15225 replies to this topic

[DayTraderDad]

Has anyone got a view on the H1-2019 Operating profit?

my estimate is E261 mil profit or E0.06 / share (excluding once off items)!!

[Captainfrom82]

Uep...wiese is going to have a long sing and dance...

Interesting snh move against jooste and le grange. They have decided to divide their attack trategy into bite size chunks. If they accnot prive this case than all other subsequent cases will also be weak. Proving this will allow them to go after recompense for the 8b wiped off.

When will snh lodge papers against deloutee and others implicated. We need to start seeing some agression. This poor market communication into the atrategy going forward will be a major issue at the agm. Shareholders would ceryainly be asking question..answers will add life to share price...and ducking will drop the share price further

Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

 

Presumably you are stating Euros 8b. 

 

But the loss was a lot higher.  There was almost E15b in impairments of Assets along with Goodwill and Intangibles.  Then there was the overstated E6.5b earnings.

 

The recompense should be in the order of the sum of all damages claimed against Steinhoff - at a minimum E12.5b if not closer to E20b

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[Investment novice]

Snh will have to expose jooste and legrange and others in their personal and professional capacity to be able to tap some malpractice insurance including director liabilities

The big payers will be the auditors and their malpractice insurance including any other banks, and all related third parties involved in any of the transactions.




Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

[Captainfrom82]

Thank you Captain great post!!!

Now for the next interesting story:

EXCLUSIVE: Pay back the money: Steinhoff demands R870m from Markus Jooste

https://www.business...-markus-jooste/

Haha looks like the accountant that could only read spreadsheets is also in the pay back the money club!!!

Highlights:

"In an unprecedented move it is claiming R870m from former CEO Markus Jooste and an additional R272m from former CFO Ben la Grange for "unjustified enrichment".

On top of those hefty bills the furniture retailer is demanding interest and legal costs from the two former executives."

 

 

I wonder what is Steinhoff's strategy here? 

 

Has anyone got a copy of the Court documents?  This appears to be a criminal matter which explains why Steinhoff are limiting their claim to R1.142b  -  being their outlay to these two former directors?  A claim for damages in a Civil Court will follow.

 

 

This was not just criminal negligence.  This was a well planned and executed overt fraud.  Surely they need to pierce the corporate veil and go after both guys in their personal capacities for the full damages that Steinhoff has suffered (around R200b)?   Every single asset that Jooste has including his interest in Mayfair, every single property acquired and in his name, all assets that are in other owner's names but acquired through ill gotten gains should be attached via an asset forfeiture order.

 

 

 

Best Regards

 

Captainfrom82

[DayTraderDad]

Thank you Captain great post!!!

Now for the next interesting story:

EXCLUSIVE: Pay back the money: Steinhoff demands R870m from Markus Jooste

https://www.business...-markus-jooste/

Haha looks like the accountant that could only read spreadsheets is also in the pay back the money club!!!

Highlights:

"In an unprecedented move it is claiming R870m from former CEO Markus Jooste and an additional R272m from former CFO Ben la Grange for "unjustified enrichment".

On top of those hefty bills the furniture retailer is demanding interest and legal costs from the two former executives."

"Steinhoff is not just going after the incentives and bonuses paid to Jooste and La Grange. In a totally unexpected move, it is also going for their base salaries. The claim against Jooste dates from 2009 to 2015 and against La Grange from 2015 to early 2018"

[Investment novice]

Uep...wiese is going to have a long sing and dance...

Interesting snh move against jooste and le grange. They have decided to divide their attack trategy into bite size chunks. If they accnot prive this case than all other subsequent cases will also be weak. Proving this will allow them to go after recompense for the 8b wiped off.

When will snh lodge papers against deloutee and others implicated. We need to start seeing some agression. This poor market communication into the atrategy going forward will be a major issue at the agm. Shareholders would ceryainly be asking question..answers will add life to share price...and ducking will drop the share price further

Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

[DayTraderDad]

Dr Wiese's interview is quite interesting and revealing of his legal strategy.   
 
 
By way of introduction, something must be made clear.  In terms of their rights and protection against a company being liquidated or dissolved, Ordinary shareholders acquire their position in a company on risk.  They have no legal right to any value until all the secured or preferred creditors have been settled.  These secured or preferred creditors would include The Business Administrator/Liquidator fees (and cost of the admin),  the various Tax Authorities, Financial Creditors like banks or Bondholders, Trade Creditors and even Preference Shareholders.   Whatever is left of the assets owned by the business after all these claims have been settled may be divided among the ordinary shareholders.  This is why ordinary shareholders are referred to as residual holders or owners of a company.
 
(Preference shareholders are a different type of shareholder in the sense that although they provide capital in the accounting sense, their position is more akin to a bondholder.  To some degree their shareholding enjoys some preferred position if a company winds up - hence the name Preferred Shareholder.  Importantly, Dr Wiese's holding in Steinhoff was not based on a preference share holding). 
 
 
From the interview it is clear that Dr Wiese believes that the position of his Group’s relationship with Steinhoff is that of a creditor.  Or he wants to this position to change from being viewed as "a shareholder" to wanting to be viewed as "a creditor".  
 
 
If upheld by the Courts, this makes a fundamental difference to his claim against Steinhoff.  If he is a creditor he is treated in the preferential capacity detailed above.  If he is an ordinary shareholder on the other hand, he is no different to any of the other ordinary shareholders who are the residual holders of interest or value in Steinhoff.   It explains why he is demanding to sit at the table in all discussions. 
 
 
From my understanding (this is my opinion), Wiese and his companies are ordinary shareholders and not creditors.  I say this because Wiese did not provide credit to Steinhoff.  Rather, he provided capital.  There is a world of difference between the two.
 
By my understanding Wiese’s company Titan Premier Investment did not provide credit to Steinhoff, because the received ordinary shares in return.  In other words, they bought shares in the company rather than providing capital through credit. 
 
If this capital was put to use judiciously and productively, Wiese and his companies would have been rewarded along with all other ordinary shareholders.  This is a vitally important point.  Wiese took the risk on the assumption of being rewarded.  You cannot demand to be compensated after the risk materialises.
 
To place this into context,  whereas a creditor’s claims are limited to the value of their  financial outlay to Steinhoff, ordinary shareholders’ claims are are not limited to their initial outlay.  It is limited only by whatever the residual value of the company is.  If for example, in the hypothetical example Steinhoff suddenly was bought out by Berkshire or Apple for E200b, the current creditors would get their E10.4b settled.  They would not be able to claim more than this.  The remaining E189.6b (being E200b less E10.4b) would be shared among the ordinary shareholders of the company.  As a 6% holder Wiese would get 6% of the E189.6b =  E11.4b (significantly more than his outlay).
 
The point is that since the ordinary shares of Steinhoff rank pari pasu, Wiese has no greater right to any part of the Steinhoff business than any other ordinary shareholders.  You cannot have your cake and eat it!  Wiese cannot have all the benefits of unlimited upside like an ordinary shareholder, yet get the protection of a creditor. Company law does not work this way despite what Wiese wants.
 
There is a subtle difference though - Wiese is going to claim is that he was defrauded by MJ/Steinhoff.  Had he all the facts of the significantly lower earnings and asset base, he may very likely have not agreed to the transaction.  And therein is the rub.  Was the transaction between Wiese and Steinhoff a merger or acquisition or sale?  Why did Wiese not demand to be compensated with cash or in any other format?  Why did he choose to be reimbursed in ordinary shares in Steinhoff?
 
 
The answer for me is very clear.  He saw all that upside potential of being an ordinary shareholder of Steinhoff, and he wanted to be part of that!  As a result, his claim is no different to any other shareholder.  Of course, his matter is further clouded by the fact that he was actually the Chairman of the Group during the fraud.  I accept of course the point that he had no knowledge of the fraud.  But why should that given him a preferred creditor status?
 
 
It is a fascinating legal matter and one that I am certain will be precedent setting one way or the other in the Courts decision (if it gets that far).  As far as I am concerned Wiese's claims are tenuous at best, and will be thrown out.  There are a number of legal precedents in this regard that Steinhoff will be able to rely on.
 
 
One last point is worth making.  All the vendor litigant shareholders would theoretically be in the same position as Wiese.  It would be in Steinhoff's interest not to settle prematurely with any of them to avoid creating a bad precedent or a false sense of liability.  
 
 
Best Regards
Captainfrom82

To add to that my understanding part of CW claims are also for buying shares from SNH to raise money to buy the near bankrupt MF.
What is shocking there is if the new media is correct the purchase was based on a 3 day due diligence and not declaring onerous rentals
off the books so how can now he claim money back because he was the ultimate person with the final say on the investment which I believe
single handed destroyed huge value of Steinhoff because the full purchase was impaired a couple of years later!!!

[DayTraderDad]

Thank you Captain great post!!!

Now for the next interesting story:

EXCLUSIVE: Pay back the money: Steinhoff demands R870m from Markus Jooste

https://www.business...-markus-jooste/

Haha looks like the accountant that could only read spreadsheets is also in the pay back the money club!!!

Highlights:

"In an unprecedented move it is claiming R870m from former CEO Markus Jooste and an additional R272m from former CFO Ben la Grange for "unjustified enrichment".

On top of those hefty bills the furniture retailer is demanding interest and legal costs from the two former executives."

[DayTraderDad]

Looks like the bottom is in...any thoughts....thinking of adding more

Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

I was waiting for the R1.20 but looks like not getting there so I have started buying this morning just in case it decides to run up!!!

[Captainfrom82]

Some nice statements from cw around the snh future...realises that he wil get zero with liquadation and the only way forward will be to sit around the table.

 

Very interesting so way forward only option is all claimants to sit down and let company grow!!!

Dr Wiese's interview is quite interesting and revealing of his legal strategy.   

 

 

By way of introduction, something must be made clear.  In terms of their rights and protection against a company being liquidated or dissolved, Ordinary shareholders acquire their position in a company on risk.  They have no legal right to any value until all the secured or preferred creditors have been settled.  These secured or preferred creditors would include The Business Administrator/Liquidator fees (and cost of the admin),  the various Tax Authorities, Financial Creditors like banks or Bondholders, Trade Creditors and even Preference Shareholders.   Whatever is left of the assets owned by the business after all these claims have been settled may be divided among the ordinary shareholders.  This is why ordinary shareholders are referred to as residual holders or owners of a company.

 

(Preference shareholders are a different type of shareholder in the sense that although they provide capital in the accounting sense, their position is more akin to a bondholder.  To some degree their shareholding enjoys some preferred position if a company winds up - hence the name Preferred Shareholder.  Importantly, Dr Wiese's holding in Steinhoff was not based on a preference share holding). 

 

 

From the interview it is clear that Dr Wiese believes that the position of his Group’s relationship with Steinhoff is that of a creditor.  Or he wants to this position to change from being viewed as "a shareholder" to wanting to be viewed as "a creditor".  

 

 

If upheld by the Courts, this makes a fundamental difference to his claim against Steinhoff.  If he is a creditor he is treated in the preferential capacity detailed above.  If he is an ordinary shareholder on the other hand, he is no different to any of the other ordinary shareholders who are the residual holders of interest or value in Steinhoff.   It explains why he is demanding to sit at the table in all discussions. 

 

 

From my understanding (this is my opinion), Wiese and his companies are ordinary shareholders and not creditors.  I say this because Wiese did not provide credit to Steinhoff.  Rather, he provided capital.  There is a world of difference between the two.

 

By my understanding Wiese’s company Titan Premier Investment did not provide credit to Steinhoff, because the received ordinary shares in return.  In other words, they bought shares in the company rather than providing capital through credit. 

 

If this capital was put to use judiciously and productively, Wiese and his companies would have been rewarded along with all other ordinary shareholders.  This is a vitally important point.  Wiese took the risk on the assumption of being rewarded.  You cannot demand to be compensated after the risk materialises.

 

To place this into context,  whereas a creditor’s claims are limited to the value of their  financial outlay to Steinhoff, ordinary shareholders’ claims are are not limited to their initial outlay.  It is limited only by whatever the residual value of the company is.  If for example, in the hypothetical example Steinhoff suddenly was bought out by Berkshire or Apple for E200b, the current creditors would get their E10.4b settled.  They would not be able to claim more than this.  The remaining E189.6b (being E200b less E10.4b) would be shared among the ordinary shareholders of the company.  As a 6% holder Wiese would get 6% of the E189.6b =  E11.4b (significantly more than his outlay).

 

The point is that since the ordinary shares of Steinhoff rank pari pasu, Wiese has no greater right to any part of the Steinhoff business than any other ordinary shareholders.  You cannot have your cake and eat it!  Wiese cannot have all the benefits of unlimited upside like an ordinary shareholder, yet get the protection of a creditor. Company law does not work this way despite what Wiese wants.

 

There is a subtle difference though - Wiese is going to claim is that he was defrauded by MJ/Steinhoff.  Had he all the facts of the significantly lower earnings and asset base, he may very likely have not agreed to the transaction.  And therein is the rub.  Was the transaction between Wiese and Steinhoff a merger or acquisition or sale?  Why did Wiese not demand to be compensated with cash or in any other format?  Why did he choose to be reimbursed in ordinary shares in Steinhoff?

 

 

The answer for me is very clear.  He saw all that upside potential of being an ordinary shareholder of Steinhoff, and he wanted to be part of that!  As a result, his claim is no different to any other shareholder.  Of course, his matter is further clouded by the fact that he was actually the Chairman of the Group during the fraud.  I accept of course the point that he had no knowledge of the fraud.  But why should that given him a preferred creditor status?

 

 

It is a fascinating legal matter and one that I am certain will be precedent setting one way or the other in the Courts decision (if it gets that far).  As far as I am concerned Wiese's claims are tenuous at best, and will be thrown out.  There are a number of legal precedents in this regard that Steinhoff will be able to rely on.

 

 

One last point is worth making.  All the vendor litigant shareholders would theoretically be in the same position as Wiese.  It would be in Steinhoff's interest not to settle prematurely with any of them to avoid creating a bad precedent or a false sense of liability.  

 

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[Investment novice]

Looks like the bottom is in...any thoughts....thinking of adding more

Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

[Milo]

https://www.houstonc...ws-14020595.php

 

Mattress firm starting to look good also

 

Tempur Sealy this week said it reached an agreement with Mattress Firm to sell lucrative Tempur-Pedic, Stearns & Foster and Sealy-branded mattresses through the Houston-based retailer. The products will start appearing in Mattress Firm’s 2,500 stores nationally in the fourth quarter, the Kentucky mattress manufacturer said.

 

 

“We believe this new agreement represents a significant opportunity for both companies,” Tempur Sealy Chief Executive Scott Thompson told analysts in a conference call Wednesday. “It was designed to be a win-win deal for the long term.

 

Mattress Firm on Thursday said it was excited to offer Tempur Sealy products in its stores.

 

"We are energized by the announcement and look forward to a successful partnership," Mattress Firm Chief Executive John Eck said in a statement.

Analysts and industry observers welcomed the remarriage between the nation’s largest mattress retailer and one of the country’s biggest manufacturers. 

Mattress Firm represented 21 percent of Tempur Sealy’s global sales in 2016, and it has historically sold more than $650 million worth of Tempur Sealy mattresses each year.

Change of fortune

The renewed relationship is a stunning turnabout from the companies’ acrimonious divorce, which had the two bedding heavyweights quarreling in court over accusations of breach of contract and trademark infringementover Mattress Firm’s Therapedic line of memory foam mattresses.

 

[Milo]

Very interesting so way forward only option is all claimants to sit down and let company grow!!!

Dollar General in USA is the same kind of stores as Poundland and PEPCO. If you look at the share price graph of Dollar General you will see the upward growth continuously going up. I think the same will happen with Pepkor Europe. The stores are always busy. You get what you need quickly and hassle-free at low prices. Christo Wiese mentioned there are good businesses in Steinhoff.

[DayTraderDad]

Some nice statements from cw around the snh future...realises that he wil get zero with liquadation and the only way forward will be to sit around the table.





Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

Very interesting so way forward only option is all claimants to sit down and let company grow!!!

[Investment novice]

Some nice statements from cw around the snh future...realises that he wil get zero with liquadation and the only way forward will be to sit around the table.





Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

[DayTraderDad]

Hahaha imagine, I'll bring the brandy and coke and Jägermeister haha.

Andi we laughing about it but imagine H1-2019 will not have the MF loss of -133 which was the losss MF made in H1-2018, which is with 3 cts/share (about)

[andi222]

Haha imagine if a trading statement came out saying increase in earning more then 20%!!!! I would drink 2 cases of green beer!!!

 

Hahaha imagine, I'll bring the brandy and coke and Jägermeister haha.

[DayTraderDad]

As we are back to the normal cycle of issuing reports at Steinhoff, do you guys know if Steinhoff needs to issue a trading statement?

Haha imagine if a trading statement came out saying increase in earning more then 20%!!!! I would drink 2 cases of green beer!!!

[DayTraderDad]

Having said that, I recall reading somewhere about a date in Dec 2018.  Anyone got a source?

STEINHOFF INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LTD - UPDATE ON CONFORAMA REFINANCING
15 April 2019 11:00
SNH SHFF 201904150018A
Update On Conforama Refinancing

Steinhoff International Holdings N.V.
(Incorporated in the Netherlands)
(Registration number: 63570173)
Share Code: SNH
ISIN: NL0011375019

Steinhoff Investment Holdings Limited
(Incorporated in the Republic of South Africa)
(Registration number: 1954/001893/06)
JSE Code: SHFF
ISIN: ZAE000068367

UPDATE ON CONFORAMA REFINANCING

Steinhoff International Holdings N.V. (the "Company" or "Steinhoff") and with its
subsidiaries, the "Group")

With regards to the Conforama refinancing negotiations, as reported on 11 April
2019, the company wants to highlight the following key terms in terms of the new
money financing (as part of financing materials which has been updated on the
Company's website):

"Warrants: Issue of warrants in an amount equal to 49.9% of the issued share capital
of Conforama Holding SA to the New Money providers, which confer enhanced
governance rights by way of certain reserved matters and provide the right for New
Money providers to appoint two independent directors to the board of Conforama
Holding. The warrant issuance date is subject to certain milestones, but ultimately
31 December 2019 or in event of a sale before that date

Premium Amount: Call protection of 10 per cent. on any repayments or
prepayments for the first 3 years together with interest which may accrue up to the
end of year 2. Call protection of 5 per cent. shall apply from year 3 onwards. Call
protection shall be 6 per cent. with respect to any disposal of the Iberian business
initiated at the request of the majority New Money providers"

The Company will provide further updates as appropriate.

Shareholders and other investors in the Company are advised to exercise caution
when dealing in the securities of the Group.

JSE Sponsor: PSG Capital
Stellenbosch, 15 April 2019

[andi222]

As we are back to the normal cycle of issuing reports at Steinhoff, do you guys know if Steinhoff needs to issue a trading statement?