrake on the company and SP.
    Last edited by Cyclical; 03-06-2020 at 01:59 PM.

  4. #2604
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    16,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclical View Post
    Yes, I was thinking that APVG hold all the cards at this point and it's in their interests to drag this out as long as possible...kind of a heads they win (sale called off), tails they still win as they get more for their $7 in two years time when there is a conclusion. However, as you point out, the longer this does drag on, the weaker their MAC argument gets, assuming we keep Covid at bay and property doesn't come back too significantly. Given this, here's hoping both parties can come to the negotiating table and reach an agreement.

    I'm currently not in favour of lining lawyers pockets for the next 2 years. I'd rather see MET move on and concentrate on sorting out the business. With OCA's price heading north the way it is, MET is soon going to be the only RV stock trading (well) south of NTA, and chasing this deal is likely to become a long term handbrake on the company and SP.
    That hits the nail directly on the head. Why spend tens of millions per annum for the next few years on lawyers when they could spend that on buying the shares back at a deeply discounted price with guaranteed accrual of value to remaining shareholders ? They've already lost round one of this battle at significant cost to themselves plus APVG costs with costs to be sought by APVG and determined by the Judge if the parties can't agree.

    As anyone with an understanding of the legal system knows, its not just one's own costs one has to be concerned about. If you lose you're up for a big chunk of the defendant's costs too !
    Last edited by Beagle; 03-06-2020 at 02:41 PM.
    No butts, hold no mutts, (unless they're the furry variety).

  5. #2605
    Member bottomfeeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Mount Maunganui
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Not necessarily. If you lose you don't automatically have to pay the costs of the other party. MET, were the subject of the cancellation of a contract by the bidder. So even if they lose, as they had an entitlement to go to court, I can't see them having to pay the costs of the bidder. I see the bidder should have been aware that when they cancelled the contract, that there was a potential for legal action.

  6. #2606
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    16,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bottomfeeder View Post
    Not necessarily. If you lose you don't automatically have to pay the costs of the other party. MET, were the subject of the cancellation of a contract by the bidder. So even if they lose, as they had an entitlement to go to court, I can't see them having to pay the costs of the bidder. I see the bidder should have been aware that when they cancelled the contract, that there was a potential for legal action.
    You obviously didn't read the last part of the Judge's ruling the other day. http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...049/323728.pdf
    See point 38. MET lost this round...I read that as MET is liable for a chunk of APVG's costs...but I am not a lawyer and not pretending to be one so that's yet another question for the forthcoming shareholder meeting. How much might MET be up for in terms of APVG's legal costs if they lose ?

    Obviously they won't know that so a better way to gain some insight is to ask for total legal costs so far. I would be surprised if it wasn't already in the several million area.

    As I see it, the best hope for MET is that real estate data and between now and mid November shows APVG's assertion that "the sky is falling" is proved wrong and that MET's unit sales are so good between now and then that this matter reaches a negotiated settlement out of court.
    Last edited by Beagle; 03-06-2020 at 03:39 PM.
    No butts, hold no mutts, (unless they're the furry variety).

  7. #2607
    Member bottomfeeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Mount Maunganui
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beagle View Post
    You obviously didn't read the last part of the Judge's ruling the other day. http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...049/323728.pdf
    See point 38. MET lost this round...I read that as MET is liable for a chunk of APVG's costs...but I am not a lawyer and not pretending to be one so that's yet another question for the forthcoming shareholder meeting. How much might MET be up for in terms of APVG's legal costs if they lose ?

    Obviously they won't know that so a better way to gain some insight is to ask for total legal costs so far. I would be surprised if it wasn't already in the several million area.

    As I see it, the best hope for MET is that real estate data and between now and mid November shows APVG's assertion that "the sky is falling" is proved wrong and that MET's unit sales are so good between now and then that this matter reaches a negotiated settlement out of court.
    I don't read it the way you do. MET has lost nothing. While the allocation of costs has been mentioned no decision of the court has been made. Nothing I have seen in either the agreement nor the court result affects the success of MET of coming out of this clean. I see APVG as trying anything to unbalance the MET effort (grasping at straws would be more accurate). Its a shame this is going to take twelve months to be near resolution.

  8. #2608
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    great barrier island
    Posts
    183

    Default

    At least 12 months!.Holders voting early with there feet and heading for the door.We like our companies to stand up for themselves but drawn out legal disputes are a bummer.GLTA.

  9. #2609
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    16,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bottomfeeder View Post
    I don't read it the way you do. MET has lost nothing. While the allocation of costs has been mentioned no decision of the court has been made. Nothing I have seen in either the agreement nor the court result affects the success of MET of coming out of this clean. I see APVG as trying anything to unbalance the MET effort (grasping at straws would be more accurate). Its a shame this is going to take twelve months to be near resolution.
    Lets agree to disagree and move on and discuss possible timetable. In the honorable Judge's ruling he says that parties should not expect a decision before the end of January 2021, lets say February 2021. We know Synlait's original high court decision was handed down in November 2018 and after being appealed to the Court of appeal is presently being heard in the Supreme court. Assuming the Supreme court hand down their reserved decision in say August 2020 that's 21 months from the date of the original high court decision until the supreme court hand down their decision.

    If we assume this is a typical timeframe for a significant commercial matter to traverse the 3 upper layers of the judicial system then if one party or the other appeals all the way from the high court to the court of appeal and the supreme court this could drag into February 2021 + 21 months = November 2022 plus whatever time it takes to take enforcement action through European courts against EQT seeing as it is likely APVG is merely a shell company being supported by them. So we could get our $7 sometime in 2023 if this runs the full legal appeal process. Hmmm

    I merely post this so people can focus their minds as to whether they really want to have that sort of dogged determination or not. On the other hand they could reach a settlement before it makes it to the high court in November 2020. I note Balance has stopped reminding us on a regular basis that a settlement is the most likely outcome so I presume he has lost patience already and sold out.
    Last edited by Beagle; 03-06-2020 at 04:41 PM.
    No butts, hold no mutts, (unless they're the furry variety).

  10. #2610
    Membaa
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    3,153

    Default

    I am sensing that a certain @Beagle whose self professed lack of patience but profoundly expressed dogged determination to hold for the long term if the case is lost, is in a mental conflict, or perhaps has sold already?

    Honestly who can be bothered tying up capital in a serial under-performer and market sector pariah on the off chance some day a year or so away, they may get a capital gain windfall, or be left holding the baby?

    Opportunity cost anyone?

  11. #2611
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    In Exile
    Posts
    250

    Default

    I suppose another way of looking at MET is to ask whether it is a good investment at current prices even if MET loses the case against APVG after incurring a few million in legal fees and gets a cost award for a similar amount awarded against them at the end of the day.

  12. #2612
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    16,533

    Default

    Clinging on with dogged determination. I am hoping for a negotiated settlement before this goes to court because the expert academic boffins at Harvard are on record as saying these messy MAC disputes usually settle out of court. This suggests to me a settlement in the six dollar something range is more likely than not.

    I think they are worth at least $4.30 even if they lose.
    Last edited by Beagle; 03-06-2020 at 05:50 PM.
    No butts, hold no mutts, (unless they're the furry variety).

  13. #2613
    Legend peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Whanganui, New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by traineeinvestor View Post
    I suppose another way of looking at MET is to ask whether it is a good investment at current prices even if MET loses the case against APVG after incurring a few million in legal fees and gets a cost award for a similar amount awarded against them at the end of the day.
    one needs to see the whole picture being that its not too bad an investment at these prices - not too bad at all and probably even has room for a margin as one of our old favourite investors says.

    It is true that it has shown to be not that great a company but all company's can be a reasonable investment. The fact there's something at play here makes the case sweeter than it otherwise would be, and enough to tip the scales in its favour I reckon.

    I cant believe you guys are all wussing out already. If The Reneger sees this it will strengthen their resolve.
    Last edited by peat; 03-06-2020 at 06:18 PM. Reason: resolve not revolve
    For clarity, nothing I say is advice....

  14. #2614
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    16,533

    Default

    I'm not a pussy. Dogmatically hanging in there
    No butts, hold no mutts, (unless they're the furry variety).

  15. #2615
    Member bottomfeeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Mount Maunganui
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beagle View Post
    I'm not a pussy. Dogmatically hanging in there
    Me too. Wont buy anymore unless they get below $4.

  16. #2616
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    470

    Default

    I've also re-invested a second time and continue holding even though no divvies for 12months but suspect NONE of the retirement lot will be paying divvies anyway. That possible magic $7 been a great 64% incentive............. Otherwise imo well priced

  17. #2617
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    bull stood alone that metlife would get no where in demanding the takeover , everyone was so bullish pushing the narrative and slowly and surely they are all folding.

  18. #2618
    CEO Butch Analytics Ltd winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    26,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by winner69 View Post
    Current share price $4.44 seems about right if no takeover on cards.

    Maybe this a way to get a fair expected values target price for year end -

    40% chance of takeover at $6.25 (mid point $6.00 to $6.50 - I just love midpoints)
    10% chance of market love taking it $5.00
    30% chance price hangs around $4.50
    20% chance of price falling to $4.00

    So all up ‘expected return’ of $5.15 covering all bases

    Suppose worth while staying on board and hoping like hell we get $6.50 sooner than later
    Updated this after recent events

    10% chance of takeover at $6.25 (mid point $6.00 to $6.50 - I just love midpoints)
    10% chance of market love taking it $5.00
    30% chance price hangs around $4.40
    50% chance of price falling to $3.60

    ‘Expected’ target price in a years time $4.25

    BaaBaa mentions opportunity cost ...should be considered as well

    Maybe the mantra is now MET, heads you might win, tails you might lose a bit ....hmmm
    “Just consider that maybe the probability of you being wrong is higher than you think.”

  19. #2619
    CEO Butch Analytics Ltd winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    26,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bull.... View Post
    bull stood alone that metlife would get no where in demanding the takeover , everyone was so bullish pushing the narrative and slowly and surely they are all folding.
    These ‘battles’ often end in tears eh bull....esp when parties are so DOGmatic
    “Just consider that maybe the probability of you being wrong is higher than you think.”

  20. #2620
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyTheHorse View Post
    I encourage everyone to read the termination notice from EQT. My initial thoughts are that irrespective of everything else, the wage subsidy application will hold up in court (allowing legal termination of the contract).

    Either EQT or the board are in big trouble! Either way, the lawyers are going to be doing well.
    Not a MET shareholder and not looking to get in. But from the sidelines this case has eerie parallels with my own investment 'adventure;' into Arrium on the ASX, the scene of my biggest ever sharemarket loss.

    Arrium was an iron ore exporter, and financial viability centered on getting production costs down to a certain level as iron ore prices globally reduced. I took the gamble that they would be able to do this.. It was a touch and go situation and I knew what I was getting into, but I judged that the gap between production costs and market price would remain positive. In the end the margin did hold positive However the company was tipped into receivership anyway, because the directors formed a view that was honestly and reasonably held that the company might not be able to keep operating with a positive margin and that if that happened then the company could be trading while insolvent.

    Whatever actually happens to MET profits, the fact hat the MET board applied for the wage subsidy indicated that the MET board believed a 30% fall in revenue from pre-covid levels had occurred. The bidders would be quite within their rights to see this as an honestly and reasonably held position -at the time-, regardless of whether the expected falls in revenue actually continued into the future. As it turns out, it looks like the projected fall in revenue of 30% was an over-reaction. But that is irrelevant. As long as the bidder had a view that was honestly and reasonably held at the time, a view conformed by the actions of the MET board applying for the wage subsidy, then the bidders are off the hook as I see it, I am not a legal expert. I am just speaking from a position of being on the receiving end of what I see as an analogous position.

    SNOOPY
    Last edited by Snoopy; 04-06-2020 at 08:50 AM.
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •