Saturday, September 4, 2010

Mondrian Investment Partners take stake in Fisher & Paykel Healthcare

Mondrian Investment Partners yesterday become a substantial shareholder in Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd [FPH.NZX].

The fund manager disclosed they took a 5.01 percent stake after purchasing 483,566 shares on September 1.

This is the first shareholding the private investment company has taken in FPH and they give the following reasons for their investment choices:

"We invest in stocks where rigorous discounted cash flow analysis isolates value in terms of the long-term flow of dividends. Dividend yield and future real growth play a central role in our decision making process and over time the dividend component will be a meaningful portion of expected total return."

Hard to know who the seller was but at an educated guess it was probably The Capital Group Companies, Inc who had a 4.92% stake in February 2010 and at that disclosure had sold an almost 1% stake since they disclosed their 5.08% holding in June 2009.

FPH has had a number of stakeholders in the 5% range over the last few years but it seems even though they have stated at time of purchase that their investments are long term they have exited after a few years.

This company is a great long-term investment, one of the best growth propositions on the NZX, so any company taking a substantial holding needs to be patient when investing. They are not going to make big term gains in a few years.

The big gains will be seen 7-10 years.


Disclosure I own FPH shares in the Share Investor Portfolio

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare @ Share Investor

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare: 2010 Full Year Profit rests on Foreign exchange movement
Long Term View: Fisher & Paykel Healthcare
Stock of the Week: Fisher & Paykel Healthcare
Analysis - Fisher & Paykel Healthcare: FY Profit to 31/03/09
Schroder Investment Management takes big Fisher & Paykel Healthcare stake
Long VS Short: Fisher & Paykel Healthcare
Big Fisher & Paykel Healthcare trades a curious tale
Why did you buy that stock? [Fisher & Paykel Healthcare]
Drinking and Trading
Share Investor's 2008 stock picks
Fisher & Paykel: A tale of two companies
FPH downgrade masks good performance

Discuss FPH @ Share Investor Forum

Download FPH Company Reports

From Fishpond.co.nz

Bird on a Wire: The Inside Story from a Straight Talking CEO

Buy Bird on a Wire: The Inside Story from a Straight Talking CEO & more @ Fishpond.co.nz

Fishpond


c Share Investor 2010

Friday, September 3, 2010

VIDEO: Jenni McManus Explains Allan Hubbard Collapse







Source: NZI Business Sept 2: Fairfax Media briefing with Jenni Mc Mannus


Few people watch NZI business at 6.00am but I occasionally do when I am getting my little girl ready for daycare. This is worth a look if you want to get your brain around Allan Hubbard and his failure at South Canterbury Finance (SCF), Aorangi Securities, Hubbard Funds Management and other divisions of his former business.

Jenni explains the saga over Allan Hubbard and the goings on at his business empire better than anyone else.

Known for her dispassionate focus on facts in terms of business commentary and investigation Jenni zones in on the following key points:

1. Disclosure and transparency of the SCF loan book has always been a problem and a big issue for Jenni.

2. SCF strayed from its core lending under Hubbard. A big reason for his empire collpse.

3. Lachie Mcleod, former CEO of SCF, was lent $15 million to buy shares in SCF with no interest by one of Hubbard's investment vehicles - big questions as to whether this was typical of the lending practices of Hubbard's business interests.

4. Hubbard made decisions without board approval or indeed reference.

5. The statutory management process made clear what was going on all the time. The second Grant Thornton Report is an important document that reveals typical financial processes of the company; hidden loans, inter-party lending, ghost assets. Statutory management had no bearing on the collapse of SCF or any other part of the business.

6. Insufficient due diligence done on finance companies let into the Govt guarantee - well duh.


The probability is, after more poking around in balance sheets and records, that the kinds of loans made by Hubbard and associated companies that will be disclosed will reveal a litany of embarrassing and possibly fraudulent loans and the relevance of the Serious Fraud Office part will become very clear.

You would have to say though that Allan Hubbard isn't alone in his financial skulduggery. Auditors, accountants and advisers to Hubbard and his former business have questions to answer as the SFO case unravels and a further report from Grant Thornton comes latter on this month. What is clear at present is that Mr Hubbard needs to take the biggest responsibility for the failure as he was the head and CEO of SCF.

From this reading, supporters of Mr Hubbard appear to be chasing a dead dog that will lead to further embarrassment of the kind already heaped upon them from the mainstream media that previously supported their stance.

See Chris Lee for an interesting "inside" look.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Queenstown Airport: Court Case looks set to Drag

I could well imagine that the argument in the High Court in a judicial review sought by the Queenstown Community Strategic Assets Group (QCSAG) and the Queenstown Airport and the Queenstown and Lakes District Council (QLDC) over Auckland International Airport Ltd [AIA.NZX] purchase of a nearly 25% stake in Queenstown Airport will go something like this.

The QCSAG, who are apparently a group of wealthy influential Queenstowners who have their panties in a twist about the strategic move by AIA, have already argued publicly that the move by the QLDC was "antidemocratic" because insufficient disclosure was made to council and therefore to the public but look set to argue that provisions in the Local Government Act 2002, which requires council-controlled businesses to issue a statement of intent annually to councils, should take precedence over a 1996 clause in Queenstown Airport's constitution which states it can issue new equity without first offering them to its shareholder.

The QLDC and Queenstown Airport are defending their decision to sell to AIA

The QCSAG will also cry foul, like Air New Zealand [AIR.NZX] who will take separate action - probably against AIA rather than the QLDC - that the move by AIA is anti competitive and will take control of the airport away from locals. Furthermore, they will contend that the asset should remain fully locally owned for the benefit of Queenstowners so the potential benefits of full ownership will allow them to reap all the profits.

The issue of big bad Aucklanders who have no experience in business in the area coming down to pick on the little guy who knows how things run will be pushed as well as a contention that AIA will be looking after themselves first before Queenstown Airport.

The QCSAG will pick on AIA's propensity to throw its business might around by raising prices at their Auckland Airport and by implication Queenstown Airport, and their dominant position in the ports market in New Zealand - the word monopoly will be thrown around with gay abandon.

The QCSAG will also argue that AIA paid too little for the airport and that if the port is to be sold it be open to competitive bids.

The QLDC are going to defend their decision and I would imagine reiterate what they have already said in the media that claims by QLDC and AIR lack merit for the following reasons.

The QLDC will argue that the 1996 clause in Queenstown Airport's constitution should take precedence over the 2002 Local Govt Act because Queenstown Airport is an autonomous business separate from the QLDC and any significant public disclosure made to satisfy the QCSAG's stance would be commercially sensitive.

The issue of control of the Airport being taken away from locals would be countered by AIA arguing that they are only buying a less than 25% share with a view to take 35% in 2011 so control will still remain in local hands.

One key point in AIA;s rebuttal will be that they will bring airport expertise, the right avenue for growth in Queenstown Airport and of course the all-important capital required to grow the airport quickly and in the right manner. Pointing back to the QLDC and its ratepayers, AIA will argue that by injecting capital into the business it will allow the QLDC to retire council debt and along with their experience in this sector it will allow Queenstown airport to grow quickly, allow more tourism and be a better long-term return for locals than it would be without AIAs input.

Direct flights to Queenstown will propel growth of that airport, in percentage growth terms, higher than that of AIA and that alone is a good reason to make the buy and increase their stake further to 35% as the purchase agreement allows.

The question of AIA looking after themselves first would be relatively easy to bat away because AIA would contend that their financial stake in Queenstown Airport means that argument is simply silly.

The issue of AIA's monopoly would be argued away because they would contend that since they have no business in the South Island, this isn't a problem and any shareholding in Queenstown Airport would be mutually beneficial to both ports and therefore the monopoly bogey would take a back seat to what AIA will bring to a port connected to a much larger shareholder with a bigger business, providing custom and business expertise.

On the question of the price paid for the port stake being too little AIA would argue that they paid well above market rates for the asst and will provide documentation to prove their point. I have argued that AIA paid too much.

In my opinion though, after arguing my way through some of what might happen in the Christchurch High Court, I think a good judge will find most of what both sides say after the issue of the 1996 Clause VS the 2002 Local Govt Act largely irrelevant because their argument will be primarily based on politics and the politics of business, which can be clearly be argued all the way to the Supreme Court if participants have sufficient funds, so if this is the case the judge's interpretation of these acts will be all important.

Like the vexed case of Woolworths Ltd [WOW.ASX] and Foodstuffs VS the Commerce Commission over the purchase of The Warehouse Group Ltd [WHS.NZX], Queenstown Community Strategic Assets Group VS Queenstown Airport and the Queenstown and Lakes District Council is likely to be another long running saga if they are both willing to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court.

You can look forward to more from me on this as this saga unfolds.

Disc I own AIA shares in the Share Investor Portfolio


Queenstown Airport Buyout @ Share Investor

Queenstown Airport: Loud Voices & Loyalty
Queenstown Airport: Air New Zealand's Crocodile Tears
Queenstown Airport: AIA purchase good Long-Term but will cost shareholders Short-Term


AIA @ Share Investor

Long Term View: Auckland International Airport
VIDEO - Simon Moutter on Australian Airport Purchase
Auckland Airport Capital Raising a fair call
Auckland International Airport lands Australian Ports
What Infratil sale of Auckland Airport stake means...
Is another Auckland Airport bid likely under a business friendly Government?
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?

Discuss this Stock @ Share Investor Forum - Register free

Download AIA Company Reports
Download Queenstown Airport Company Reports



From Fishpond.co.nz

Every Bastard Says No: The 42 Below Story

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

Fishpond


c Share Investor 2010

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Allan Hubbard Statement on SCF Receivership

The following is a statement from Allan Hubbard on the receivership of South Canterbury Finance and comments on other parts of his former empire.

In it he take no blame for the collapse and in fact blames the Government for moving to place his other business into statutory management for his business problems.

He has lost most of his assets but so have have others who invested with him, number one being the hard pressed taxpayer who has just forked out $1.6 billion to bail SCF out.

I will give him kudos for fronting up but to deny his substantial part in this whole fiasco is simply ignoring the reality of the situation.

Like other finance company heads to have been dealing cards from their sleeves, Allan Hubbard should go to prison.

Allan Hubbard's Statement

Following today’s announcement that South Canterbury Finance (SCF) is to be placed in
receivership, majority shareholder in the company, Allan Hubbard, said he is firmly of the
view that if he had not been removed from the board of the company, and subsequently
placed in statutory management, he could have helped to save the business.

“It has been deeply frustrating and hurtful, over the last nine months, to have been sidelined
by my fellow SCF directors, and subsequently straight-jacketed by the Government
regulators, from working to save South Canterbury,” he said.

“Since the impact of the global credit crisis became obvious, I have done everything I can to
save SCF, including investing hundreds of millions of my own investments into the company.
“I have always attempted to place investors’ returns first, and my personal financial interests
as secondary, and as the severity of the global credit crunch became apparent, I moved
quickly to inject my own assets into South Canterbury,” he said.

“For me it has always been a matter of trust and personal integrity to investors. In a crisis like
that, you do what you have to do to save the business.”

He said that in this day and age that might sound old fashioned and that he has resolved to
fight back to protect his and his wife’s reputation.

He went on to say that when they were personally placed in statutory management on June 20
this year, that was a serious blow to them, South Canterbury Finance and “unbelievably short
sighted” on the part of the Government which acted on the advice of the Registrar of
Companies.

“Surely they realised that by freezing me out and taking over control of my affairs that they
would be dealing a body blow to South Canterbury Finance?”

Big day for the regulators and a sad day for investors

“It was a big day for the regulators and a sad day for investors,” he said.

“Instead they bring down the boom, take me out, freeze my access to my personal funds and
now so many families, small businesses, farms and enterprises, throughout the South Island
in particular, are going to be seriously suffering,” he said.

“It was an unnecessary, knee jerk bureaucratic response and it required a strategic solution
not a sledge hammer.”

Mr Hubbard said that his action was deeply hurtful and it was painful to be forced to watch
events, announced today, unfold from the sideline.

“I have spent my life supporting businesses, investors and charities and my track record
speaks for itself,” he said. “I have been prudent and diligent, to the very best of my ability,
and have always been deeply respectful of the trust placed in me.”

Mr Hubbard said that while he acknowledges that some may consider his management
systems old fashioned he has never defrauded a single investor of a single cent.

He said that when he was ambushed last week by the statutory managers, with their second
investors’ report, and with no advance warning or the courtesy of a copy of their report, he
resolved to have more to say.

He said today’s announcement on South Canterbury’s fate had hardened his resolve.
“I will be providing my own analysis, with the assistance of my team of professional legal
and financial advisors, to put my side of the story and I will be taking this matter further,” he
said.

“I cannot allow my reputation to be savagely attacked by this shameful process and all of
those who trusted Jean and me, over so many years, to allow this tragic set of events to go
unanswered,” he said. “Those who care about us know I am unwell and that hardens my
resolve.”

Mr Hubbard said he would not be commenting further until he and his advisors had prepared
their case against the statutory manager’s report and their response to today’s announcement
regarding SCF.


Related Share Investor Reading

Download Grant Thornton Report 1
Download Grant Thornton Report 2

Market Alert: South Canterbury Finance to be placed in Receivership
Allan Hubbard: Ignorant Supporters Blissfully Unaware
Thornton Report 2: Allan Hubbard Guilty as Charged
Allan Hubbard: Full TV3 Interview - July 16 2010
Thornton Report: Allan Hubbard's Aorangi Securities
Whatever happened to? Muriel Dunn
Bothered by Simon Botherway
Allied Farmers: Prosecutions should be on the cards
Allied Farmers Fraud passes with little fanfare
Allied Farmers: What's it Worth?
Hanover, Allied Farmers deal more of the same
Jane Diplock Q & A Interview
Hanover's "White Knights" are really daylight robbers
Hanover collapse: It was just a matter of time
Money Managers Saga: 3 Story wrap
Money Managers gives First Step investors the middle finger
Greed is bad: Geneva Finance Folds
Financial 101: Learn before you leap
Kevin's Blog


Recommended Amazon Reading


The Intelligent Investor: The Definitive Book on Value Investing. A     Book of Practical Counsel (Revised Edition)
The Intelligent Investor: The Definitive Book on Value Investing. A Book of Practical Counsel (Revised Edition) by Benjamin Graham
Buy new: $14.95 / Used from: $7.50
Usually ships in 24 hours

Buy The Intelligent Investor & more @ Fishpond.co.nz

Fishpond


c Share Investor 2010