Thursday, February 21, 2008

Bruce Sheppard: Of councils and airports

Bruce Sheppard gives (AIA) shareholders the details and lowdown about the coming vote to sell 40% of AIA to the Canadians.

It is essential reading for shareholders


Bruce Sheppard in Stirring the Pot | 6:00 am 20 February 20o8

The Canadian pension fund has made a bid for 40 per cent of the outstanding shares in

Auckland International Airport at a price of $3.65 for each share acquired. The current price is approximately $1 less than the offer price.

The total number of shares outstanding is 1991 million, which means that the Canadians seek to buy 796.4k. The total premium amounts to $796 million and will be shared among those shareholders who fill the second form in to accept on pro rata basis.

The Auckland and Manukau city councils have each said that they intend to vote “no” on the first form, which is their prerogative. While they have not explained their rational for this, and nor are they obliged to, it is clear that the decision to vote “no” is in response to public opinion. Given it is the voting public that elect them, this is no surprise and understandable.

This vote requires 50 per cent of those who vote to choose “yes” in order to pass. Should the vote go “yes” the Canadians will succeed in achieving 40 per cent ownership and those who accept will share in the premium. If the vote is lost, then all those who accepted the offer do not sell any of their shares to the Canadians and will retain all shares they currently hold.

airport-pic1.jpgIt is clear both domestic and foreign institutional investors and hedge funds will vote “yes”. This to is unsurprising as such funds are measured on quarterly performance and thus in the main are short-term focused and opportunistic. These funds more than balance the council shareholdings. Thus small shareholders will have to vote strongly “no” for the resolution to be lost. Small shareholders are traditionally a bit of a lottery and the institutions are hoping for a small turnout on the vote.

So the first and only choice in this matter is how to vote on the poll, the second choice is not a choice at all, if you are rational.

Small shareholders should all exercise their right to vote. If they don’t want the airport sold and they do not want to sell either, then they must vote “no”. If they want to get somewhere north of 40 per cent of their shares bought at $3.65 and bag their share of the premium, they should vote “yes”.

I have now discussed this bid with both the board of AIA and the Canadians directly.

I will outline the value add as the Canadians express it:

1. The Canadians propose an amalgamation post this transaction merging the takeover vehicle with AIA. This will create subscribed capital, which can then be returned to all shareholders tax free, this redemption being funded with debt. They say, therefore, that the after tax cash flows on your remaining 60 per cent will be about equal to what you were getting on your original 100 per cent. This requires shareholder, board and Inland Revenue approval. Opinion is divided on whether the IRD will approve it.

2. The second biggie is that they will increase the board firepower and give AIA access to overseas business that can increase the route traffic. They will do this by infomercial marketing using their network of other investments.

3. They will change the airport’s focus from a focus on travellers as its customer to a focus on schmoozing airlines. Music to Air New Zealand’s ears. On this they do have a point. AIA gets much of its income from airlines and it is airlines that need to be wooed to increase AIA traffic.

4. They will focus management on improving the business of AIA.

5. Now interestingly here is the contradiction. While they have some criticism of AIA management, some justified, they respect them sufficiently that they think they can lever the management into managing other peoples airports, an interesting contradiction.

Now to local body politician stupidity. Between Auckland and Manukau their share of the control premium is approximately $200 million. They have publicly stated that they will both vote no and not accept. The net effect of this is that they are transferring this sum of money to the shareholders who accept, the majority of which will go to foreign institutions and hedge funds. How dumb is that! Because the balance of the sales will be made up from those who do want to sell, the control premium will be paid to those sellers only.

Ratepayers in Auckland and Manukau should be deeply concerned that their elected officials are going to transfer money from them to foreigners, never to be recovered.

If they do not wake up to this, remember their stupidity when you face your next rates hike and vote them out. In the meantime write to them to counter balance the “public opinion” that they think they are adhering too.

The New Zealand Shareholders’ Association is not an investment advisor but I am authorised to say categorically that regardless of how you vote on the resolution whether or not to sell 40 per cent, all shareholders should accept the bid. It is simply crazy to transfer your share of the premium to those who do accept. If you vote “no 40 per cent sale” and win on that vote, there are no sales to anyone. If you lose that vote and the Canadians are successful, your chance of extracting a subsequent control premium is so close to nil that you can discount it entirely.

In summary, the issues for shareholders to consider before they vote are these:

First , in relation to the 40 per cent sale issue:-

* If I sell and get cash, what will the remainder of my shares be worth and how many will I get sold?

* If I take cash, I then have to reinvest it, (reinvestment risk) and what are my chances of finding a recession proof investment such as AIA?

* If I only get 40 per cent of my shares sold, I am only getting a control premium of 40 cents on current prices, or the equivalent of about $3 per share. This is below the independent advisors valuation range, so am I getting full value?

* Can the Canadians add enough value to AIA to make the deal worthwhile, i.e. can they improve the price of my remaining shares?

Secondly, in relation to the offer to sell your own shares if the first vote is successful:

REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU VOTE THE FIRST ISSUE, THE RATIONAL RESPONSE IS TO ACCEPT THAT (CONDITIONAL) BID.


Disclosure: I own AIA shares


AIA takeover calendar

Early March: Auckland City Council votes on its response to CPPIB offer
March 6: Deadline for Auckland airport board to review its objection
March 13: CPPIB offer deadline for shareholders


Related Share Investor reading


Softening opposition to CPPIB bid

Directors of AIA bribe brokers not to sell
What is Auckland Airport worth to you?
Second bite at AIA by CPPIB might just fly
AIA new directors must focus on shareholders
Auckland Airport merger deal nosedives
The Canadians have landed
AIA incentive scheme must fly out the window
Government market manipulation over AIA/DAE deal
DAE move on AIA: Will it fly?


Links c Share Investor 2008

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Pumpkin Patch a screaming buy

I'm going to do something I have never done before and recommend a stock to buy. I own shares in Pumpkin Patch Ltd [PPL.NZ] and the share price is at near the IPO price when it listed a few years back. It finished down 9c at NZ$1.83 today after reporting a near 23% fall in 2008 first half profit.

The fundamentals of the share price have changed, putting this company into the realms of an income stock whereas before Mr Market priced it as a growth stock-it had reached the dizzy heights of close to 5 bucks last year.

In my opinion though little fundamental has changed to the business itself during its market re-rating.

While profit was down 22.3% to just over $12 million, revenue was up soundly by 13.5% to $205 million, indicating that sales growth is on track and the appetite for the Pumpkin Patch brand is strong.

Clearly costs and a strong NZ dollar have bitten into profit.

As I have said before though, there is nothing the company can do about the exchange rate and many of the increased costs are those associated with growing a company in new markets. All relevant to the business and no surprise to retailers, people who own businesses and those in the market who don't focus on unnecessary hyperbole related to a short term view of the sharemarket.

I love the brand, the management and believe that their growing pains are just that.

Operations in the USA and UK are having a toughish time of things, but all retailers there are. They are still growing revenue, admittedly from a smallish base and once the one-off establishment costs are kicked touch, things should start to focus more tightly on the all important margins.

Managements forward outlook for the coming year is muted but a focus on increasing profitability at the large numbers of new stores they opened in 2007 is a good idea considering the short-term downturn in the retail sectors of their two biggest growing markets, the USA and UK.

I have no idea if $1.83 is the bottom share price wise, probably not, but it would surely find some resistance at the $1.25 IPO price, where brokers, who were extremely bullish on the company less than 4 years ago(and now seem they wouldn't touch it with 3 barge poles) might decide that is a good price to re purchase the stock they sold when the company hit a speed bump.

I recommend this stock as a very strong buy at these current prices if you have an investment horizon of 5 years or longer.

If it is less than that, forget it.


Disc I own PPL shares in the Share Investor Portfolio.


Pumpkin Patch @ Share Investor

Pumpkin Patch Ltd move downmarket

Long Term View: Pumpkin Patch Ltd
Pumpkin Patch's North American Downsizing a Prudent move
Digging at Pumpkin's Profit
Long vs Short: Pumpkin Patch Ltd
Pumpkin Patch Buyback shows Confidence in the Future
Pumpkin Patch takes a hit
Pumpkin Patch ripe for the picking
What is Jan Cameron up to?
I'm buying

Why did you buy that Stock? [Pumpkin Patch]
Rod Duke's Pumpkin Patch gets bigger
Buyer of large piece of Pumpkin Patch a mystery

Pumpkin Patch a screaming buy
Broker downgrades of PPL lack long term vision
Pumpkin's expansion comes at a cost
Pumpkin Patch vs Burger Fuel
Pumpkin Patch profits flatten
New Zealand Retailers ring up costs not tills

Discuss PPL @ Share Investor Forum



c Share Investor 2008





Tuesday, February 19, 2008

The Owen Glenn story: Singing the same tune but hitting a bum note

The revelations over Owen Glenn and his murky donations to the Labour Party before and after the 2005 election have taken another turn today.

All sides are now saying what was reported in an interview with Glenn last week was a misunderstanding, taken out of context and statements made by Glenn, such as the assertion he made and was very clear about, that he was offered the post of Minister of Transport in a Labour Government by Helen Clark were light hearted comments misunderstood by the journalist.

Clark initially denied any such offer had been made when the proverbial hit the fan last Friday commenting that "...it didn't happen" but yesterday was reported as saying:

"... could not remember discussing the issue with Glenn, but if it had come up, it would not have been a serious conversation".

Typical Helen Clark backtrack stuff.

Followed by Glenn's statement to the Media:

"I was not offered a Cabinet position. My comments on this matter were light-hearted and have been taken out of context," he said.

"It is unfortunate that some comments I made to a journalist last week have been taken out of context and are now being used as a political football".

The blanket agreement now over what really happened seems a little too convenient for this reader.

As to the murkiness over the secret "loan" of $100,000.00 made after the 2005 election the fact that Labour kept it secret seems more than a little disingenuous when the money was gifted during the heady days of the electoral finance bill debate, where the contention by Labour was that political funding "should be transparent" and political parties must be upfront about just who is funding them.

Clearly this didn't apply to themselves.

So far this major controversy hasn't hit the mainstream media, The Herald, their competition and the blogs have picked it up but the TV networks have done their best to avoid it like the plague.

The media saturation over the secrecy of the Brethren donations in 2005 stands in stark contrast.

Parliament sits today Listen to Parliament (only during sitting, Tues-Thurs, 2.00pm , NZ time) and National must seize on this with both hands and take it to Labour.

We have a Government steeped in a very murky funding issue and their assertions over the Electoral Finance Act, that" funding must be transparent" must be given closer scrutiny.


Related Political Animal reading

Labour Party Election funding murky at best



C Political Animal 2008

Monday, February 18, 2008

Softening opposition to Canadian Pension Plan bid for Auckland Airport

The long winded takeover saga that is Auckland International Airport [AIA.NZ] coming up to one year in July, rolls on with a further possible development revealed today.

Links courtesy of NZ Herald


AIA takeover calendar

Early March: Auckland City Council votes on its response to CPPIB offer
March 6: Deadline for Auckland airport board to review its objection
March 13: CPPIB offer deadline for shareholders



According to the AIA board:

"The market has changed significantly since December so we have an obligation to review our recommendation. The board considers that it has a responsibility to whether the reconfirm its recommendation or otherwise."

Its only a suggestion that the board will take into account negative "market conditions" but it is curious to me why the board would waiver on their previous uncompromising stance that they wouldn't support a bid by the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board(CPPIB) for an almost 40% share of the Airport company.

It seems short sighted, to say the least that the AIA board might backtrack on previous statements around the long-term value of the company and now even consider lightly the short term vagaries of global markets.

That idea should be dismissed forthwith and any recommendation to sell or hold should be made by shareholders in the company as to whether they would want to part with this asset.

Both Auckland and Manukau City Councils have said they wouldnt sell their shares but Auckland remains open to supporting the partial takeover on which they will vote on soon.

The outcome still remains up in the air but institutions must be pressuring the likes of the Councils to approve a partial takeover given their partiality to cut and run and take short term profits.

I will stick my neck out and pick it will fail, because the deal seems too complex and local council political egos are involved. Much like the failed merger of Port of Tauranga(POT) and Port of Auckland last year.

We can but wait.


Disclosure: I own AIA shares


Auckland International Airport @ Share Investor

Latest Airport coverage
Cullen's move on Auckland Airport has far reaching effects
Cullen's move on AIA tax plan Anti-Business
AIA profit stays grounded
Softening opposition to CPPIB bid for AIA
Directors of AIA bribe brokers not to sell
What is Auckland Airport worth to you?
Second bite at AIA by CPPIB might just fly
AIA new directors must focus on shareholders
Auckland Airport merger deal nosedives
The Canadians have landed
AIA incentive scheme must fly out the window
Government market manipulation over AIA/DAE deal
DAE move on AIA: Will it fly?


Related Links

AIA Financial Data


Related Amazon Reading

Mergers, Acquisitions, and Corporate Restructurings

Mergers, Acquisitions, and Corporate Restructurings by Patrick A. Gaughan
Buy new: $47.25 / Used from: $41.94
Usually ships in 24 hours


c Share Investor 2008