15225 replies to this topic

[Investment novice]

We will soon see the other funds start to take an interest. We also going to see new traders joining in once they get comfort. I suspect we will see trpple digit moves on this share in time....

Thanks for the updates.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

[andi222]

Vanguard has purchased a substantial portion of shares last month. They are now holding over 3.64%. I'm expecting an AFM entry soon.

 

https://www.mornings...r/snh/ownership

[Zanme]

Yes definitely

[Investment novice]

Before the AGM, we should spread the word widely...... Management incentives should include snh shares.... This will align share values, and help increase price.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

[DayTraderDad]

I wonder if the depressed Pepkor share price has something to do with Wiese's legal claim.

 

I mean Wiese said Steinhoff gave him worthless Steinhoff shares. I mean currently Pepkors share are not even close to what Steinhoff has paid for Pepkor SA. Steinhoff has paid 5.7 billion $. 

Wieses share was 52% back then which would be 3 Billion $.

 

Currently Pepkor SA has a market cap of 2.2 Billion $.  So Wiese's 52% shareholding would sit at 1.144 Billion $.

 

Could the depressed share price of Pepkor be part of the Steinhoff's management plan to settle the legal claims?

 

If we look at what happend at a Pepkor level:

- Impairment of 1.2 billion Rands on the building business - That business is still profitable so again write down was a grey area in my view. - This had a negative impact on Share price

- Publication of Debt programme of up to 10 Billion Rands - This had a negative impact on Share price

- Launch of an accelerated bookbuild - This had a negative impact on Share price

 

What do you guys think? Can this be part of the plan to get rid of the legal claims as cheap as possible?

Well spoted Andi. This again proves that the courts will not look favourable at the lightining bolts of the blue.  Peter Wakkie was the guy that sorted the AHOLD claim just like Steinhoff. So miles of experience what no one seems to notice Steinhoff has a good management which is sailing the ship out of trouble slowly but surely.

 

I am looking forward the day they put Wiese on the stand together with Jooster there will be very interesting outcomes.

 

Going by what Janie Mouton said on a interview after buying KWV he saw Whitey Bason that said "Janie when are you going to learn you dont buy bargains from Wiese". That to me implies that at that time SNH never bought a bargain so bring on the court case.

 

According to AFM Wiese has now zero holding in Europe and I wonder why? The lawyers of VEB already say his case will not work in Europe because he was a director at the time he sold Pepkor to SNH and Chairman when it fell apart. So good luck in court.

 

The end result SNH Management will end up suing all old directors to recover all moneys they have to pay to settle the claims.

 

Anyway just my thought but my seat belt is fast.

[Zanme]

I know i might sound negative but i am very skeptical of managements intent. I recently lost on Intu as well and am told that even though their nav was last reported at 1.9 billion GBP shareholders will come out with nothing. Management nowadays are just there to make quick money and move on.

[andi222]

I wonder if the depressed Pepkor share price has something to do with Wiese's legal claim.

 

I mean Wiese said Steinhoff gave him worthless Steinhoff shares. I mean currently Pepkors share are not even close to what Steinhoff has paid for Pepkor SA. Steinhoff has paid 5.7 billion $. 

Wieses share was 52% back then which would be 3 Billion $.

 

Currently Pepkor SA has a market cap of 2.2 Billion $.  So Wiese's 52% shareholding would sit at 1.144 Billion $.

 

Could the depressed share price of Pepkor be part of the Steinhoff's management plan to settle the legal claims?

 

If we look at what happend at a Pepkor level:

- Impairment of 1.2 billion Rands on the building business - That business is still profitable so again write down was a grey area in my view. - This had a negative impact on Share price

- Publication of Debt programme of up to 10 Billion Rands - This had a negative impact on Share price

- Launch of an accelerated bookbuild - This had a negative impact on Share price

 

What do you guys think? Can this be part of the plan to get rid of the legal claims as cheap as possible?

 

[andi222]

Hi Andi the individual investors buy and sell and take profits.
Emotion is a massive issue. But I suspect that may very well be the source of a significant increase in value. As soon as some positive guidance is provided.

2022` or potentially some gains this month.... But yes 2022 for a massive value recovery.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

 

Yeah I think we will see a nice break out soon. Definitely before the HJ 2020 numbers that will be released end of this month. Also, I hope we will get an update on the litigation's very soon. 

[Investment novice]

Hi Andi the individual investors buy and sell and take profits.
Emotion is a massive issue. But I suspect that may very well be the source of a significant increase in value. As soon as some positive guidance is provided.

2022` or potentially some gains this month.... But yes 2022 for a massive value recovery.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

[DayTraderDad]

Thank you for that list Everlearning and the article Tom. 

 

So its seems like it was a forced sale. Would have surprised me if it wasn't. 

One can see from the list that there are numerous small individual shareholders in SA and I think we have thousands of small investors in Europe.

The only bigger investor left is PIC. None of the remaining institutions hold more then 5%. This wide investor base is no good as I can guarantee you the major part of these individual shareholders act out of emotion and not according to fundamentals. We thus see the share price depressed. 

 

So why are big institutions not buying up share if there is still value in the company? 

Easy answer: They are not allowed to gamble with the clients money. Most of the big institutions have strict rules for an investment. 

- The litigation's against the company are very uncertain- Hopefully these will be solved soon. 

- The audit opinion. Before any big investor would jump into Steinhoff they need a clean audit opinion. Here again I think the litigation's are the biggest concern for a clean audit opinion due to the going concern issue.

- Refinance the loans at reasonable terms.

 

Once all these points are sorted and Steinhoff did survive you will see big investors sucking up all those share on the market and the price will rise accordingly. So again for now its a waiting game and I personally think 2022 will be our/Steinhoff's year.

Hi Andi,

 

The spreadsheet only showing shareholding in SA. CLEARSTREAM BANKING S.A LUXEMBOURG holdings is not showing.

 

AFM shows the shareholding in europe : 

 

https://www.afm.nl/e...le-deelnemingen

Edited by DayTraderDad, 13 July 2020 - 09:12 PM.

[andi222]

Thank you for that list Everlearning and the article Tom. 

 

So its seems like it was a forced sale. Would have surprised me if it wasn't. 

One can see from the list that there are numerous small individual shareholders in SA and I think we have thousands of small investors in Europe.

The only bigger investor left is PIC. None of the remaining institutions hold more then 5%. This wide investor base is no good as I can guarantee you the major part of these individual shareholders act out of emotion and not according to fundamentals. We thus see the share price depressed. 

 

So why are big institutions not buying up share if there is still value in the company? 

Easy answer: They are not allowed to gamble with the clients money. Most of the big institutions have strict rules for an investment. 

- The litigation's against the company are very uncertain- Hopefully these will be solved soon. 

- The audit opinion. Before any big investor would jump into Steinhoff they need a clean audit opinion. Here again I think the litigation's are the biggest concern for a clean audit opinion due to the going concern issue.

- Refinance the loans at reasonable terms.

 

Once all these points are sorted and Steinhoff did survive you will see big investors sucking up all those share on the market and the price will rise accordingly. So again for now its a waiting game and I personally think 2022 will be our/Steinhoff's year.

 

 

[Everlearning]

Thought our group would all find the following of some value.

 

Top 120 Current shareholders make an interesting read.

 

71% of the shares now traded on Frankfurt exchange (up 5%) from Jan 2020

 

In spite of a number of funds exiting Steinhoff, interesting who is stlll holding and that in the last month some major purchases from the likes of Synia, Liberty Life and California Public Employees Retirement Fund.

 

Also, one is able to see how CW's holding moved and to where.

 

Would love to hear your comments Andi and Captain.

Attached Files

•  Steinhoff Shareholding Jan -Jun 2020.xlsx   37.62KB   36 downloads

[Tom]

https://sundayworld....just-two-years/

 

Steinhof paid advisors, auditors and lawyers about quarter billion euros in two years.

Edited by Tom, 13 July 2020 - 11:44 AM.

[Zanme]

But will the amount that they will recover be greater than what they are paying which is at least in excess of a billion Euro

[Tom]

This article on 13 Jul 2020 says:

https://www.moneyweb...y-a-merry-tune/

 

"

Last week it seems Wiese’s bank funders forced him to sell off around a third of his remaining stake in Steinhoff.

.

.

That forced sale took Wiese’s stake to 6% from 20.52%. Last week’s forced sale of another 2.3% of Steinhoff’s shares takes his stake to just under 4%.

"

[Zanme]

But will the amount that they will recover be greater than what they are paying which is at least in excess of a billion Euro

[Tom]

Steinhoff is in the process of suing, and waiting for the Hawks, police and regulators to come to conclusion, and that's why Steinhoff has decided to pay for forensic auditors at PwC to help the South African Hawks, police, regulators and legal authorities.

 

When the state official investigation comes to conclusion, then charges can be laid, and defendants can be identified and summoned, and so their insurance for that period will also be entitled to defend or pay the compensation (mostly insurances accept to pay), so if this capped insurance maximum payable compensation (which is big, but capped) doesn't cover the damage, legal cost and interest rate, then the balance will be claimed from the defendants directly.

 

The shareholders who lost money do have a recourse in South Africa, which is if Steinhoff wins the court cases and gets compensations then the shareholders can benefit from this, as for the previous shareholders their only way is to buy back the shares they sold, because when they sold their shares, they actually sold their rights with it , and so their rights for compensation is vested now with the new owners of the shares (again according to the South African law).

Edited by Tom, 12 July 2020 - 06:24 PM.

[Investment novice]

Company can sue directors and auditors. They have massive malpractice insurance. The company lost value. If the company sues and wins share value returns somewhat. Shareholders that dumped shares not entitled to value erosion as their dumping caused the value erosion.... Exiting shareholders don't have any rights.
Non legal opinion. We as current shareholders can't be liable to those that exited. Should they wish to return would see the price increase again..


Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

[Zanme]

But what this article is saying is that shareholders have no recourse against the company's directors or auditors which is ridiculous meaning that the company has claims against the directors and in turn the shareholders can sue the company. Like in the Tongaat case the company was fined which is a cost to shareholders who effectively have lost the most as a result of the directors wrong behavior but the directors are untouched. So shareholders are paying a penalty and losing money as a result of the drop in the share price. Which is not just at all. Markus Jooste Christo Wiese and all of the directors have to be held liable for the loss to shareholders in their personal capacity. I really struggle to understand why was all that money spent on the PWC investigation and those other consultants. Steinhoff should have just written off all their assets which they did and negotiated with banks which they also did and in the process would have saved around USD 1 billion which is almost three times the current market capitalisation.

[Zanme]

But what this article is saying is that shareholders have no recourse against the company's directors or auditors which is ridiculous meaning that the company has claims against the directors and in turn the shareholders can sue the company. Like in the Tongaat case the company was fined which is a cost to shareholders who effectively have lost the most as a result of the directors wrong behavior but the directors are untouched. So shareholders are paying a penalty and losing money as a result of the drop in the share price. Which is not just at all. Markus Jooste Christo Wiese and all of the directors have to be held liable for the loss to shareholders in their personal capacity. I really struggle to understand why was all that money spent on the PWC investigation and those other consultants. Steinhoff should have just written off all their assets which they did and negotiated with banks which they also did and in the process would have saved around USD 1 billion which is almost three times the current market capitalisation.