MET - Metlifecare - one for the fundies?

[Baa_Baa]

Your company was trading in the 3’s for ages, you get an offer of 6 for this dog. And still complain.

[dabsman]

""Metlifecare has been advised that its largest shareholder, the Guardians of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund (NZ Super), has entered a voting deed with APVG under which it has agreed to vote its 19.9% interest in Metlifecare in favour of the scheme, subject to certain terms and conditions.""

To the "Guardians".

With your 100 year investment horizon you flip the company for $6?

WTF?

Have you tucked your collective heads in the sand in order to remain blissfully unaware of the undeniable tsunami of NZ's ageing demographic.?

None of you democratically elected while retaining the power to sell everyone else down the river.

The "Revised Scheme" looks odds on be waived through given only another 5% required.

Instead of providing strong shareholder support at both a business and citizen level you gift decades of revenue streams to offshore Pension funds.

The Auckland Residential property market is currently going ballistic. Board members of MET and NZ Super get on the ground and listen!!

The only other option to dissenters will be to evacuate family members from MET Village's once the "Scheme" is waived through.

"Scheme's" of arrangement need to go as effectively 1 shareholder can determine the outcome as evidenced with this backtrack.

The Guardians of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund also need to be restricted to max 5% ownership.

Thank you Kim Ellis for showing backbone.

IMO.

I think it is disgusting. I want to become a board member - be incompetent and still get paid. Brilliant job. Basically these so called captains of the ship are celebrating beaching instead of hitting rocks - they still f#*ked the ship

[Beagle]

Joint managing director of Salt Funds management Mathew Goodson says $6 isn't good enough. https://www.goodreturns.co.nz/articl...or+10+Jul+2020
See last two paragraphs.

[Beagle]

Biggest complainers are sitting on outstanding capital gains moaning about missing out on 35 cents being $6.35 midpoint. Take the money, enjoy the profits from the double dip and when you get the money buy a truckload off OCA before it gets back to fair value. Win win win.

I am not complaining, merely articulating my opinion and you are right in one sense that for most it has been a wonderful ride and also with OCA of which I have heaps already at an average price of under 70 cents. At issue is not how much you, me and others have made, whether realised or unrealised, its whether selling good, (not outstanding), calibre assets worth $7 each for $6 each to a manipulative overseas suitor makes good long term sense ?

If we allow selling this at 6/7 = 85.7% of last reported NTA, what's next, selling OCA for 85.7% of last reported NTA and supporting a takeover at 0.857 x $1.01 = 86.5 cents ? (That's where your suggested strategy starts to fall apart).

Then there's the murky, (murky because nobody really knows if resident satisfaction survey's are truly independent), question of whether hundreds of vulnerable elderly residents will get the same standard of care under foreign ownership as they would get under local ownership ? Arena living who own among others The Peninsula Club on the Whangaparaoa Peninsula were taken over by different owners a few years back and I have it on excellent authority that under foreign ownership things have really changed there...and not for the better.

Allowing foreign owners to get assets dirt cheap and then lower service standards and take a far more "pure capitalist's approach" to improve their return on investment is not something I welcome. I'd rather invest for the long haul and see excellent service standards maintained.

I will vote for EQT to keep their $6, I don't want it. I want happier residents and to earn more profits over the long haul. Quick profits be dammed.

[nztx]

Okay I'm out of this one a week or so ago, but if I was still in, $6.00 looks a bit light from where I'm sitting (a $0.50 fully imputed dividend on top would please)

$6.50 looks fairer (with a $0.25 fully imputed dividend)

Let's face it with a 100% change in ownership any NZ Imputation credits are curry with a new buyer & a dividend recognises that the Swedes have been dicking the MET stakeholders around for some time now


Of course $7.00 + a fully imputed dividend would be even better

With Real Estate news out via the Media today - I doubt that there has been any reduction in value of MET Assets or Business Now V when the Swede's first $7 Offer hit the table

[Waltzing]

I cant imagine anyone selling oca for a long time surely..

DISC: i always go to sweden for bike and swim training. The driver care for peddle power bike riders is wonderful compared to the locals here.

[Beagle]

Hard to believe that a majority of directors agreed away our rights to sue for $7 for this pathetic new price and no dividend for well over 12 months. Surely there is something in the new SIA about an end of year dividend ?...or the lack of any dividend for more than a year, (by the time this has potentially settled in October) is another way shareholders have been taken advantage of.

[see weed]

I am not complaining, merely articulating my opinion and you are right in one sense that for most it has been a wonderful ride and also with OCA of which I have heaps already at an average price of under 70 cents. At issue is not how much you, me and others have made, whether realised or unrealised, its whether selling good, (not outstanding), calibre assets worth $7 each for $6 each to a manipulative overseas suitor makes good long term sense ?

If we allow selling this at 6/7 = 85.7% of last reported NTA, what's next, selling OCA for 85.7% of last reported NTA and supporting a takeover at 0.857 x $1.01 = 86.5 cents ? (That's where your suggested strategy starts to fall apart).

Then there's the murky, (murky because nobody really knows if resident satisfaction survey's are truly independent), question of whether hundreds of vulnerable elderly residents will get the same standard of care under foreign ownership as they would get under local ownership ? Arena living who own among others The Peninsula Club on the Whangaparaoa Peninsula were taken over by different owners a few years back and I have it on excellent authority that under foreign ownership things have really changed there...and not for the better.

Allowing foreign owners to get assets dirt cheap and then lower service standards and take a far more "pure capitalist's approach" to improve their return on investment is not something I welcome. I'd rather invest for the long haul and see excellent service standards maintained.

I will vote for EQT to keep their $6, I don't want it. I want happier residents and to earn more profits over the long haul. Quick profits be dammed.

Good post. And a smart way of getting cheap real estate. They might kick out all the old people and turn it into motels.

[bottomfeeder]

Good post. And a smart way of getting cheap real estate. They might kick out all the old people and turn it into motels.

Change the name to Covid Metlifecare. Have to spend some capital in 7foot high fences which I believe is now the industry standard.

[winner69]

Hard to believe that a majority of directorsagreed away our rights to sue for $7 for this pathetic new price and no dividend for well over 12 months. Surely there is something in the new SIA about an end of year dividend ?...or the lack of any dividend for more than a year, (by the time this has potentially settled in October) is another way shareholders have been taken advantage of.

Between them about 100,000 shares ....jeez less than you probably have

One didn’t vote - she had a conflict with being involved in NZ Superfund.