The end of F&N ?
http://info.sgx.com/webcoranncatth.nsf/V...A003BB57D/$file/OUE_Announcement.pdf?openelement
OUE would like to announce that the Offeror has decided not to revise the Offer Price.
The Board together with the Offeror is of the view that in order to secure the more than 50% acceptances
for the Offer to become unconditional, the Offeror would need to significantly increase the Offer Price to a
level which is no longer as attractive to OUE, in particular, given the potential impact of the recent
measures taken by the Singapore Government in relation to the property market.
since the beginning, there never was a chance for OUE to succeed, at least not at 9.08. In the whole saga, TCC was played by SIC though TCC's inaction was also a strategical failure. If TCC could offer higher price(above 9.08, but below 9.55) earlier, TCC would have gained upper hand and not be played by SIC.
(21-01-2013, 07:04 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]since the beginning, there never was a chance for OUE to succeed, at least not at 9.08. In the whole saga, TCC was played by SIC though TCC's inaction was also a strategical failure. If TCC could offer higher price(above 9.08, but below 9.55) earlier, TCC would have gained upper hand and not be played by SIC.
I have a slightly different view
I would said TCC Asset strategy is superb and successful one.
OUE was a bait from F&N board to raise the offer price. TCC Asset focused on acquiring shares from major groups of shareholder, instead of winning minority shareholders via bidding with OUE. The price paid is what the major shareholder demanded, rather than pushed-up by OUE.
A good leaning experience...
(21-01-2013, 09:37 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]I have a slightly different view
I would said TCC Asset strategy is superb and successful one.
OUE was a bait from F&N board to raise the offer price. TCC Asset focused on acquiring shares from major groups of shareholder, instead of winning minority shareholders via bidding with OUE. The price paid is what the major shareholder demanded, rather than pushed-up by OUE.
A good leaning experience...
I don't think you got what I mean though we have similar opinion that OUE never seriously tries to get F&N.
What I mean is that if TCC offered higher than OUE earlier, SIC would give more pressure to OUE to force it out rather than now that TCC must offer higher to force OUE out.
To fork out almost 1 billion to mop up F&N stake to force OUE out is expensive in my opinion.
(21-01-2013, 09:52 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ] (21-01-2013, 09:37 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]I have a slightly different view
I would said TCC Asset strategy is superb and successful one.
OUE was a bait from F&N board to raise the offer price. TCC Asset focused on acquiring shares from major groups of shareholder, instead of winning minority shareholders via bidding with OUE. The price paid is what the major shareholder demanded, rather than pushed-up by OUE.
A good leaning experience...
I don't think you got what I mean though we have similar opinion that OUE never seriously tries to get F&N.
What I mean is that if TCC offered higher than OUE earlier, SIC would give more pressure to OUE to force it out rather than now that TCC must offer higher to force OUE out.
To fork out almost 1 billion to mop up F&N stake to force OUE out is expensive in my opinion.
I also don't think you got what i mean
TCC Asset's higher offer is not aimed to force out OUE. The new "offer price" is just a price agreed with a group of shareholders. IIRC, there was a previous even higher offer price but turned down with another group of shareholders.
In layman term, TCC Asset did not "see OUE up" and never be troubled by it
(21-01-2013, 10:05 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]I also don't think you got what i mean
TCC Asset's higher offer is not aimed to force out OUE. The new "offer price" is just a price agreed with a group of shareholders. IIRC, there was a previous even higher offer price but turned down with another group of shareholders.
In layman term, TCC Asset did not "see OUE up" and never be troubled by it
are you referring to the rumor of 9.6 trying to buy 10% stake? to me it was just a teaser. TCC was just to test market expectation.
Whether TCC sees OUE up or not, to have OUE on its back at higher price is always a bad thing for TCC. So now TCC is cornered to have to offer a higher price or give up its offer(if TCC really intends to offer 9.55 earlier time, it can buy from open market without a problem, so 9.55 apparently is a later decision). The ideal situation for TCC would be that OUE backs off and TCC offers only 8.88 to get majority, or at least just slightly higher than 9.08 to get majority or even failed offers from both OUE and TCC. TCC's strategy is far from this(at least 1 billion away from 8.88)
Is OUE serious? I think FNN deemed it as S$50m serious.
Till today I don't understand why FNN should pay breakup fee for itself to be acquired. It should be between OUE and Kirin.
(21-01-2013, 11:00 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Is OUE serious? I think FNN deemed it as S$50m serious.
Till today I don't understand why FNN should pay breakup fee for itself to be acquired. It should be between OUE and Kirin.
Apparently you are not a shareholder of F&N or at least you did not step in a shareholder's shoes.
Shareholders of F&N should be happily paying for S$ 50m to hope to get a higher offer price from TCC.
$50m/1.2billion = 4 cents/share only. if TCC pays more than 9.08, net net it is better for F&N shareholders compared to a 8.88 price with no competition.
So in the end, TCC offers 9.55, I would say the S$50 million is well spent.
The Maths is simple. Question is why should FNN be paying in an OPENLY bidding war when they are the prize? Does paying $50m entices TCC to bid more as a carrot or irrelevant? TCC bid of $9.55 is higher because of this clause or lower you think?