MET - Metlifecare - one for the fundies?

[Beagle]

So if there is a better offer can MET get out of this scheme and accept it before the vote?

http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...098/326226.pdf
This appears to be covered in section 12 of the new scheme implementation agreement. At first glance on a real quick skim read of the various subsections of section 12 it would appear the short answer is yes there is room for a competing superior proposal but first they have to give what looks like 10 working days to APVG to assess any competing proposal and match it. I've been out all day so I'll read through the full terms of this new scheme implementation agreement early next week.

Looks like there are some very weak holders of MET. $6 is inadequate and I will be voting against allowing greedy and manipulative foreign funds try to buy good assets at dirt cheap prices.

[Balance]

“ In a finely balanced decision, a majority of Metlifecare’s six directors”

Kim against - 4 voted to support - one not able to vote

Suppose 4 out of 5 is finely divided

🤣 Using balance in a most unusual manner!

[bottomfeeder]

Sucks! No dividend and have to wait some time now to get my money. Lets hope when they takeover OCA they are not so tight.

[winner69]

🤣 Using balance in a most unusual manner!

Good one ....have a nice weekend

[Baa_Baa]

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.

[trader_jackson]

$6 is no surprise to me, $6 is nothing but a huge get out of jail card for MET. Many should be pleased EQT even bothered coming back... otherwise the share price would be lucky to be in the 4's I'd say.

[Food4Thought]

I am going to vote and advocate against this deal. Why sell $7 of assets for $6 ? MET shareholders are being shafted by a very manipulative EQT and arbitrage funds desperate to mitigate short term losses. Just because N.Z. super fund says they will sell does not mean its a good idea. I still think this is game on and a better offer may eventuate but I am happy to hold long term if one doesn't.

Agree.
Typical, if they buckle. Be another case of look at them, selling our early. Having feet cut from under their legs.

Using Covid as the reason. Selling out Kiwi assets too low.

Play the long game, balance out the winners.

[King1212]

Well...that's it! The kingmaker has decided!.....$6....will vote yes n then move on ehh...

[peat]

I wonder what would happen if the market fell out of bed tonight in the overseas markets.
I wouldnt trust these bidders to follow through (despite no MAC inclusion) because as we know the best evidence for future behaviour is the most recent behaviour.

[moimoi]

""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.