APA Bid fails to get 50% (Merged)
done and dusted
Raider destroys Qantas bid
* Jennifer Hewett, Steve Creedy, Glenda Korporaal
* May 05, 2007
AIRLINES Partners Australia's audacious $11 billion bid for Qantas collapsed last night when a US corporate raider, Samuel Heyman, failed to accept the offer.
The bidders were reeling last night with the news that the raider, which held $1 billion of Qantas stock - nearly 10 per cent - had not delivered his stock to the consortium.
APA had expected it to accept the bid of $5.45 a share, giving it the 50 per cent it needed by the 7pm deadline last night.
But Airline Partners announced at 8.30pm last night that it appeared that acceptances had not reached the 50 per cent level needed for the bid to go ahead.
According to sources, the bidders received acceptances for just 46 per cent of Qantas stock.
"If this is confirmed, APA's offer for Qantas Airways will not proceed," APA said in a statement.
The consortium said it remained of the view that its ownership plans for Qantas would have "significantly enhanced the airline, guaranteed strong growth and been beneficial for employees and customers".
Macquarie Bank executives in Sydney were aghast last night when the US raider, whom they had expected to accept the bid, made no response. Macquarie executives who were handling the bid had been talking to Mr Heyman's representatives during the day.
The collapse of the deal will lead to widespread recriminations.
The fact that the offer came down to the wire showed the coolness of the market to the bid, which was originally pitched well above the share price.
The Australian share market is up by 15 per cent since the offer was launched, and Qantas directors were forced to issue at least two profit upgrades.
The rejection appears to kill the bid, which was accepted by Qantas directors last December, and ensure that the Australian icon remains in public hands.
The bidders had been hoping that they would get over the line with a last-minute rush of acceptances from hedge funds, which had bought heavily into the Qantas deal. The fact that one US raider could seal the fate of the bid showed how close the deal was.
Yesterday morning the bidders announced that just under 35 per cent of investors had accepted.
Analysts had been expecting acceptances to pass the crucial 50 per cent of voting stock needed to keep the bid alive, but not the 70 per cent required to take it unconditional.
Fifty per cent would have given APA an automatic two-week extension in which to reach 70 per cent.
Figures released yesterday showed that by Thursday night, hard acceptances had jumped from 27.78 per cent to 34.59 per cent. A further 1.44 per cent was still in the institutional acceptance facility.
At least one institution, Credit Suisse, was rumoured to be selling after building up its stake on behalf of clients to 11.73 per cent earlier in the week.
APA made an impassioned plea to hedge funds holding an estimated 45 per cent of the airline's stock to help get the bid over the line and ran an extensive campaign in the lead-up to the deadline, warning shareholders that the value of their investment would plummet if the bid failed.
The bidders had expected that the hedge funds would be keeping the bid open as long as possible so they could continue to maximise profits by trading off the difference between airline's share price, which closed last night at $5.38, and the $5.45 bid price.
The manager of the only fund manager to publicly reject the bid, Balanced Equity's Andrew Sisson, said many of the hedge funds were still "sitting in the wings" yesterday, but he expected that they would have accepted the bid by last night.
BBY analyst Fabian Babich said hedge funds would have attempted to structure their acceptances to get the APA deal over the line but stop it from reaching 70 per cent.
He said the question was whether individual decision-making had achieved the right result.
"The hedge funds' incentive is to deliver a result that is above 50 per cent but as far away from 70 per cent as possible," he said.
"The reason for that is the closer you take APA to 70 per cent the less and less uncertainty there is about a deal being concluded and therefore the less incentive there is for anybody to be selling on-market."
MM&E capital co-founder Tom Elliott said many of the funds were expected to accept, but some were worried about the deal.
He said most hedge fund custodians tended to package-up acceptances and do one big acceptance on the last day, rather than a series of smaller ones.
Some could commit only a portion of their shares.
Mr Elliott said APA would have been on "very thin ice" if the bid were between 50 and 70 per cent.
He said the consortium could decide next week to take the minimum acceptance level below 70 per cent, but it was unclear whether the banks funding the bid would let them do that.
"As it is, I'm amazed that they were able to drop the condition to 70 per cent because all it is is a giant margin loan," he said. "It's only secured by the shares."
Consortium partner David Coe said on Thursday APA had not been involved in any negotiations with its banks about dropping the minimum acceptance level.
Mr Coe said the consortium members would reassess the situation over the weekend.
But sources close to the deal said yesterday that the economics of the bid might not stack up for APA if it had to go back to the well for a new financing deal at a lower level of acceptances.
They warned it could walk away if acceptances were down towards the 50 per cent level.
Private equity deals are based on the bidders gaining full control of the target and being able to borrow against the target company's assets to repay their banks.
The current financing package for 70 per cent ownership is effectively a bridging finance arrangement which involves higher interest rates, more fees to the bankers and stricter conditions than the deal negotiated when APA was expecting to get full control of Qantas.
* Jennifer Hewett, Steve Creedy, Glenda Korporaal
* May 05, 2007
AIRLINES Partners Australia's audacious $11 billion bid for Qantas collapsed last night when a US corporate raider, Samuel Heyman, failed to accept the offer.
The bidders were reeling last night with the news that the raider, which held $1 billion of Qantas stock - nearly 10 per cent - had not delivered his stock to the consortium.
APA had expected it to accept the bid of $5.45 a share, giving it the 50 per cent it needed by the 7pm deadline last night.
But Airline Partners announced at 8.30pm last night that it appeared that acceptances had not reached the 50 per cent level needed for the bid to go ahead.
According to sources, the bidders received acceptances for just 46 per cent of Qantas stock.
"If this is confirmed, APA's offer for Qantas Airways will not proceed," APA said in a statement.
The consortium said it remained of the view that its ownership plans for Qantas would have "significantly enhanced the airline, guaranteed strong growth and been beneficial for employees and customers".
Macquarie Bank executives in Sydney were aghast last night when the US raider, whom they had expected to accept the bid, made no response. Macquarie executives who were handling the bid had been talking to Mr Heyman's representatives during the day.
The collapse of the deal will lead to widespread recriminations.
The fact that the offer came down to the wire showed the coolness of the market to the bid, which was originally pitched well above the share price.
The Australian share market is up by 15 per cent since the offer was launched, and Qantas directors were forced to issue at least two profit upgrades.
The rejection appears to kill the bid, which was accepted by Qantas directors last December, and ensure that the Australian icon remains in public hands.
The bidders had been hoping that they would get over the line with a last-minute rush of acceptances from hedge funds, which had bought heavily into the Qantas deal. The fact that one US raider could seal the fate of the bid showed how close the deal was.
Yesterday morning the bidders announced that just under 35 per cent of investors had accepted.
Analysts had been expecting acceptances to pass the crucial 50 per cent of voting stock needed to keep the bid alive, but not the 70 per cent required to take it unconditional.
Fifty per cent would have given APA an automatic two-week extension in which to reach 70 per cent.
Figures released yesterday showed that by Thursday night, hard acceptances had jumped from 27.78 per cent to 34.59 per cent. A further 1.44 per cent was still in the institutional acceptance facility.
At least one institution, Credit Suisse, was rumoured to be selling after building up its stake on behalf of clients to 11.73 per cent earlier in the week.
APA made an impassioned plea to hedge funds holding an estimated 45 per cent of the airline's stock to help get the bid over the line and ran an extensive campaign in the lead-up to the deadline, warning shareholders that the value of their investment would plummet if the bid failed.
The bidders had expected that the hedge funds would be keeping the bid open as long as possible so they could continue to maximise profits by trading off the difference between airline's share price, which closed last night at $5.38, and the $5.45 bid price.
The manager of the only fund manager to publicly reject the bid, Balanced Equity's Andrew Sisson, said many of the hedge funds were still "sitting in the wings" yesterday, but he expected that they would have accepted the bid by last night.
BBY analyst Fabian Babich said hedge funds would have attempted to structure their acceptances to get the APA deal over the line but stop it from reaching 70 per cent.
He said the question was whether individual decision-making had achieved the right result.
"The hedge funds' incentive is to deliver a result that is above 50 per cent but as far away from 70 per cent as possible," he said.
"The reason for that is the closer you take APA to 70 per cent the less and less uncertainty there is about a deal being concluded and therefore the less incentive there is for anybody to be selling on-market."
MM&E capital co-founder Tom Elliott said many of the funds were expected to accept, but some were worried about the deal.
He said most hedge fund custodians tended to package-up acceptances and do one big acceptance on the last day, rather than a series of smaller ones.
Some could commit only a portion of their shares.
Mr Elliott said APA would have been on "very thin ice" if the bid were between 50 and 70 per cent.
He said the consortium could decide next week to take the minimum acceptance level below 70 per cent, but it was unclear whether the banks funding the bid would let them do that.
"As it is, I'm amazed that they were able to drop the condition to 70 per cent because all it is is a giant margin loan," he said. "It's only secured by the shares."
Consortium partner David Coe said on Thursday APA had not been involved in any negotiations with its banks about dropping the minimum acceptance level.
Mr Coe said the consortium members would reassess the situation over the weekend.
But sources close to the deal said yesterday that the economics of the bid might not stack up for APA if it had to go back to the well for a new financing deal at a lower level of acceptances.
They warned it could walk away if acceptances were down towards the 50 per cent level.
Private equity deals are based on the bidders gaining full control of the target and being able to borrow against the target company's assets to repay their banks.
The current financing package for 70 per cent ownership is effectively a bridging finance arrangement which involves higher interest rates, more fees to the bankers and stricter conditions than the deal negotiated when APA was expecting to get full control of Qantas.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: n.s.w
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is too much at stake for the "players" for this not to go through, I would expect there to be much kicking and screaming before this is dead in the water.
"Market movements call the shots, business deals in parking lots"
"Market movements call the shots, business deals in parking lots"
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm happy that the market basically said NO and by the deadline the consortium had not achieved the required minimum of 50% to achieve a 14 day extension.
IF the deal goes go ahead it is because they have moved the goal posts yet again....not because they deserve to win.
This reminds me of another US group and how they play the game.Does anyone remember a certain Yacht club and their interpretations of the rules during the Americas cup ...
Wasn't there an interview with Darth and someone asked who approached who first for the takeover.From what I have heard they both looked at each other and said "NO COMMENT"......
Imagine if you had problems paying your mortgage and the deadline to prevent the bank repossessing your property was friday 7PM.That deadline passed and you rang Monday morning and said I managed to get the money on saturday morning..is that OK????
IF the deal goes go ahead it is because they have moved the goal posts yet again....not because they deserve to win.
This reminds me of another US group and how they play the game.Does anyone remember a certain Yacht club and their interpretations of the rules during the Americas cup ...
Wasn't there an interview with Darth and someone asked who approached who first for the takeover.From what I have heard they both looked at each other and said "NO COMMENT"......
Imagine if you had problems paying your mortgage and the deadline to prevent the bank repossessing your property was friday 7PM.That deadline passed and you rang Monday morning and said I managed to get the money on saturday morning..is that OK????
Last edited by lowerlobe; 6th May 2007 at 06:29.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What rights do the 49.4% of shareholders who decided that this takeover wasn't in their best interest have?
Is there any action they can take or submission they can make to the Takeovers Panel to oppose the fuzzy deadline of the extension of the extension of the extension?
Is there any action they can take or submission they can make to the Takeovers Panel to oppose the fuzzy deadline of the extension of the extension of the extension?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if in two further weeks those 49.4% still believe the deal is not in their best interests then they still won't have sold and the deal is DEFINITELY dead. Hopefully.
What this outcome does indicate is that about half the holdings genuinely, as at Friday's critical decision point, did NOT want to sell. Over the next two weeks they will be pressured to change their minds.... APA need to change the minds of the holders of another 20%. Depending on the distribution of those shares that may be possible or bloody difficult. I think it actually will be difficult - they haven't been convinced so far, what will be different in the next two weeks? We may be about to see the grubbiest tactics yet....
I do, however, reckon a goal has been kicked after the siren and has been allowed! Next Monday will be a very interesting day - we'll see if the referees have anything to say.
What this outcome does indicate is that about half the holdings genuinely, as at Friday's critical decision point, did NOT want to sell. Over the next two weeks they will be pressured to change their minds.... APA need to change the minds of the holders of another 20%. Depending on the distribution of those shares that may be possible or bloody difficult. I think it actually will be difficult - they haven't been convinced so far, what will be different in the next two weeks? We may be about to see the grubbiest tactics yet....
I do, however, reckon a goal has been kicked after the siren and has been allowed! Next Monday will be a very interesting day - we'll see if the referees have anything to say.
Last edited by Ron & Edna Johns; 5th May 2007 at 02:35. Reason: Punctuation
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, REJ.
The worrying thing is I've read a few articles lately about APA renegotiating with the banks to lower their requirements to 51% ownership. I'd rather see the whole thing dead in the water now when by their own rules they've failed to achieve acceptance.
The worrying thing is I've read a few articles lately about APA renegotiating with the banks to lower their requirements to 51% ownership. I'd rather see the whole thing dead in the water now when by their own rules they've failed to achieve acceptance.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney , Australia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well what an interesting night it was last night , i was so happy that the take over did not succeed, but now i am not happy since i read this article from the SMH that states they got some late sellers and it reached over 50% after the deadline , if they pull this off and the bid continues with the late shareholders that sold to them after 7pm there is defently something dodgey going on ...
http://www.news.com.au/business/stor...65-462,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/business/stor...65-462,00.html
Sorry, Ron and Edna, I have to disagree.
Let's look at a very rough break down of the shareholders as of 7pm last night:
APA - 46%
Retail Investors - 7%
Balanced Equity Management and UBS (who said they weren't selling) - 11%
Others (primarily hedge funds) - remaining 36%
What these figures really mean was that as of last night the hedge funds thought they could make more money over the next fortnight by playing the arbitrage game with their 36% vs. the additional 20% that they thought APA woudl need.
The plan by the hedge funds was for the deal to get just over 50% acceptance last night (50.001% ideally) as this would give them the greatest amount of latitude to pressure the market over the next two weeks and make a few more million.
These funds - which probably number in the dozens if not hundreds - were all calculating that the bid would reach 50% acceptance but, in short, somebody f%^ked up.
Few, if any, of these funds would be short, which means they stood to take a pretty big hit on Monday. Hence the hurried late night calls in which somebody agreed to sell another 4% provided they could get it past the takeovers panel.
In short, these players want to sell, not right now but in a fortnight, when they've sucked the last few million out of this whole tawdry affair.
What this outcome does indicate is that about half the holdings genuinely, as at Friday's critical decision point, did NOT want to sell
APA - 46%
Retail Investors - 7%
Balanced Equity Management and UBS (who said they weren't selling) - 11%
Others (primarily hedge funds) - remaining 36%
What these figures really mean was that as of last night the hedge funds thought they could make more money over the next fortnight by playing the arbitrage game with their 36% vs. the additional 20% that they thought APA woudl need.
The plan by the hedge funds was for the deal to get just over 50% acceptance last night (50.001% ideally) as this would give them the greatest amount of latitude to pressure the market over the next two weeks and make a few more million.
These funds - which probably number in the dozens if not hundreds - were all calculating that the bid would reach 50% acceptance but, in short, somebody f%^ked up.
Few, if any, of these funds would be short, which means they stood to take a pretty big hit on Monday. Hence the hurried late night calls in which somebody agreed to sell another 4% provided they could get it past the takeovers panel.
In short, these players want to sell, not right now but in a fortnight, when they've sucked the last few million out of this whole tawdry affair.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Galleyslag
Just like the liberal government through workchoices made legisaltion to support their mates in big business make a bigger$$$ at the expense of working Australians.
Now as an unskilled worker I must ask, why is this allowed to happen?
Now as an unskilled worker I must ask, why is this allowed to happen?
Anyone checked out The Australian aviation section on-line. 3 or 4 articles saying the QF Board are in a world of hurt.
Last edited by Pass-A-Frozo; 5th May 2007 at 03:11.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 57
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
paf
I'll tell you what it's got to do with it mate.The same gov who brought in the IR laws and looks like it supports corporate OZ is the same gov who sets up a panel who's president works for the Mac bank and who might give the deal a 2 week extension when the deadline had already passed.
If this deal is OK'd then it's a bit like the contraceptive the morning after pill.
AFTER the act they still want everything their own way...
the bottom line is that they missed the deadline that everyone had known about for about 4 months.they even reckon they were on the phone with this us group and they still didn't make the deadline.
first they couldn't get the 90% then they try for 70% then they don't get 50% by the cut off time and now they try to change the rules after the full time blower has sounded....
I'll tell you what it's got to do with it mate.The same gov who brought in the IR laws and looks like it supports corporate OZ is the same gov who sets up a panel who's president works for the Mac bank and who might give the deal a 2 week extension when the deadline had already passed.
If this deal is OK'd then it's a bit like the contraceptive the morning after pill.
AFTER the act they still want everything their own way...
the bottom line is that they missed the deadline that everyone had known about for about 4 months.they even reckon they were on the phone with this us group and they still didn't make the deadline.
first they couldn't get the 90% then they try for 70% then they don't get 50% by the cut off time and now they try to change the rules after the full time blower has sounded....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genuine question. Can someone explain to me what the hedge funds' strategy is at this stage?
How would they make more money by not accepting yesterday and then accepting within the next 2 weeks? They've already bought their holdings at a certain price, and the $5.45 offer from APA is fixed by law for the next 2 weeks, so what difference does it make when they accept? Unless they believe the share price will be higher than $5.45 in the next 2 weeks and they sell on market, which most would have to think would be highly unlikely.
DA, I can see what you're saying if for instance if APA get 70.0001%, the bid goes unconditional and then the hedge funds can squeeze APA for all they're worth. But when the price is fixed at $5.45 until that time, I just don't quite get what their motives might be.
Cheers
How would they make more money by not accepting yesterday and then accepting within the next 2 weeks? They've already bought their holdings at a certain price, and the $5.45 offer from APA is fixed by law for the next 2 weeks, so what difference does it make when they accept? Unless they believe the share price will be higher than $5.45 in the next 2 weeks and they sell on market, which most would have to think would be highly unlikely.
DA, I can see what you're saying if for instance if APA get 70.0001%, the bid goes unconditional and then the hedge funds can squeeze APA for all they're worth. But when the price is fixed at $5.45 until that time, I just don't quite get what their motives might be.
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Direct Anywhere:
Exactly. They were all sitting around in a daisy chain waiting for the other guys to sell and push it over 50%, so that they could spend the next fortnight arbitraging a few cents per share. And they blew it (or at least it looks like they might have.)
The other thing I did wonder is whether the hedge fund that apparently scuttled the deal had shorted a whole lot of the stock in the expectation that the price would drop when they reneged on their offer? Volumes were through the roof on Wednesday, so that is a possibility.
Margaret Jackson was correct in at least one thing - the QANTAS share register is now dominated by people (ie foreign hedge funds) who have no interest whatsoever in the long term viability of the airline. Assuming the bid IS dead, and the hedgies dump their holdings and take the loss, who will emerge as the new major stakeholder? Would any cashed up foreign airlines be interested in taking a new stake?
SW
PS: 'holic - just saw your post. An arbitrage strategy is about exploiting two different prices for the same thing (in this case the QANTAS shares). You are right, the APA offer price is fixed at $5.45 - but the shares are still trading heavily on-market at a discount to that price (last trade was $5.38). In simplified terms, if you buy the share on the market yesterday morning at $5.38, you can accept an offer of $5.45 from APA that afternoon. Take out brokerage and on-costs and you can make a couple of cents per share. If you buy and sell enough shares often enough, you can make plenty of money.
If the market expects the takeover to succeed, theory says that you would expect the market price to move towards the offer price to remove the arbitrage opportunity (because all other things being equal, the underlying asset should not have two different prices). In this case, there was sufficuent downside risk perceived (ie people thought the bid would fail with subsequent drop in trading price) to keep the arbitrage in play. The hedge funds want to continue their trading for another two weeks, making a cent or two a time. That's the idea, anyway - but they may well have been too smart for their own good by holding out too long. Let's hope so anyway.
cheers,
SW
What these figures really mean was that as of last night the hedge funds thought they could make more money over the next fortnight by playing the arbitrage game with their 36% vs. the additional 20% that they thought APA woudl need.
The plan by the hedge funds was for the deal to get just over 50% acceptance last night (50.001% ideally) as this would give them the greatest amount of latitude to pressure the market over the next two weeks and make a few more million.
The plan by the hedge funds was for the deal to get just over 50% acceptance last night (50.001% ideally) as this would give them the greatest amount of latitude to pressure the market over the next two weeks and make a few more million.
The other thing I did wonder is whether the hedge fund that apparently scuttled the deal had shorted a whole lot of the stock in the expectation that the price would drop when they reneged on their offer? Volumes were through the roof on Wednesday, so that is a possibility.
Margaret Jackson was correct in at least one thing - the QANTAS share register is now dominated by people (ie foreign hedge funds) who have no interest whatsoever in the long term viability of the airline. Assuming the bid IS dead, and the hedgies dump their holdings and take the loss, who will emerge as the new major stakeholder? Would any cashed up foreign airlines be interested in taking a new stake?
SW
PS: 'holic - just saw your post. An arbitrage strategy is about exploiting two different prices for the same thing (in this case the QANTAS shares). You are right, the APA offer price is fixed at $5.45 - but the shares are still trading heavily on-market at a discount to that price (last trade was $5.38). In simplified terms, if you buy the share on the market yesterday morning at $5.38, you can accept an offer of $5.45 from APA that afternoon. Take out brokerage and on-costs and you can make a couple of cents per share. If you buy and sell enough shares often enough, you can make plenty of money.
If the market expects the takeover to succeed, theory says that you would expect the market price to move towards the offer price to remove the arbitrage opportunity (because all other things being equal, the underlying asset should not have two different prices). In this case, there was sufficuent downside risk perceived (ie people thought the bid would fail with subsequent drop in trading price) to keep the arbitrage in play. The hedge funds want to continue their trading for another two weeks, making a cent or two a time. That's the idea, anyway - but they may well have been too smart for their own good by holding out too long. Let's hope so anyway.
cheers,
SW
Last edited by Swingwing; 5th May 2007 at 03:39.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Mac Bank Chairman will not be sitting on the panel which makes the decision
When a matter is referred to the Panel, the Panel must consider whether it will commence proceedings in relation to the matter. If it does, the substantive President of the Panel appoints three members to be the "sitting Panel'. If the substantive President is on any particular sitting Panel then he or she will be the sitting President. The substantive President and the selected Panel members must ensure that the selected Panel members do not have any material conflicts or biases.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DirectAnywhere,
Yes, I've been thinking pretty much the same thing over the last week, wrt the hedge funds playing the game into the last fortnight. And you may well be right - maybe somewhere along the line someone DID f#$k up.
But I'm not so sure this morning.
Maybe the funds really do want to hold onto the stock for more than another two weeks. It depends on what price they bought at, afterall. If they bought at 5.38 (and someone was buying at 5.38 last week), then selling to APA in two weeks for 5.45 is an ok profit. But vs longer term profit potential? Maybe the hedge funds all want to be part of the 30% minority alongside APA - to share in 30% of the capital (~$4.0 Bil) that APA plans to suck out of the balance sheet? But with retail 7% and UBS/BEM 11%, there's only scope for the hedgies to make up 12%. If they're sitting at 36% then some will have to miss out on the great train robbery (capital extraction) for the train robbery to proceed!
So the hedgies may well be thinking stay in the stock for the next 12 months.
Mate - who REALLY knows? This thing changes by the minute and none of us truly knows the details.
It's fascinating story of corporate intrigue, putting aside for a moment it's my livelihood they're kicking around like a friggin footy.
Yes, I've been thinking pretty much the same thing over the last week, wrt the hedge funds playing the game into the last fortnight. And you may well be right - maybe somewhere along the line someone DID f#$k up.
But I'm not so sure this morning.
Maybe the funds really do want to hold onto the stock for more than another two weeks. It depends on what price they bought at, afterall. If they bought at 5.38 (and someone was buying at 5.38 last week), then selling to APA in two weeks for 5.45 is an ok profit. But vs longer term profit potential? Maybe the hedge funds all want to be part of the 30% minority alongside APA - to share in 30% of the capital (~$4.0 Bil) that APA plans to suck out of the balance sheet? But with retail 7% and UBS/BEM 11%, there's only scope for the hedgies to make up 12%. If they're sitting at 36% then some will have to miss out on the great train robbery (capital extraction) for the train robbery to proceed!
So the hedgies may well be thinking stay in the stock for the next 12 months.
Mate - who REALLY knows? This thing changes by the minute and none of us truly knows the details.
It's fascinating story of corporate intrigue, putting aside for a moment it's my livelihood they're kicking around like a friggin footy.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 57
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
paf mate call me a cynic but let me get this straight.
The president of the take over panel works for one of the groups that is trying to takeover QF.
He is going to select who sits on the panel to decide if the takeover deal is extended and he is going to make sure that no one on the panel is influenced in any way.
The gov who gave approval for this takeover is the same gov who appoints the people on this panel in the first place as well..
Yup I don't see any problems with this at all...everything is above board
League Grand Final game ...match is to be decided on penalty goal shot.player misses but then club appeals to have the posts moved so that the shot was in....NO probs...
The president of the take over panel works for one of the groups that is trying to takeover QF.
He is going to select who sits on the panel to decide if the takeover deal is extended and he is going to make sure that no one on the panel is influenced in any way.
The gov who gave approval for this takeover is the same gov who appoints the people on this panel in the first place as well..
Yup I don't see any problems with this at all...everything is above board
League Grand Final game ...match is to be decided on penalty goal shot.player misses but then club appeals to have the posts moved so that the shot was in....NO probs...
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Money talks & bull**** walks.
Investors were holding out for more money per share.
They obviously believe that Pseudo monopolies are worth more than what was on on offer.
Simple equation: You go low - we go high - until we get the right amount.
Stand by for the summer offensive.
Investors were holding out for more money per share.
They obviously believe that Pseudo monopolies are worth more than what was on on offer.
Simple equation: You go low - we go high - until we get the right amount.
Stand by for the summer offensive.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ozmate
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They were all trying to be a bit TOO clever I reckon (i.e. 50.1%)
But they outsmarted themselves by the look of it.
Let's hope so anyway. The longer this lasts the worse the smell gets!
But they outsmarted themselves by the look of it.
Let's hope so anyway. The longer this lasts the worse the smell gets!
The Elephant
