(21-01-2013, 11:54 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]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 $9.55 is higher because of this clause or lower you think?
if you want to have your cake and eat it, it is up to you. but it is unlikely to happen.
If there is never a competing bid, it would be a lose situation for F&N.
So now we have a win-win for both F&N and OUE.
If shareholders believe that they can have 9.55 without a competing bid, I would say "dream on".
TCC "sold" APB to Heineken on the condition that they will not be a party to a competing bid. Up to you to decipher whether they themselves think their 8.88 bid will not draw competition.
(21-01-2013, 11:42 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently you are not a shareholder of F&N or at least you did not step in a shareholder's shoes.
Shareholders of F&N should be happily paying for S$ 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.
With OUE quitting, they forgo the $50M as this money will only be paid if OUE succeed.
OUE suffer the costs of this adventure now.
(22-01-2013, 12:40 AM)edragon Wrote: [ -> ] (21-01-2013, 11:42 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently you are not a shareholder of F&N or at least you did not step in a shareholder's shoes.
Shareholders of F&N should be happily paying for S$ 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.
With OUE quitting, they forgo the $50M as this money will only be paid if OUE succeed.
OUE suffer the costs of this adventure now.
You got it the other way round: OUE consortium will now get S$50m with FNN footing the bill
$56m breakup fee in the event of failing to sell APB to Heineken makes sense as FNN was seller. This $50m doesn't.
(22-01-2013, 12:21 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]TCC "sold" APB to Heineken on the condition that they will not be a party to a competing bid. Up to you to decipher whether they themselves think their 8.88 bid will not draw competition.
if that's the case, why did TCC never raise its offer price even OUE was offering higher price for how long, 2 months?
If not for SIC to force on TCC's hands, TCC would just continue to bid at 8.88. Eventually both offers would lapse and TCC remains in control of F&N.
TCC already had negative control to prevent a hostile takeover without a blood vomiting price from any other party. It does not care whether OUE is bidding higher or not, as long as its offer continues to open.
(22-01-2013, 07:12 AM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ] (22-01-2013, 12:21 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]TCC "sold" APB to Heineken on the condition that they will not be a party to a competing bid. Up to you to decipher whether they themselves think their 8.88 bid will not draw competition.
if that's the case, why did TCC never raise its offer price even OUE was offering higher price for how long, 2 months?
If not for SIC to force on TCC's hands, TCC would just continue to bid at 8.88. Eventually both offers would lapse and TCC remains in control of F&N.
TCC already had negative control to prevent a hostile takeover without a blood vomiting price from any other party. It does not care whether OUE is bidding higher or not, as long as its offer continues to open.
TCC would bid at $8.88 as long as the takeover code allows it.
Based on your logic TCC don't even need to revise his bid and "remains in control of F&N" since market price already higher than OUE bid price, and shouldn't have vomitted blood at $9.55 since "it does not care whether OUE is bidding higher or not". Why would SIC twist their arm since they don't care?
Ever wondered how TCC got so much shares at $9.55, or why bother to? PAG is a stockist given plenty of time to accumulate... the 2 months you were saying. TCC say they are not acting in concert
I wonder the rational for Mr Market to value F&N share at $9.55 now, with offer price of TCC Asset as $9.55
The upcoming dividend is bundled with its shares with TCC offer.
Anything i miss?
(22-01-2013, 10:22 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder the rational for Mr Market to value F&N share at $9.55 now, with offer price of TCC Asset as $9.55
The upcoming dividend is bundled with its shares with TCC offer.
Anything i miss?
OK, a stupid question, the buying should be from TCC Asset. Any price higher than $9.55 is irrational.
Apologies for asking stupid question
(22-01-2013, 08:54 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ] (22-01-2013, 07:12 AM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ] (22-01-2013, 12:21 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]TCC "sold" APB to Heineken on the condition that they will not be a party to a competing bid. Up to you to decipher whether they themselves think their 8.88 bid will not draw competition.
if that's the case, why did TCC never raise its offer price even OUE was offering higher price for how long, 2 months?
If not for SIC to force on TCC's hands, TCC would just continue to bid at 8.88. Eventually both offers would lapse and TCC remains in control of F&N.
TCC already had negative control to prevent a hostile takeover without a blood vomiting price from any other party. It does not care whether OUE is bidding higher or not, as long as its offer continues to open.
TCC would bid at $8.88 as long as the takeover code allows it.
Based on your logic TCC don't even need to revise his bid and "remains in control of F&N" since market price already higher than OUE bid price, and shouldn't have vomitted blood at $9.55 since "it does not care whether OUE is bidding higher or not". Why would SIC twist their arm since they don't care?
Ever wondered how TCC got so much shares at $9.55, or why bother to? PAG is a stockist given plenty of time to accumulate... the 2 months you were saying. TCC say they are not acting in concert
SIC mandates that either TCC raises its offer or gives up. Isn't this twisting TCC's arms or what?
Read SIC statement. Raise offer by 1ct or declare final offer. That's what OUE did... But TCC chose to jump by leaps instead of 1ct. They already have >30% stake whether or not if they stick to $8.88. If like you say they don't care then why bother to raise offer. Unlike you I think both TCC and OUE care, based on the logic of their actions, question is how they value centrepoint in view of the 7th measure. The $50m breakup fee defies logic.