Looks like those of you who feel aggrieved by the terms of the SPP have an ally.
Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.”
Ben Graham - In the short run the market is a voting machine but in the long run the market is a weighing machine
Looks like those of you who feel aggrieved by the terms of the SPP have an ally.
Yep the easy way out these SPPs ....and small shareholders have been sort of been screwed ....so what's new. Maybe we should count ourselves lucky they even worried about us.
One thing though I think they can only do one SPP a year so no more for a while
Still wondering what the rush was to get the $20m riased in December - just before a quarter end. Seemed to be done in indecent haste
“ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”
Of interest I applied for two lots, one personally and one via Family Trust. Was rung by Link to say I could not have both as I would be benefiting twice.
Of interest I applied for two lots, one personally and one via Family Trust. Was rung by Link to say I could not have both as I would be benefiting twice.
Not a lawyer but I would have thought a Family Trust was a completely seperate entity? Wouldnt the shares be owned by the Trust so it would be the Trust that benefits? Or do they look at you who beneficiaries of the Trust are?
Not a lawyer but I would have thought a Family Trust was a completely seperate entity? Wouldnt the shares be owned by the Trust so it would be the Trust that benefits? Or do they look at you who beneficiaries of the Trust are?
It was the fact that I was one of the beneficiaries of the trust. I could have spilt the application's as long as the total was not more than $15,000.
It raises the issue though if shares are held in joint names. Do each of the holders get to apply for $30,000 total. My guess is no.
Roger whats your view of it? Not like you to not have an opinion! .
LOL. See post#8971 above. Expanding upon this a bit I think its a very fair question to put to the board at the next annual meeting. I know some shareholders were miffed by the SPP process in 2014 and raised the issue at the annual meeting that year that I attended with you so I am a little surprised the board didn't take a more shareholder centric approach this time.
It would be interesting to know the difference in costs between the two approaches. How much does the NZX charge for the temporary listing of tradable rights and what are the extra Link registry charges for same vs the costs of the SPP ?
I suspect the answer to that question probably explains the route they went down but it certainly can't hurt shareholders to put the question again at the next annual meeting.
At least they expanded the retail pool to 20m shares the same as the institutional placement...if it weren't for that I think retail shareholders would have grounds for a serious grievance.
It would be nice to think the Directors took notice of the extent of retail shareholder support this time when planning any possible future capital raise if they decide to use the same execution methodology again.
Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.”
Ben Graham - In the short run the market is a voting machine but in the long run the market is a weighing machine
SPPs are much quicker and cheaper to do than rights issues which have greater compliance / disclosure requirements (along with organising underwriters etc)
Last edited by winner69; 14-03-2017 at 12:26 PM.
“ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”
Not a lawyer but I would have thought a Family Trust was a completely seperate entity? Wouldnt the shares be owned by the Trust so it would be the Trust that benefits? Or do they look at you who beneficiaries of the Trust are?
Discretionary trusts are in reality not a separate entity from the settlor, if the settlor retains an interest as a beneficiary or as a trustee. I think what is now happening due to the popularity of discretionary family trusts, amongst people with assets, has meant that government departments and others will examine the terms of trusts with which an applicant has a connection.
Reply With Quote
.
Originally Posted by Roger
Bookmarks