Forum Archive Index - February 2001

["Gary Rountree" <gary.rountree@xtra.co.nz>]

Malcolm, I agree entirely with your view regarding the fact that no hedging was put into place. However what makes you think the small shareholders will be better off if the deal is scuttled? If share price history is anything to go by then the price would drop if the deal was off (look what happened with Forests). The price is still around $1 below the theoretical prices, however that uses current exchange rate and assumes Rubicon will be worth the $1.20 Fletchers said it would be. The main thing that should have changed for them would be the unrealised gain they have picked up on the underwriting of FFS.Has anyone else got a view on what it will trade at?

 

• Subject: [sharechat] fletcher challenge breakup & sale
• From: "Malcolm Cameron" <malcolm@cameron.gen.nz>
• Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:26:47 +1000

---

what are small shareholders changes of approving the fletcher challenge
breakup but stopping the sale of fletcher energy. forcing them to make it a
seperate entity too. then it would be  subject to normal takeover offers or
be able to sell assets or buy assets as normal. i think there acceptance of
an offer in us dollars without fixing the exchange rate into new zealand
dollars was very detrimental to new zealand share holders
disclosure i live in australia but approx 99% of shares are nzse shares
because i havenot found a broker in australia as good as access in new
zealand i own shares in all three fletcher challenge divisions.
would appreciate comment from other sharechatters
malcolm cameron