|
Printable version |
From: | Greg <g&jelliott@xtra.co.nz> |
Date: | Fri, 28 Sep 2001 21:10:08 +1200 |
From: "michael gore" <michgore@paradise.net.nz>
Reply-To: sharechat@sharechat.co.nz
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 10:10:18 +1200
To: <sharechat@sharechat.co.nz>
Subject: FFS and Re: [sharechat] RBC and AIRNZ
Ok just to clear up a basic point - sharechatters are expecting a jump in value in FFS (even if not necessarily a big one) pretty much as soon as there is a buyer for the CITIC forests. Is that right?????
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: greg <mailto:gregoire@paradise.net.nz>
To: sharechat@sharechat.co.nz
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [sharechat] RBC and AIRNZ
Greg,
FFS is trading at about 57% of NTA (46cps) at the moment whereas RBC is trading at about 62% of NTA (108cps). However, I think RBC are perceived to be more switched on and transparent than FFS. They certainly do what the say, and keep the shareholders well informed.
I emailed FFS a few days ago and asked if they had heard anything from the receiver about the bids for the CNIFP assets. I was told that they hadn't heard anything apart from what was in the media.
As far as the media goes I have seen two reports saying completely different things. One report in the Sunday Star Times (last Sunday) reported good interest with about 6 bids (including possibly a US forestry giant, name escapes me), and with Citic being told its bid was not being considered. The second report in the NZ Herald last weekend said there were only 3 bids with one from Citic.
I'm not too sure what RBC are doing with their biotech assets, but their main play at the moment seems to be the strategic stake in FFS.
I probably haven't helped much. I sold my entire portfolio the day of the terrorist attacks then bought back into FFS at an average of about 25c.
Rgds,
greg
References
|