Forum Archive Index - October 2000

[Mike Nelson <bb2345@ihug.co.nz>]

I bought FFS and lots of them. I bought them because I did not question the
NTA as published by Fletchers themselves and as they were about to be sold,
as stated by Fletchers again, I worked on the theory that they would not be
sold for too much under NTA and certainly for no less than $1.

You say a detailed study would have revealed the NTA " is no where close to
the $1.60 commonly mentioned" If that is so then Fletchers can be accussed
of playing with mirrors and my gut feeling is they would have a case to
answer in this PC accountability climate we live in.

I still hold my FFS regrettably having missed the bus on the way down. In
fact I even topped up at .69

Your theory about the best interests of shareholders refers to a telecom
scenario. Is that because, in spite of your rhetoric,  you really would
struggle to defend Dr Deane in the FFS scenario ?

MN 


At 10:24 AM 12-10-00 +1300, you wrote:
>At the risk of pissing some individuals off I'll give my two cents worth.
>First I feel those angry that about the FFS situation should take a step
>back and ask "Why did I buy FFS?".   I think the answer to that question for
>those complaining is having seen what happened to FLP, thought they had the
>opportunity to make a killing and make it fast.  They were bought on the
>greater fool theory as opposed to a detailed study of FFS (which if it had
>occurred would reveal the NTA is no where close to the $1.60 commonly
>mentioned as CNIP is an associate was off balance sheet and hence it's debt
>was hidden, I think?).  Now people seem to be screaming the injustice done
>to them by Rod Dean.  In my opinion he did the right thing, as a long term
>shareholder in a company I would be livid (to the point of going postal) if
>the board made decisions based on the interests of the short term traders
>(who have no actual interest in the company) at the expense of long term
>stake holders.  For instance if Dr Dean came back and said they had sold TEL
>for $9.00 a share I would oppose it despite the fact I would stand to make a
>killing in the short term; long term I have an opinion on what it is worth
>and it isn't $9.00 (this post isn't to debate the merits of that view).  My
>point is if you are not happy to have a small stake in what you buy for the
>foreseeable future, than why would anyone else?  Therefore I think
>individuals are unjustified to complain when no "fool" turned up, and the
>directors (quite rightly) choose at act in the best interests of those who
>have an long term interest in FFS.
>
>Philip Talacek
>
>Disc Don't hold FFS 
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
>http://www.netbroker.co.nz/        Trade on Credit, Low Brokerage. Join now.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
>http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.shtml.
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
http://www.netbroker.co.nz/        Trade on Credit, Low Brokerage. Join now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.shtml.