sharetrader
Page 31 of 62 FirstFirst ... 2127282930313233343541 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 618
  1. #301
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    121

    Default

    TTG,

    4277392 shares

    FNZ CUSTODIANS LIMITED Level 7, 256 Lambton Quay, Wellington, 6011 , New Zealand
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Allocation 7:4098360 shares

    W CUSTODIANS LIMITED Level 6 Westfield Tower, 45 Knights Road, Lower Hutt , New Zealand
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Allocation 8:3168934 shares

    David Burton GIBSON Suite 5a, 5 Parliament Street, Auckland Central, Auckland, 1010 , New Zealand
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Allocation 9:2744623 shares

    NEW ZEALAND CENTRAL SECURITIES DEPOSITORY LIMITED 2 The Terrace, Wellington , New Zealand
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Allocation 10:2216934 shares

    Walter Mick George YOVICH 8 Barclay Place, Kamo, Kamo, 0112 , New Zealand
    Jeanette Julia YOVICH 8 Barclay Place, Kamo, Kamo, 0112 , New Zealand

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Two Gloves View Post
    Yeah there will always be those that have to sell so at 0.03 they are getting a hair cut that's for sure. Mind you if they retained their bonds and had to sell its almost a complete shave, rather than a 50% loss it would be around 85% loss - ouch !! Some interesting shareholder changes on the companies office website for NZF......

  2. #302
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    121

    Default

    Not sure what happened, did not get to finish my message, I was asking if these are the shareholders you were referring to and what is your take on it!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Two Gloves View Post
    Yeah there will always be those that have to sell so at 0.03 they are getting a hair cut that's for sure. Mind you if they retained their bonds and had to sell its almost a complete shave, rather than a 50% loss it would be around 85% loss - ouch !! Some interesting shareholder changes on the companies office website for NZF......

  3. #303
    Member Tony Two Gloves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    301

    Default

    Yep those were the one's and interesting some of the parties that had ceased to be shareholders (Kim Lyons, Peter and Christopher Huljich in their personal names).

    Not sure what to make of it, I don't know much about the new parties but if they have the key to solving their funding dilemma then all good I suppose. What's your take?

  4. #304
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    No, they did not cease to be shareholders. They ceased to be listed in the top 10 on the Companies Office.
    Do not consider my postings as investment advice. I am here to share research and to speculate on what might be. The boundary between fact and conjecture might not always be clear - best to treat all comments as speculation.

  5. #305
    Member Tony Two Gloves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    301

    Default

    Yes your quite right, presumably these new shareholders would have been the larger bond holders that converted to shares?

  6. #306
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Two Gloves
    .. presumably these new shareholders would have been the larger bond holders that converted to shares?



    Yes, I think you are right.
    Last edited by Enumerate; 24-03-2011 at 03:29 PM.
    Do not consider my postings as investment advice. I am here to share research and to speculate on what might be. The boundary between fact and conjecture might not always be clear - best to treat all comments as speculation.

  7. #307
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Two Gloves View Post
    Yes your quite right, presumably these new shareholders would have been the larger bond holders that converted to shares?
    So if we get this right we have the owners strategy since 26 Jan which has:
    - screwed bondholders into accepting a misery 6% for very high risk
    -seen the number of shares nearly double in an already illiquid market
    - seen the SP plummet from $0.15 to $0.03
    - given bondhlders a lesson in Hobsons choice
    - and ultimately see them loose their Top 10 shareholder ranking which makes their positions on the Board tenuous.

    The positive aspects of their strategy are................

  8. #308
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    121

    Default

    TTG, I have been away for a few days, if you go the companies office website and click on the shareholder histroy tab, the other shareholders such as Huljich come up, by the way, Peter Huljich is currently the acting chairman for NZF Group.

    I can only assume the new shareholders were bond holders who converted and they are now looking to sell for what they can get, foolish in my view!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Two Gloves View Post
    Yep those were the one's and interesting some of the parties that had ceased to be shareholders (Kim Lyons, Peter and Christopher Huljich in their personal names).

    Not sure what to make of it, I don't know much about the new parties but if they have the key to solving their funding dilemma then all good I suppose. What's your take?

  9. #309
    Member Tony Two Gloves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    301

    Default

    Yes as Enumerate pointed out some of the bond holders that converted got so many shares they have now found themselves in the "Top Ten" shareholders in the company. The others I mentioned have simply slipped out of the top ten as there shareholding has been diluted. With Peter as Chairman there is still no independence on this board with all the directors being major shareholders, not a good look for a public company - I thought you said in a previous post that Craig Alexander was going on the board? In my opinion he would be mad to and maybe he has decided against this as i'm sure several other Independent Finance Company directors wish they had of as they are now feeling the price of receiving those director fees.

    Mini - The only positives are.....well there are none for bond holders or shareholders, a small interest saving for the Company perhaps??

    Invessi, the facts are if you converted and sold today you would lose 50% of your capital, if you retained your bonds and had to sell to day you would lose 80% of your capital - there was no "good" choice. So if you were in a position that you need your money back like you assumed you would get when you took these bonds, converting was the better of the two options, I suspect the majority of people will hold as they do not want to face the unpleasant truth of where this investment is at.
    Last edited by Tony Two Gloves; 28-03-2011 at 09:10 AM.

  10. #310
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Two Gloves View Post
    I suspect the majority of people will hold as they do not want to face the unpleasant truth of where this investment is at.
    If we look at ALF (and that is ugly - now at 1.1 cents, an all time low) holders were blinkered into thinking that rock bottom had been reached only to find new depths had yet to be plumbed. Holders of NZF will probably see the same SP trajectory.

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
  •