Share Investor: capital raising

Showing posts with label capital raising. Show all posts

Friday, November 27, 2009

Kiwi Income Property debt levels should be a worry to investors

I only have 1000 Kiwi Income Property [KIP.NZ] shares so the outcome of decisions made by management has little material effect on me but it is well worth noting their recent plethora of capital raising attempts over the last few months.

Back in April they raised $50 million in an institutional and shareholder offer for additional shares and just recently I received a very glossy (and no doubt expensive) prospectus asking for an additional $125 million from shareholders.

Now I am not against companies raising capital from time to time, it is part of being a shareholder, but the dilution for shareholders if they don't take up the offer is something that cannot be ignored.

The high debt levels are a worry too in an economy that is yet to bottom.

The company has massive debt levels of almost NZ$1 billion which is just slightly half of the value of the assets on its books - assets that are worth $200 million less than last year and are likely to be worth even less next year as the commercial property sector comes under more pressure due to a business slowdown and less rental activity.

Management of various assets has also been a little lax to say the least with a building in Wellington, BP House, only being offered for sale to one interested party when there were others sniffing around - very strange.

The over-reliance on one property for income - Sylvia Park Shopping Centre - and the spending of shareholder capital to continually expand it could also be a concern if the retail sector continues to slide as it has over the last 18 months.

I am starting to backslide on my reasons for buying in the first place and regret my purchase - be it ever so small - I don't like losing money and fear I will with this one if their debt levels overwhelm their asset values, shareholders run out of money to prop it up and institutions lose interest.

KIP Shareholders please keep an eye out for your investment over the coming year.

As a footnote, and it really needs to be said even though it is probably obvious, I did not participate in the April capital raising and will not involve myself in the latest money grab.

Recent Share Investor Reading

Discuss this topic @ Share Investor Forum - Register free

Download the KIP MCN prospectus

From Fishpond.co.nz

NEW! "Letters to Aston: Lessons Learned from a Lifetime of Investing" by Martin Hawes

c Share Investor 2009

Monday, July 20, 2009

Transpacific Industrie's Capital Raising is Trash

I feel for Transpacific Industries [TPI] NZ | AU shareholders. I say this because shareholders like myself benefited from their Executive Director and Chairman, Terry Peabody's generosity when he shelled out over NZ $800 million to buy Waste Management NZ in 2006.

Some say he overpaid, I say the asset was a stunner and I got shafted long-term but nevertheless I got a 50% return on my investment for a year and the money came from debt Peabody was able to raise from idiotic investment bankers who took a percentage cut for arranging such loans for Peabody to go mad with.

I really have TPI shareholder money in my back pocket, thanks for that, but the borrowing of the last few years had its wrap up of sorts today where the company is trying to ironically raise about $AU800 million to fend off bankers (ahh there they are again to collect) and eventual liquidation.

They have managed to raise around AU $620 million so far from institutions and a cornerstone shareholder, Warburg Pincus (another investment banker/private equity player) and will ask for the remaining balance from those poor old suffering shareholders at the princely sum of AU$1.20 per share.

If the institutional capital raising is anything to go by the interest in pouring more money into this company is low. It only just reached its minimum target.

My message to those shareholders is, don't do it!

The architect of the company failure is still there at the head of the business, it is unbelievable that he hasnt been pushed out or had the decency to walk the plank, but Terry Peabody is an arrogant man and he will not admit that he has done much wrong. He has destroyed around AU$ 3 billion in capital in the business that he manages and an arrogant man doesn't change his ways easily.

The cornerstone shareholder should reign him in though.

It seems to me though that the cornerstone shareholder,Warburg Pinkus, who will hold 20% of the company or more once the capital restructure is finalised, and that should be in early September, might want to extract as much value from their investment at the expense of minority shareholders and Peabody, who will also have a large stake, will want to continue with the staus quo.

Cut your losses TPI Holders, it ain't worth it chasing good money after bad.

There is of course short money to be made here.

Just a heads up for New Zealand investors. It seems to me that Transpacific's best assets still lay in its New Zealand operations. Waste Management and parts of Envirowaste and other companies that TPI run here are virtual monopolies, making good money and the fact that an investment banking organisation/private equity company has a large stake in TPI could mean a sell off of some of those assets in the future.

Slightly more than a stab in the dark from me, but nevertheless we could get it back on our NZX one day.

Just though a good rumour was warranted.

Recent Share Investor Reading

Discuss Transpacific @ Share Investor Forum

Related Amazon Reading

The Private Equity Edge: How Private Equity Players and the World's Top Companies Build Value and Wealth by Arthur Laffer
Buy new: $23.07 / Used from: $22.02
Usually ships in 24 hours

c Share Investor 2009

Monday, June 15, 2009

Burger Fuel doesn't rule out capital raising

I took a look at the Burger Fuel Worldwide [BFW.NZ] profit for the Full Year to 31 March 2009 last week and one of the concerns for me was that the cash position was more than halved over the year to just over NZ$1.5 million.

Chris Mason, Burger Fuel CEO noted in the release in the "BFW Outlook" part of the document that:

The board of directors have advised that the BFW strategy remains consistent with the previous year. The group is focused on three main areas:

1) Continued growth of the total system sales in NZ, by way of increased store sales as well as an increased number of stores. However, the board is mindful of the current economic climate.

2) Continuing to build up trading in both Australian stores to ensure future profitable expansion can ultimately occur in Australia.

3) Negotiating Area Development or Master Franchise agreements in other identified countries to earn royalties and other revenue by licensing the BurgerFuel system.

Given the global and local economic situation, a key focus has been on reducing costs to ensure that the group can preserve cash and eventually reach profitability. In the last six months to 31 March 2009 the company was close to breaking even. Costs will continue to be managed in accordance with board policy, however further losses are expected in the 6 months to 30 September 2009, due to the requirement to support international markets and also continue to expand NZ. Chris Mason, Burger Fuel CEO.

With cost cutting and wise capital management a primary issue for BF management, I thought a few questions to Josef Roberts, a Burger Fuel Executive director, were warranted, concerning the subject of dwindling cash reserves and the possibility that extra capital could be warranted to continue IPO flagged expansion.

I had the following brief email exchange with Josef on the topic of capital raising.

Share Investor Could BF investors learn how the company will expand as cash reserves are half what they were last year and getting very low as of 31/3/09.

Will the company have to borrow or ask for money from shareholders to grow?

Josef Roberts As you aware I am not in a position to answer any questions like that. These are matters for public announcement if and when deemed appropriate by the board of directors.

S.I. That is fair enough but can you tell shareholders what expectations there are for growth given the rapidly dwindling cash position of BFW and therefore the possibility of a halt because of capital restraints?

J.R. Darren – like many company’s right now capital is scarce. We are no different and lack of capital affects growth – that’s for real, however, we have no debt and as you can see by our losses over the last 6 months, we can stem these by reducing investment. We would like more capital – of course we would – and it is certainly on our radar, we always wanted to raise $15M and we know that additional capital would speed up results. However, there are ways we can still grow on less capital and that’s what we are focusing on for now.

S.I. I am sure shareholders wouldn't mind investing more if there was a rights issue or some such capital raising. Now is a good opportunity to expand given cheaper leases and real estate costs.

J.R. You are right for sure – now is the time to invest in expansion. I will be sure to let you know if we decide to look at a capital raise and if this was done at a good price - well maybe we would get the uptake. Anyway - as I say these things are on the radar Darren.

Take it as you may readers but Josef is dead right, his company is in a position that many others are in and that some have faced already.

In my own portfolio for example 4 of my companies have already raised a total of more than $NZ 600 million in new capital and I have participated in 3 of them (1 2 3) to the tune of $7000.00.

Burger Fuel is no different.

Burger Fuel Worldwide @ Share Investor

Burger Fuel Worldwide: Closer look at Company Accounts
Analysis - Burger Fuel Worldwide: FY profit to 31/03/09
Burger Fuel: Running on Empty
Burger Fuel leaves investors hungry
Burger Fuel management cagey over company progress
Burger Fuel cooks up Dubai deal
NZX share trades with strings attached
Don't buy Burger Fuel, yet
Burger Fuel: Inside info?
Burger Fool IPO: Burger Fool?
Exclusive Interview with Burger Fuel's Josef Roberts
Burger Fuel's Daytime drama
Burger Fuel share price out of gas
Beefing up store numbers
Director explains share price drop
Burger Fuel slims down in value
Burger Fuel and Coke
Marketing Burger Fuel's future
Pumpkin Patch VS Burger Fuel
Burger Fuel results and commentary

Discuss this Topic @ Share Investor Forum

c Share Investor 2009

Monday, June 1, 2009

Freightway's Capital Raising more of the same crap for small shareholders

I have been moaning, bitching and hitting my head against a brick wall recently because of how totally unconscionable a number of NZX listed companies have been towards their shareholders when it comes to the flurry of capital raisings that have happened over the last few months.

Scant little care and only lip service has been given to small shareholders like you and me.

The three capital raisings that I have participated in so far : Sky City Entertainment [SKC.NZX] , Fletcher Building Ltd [FBU.NZX] and Freightways Ltd [FRE.NZX] have all favoured the larger shareholders or in fact recent interlopers who haven't been shareholders at all. They received concrete shareholdings at a definite price, without having to stump up "lost cash" that stays in someone else's bank account until credited back to the recipient with their meagre allotment of shares.

Small shareholders have had to stump up the maximum amount of cash to get a scaled down number of shares at a price they are unsure of until after the offer is closed.

The latest stinker has been the Freightway's share offer that wanted NZ$5,000,000.00 from small shareholders but was over subscribed by 1040%!

As Kelvin Hartnall points out institutions got a great deal:

The total amount provided by small investors was $57 million, which is more than the total capital raising combined. This shows that it was completely unnecessary to dilute the share-holdings by giving institutions such a great deal. Essentially the institutional investors have received a great bargain at the expense of small investors.

I sent in the maximum $12500 and will get less than 500 shares. I needed around 1200 to avoid dilution. Here, from Kelvin Hartnall again is an approximate breakdown of what Freightway's shareholders can expect to get some time next week:

Aggregate pool	$5,000,000
Number of share-holders	6,423
Pool available per share-holder	$778.45
Issue price	$2.44
Shares available per share-holder	319

This favouritism to the big boys is more of the same we small guys have expected and we have little protection from securities law, the NZX or any independent body. Bruce Sheppard from the Share Holders Association has been vocal as usual but has been met with the typical stoney silence or bullshit from company management along the lines of "well that is the best we can do in this economic environment".

Clearly that is wrong. Share offers for every good company that has made one so far have been wildly over-subscribed, so the moola is out there.

Other companies have at least made an attempt to even the financial playing field in their capital raisings by using rights issues to raise money. As rights issues are structured, a non -renouncable rights issue is one where shareholders are given the right to purchase new shares according to the number of shares they hold or they can forgo those rights if they wish. On the other hand a renouncable rights issue would allow shareholders to trade those rights to others should they not want to take up the rights offer.

In my opinion a renouncable share offer is the fairest way of raising capital because you get to buy in proportion to the shareholding you have and if new shareholders wish to participate in the capital raising they can buy the rights off you.

After that if there is a capital shortfall then and only then should institutions get a crack at stumping up some cash and the incentive to offer them a better deal, at the back end, would not only be appropriate but more than warranted.

Related Share Investor Reading

Discuss this topic @ Shareinvestor.net.nz

Relevant Links

Kelvin Hartnall's Blog
NZ Shareholders Association
NZX

Freightways @ Share Investor

Share Investor's Total Returns: Freightways Ltd
Share Price Alert: Freightways Ltd 3
Share Price Alert: Freightways Ltd 2
Freightways Ltd: 2011 Half Year Profit Commentary
Share Price Alert: Freightways Ltd
Freightways Ltd: 2010 Full Year Profit Analysis
Long Term View: Freightways Ltd
Freightways Ltd: 2010 Half Year profit commentary
Freightways Ltd: 2009 Full Year profit commentary
Freightway's Capital Raising more of the same crap for small shareholders
Long VS Short: Freightways Ltd
Freightway's keeps delivering
Why did you but that stock: Freightways Ltd
Freightway's delivers
Freightway's packages up a good result

Discuss FRE @ Share Investor Forum
Download FRE company Reports

NEW - From Fishpond.co.nz | Think Bigger, By Michael Hill

Join the Share Investor Facebook Group

c Share Investor 2009

Friday, May 15, 2009

Bruce Sheppard: Explanation Received

Capital raising, company creditworthiness and business viability during these highly unsure and volatile economic times is very important for investors with NZX listed companies in their portfolios and that is why I am following the stoush between Bruce Sheppard and Mark Weldon at the NZX with much interest.

In a post I made this morning I pointed out that I thought Bruce was being irresponsible in blanket accusations over NZX companies defaulting on bank credit terms and the NZX wanted him to explain himself and name names.

I thought he should too.

He has in a general way this morning with a letter addressed to Mark Weldon, NZX CEO:

Mark,

I have thought about this long and hard, read all my blogs. They explain the background to the issue, and they explain the simple matrixes that I have applied and they have explained how I have analyzed the financial statements with this in mind. Either analysts are blind stupid or inefficient, the simple numbers that you need to check reasonable compliance are these and they don't require a detailed breakout of financial statements:

They are these:

1) How much interest are they paying, a bit hard to find sometimes but not hours of work.

2) Continuing EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation), not hard to find either but you do have to make some assumptions about what is recurring and what is not, this is explained in my blog.

3) Interest bearing debt, and where it is parked, parent subsidiary, its composition between capital notes, and those notes' terms, bank debt and so on. Currency risk is an exposure, and hedging polices come into play. I have not analyzed hedging as disclosure on this is such a tangled web of crap that it is almost impossible to work out how they have hedged their interest and debt exposures and the issues that go with that. Many have foreign currency debts with no natural hedge.

4) Book Equity... that is easy.

5) Net tangible assets is a bit harder but not to hard.

Read the full article

Bruce gives his reasons and goes into some detail as to why he made his sweeping accusation without further elucidation and it seems generally correct, to the point, accurate and honest and we need to know that detail.

Having said that, I still maintain all the research and detail that he says is coming on particular companies should have been released coinciding with his general release.

Us investors need to know but need to know in full before he slanders the good NZX listed companies among the obvious bad.

Related Reading

Stirring the Pot - Brucie's Blog

Related Share Investor Reading

Discuss this topic @ Shareinvestor.net.nz

Bruce Sheppard: Please Explain

I am a big fan of Bruce Sheppard and agree with his usual well considered and fully explained point of view most of the time. He is more often than not right, expert at financial matters and blunt to the point appearing rude.

This blog yesterday received many hits with Bruce's name as a search and I didn't have the time to explore why.

The reason for the controversy is in Bruce's blog post published on May 8.

It is explained in this piece in Stuff.co.nz that basically he has put his line in the sand and alluded to various NZX listed companies having problems with debt levels:

According to Mr Sheppard, around half of 47 major listed companies he analysed during a three week investigation are at risk of defaulting on their bank terms. However, he said he will not reveal names until companies have had a chance to respond to letters he has written to them.

He selected companies based on published 2007/2008 debt levels and applied assumed bank terms to their financial metrics. Mr Sheppard added that his research raises questions about exchange operator NZX continuous disclosure regime and its role as regulator.

What Bruce has failed to do, and this is unusual for him, is provide corroborating evidence that backs his May 8 accusations.

Frankly if he does have evidence, he needed to come out with it at the same time he made his claim, and not scare the horses so to speak.

It is highly unprofessional to do otherwise because it taints every NZX listed stock with the same debt brush.

He has received a "please explain" from the NZX and unusually again I agree with the NZX and that doesn't happen often:

14 May 2009 - Shareholders' Association chair Bruce Sheppard has contributed meaningfully to capital markets debate over the years. The broader interests of the market, and market confidence, would be best served at this time if he released his analysis at a very detailed level. Investors can then draw their own conclusions as to the health of the companies in which they are investing.

NZX shares Mr Sheppard's goal of healthy, open and transparent capital markets in which investors can have confidence. Providing detailed and transparent information to support his conclusions will further that goal.

Time to put up or shut up Bruce.

Read the answer to the NZX request

Related Reading

Stirring the Pot - Brucie's Blog

Recent Share Investor Reading

Discuss this topic @ Shareinvestor.net.nz

Related Amazon Reading

What Is an Exchange?: The Automation, Management, and Regulation of Financial Markets by Ruben Lee
Buy new: $164.99 / Used from: $6.28

c Share Investor 2009

Friday, May 8, 2009

Are you experienced?

Further to yesterday's rant about how confusing and unfair I thought the Share Purchase Plan (SPP) and top up offer for Sky City Entertainment [SKC.NZ] I can add a bit more meat to the bones after having spoken to my broker at ASB Securities, Bruce MacDonald, in charge of investor relations at Sky City and the hacks at Computershare, the company acting on behalf of Sky City for the small shareholder capital raising.

ASB Securities

This broker had received many inquiries over this top up offer as to qualifications that made investors eligible to apply under that offer, specifically what "experienced investor" and "wealthy" meant in terms of eligibility.

From Securities Amendment Act 2004

“(2CC) For the purposes of subsection (2CB), a person is an eligible person if the person is 1 or more of the following:
- “(a) wealthy (as defined in subsection (2CD)):
- “(b) experienced in investing money (as defined in subsection (2CE)):
- “(c) experienced in the industry or business to which the security relates (as defined in subsection (2CE)).

“(2CD) For the purposes of subsection (2CC)(a), a person is wealthy if an independent chartered accountant certifies, no more than 6 months before the offer is made, that the chartered accountant is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person—
- “(a) has net assets of at least $2,000,000; or
- “(b) had an annual gross income of at least $200,000 for each of the last 2 financial years.

“(2CE) For the purposes of subsection (2CC)(b) and (c), a person is experienced in investing money or in the industry or business to which the security relates (as the case may be) if—

“(a) an independent financial service provider is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person to whom the offer is made, as a result of having experience of that kind, is able to assess—

“(i) the merits of the offer; and

“(ii) the value of the security; and

“(iii) the risks involved in accepting the offer; and

“(iv) that person's own information needs; and

“(v) the adequacy of the information given by the person making the offer...

I found out when I rang my broker that I don't qualify as an "experienced investor" (even though I thought I was!) as alluded to in the top up offer documents. I would have to have "traded more frequently. and derived an income from those activities and/or have a larger portfolio than my current one.

It seems that these requirements are inserted to protect the "smaller less sophisticated investor", a category which I apparently don't meet either in terms of my Sky City holding and confirmed by both Computershare and Bruce Mac Donald.

Bruce MacDonbald (Sky City Entertainment Investor Relations)

Bruce reiterated much of the above, especially the looking after smaller shareholders part and that the company was restrained by securities law by being unable to offer shareholders like me a large enough parcel of shares as to fully protect from dilution of my shareholding.

This is in reference to the SPP where I can only apply for a maximum of $12500 worth of shares, already short of stopping dilution, and then I may not get the maximum because over subscriptions will mean a scaling down.

So if you own a smaller amount of shares your dilution effect will either be nil or infinitesimal.

Bruce pointed out that the applicable securities law, the Securities Amendment Act 2004 and as far as I can tell the Securities Act 1978 and subsequent amendments(of which there are many)means in effect that the issuer of the shares "must look after the largest number of smaller shareholders possible" and because people like me are somewhere in the middle we sit in some kind of financial black hole (my words) between the small shareholders and larger institutions who participated in the April $230 million placement.

When I pointed out that I was getting shafted Bruce told me SKC simply could have done an institutional placement and forgotten about everyone else but stressed again that "they wanted to be fair to the largest number of shareholders that they could". My counter to that would have been why didn't Sky simply have a rights issue if it had came into my head at the time.

In effect I am getting it from the front and the rear.

Computershare

Computershare pointed out in their usual unfriendly and grudging manner most of the above and added that the way the Sky City offer was structured was the same as Fletcher Building in terms of definitions of eligible investors.

Conclusion

Although paying down sky City debt with he proceeds of the capital raising will lead to higher profits due to less interest paid, the amount I shares I receive under the SPP is unlikely to get me back to pre-capital raising dilution and I have no choice in that at all.

What is a positive though is that I have learnt something over the last few days and every little extra tool in the financial toolbox helps.

Recent Share Investor Reading

Discuss this topic @ Shareinvestor.net.nz

Related Amazon Reading

Raising Capital for Dummies by Joseph W. Bartlett
Buy new: $22.49 / Used from: $2.90
Usually ships in 24 hours

c Share Investor 2009

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

More Moola Please!

Back on the agenda for this week is the capital raising that is sweeping NZX listed companies.

Apart from the fact that they have been carried out without the permission of shareholders and the NZX has granted them waivers to allow management to do so, there seems to be a pattern forming.

The latest capital raising to be announced was Sky City Entertainment [SKC.NZ] who came out today with an underwritten offering of 71 million shares to institutions and a further NZ$50 million or around 20 million shares in an offer to smaller shareholders like me.

The company really doesn't need the extra funding because its current debt servicing doesn't have to be re-negotiated for a number of years.

This is much like the deal offered from Fletcher Building [FBU.NZ] and Freightways Ltd [FRE.NZ] for extra capital over the last couple of weeks.

Just doing very rough figures in my head the dilutionary effect for shareholders for these 3 companies is around 15%.

What that means to me is the followng to avoid dilution of my shareholdings:

1. Fletcher Building - additional 150 shares

2. Freightways Ltd - additional 1230 shares

3. Sky City Entertainment - additional 5250 shares

What I have decided to do is the following:

1. Fletcher Building - additional 500 shares @ 5.35 per share approx

2. Freightways Ltd - additional 1800 shares @ 2.44 per share approx

3. Sky City Entertainment - maximum of 6000 shares @ 2.52 per share approx

An additional $NZ 22,000 approx that I must find. Not a problem for me and I don't have a big issue with stumping up the cash because as part owner of these businesses sometimes you extract money from them and sometimes you have to put it back in.

As I mentioned above what I do have a big issue with is the lack of consultation with shareholders like me and the NZX's collusion with company management to allow them to bypass owners rights and give institutions preferences that smaller shareholders dont get. I would have said yes to company requests (sans the institutional favouritism) for more capital but I nevertheless should be asked in the first place.

I own part of these companies after all !

It has sent me into a kind of Bruce Sheppard mode on speed but there is very little I can do except make it known here that I am an unhappy camper.

As I said back in early January capital raising is set to become popular this year and it has by no means finished yet.

Nuplex Group [NPX.NZ], Fisher & Paykel Appliances [FPA.NZ], Kiwi Income Property Trust [KIP.NZ] and a whole host of other companies have already had out the begging bowl and I fully expect to have to fork out more myself although the bulk of my extra capital allocations have already revealed themselves.

Recent Share Investor Reading

Discuss this topic @ Shareinvestor.net.nz

Monday, April 6, 2009

Sweetheart deal for Fletcher Building's friends makes small investors sick

Bruce Sheppard had a go at it yesterday and now it is my turn to have a go at Fletcher Building [FBU.NZ] management for the cavalier attitude they have for small Fletcher investors.

At the heart of that attitude is the recent capital restructuring to raise funds to retire debt and reinforce cashflow.

Institutional investors basically got a sweetheart deal from Fletcher management when they got cut price shares at NZ$5.35 per share on a pro-rata basis. That is, in proportion to the shares they already hold. A deal apparently will be offered to smaller shareholders, but capped at NZ$100 million and not pro-rata, so we got the arse end of the donkey here.

Compounding this favouritism, apparently non-institutional "large investors" (whatever that means) have also got some cream on top of the sweetheart deal for institutions that makes it so sweet smaller investors are bound to chuck up after reading it. This particular deal will give special rights to those large non-institutional investors to ratchet up their holdings to reduce the diluting effects of the placement to institutions.

Now I don't know about you but if you are a small Fletcher shareholder (I am, I have 1000) you might be suffering a diabetic reaction to all this sweet favouritism to the big boys by now and wonder out loud to yourself again why the NZX might be an unfavourable place for New Zealanders to invest considering they are not on a level footing with the big boys that Mark Weldon's NZX has granted a wavier to to snap up more of Fletchers.

According to the NZX website the folk who may have participated in the $405 million placement of shares concluded last week are connected to Fletchers by virtue of the fact that some are "Associated Persons of FBU Directors by virtue of having a common Directorship with FBU and several placees participating in the Placement".

Those people are:

(a) ANZ National Bank Limited, by virtue of Sir Dryden Spring’s and Mr John Judge’s common Directorship;
(b) Westpac New Zealand Limited, by virtue of Mr Ralph Waters’ common Directorship; and
(c) the Accident Compensation Corporation, by virtue of Mr John Judge’s common Directorship.

So it gets even worse when you dig down into the detail. Its like a bloody incestuous Utah Mormon clan!

I haven't got the time to read through the pages of verbose detail but I guess some will be revealed at a latter stage. Most will be lost on the average small mom and dad Fletcher share holder because media are too lazy to do the research - all except Bruce Sheppard, I am sure we will be hearing from him again on this matter.

There is however a solution to this.

Strong demand from those mentioned above for shares in the capital raising aside, Fletcher Building still operates in an environment of weak business prospects and an uncertain future as far as sales go.

Global stockmarkets have raced ahead over the last month or so and there is downside to come.

Shares in the company have ranged from $5.11- $6.50 over the last six months (see chart above) and it is not unlikely scenario that smaller shareholders like me could pick up extra shares cheaper than the proposed $5.35 to stop dilution of their holdings by buying them on the open market. You don't have to participate in this madness and still stay undiluted!

That is just what I am propose to do .

Bugger them.

Fletcher Building @ Share Investor

Fletcher Building: Crane Takeover Offer Well Timed
Fletcher Building Ltd: 2010 Full Year Profit Analysis
Fletcher Building: All eggs in one basket make for big risk
Long Term View: Fletcher Building Ltd
Hugh Fletcher: Silver spoon no recipe for success
Long VS Short: Fletcher Building Ltd
Fletcher Building's Commercial arm keeps their head above the tunnel
Sweetheart deal for Fletcher Building's Friends
Fletcher House built on hard times
Fletcher Building down tools in the short term
Why did you buy that stock? [Fletcher Building Ltd]
A solid foundation for the future
Fletcher Bu ilding raises profit through canny management
Fletcher's got game

Discuss Fletcher Building @ Share Investor Forum - Register free
Download FBU Company Reports

c Share Investor 2009

Monday, February 16, 2009

Fisher & Paykel Appliance's profit downgrade continues fine tradition

Today's poor trading update announcement for Fisher & Paykel Appliances [FPA.NZ] was really of no surprise to the market as a whole and to those insiders who traded the stock down over the last week because they knew this announcement was due soon.

There will be more bad sales updates to follow methinks because today's indication only covers the last few months of trading since the previous profit announcement at the end of 2008.

I wrote back in May 2007 the main reason why I see the company having problems and it ain't the recession or the exchange rate:

While the left of Lenin media and every two-bit polly and union rep have a go with their own wide of the mark opinion, blaming the F & P move on a high dollar and high costs the fact is that F & P have never been competitive but are now being forced to by the market reality of cheap well constructed and better designed appliances coming from the very places that Fishers are now moving to...Share Investor Blog 2007

I see today that John Bongard, Company CEO, is still blaming outside influences beyond his control. Sales are down but that shouldn't account for a halving in profit.

It is bad management of costs, poor product at high costs and a siege mentality to selling that still lingers from the days when the company wouldn't allow any other brands in a store if they sold their product.

Bongard continues that tradition accepting today that he wouldn't say no to a taxpayer handout if it was offered one.

Bongard needs to fall on his sword for poor management over his tenure and now would be a good time.

I wrote on January 21 that the company was "looking fair value" at $1.32 but countered that with a warning that appliance makers were going to be hit hard.

This is clearly going to continue for sometime and likely to get worse before it gets better and there could be another profit downgrade before the company profit announcement in May.

The opportunity presents itself now for savvy investors to buy a stake in the company for less than half the price it was less than a month ago.

Fisher & Paykel are contemplating a capital raising on a pro-rata basis which means that any existing shareholder will have a right to purchase x amount of securities when it begins so if you are looking to get a stake a dilutionary effect on the share price will likely happen so you could well get shares for less than today's closing price of NZ $0.65c , down 35c on the day.

Fisher & Paykel Appliances @ Share Investor

Fisher & Paykel Appliances looking fair value
Fisher & Paykel: A Tale of Two Companies
Fisher & Paykel Appliances: In a spin over nothing

Fisher & Paykel Appliances Financial data

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Capital raising set to become popular in 2009

As a shareholder are you feeling generous towards the companies you have in your portfolio?

Whether you are or not you may have to make a choice to chase what could be good money after bad in 2009.

The dearth of cash and credit available from normal sources-like banks-to keep businesses running, especially during the current recession, is undoubtedly going to lead to some New Zealand listed companies putting out their caps to shareholders to enable them to keep trading over the difficult times to come.

There will be some capital raising through; debt raising via bond issues, rights/cash issues and or private placements with big institutions.

Usually the domain of start up companies and especially popular during the tech bubble of the late 1990s, the terms for rights issues and other forms of capital raising was relaxed by the NZX on November 26 2008 as an answer to the credit crunch.

Both rights issues and private placements dilute existing shareholders shareholdings and of course extra debt laden onto company balance sheets through alternative methods of capital raising will impact somewhere down the line.

I would favour a rights issue or private placement myself.

I could speculate here and name a few names that might be ready to pass the begging bowl around-I am not going to-but we can be fairly sure that any company with high to medium borrowings set to mature soon and without sufficient sales and or assets to allow themselves the ability to borrow off a bank is going to have to go to shareholders with the bowl.

Of course the length of time the recession plays out will mean more companies will need to avail themselves of shareholder cash or other methods of capital raising.

There is no guarantee of course that shareholders would be willing, or able, to take a further risk by contributing their hard-earned cash and this shareholder will certainly be wanting the bargain of the century before he plunks down further cash towards any company in the Share Investor Portfolio.

The million dollar question remains though and is a more than likely scenario. What happens if the cash isn't forthcoming?

Short of a mysterious benefactor, one of those struggling investment banks or an angel investor ready to take a big slice of the company, the answer is of course bankruptcy.

Time to get out the checkbook?

Recent Share Investor reading

Long vs Short: The Warehouse Group
February 2009 reporting season to headline a bad year
Share Investor's 2009 stock picks

Shareinvestorforum.com - Discuss this topic

Related links

NZX release on capital raising relaxation (PDF)

From Fishpond.co.nz

Buy Every Bastard Says No - The 42 Below Story, by Geoff Ross & Justine Troy & more @ Fishpond.co.nz

c Share Investor 2009

Share Investor