Forum Archive Index - August 2002

["Gerald Dreaver" <gdreaver@paradise.net.nz>]

Great. Five-year-old information, different industry. Since then, we've had
quite a bit of experience of CITIC, in relation to the CNIFP - which must
surely be more relevant. I'd be keen to know more about what happened there,
apart from the fact that there were disputes between Fletchers and CITIC
over the management of the forests (I think it may have been over timing of
cutting).

Mr Bourke describes CITIC as being "clear" about their intentions. Does he
think that they have now become obscure, and that their claimed intention to
leave management to the company was fake? Mr Bourke appears unaware of the
Governance agreement which would most likely have prevented CITIC taking
control in the manner he implies.

Of course, now CITIC is talking about buying the forests outright, and
what's to stop them? They no longer have the option of sharing the risk (and
the opportunity) with other Fletchers shareholders. If they do buy the
forests, NZers will lose their leverage over what happens to the trees -
thanks to 5 percent of Fletchers shareholders (over 60 percent of small
shareholders supported the deal, and 70% of shareholders overall). The banks
will be paid off, but probably not Fletchers (in respect of their
debentures). Thanks, Shareholders Association, for your misleading and
irrelevant talk of a 430% increase in debt. Could Fletchers have handled a
50:50 ratio of debt to net tangible assets? Sure they could, like many other
companies.

- Bitter minor shareholder of FFS.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/