Monday, May 11, 2009

Private Eyes

In the wake of a police whitewash over emails stolen from Don Brash's computer a few years back, probably by Labour insiders, we see the latest stoop in dirty politics by Labour happen in the Onehunga Electorate office of National MP Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga.


Like the incident from a few years ago Northey has denied the accusations but similar to the incident a few years ago the finger can only be pointed in one direction.

Labour and its leader were unable to compete on level footing on policy last year before the general election and were left to wade in the filth and muck that they tried to scrape up on their opposition using taxpayer dosh but were left with the blowback on their own faces.

It seems they haven't learnt from that lesson and are repeating the same gutter politics this year in the Mt Albert Bye Election

Melissa Leigh, National's prospect for the Mt Albert Bye Election needs to keep her private papers private, least they fall into Labours hands, again.

c Political Animal 2009


Bookmark and Share

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
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, May 6, 2009

Sky City share offer confusing and unfair for smaller shareholders

I was going to discuss the merits of owning Contact Energy Ltd [CEN.NZ] shares in the light of takeover signs surfacing recently over that company but I will leave it to another day.

I will instead focus on something today that has left me scratching my head.

Many of those that follow my media machinations closely will know that I own a reasonable number of Sky City Entertainment [SKC.NZ] shares.

There has been a recent capital raising to institutions and large shareholders and now we smaller unimportant shareholders are about to have their opportunity to buy an additional stake to avoid dilution of our shareholdings.

Today I received "top-up" offer documents that allow me to buy 1269 shares in the $5 million offer but I have to be either an "experienced" or "wealthy" investor to participate and I must get a "certificate" from my chartered accountant or my "financial service provider" to prove I am either so I can get my new shares.

The only problem is that I don't have either of the above but then I read on that I will probably not be eligible anyway because the top up offer is conditional on the $35 million Share Purchase Plan (SPP) not being fully subscribed, which is highly unlikely to happen given major oversubscriptions in popular capital raisings thus far completed by listed New Zealand companies.

The other wee problem is that I haven't received the SPP documents or booklet that the covering letter says I should read to determine whether I should consider the offer.

The top up offer seems superfluous to requirements because it gets canned if there is an oversub of the SSP but even if there was going to be a top up many wouldn't bother because they have to be "wealthy" (have net assets of $2 million or gross income of more than 200k for each of the last two years) or be an "experienced investor" and be able to prove both using your accountant or financial advisor.

I really cant be bother with the top up because I cannot bloody fully understand it! and it seems to run counter to commonsense because it probably wont occur anyway.

All I am entitled to then is to apply for a maximum of NZ$12500 of shares and it seems given the large interest in the $230 million SKC corporate capital raising carried out in April and an over subscription in the Fletcher Building offer concluded this week, I am unlikely to get anything close to that figure.

I would need to get my hands on around 5000 shares at the offer price of $2.61 per share in order to stop dilution of my position but unlike the corporates and large shareholders my shareholding in Sky City Entertainment of 7 years is going to be seriously diluted.

I will be applying for the maximum under the SSP.

Contact Energy will follow soon.



Sky City @ Share Investor

Sky City CEO doubles down
Sky City Entertainment 2009 Interim Profit Review
Sky City Entertainment 2009 Interim Result Preamble
2008 Sky City profit analysis
Sky City Entertainment 2008 Full Year profit results , NZX release, 2008 full year presentation, result briefing webcast, financial statements
Sky City 2008 profit preamble
Sky City outlines a clear future plan
As recession bites Sky City bites back
Sky City Assets: Buy, sell and hold
Why did you buy that stock? [Sky City Entertainment]
Sky City Share Volumes set tongues wagging
Sky City half year exceptional on cost cutting
NZX Press release: Sky City profit to HY end Dec 2007
Sky City Cinemas no Blockbuster
Sky City Entertainment share price drop
New Broom set to sweep
Sky City Management: Blind, deaf and numb
Sky City sale could be off
Opposition to takeover
Premium for control
Sky City receives takeover bid
Sky City Casino Full Year Profit to June 30 2007
Setting the record straight
Sky City CEO resigns
Sky City Casino: Under performing
Sky City Casino 2007 HY Profit(analysis)
Sky City Casino 2007 HY Profit

Discuss SKC @ shareinvestorforum.com

Download SKC 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 2009

Monday, May 4, 2009

Fisher & Paykel Appliances future looking bleak

For those of you who have followed my rantings on this that and the other over the last 2 years or so, you will know I haven't got much time for Fisher and Paykel Appliances [FPA.NZ] the so-called "kiwi business icon" and today is no exception.

Get ready for another rant.

It has been poorly run for many years and was only a success largely because of protectionism in New Zealand and has fought that protectionism and lost the battle.

To me Fisher and Paykel Appliances is looking terminal. It has more than half a billion of debt on its books, with a massive slashing of its sales and profit, and bleak hope for the future.

The company is technically bankrupt.

For management to blame the current credit meltdown is moronic and dishonest at best. There has been clear evidence of a spiraling down of company fortunes over the last 10 years, not the least the massive debt that has been allowed to build up.

It shows the lack of forward planning that management did nothing about that debt until the very last minute and it is only the current dire credit climate and global economic circumstances that have accelerated an inevitable credit crunch.

FPA management have been blessed with less foresight than an Al Gore devotee with a blindfold on that they couldn't see the end coming.

The simple fact that it has taken more than six weeks to find some poor sucker to poor millions of dollars more into this loser shows the less savvy investor that nobody really wants to touch it with a 10 foot dish draw.

Having said that what the company does have to its advantage is one or two products that could be useful to another company looking for an edge in the whiteware market and a brand name with just enough cache left that could be used by a more competitive and well managed whiteware manufacturer.

For that reason alone the best thing for the company is for it to be broken up and sold.

That is sad, but some "business icons" have their best days behind them and Fisher and Paykel Appliances is definitely one of those.

Will the company survive?

Unlikely in its current form.

Fisher & Paykel Appliances @ Share Investor

Long Term View: Fisher & Paykel Appliances
Stock of the Week: Fisher & Paykel Appliances
Fisher & Paykel Appliances future looking bleak
Fisher & Paykel downgrade continues fine tradition
Fisher & Paykel Appliances looking fair value
Fisher & Paykel: A Tale of Two Companies
Fisher & Paykel Appliances: In a spin over nothing

Discuss FPA @ Share Investor Forum

Download FPA Company Reports


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 2009