sharetrader
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    3,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dubdee View Post
    And tim was too mean to pay firm brokerage so watch the salesmen head for the hills
    according to this, they already have (non binding) take up of 75%.

    Maybe they are just being smart. They know it will be fully subscribed so why waste money.

    My prediction is it will close oversubscribed
    Free delivery worldwide with Book Depository http://www.bookdepository.co.uk

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    103

    Default

    The issue was unrated but great marketing play was made on the road shows that it was right up there with the top corporate credits IE Investment grade. It was priced accordingly. Now Tim is under some pressure has said its Not investment grade which buggers the pricing. And since the 75% interest is non binding its now a much harder sell at the original yield as its Just JUNK
    Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm

  3. #13
    Adventurer Silverlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Have retail investors learnt nothing?
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenstone Article on Stuff
    ...by Tuesday the lead managers had received non-binding offers for $150m worth of bonds.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Brown of Greenstone
    Mr Brown... concluded that Standard & Poor's probably would have given the bonds a BB rating – ...often referred to as junk
    Clearly not... unrated Junk, pile in for your 7.5% return...

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...to-judge-issue
    ~ * ~ De Peones a Reinas ~ * ~

  4. #14
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    3,115

    Default

    Given that it is half owned by the Superfund which is owned by the Govt, does it not have the same 'effective' Govt guarantee that Kiwibank has?

    We will see if it is oversubscribed.
    Free delivery worldwide with Book Depository http://www.bookdepository.co.uk

  5. #15
    Veteran novice
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    7,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dubdee View Post
    The issue was unrated but great marketing play was made on the road shows that it was right up there with the top corporate credits IE Investment grade. It was priced accordingly. Now Tim is under some pressure has said its Not investment grade which buggers the pricing. And since the 75% interest is non binding its now a much harder sell at the original yield as its Just JUNK
    Still doesn't answer my question on the "too mean to pay brokerage" statement.

    I've concluded now that you meant "too mean to pay a fee to the rating agencies"?

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Macduffy,
    No what I meant is that brokers are paid by issuers to take stock firm; in effect an underwrite. Greenstone wouldnt pay just expecting the stock to walk out the door. Now brokers are just on best endeavours, not committed. Some will certainly walk unless clients beat the doors down
    Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm

  7. #17
    Legend peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Whanganui, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,435

    Default

    Selected cut and pastes from the article.



    Infratil is defending its decision not to seek a credit rating for a major retail bond issue by petrol retailer Greenstone, arguing that the research of the financial institutions pushing the bonds means more than that of a ratings agency.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...to-judge-issue

    The bonds will carry no credit rating, although investors will rank equally with Greenstone's banks if the company fails.


    "Why did the global financial crisis happen? Because guys bought bonds purely on the basis of ratings."

    banks such as Westpac which were recommending the bonds to clients – but not directly involved in the issue – had "actually put their money up" lending $100m for the purchase of the Shell assets.


    discussions between First NZ and Infratil ahead of the bond issue concluded that Standard & Poor's probably would have given the bonds a BB rating – which is sub-investment grade and often referred to as junk – because of Greenstone's newness. Such a rating would reflect Standard & Poor's formulas

    He denied Infratil had decided not to seek a rating because it didn't want the answer it expected to get. "It's not so much that, as the value we were going to extract for the cost of north of $100,000 a year to get the rating done."
    For clarity, nothing I say is advice....

  8. #18
    Veteran novice
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    7,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dubdee View Post
    Macduffy,
    No what I meant is that brokers are paid by issuers to take stock firm; in effect an underwrite. Greenstone wouldnt pay just expecting the stock to walk out the door. Now brokers are just on best endeavours, not committed. Some will certainly walk unless clients beat the doors down
    Thanks, Dubdee.
    It will be interesting to see what rate of brokerage/commission the issue pays brokers for applications carrying their stamp - once the prospectus comes out.

  9. #19
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    3,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CJ View Post
    My prediction is it will close oversubscribed
    Guessed correct but only $47m, not the full over subscription of $100m
    Free delivery worldwide with Book Depository http://www.bookdepository.co.uk

  10. #20
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peat View Post
    discussions between First NZ and Infratil ahead of the bond issue concluded that Standard & Poor's probably would have given the bonds a BB rating – which is sub-investment grade and often referred to as junk – because of Greenstone's newness. Such a rating would reflect Standard & Poor's formulas

    He denied Infratil had decided not to seek a rating because it didn't want the answer it expected to get. "It's not so much that, as the value we were going to extract for the cost of north of $100,000 a year to get the rating done."
    That sounds quite bizarre. Would it rate so low purely because of the newness of the holding company despite the fact that the assets have been around for ages? If so, that's a shocking indictment on S&P. Surely their model is more sophisticated than that?

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
  •