Of course, NAV of $1.01.
With only investment properties revalued and the properties used for business and the brand value not accounted for, it makes sense for the billionaire major shareholder to acquire more shares at an attractive discount to its NAV.
I respect him as a value investor and shrewd investor.
(24-08-2013, 04:10 PM)LOVE YOURSELF Wrote: [ -> ]All said .........anyone with proposals what we small investors should do? Of course at own risks.....
if Offeror can do CA, then game over. Then quickly tender shares and get back money faster. Get money thru CA is very SLLOOWWWW...
If no CA, then the shares will remain listed. Then better organise the minorities to protect interests. In prep for next Offer, IPT and whatever patterns that is coming.
(24-08-2013, 06:15 PM)a74henry Wrote: [ -> ]Of course, NAV of $1.01.
With only investment properties revalued and the properties used for business and the brand value not accounted for, it makes sense for the billionaire major shareholder to acquire more shares at an attractive discount to its NAV.
I respect him as a value investor and shrewd investor.
I dont respect majority shareholders that dont make money
TOGETHER WITH minority shareholders.
I support fully opmi statement that don't respect majority shareholders that don't make money TOGETHER WITH minority shareholders.
(24-08-2013, 06:29 PM)opmi Wrote: [ -> ]I dont respect majority shareholders that dont make money TOGETHER WITH minority shareholders.
To be honest, nobody forced minority shareholders to sell.
They saw the offer and they accepted it.
And the offer was very transparent regarding the NAV and how it was calculated. Minority shareholders still can hold on to their shares today if they wanted to, with no penalties (my parents still hold on to some Guthrie shares)，and also retain the right to sell at offer price if the take over is confirmed.
I can't see how this offer could have been done in a better way.
My 2c.
There is an info asymmetry between major and minority shareholders. Instead of reducing this, sometimes majority shareholders use this for their own benefits.
Whatever monetisation of assets or unlocking of value, can be done and benefits shared with all shareholders. But some towkays wants to keep it all for themselves.
When a majority shareholder make a lowball offer, the trust is gone. One reason they make an offer, is that they can make more money out of it at expense of minority shareholders..
With CA, those who don't want to sell, will be forced to sell. So don't have a choice.
(24-08-2013, 07:12 AM)opmi Wrote: [ -> ]Ok. I will inform u by showing u the example from SPC's notice of CA. Hahaha.
On 10 July 2009, the transferee company through an offer document dated 7 July 2009, made an offer to all holders of the issued and fully paid-up ordinary shares (excluding treasury shares) in the share capital of the transferor company other than those already owned, controlled or agreed to be acquired by the transferee company and parties acting in concert with it (“Offer Shares”), at a price of S$6.25 in cash for each Offer Share.
Up to 27 August 2009 (being a date within 4 months after the making of the offer in that behalf by the transferee company), the offer was approved by the holders of not less than 90% of the total number of the ordinary shares of the transferor company (other than shares already held at the date of the offer by, or by a nominee for, the transferee company or its related corporations, and excluding treasury shares).
The transferee company hereby gives you notice, in pursuance of Section 215 of the Companies Act, that it desires to acquire the ordinary shares held by you in the transferor company.
You are entitled within one month from the date of this notice to require the transferee company, by a demand in writing served on it, to supply you with a statement in writing of the names and addresses of all other dissenting shareholders as shown in the register of members, and the transferee company will not be entitled or bound to acquire the shares of the dissenting shareholders until 14 days after the posting to you of the statement of those names and addresses.
Note the words in bold.
hmm.... I went back to the statute and the exact quote is
Quote:Where a scheme or contract involving the transfer of all of the shares or all of the shares in any particular class in a company (referred to in this section as the transferor company) to another company or corporation (referred to in this section as the transferee company) has, within 4 months after the making of the offer in that behalf by the transferee company, been approved as to the shares or as to each class of shares whose transfer is involved by the holders of not less than 90% of the total number of those shares (excluding treasury shares) or of the shares of that class (other than shares already held at the date of the offer by the transferee company, and excluding any shares in the company held as treasury shares),
the condition is 90% of outstanding share, or 90% of shares not owned by owner. I wonder which condition should apply.
WHAT SAY YOU ??? WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO ???
1) accept the offer
2) try ur luck to sell at 0.885 in open market, I wonder if the same idiot who bought above 0.88 earlier will buy from you.
3) do nothing and watch the show