MET - Metlifecare - one for the fundies?

**Balance** · 08-07-2020, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by traineeinvestor

In an exercise in schadenfreude, if I read the disclosure notice correctly, Maso paid an average of $6.88 per share and invested just under NZ$80 million (USD52 million) net between December last year and February this year. If the deal is done at $6.00 they lose NZD10.2 million (USD6.6 million).

http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...227/317927.pdf

Which suggests that a higher offer is in the offing.

Maso cannot blame MetLife for APVG terminating the initial takeover offer

but

they can certainly blame MetLife for not engaging with APVG to thrash out a new deal to minimize an arb deal gone wrong.

**King1212** · 08-07-2020, 09:36 AM

Today would be a good chance for those want a punt....50-70c gain...if we are talking about $6.20-$6.50 final offer

**winner69** · 08-07-2020, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by King1212

Today would be a good chance for those want a punt....50-70c gain...if we are talking about $6.20-$6.50 final offer

And we could say we did better than gurus like Maso at playing this arb game

Take it you into it big time your majesty

**peat** · 08-07-2020, 09:50 AM

Sounds like Maso are taking on big risks with their positions. Crash and burn risks.
Just because they are desperate to extricate themselves and minimize their pain it doesn't mean the deal will be done to suit them though.
I've know I've been pushing for the 7 and APVG have proved themselves to be unscrupulous by withdrawing from the original SIA. 7 is what should be paid!

But what if the Overseas Investment dudes ruled them out on moral grounds because of that reprehensible behaviour!!!
So increasingly I'd be happy with 6. if it was 6 on market I'd probably bail.

**King1212** · 08-07-2020, 09:59 AM

With NZ fund as a king maker...this is a done deal....$6 is a base...extra is an icing

**Beagle** · 08-07-2020, 10:12 AM

I think if I was in charge of EQT at the time Covid 19 was becoming rampant in N.Z. I would have invoked the MAC clause as it did appear the impact was likely to be very serious. As I mentioned yesterday when they invoked the MAC clause they stated they believed the impact on assets was circa $200m or potentially worse. I also mentioned yesterday there are 213m shares so a non binding indicative amended offer at $6 simply represents a reflection of their original position when they gave notice of termination, a position that was predicated on widespread Covid 19 spread within N.Z.

$6 certainly does not represent emerging evidence from a number of sources, another here https://www.goodreturns.co.nz/articl...takes+the+lead
of how mild the effect of Covid 19 has been on real estate and it appears its ostensibly unchanged from December 2019, or very slightly up on average and $6 does not represent the excellent progress N.Z. has made on containing Covid 19.

It is fair to deduce therefore that $6 would be an egregious price for most to settle at and I cannot foresee the situation where 75% of shareholders would agree to being lowballed like that, I know I certainly wouldn't. So for this to settle it must be at more than $6. That said one cannot deny the possibility that Covid 19 could take hold in N.Z. again so there removal of a MAC clause from an amended potential scheme of arrangement does allow the passing of some material risk to EQT if shareholders settle and also there's the not inconsiderable multi year legal battle and its costs to consider.

I think splitting the difference makes the most sense at $6.50. Whether ego's or the need to save face get in the way of common sense is the $64,000 question ?
I don't think this is a done deal yet.

**King1212** · 08-07-2020, 10:18 AM

Patience is the key...for those that don't have n want to remain in the sector....OCA is the cheapest one.

**bottomfeeder** · 08-07-2020, 11:15 AM

At the time they invoked the Mac clause, no one knew where the Covid thing was going to end here or around the world. It could have been far worse, and may still be, but NZ has proven itself to be able to at least get a handle on the spread. So invoking the MAC clause, was reasonable business sense. The value of MET could have gone down to $4. Subsequent events, have shown that the value has largely been maintained. MET is still an attractive long term investment. So a $6 bid is understandable. Results will be out soon. Maybe we should say $7 or nothing and claim damages to recoup our costs. I for one would like to stay in this investment long term.

Either way this is going to carry on for some time. I want a dividend now.