(22-01-2013, 01:32 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Read SIC statement. Raise offer or declare final offer. That's what OUE did. 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, question is how they value centrepoint in view of the 7th measure
Quote:It does not care whether OUE is bidding higher or not, as long as its offer continues to open.
see my original post.
it is very important that TCC can keep its offer open and not declare it's final. Declaring it's final with a lower offer price = give up the offer.
See my edited post. If intention is just to keep the offer alive then 1ct will do. Obviously their intention is more than that. Maybe you can explain why keeping the offer alive is important to TCC when you think they don't care as they have control. In any case, even without SIC, the offer period under the takeover code has a limit for them to act. SIC just expedites it.
(22-01-2013, 02:24 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]See my edited post. If intention is just to keep the offer alive then 1ct will do. Obviously their intention is more than that. Maybe you can explain why keeping the offer alive is important to TCC when you think they don't care as they have control. In any case, even without SIC, the offer period under the takeover code has a limit for them to act. SIC just expedites it.
about the 1cent, see my earlier post(#223, #225 & #227). I do think TCC failed to gain upper hand so that it has to raise the offer price so much. It is totally unnecessary as OUE is unlikely to chase F & N from TCC. Though unlikely, not impossible.
If TCC has the intention to raise its offer, why wait til SIC forces an auction? It has 2 months to do something, but it chooses to do nothing. If all along TCC wants to offer around 9.55, it could have bought a lot from open market below 9.55, even after OUE announced its offer on Nov 15th. So I would say that TCC never has the intention to raise its offer price.
why is it important to keep TCC's offer open? Not to declare the offer final means that TCC always has the option to raise the offer if out of no where, OUE increases its offer to a substantial higher price. As I said before, unlikely, but not impossible. OUE would have gained upper hand, but TCC would have no option if its offer is final already.
You said TCC has control so it don't care. Now you saying they care that they don't have upper hand. It still doesn't explain why TCC doesn't just do 1ct based on your assumption of keeping the offer alive. Unnecessary but TCC did it. I tend to think people are not stupid, we just need to understand the motivation CORRECTLY. TCC could do another offer 6 months later. Question is of course they are afraid OUE can get 50% isn't it? ie they think OUE is SERIOUS. I would assume they know better than us.
Anyone who experienced a competitive GO knows 2 months is nothing. Even the code agrees by allowing 60 days from DESPATCH. In this case the 2 months is for the stockists to accumulate. There are funnier patterns than this. Check out the Natsteel fiasco where directors exercise their option at a higher price and tender lower at a loss. We should be thankful it didn't drag another 47 days under SIC rules to $9.55. Without SIC it could very well be much longer and nobody should be surprised
(22-01-2013, 03:21 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]You said TCC has control so it don't care. Now you saying they care that they don't have upper hand. It still doesn't explain why TCC doesn't just do 1ct based on your assumption of keeping the offer alive. Unnecessary but TCC did it. I tend to think people are not stupid, we just need to understand the motivation CORRECTLY. TCC could do another offer 6 months later. Question is of course they are afraid OUE can get 50% isn't it?
Anyone who experienced a competitive GO knows 2 months is nothing. Even the code agrees by allowing 60 days from DESPATCH. In this case the 2 months is for the stockists to accumulate. There are funnier patterns than this. Check out the Natsteel fiasco where directors exercise their option at a higher price and tender lower at a loss.
As I said in another thread, people choose to believe what they want to believe, which is often far from the truth or the fact. L.O.L.
I only said TCC has negative control, which is 30% only, which is just enough to stop others from launching a takeover(sure, it can't prevent a fierce hostile takeover, but most sane people do not do that kinds of thing). TCC needs 50% to have absolute control.
As what Olam's management responded to Muddy Water, everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own version of fact.
I rest my case and congratulate F&N shareholders that they are getting a higher offer. As a Thai Beverage investor, I hope the management of Thai Beverage to extract as much synergy as possible, we paid a fair price of 8.88 to own more than 20% of F&N.
I always believe people are not stupid. Readers and observers of facts and actions will be able to conclude which scenario makes more sense and probable.
It will probably take another 60 "too-long" days for his latest GO to conclude. And still no guarantee that TCC will get above 50%. Kirin is to FNN what Wheelock to SC.
Like you said in another thread: "thank you for participation"
To continue from above post, it is possible that there are people who thinks FNN is worth more than $9.55. The IFA seems to think so. IMHO if Kirin tenders then most likely people will throw in the towel too.
(22-01-2013, 11:22 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (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, 05:15 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]To continue from above post, it is possible that there are people who thinks FNN is worth more than $9.55. The IFA seems to think so. IMHO if Kirin tenders then most likely people will throw in the towel too.
I have followed thru the discussion. I am more align with your opinion.
Base on the transaction volume on $9.55, TCC Asset might be able to achieve unconditional without major shareholders support
Let's see the dealing announcement in the next few days...
TCC will most likely get their 50% and thus control of FNN. Those who tendered their shares to OUE, about 14% I think, will now sell them to TCC. Post offer FNN shares will fall before it gradually recovers to go past the $9.55 mark in the medium to long term. So FNN shareholders has the choice of making a quick buck now or hold it for the long haul...or sell now and buy the shares when it drops once the saga concludes.
(23-01-2013, 12:14 AM)VestedInterest Wrote: [ -> ]TCC will most likely get their 50% and thus control of FNN. Those who tendered their shares to OUE, about 14% I think, will now sell them to TCC. Post offer FNN shares will fall before it gradually recovers to go past the $9.55 mark in the medium to long term. So FNN shareholders has the choice of making a quick buck now or hold it for the long haul...or sell now and buy the shares when it drops once the saga concludes.
I concur with your view
IMO, the F&N share price will fall to around $8.50 once the offer is closed. This is an opportunity to cash-out with good price in near term for shareholders, especially minority shareholders.