15225 replies to this topic

[Lionelza1]

 

 

My spies tell me that the former Steinhoff European Operations Head is being cooperative. 

 

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

 

whats your deal?.....what do you do?

 

we should go for drinks yes? i am in jozie

[Lionelza1]

LarryK, posted:

Anyone your thoughts on how realistic this is and how it could be executed?

“If required and immediately following expiry of any necessary process, proceedings will be instituted against the individuals and orders will be sought that, among other things, in the event that any allegations against the Steinhoff Group by third party claimants are sustained, the individuals reimburse or pay a contribution to the Steinhoff Group in an amount equal to the amount which the Steinhoff Group is ordered to pay the third party claimants in any such proceedings or in any further proceedings. In addition, the Group intends to seek recovery of the bonuses paid to certain individuals.”

 

Polly responded:

 

Hi LarryK and Polly,

 

I have my doubts that the main claimant is Wiese or if this is a "Wiese clause" in this regard.  My thinking is that it is actually to provide Steinhoff an insurance cover for ALL third party claimants who are successful - and they are legion,

 

These claimants include GT Ferreira (whose Trusts lost R1.1b) who has a quite a strong claim.  Unlike Wiese, GTF was not involved either an executive or non-executive capacity at Steinhoff.  He also did not acquire his shares like an ordinary shareholder via the open market (JSE).  His stake in Steinhoff is linked to his deal with Jannie Mouton's PSG. .  MJ approached GTF (along with two other large holders) to swop their PSG shares for Steinhoff. Critically GTF agreed to to the benefits that he saw in swopping PSG (domestic to SA), with Steinhoff (global giant).

 

Incidentally, the other two large holders also agreed but took out derivative cover (which you will see appears on the Steinhoff 1H18).  This was an extremely clever move on their part.  That is why they are not also litigants - they did not lose a cent.

 

Braam van Huysteen (Tekkie Town) is another such litigant.  Similar to GTF, his greed also clouded his judgement.  Pre-Steinhoff BVH sold 42.5% of Tekkie Town to Actis ( a private equity company).  When he subsequently sold Tekkie Town to Steinhoff for R3.5b  Actis was paid in cash R1.5b for their stake, whereas BVH chose to receive Steinhoff shares.  In effect BVH chose the Steinhoff risk over the cash alternative.

 

Ultimately, both GTF and BVH would need to answer why they preferred Steinhoff shares over their original assets/cash.  My guess is that they chose the risk of accepting Steinhoff shares because of the potential for an enormous  payoff. 

 

Of course, they now claim that they would not have accepted the Steinhoff shares that MJ had built the case for, if they realised that the emperor had no clothes.  This is the basis of their case, and has the lawyers licking their lips.

 

Regarding the other litigant shareholders, VEB crowd, they will most likely receive a very small part of their losses (far less than 20%, with the lawyers taking over 80% of the settlement value).

 

Regards

Captainfrom82

yo captain harvard.......u seem well educated and have alot of knowledge on snh.......why so confident when  so much is unknown? and surely you cannot look past the noise on this one

 

snh might be undervalued by the market, but the market does have the "final say" and so far for every good that came out of the restructuring phase thus far, the market "pumped" but then the market "dumped"........why? why is this share price not maintained by the market when theres a pump?

[Captainfrom82]

 yea petty cash but the balls on this guy MJ.....yussis

 

imagine all those other fraudulent transactions and how much more mess we do not know about and hopefully do not get to know about

 

Any guesses on who the former executive is who is collaborating with Steinhoff and PwC?

 

Depending on who this is and how senior he was, this has the potential to be a game changer in terms of shifting blame and guilt.

 

My spies tell me that the former Steinhoff European Operations Head is being cooperative. 

 

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[Lionelza1]

that is  petty cash  relation to overall fraud committed

 yea petty cash but the balls on this guy MJ.....yussis

 

imagine all those other fraudulent transactions and how much more mess we do not know about and hopefully do not get to know about

[Captainfrom82]

LarryK, posted:

Anyone your thoughts on how realistic this is and how it could be executed?

“If required and immediately following expiry of any necessary process, proceedings will be instituted against the individuals and orders will be sought that, among other things, in the event that any allegations against the Steinhoff Group by third party claimants are sustained, the individuals reimburse or pay a contribution to the Steinhoff Group in an amount equal to the amount which the Steinhoff Group is ordered to pay the third party claimants in any such proceedings or in any further proceedings. In addition, the Group intends to seek recovery of the bonuses paid to certain individuals.”

 

Polly responded:

again main claimant being Wiese imo  ( other shareholders claiming for loss of value of investment you should not worry about as thier chances are slim)...Who benefited from this  exchange of Wieses jewel pepkor for Steinhoff  rubbish shares... If MJ benefited , snh will go after him...IF Steinhofff benefited , can steinhoff sue steinhoff??  Pretty simple to me...

 

Hi LarryK and Polly,

 

I have my doubts that the main claimant is Wiese or if this is a "Wiese clause" in this regard.  My thinking is that it is actually to provide Steinhoff an insurance cover for ALL third party claimants who are successful - and they are legion,

 

These claimants include GT Ferreira (whose Trusts lost R1.1b) who has a quite a strong claim.  Unlike Wiese, GTF was not involved either an executive or non-executive capacity at Steinhoff.  He also did not acquire his shares like an ordinary shareholder via the open market (JSE).  His stake in Steinhoff is linked to his deal with Jannie Mouton's PSG. .  MJ approached GTF (along with two other large holders) to swop their PSG shares for Steinhoff. Critically GTF agreed to to the benefits that he saw in swopping PSG (domestic to SA), with Steinhoff (global giant).

 

Incidentally, the other two large holders also agreed but took out derivative cover (which you will see appears on the Steinhoff 1H18).  This was an extremely clever move on their part.  That is why they are not also litigants - they did not lose a cent.

 

Braam van Huysteen (Tekkie Town) is another such litigant.  Similar to GTF, his greed also clouded his judgement.  Pre-Steinhoff BVH sold 42.5% of Tekkie Town to Actis ( a private equity company).  When he subsequently sold Tekkie Town to Steinhoff for R3.5b  Actis was paid in cash R1.5b for their stake, whereas BVH chose to receive Steinhoff shares.  In effect BVH chose the Steinhoff risk over the cash alternative.

 

Ultimately, both GTF and BVH would need to answer why they preferred Steinhoff shares over their original assets/cash.  My guess is that they chose the risk of accepting Steinhoff shares because of the potential for an enormous  payoff. 

 

Of course, they now claim that they would not have accepted the Steinhoff shares that MJ had built the case for, if they realised that the emperor had no clothes.  This is the basis of their case, and has the lawyers licking their lips.

 

Regarding the other litigant shareholders, VEB crowd, they will most likely receive a very small part of their losses (far less than 20%, with the lawyers taking over 80% of the settlement value).

 

Regards

Captainfrom82

[Lionelza1]

L i did not check as i dont invest in SNH but did price go up or fall in auction with that volume...

 

IE what was price at 4.50pm and at 5.00 close...10 min is auction

 

 

most share prices fell including heavyweight npn by nearly 1%

yea P sjoe i was going to ask you about this.

 

check my attachments. on that parli process last yr volumes traded ± 40 mil and we saw a up around ±37%

 

last friday volumes huge ±50mil but we saw a drop 5.5%.......

 

plse explain as this one confuses me

Attached Files

•  Screenshot_20190317_145147_com.android.chrome.jpg   98.79KB   3 downloads
•  Screenshot_20180829-160156.jpg   97.84KB   3 downloads

[LarryK]

Hi Polly
Fell from 192c to 184c if I remember correctly. I read on here there was a similar purchase in Germany too

Thanks for the other info.

Captain, thank you for your response too

[Polly]

L i did not check as i dont invest in SNH but did price go up or fall in auction with that volume...

 

IE what was price at 4.50pm and at 5.00 close...10 min is auction

 

 

most share prices fell including heavyweight npn by nearly 1%

[Polly]

Good question on seeking alpha.
Wonder how write offs, leading to tax credits will affect snh? Surely everyone has to agree this is a positive for cash flow?

overall i reckon there will be more taxes , penalties and fines imposed than any actual credits....may run into  millions

[Polly]

Hi Polly,

I wonder how in practice snh will be able to recover bonuses and other losses from the implicated parties. For sure but peanuts in  grand scheme of things
If you look at total loss due to share collapse I doubt the gang will just accept responsibility and pay up. Courts will decide
If any money is recovered from them how will this be applied? Most likely written back to Income

I do however not agree regarding your comment on the share auction. The average the last 6 months were 7 million per day. But to be fair though we regularly had large purchases just before a dump. Go see fridays volumes and value on all shares at auction. Was about 3 times normal ...so not only SNH...I trade the alsi and i know what im talking about...Alsi fell over 100 points after auction with unbelievable volume although US was flying up.

Lastly, your opinion regarding it being a Ponzi scheme.
There’s probably truth in this but if the new leadership can deflect liabilities legally (via pwc report findings for eg) and they restructure the company properly, it could be very successful.
One on the interesting bits I picked up in the pwc info is that circulating and recycling the debt to make the books balance resulted in higher management fees for these companies. If this is cleaned up we could also see better bottom line? Beg to differ here...see my advise to L in my help desk what i think about the company and its management..My opinion

I look forward to your comments

Edited by Polly, 17 March 2019 - 02:59 PM.

[Polly]

https://www.bloomber...impression=true

28 lake Avenue in benoni nogal, bought by a company linked to mj for R4.79mil and sold to steinhoff properties for R33.7 million bucks.... MA se donner

that is  petty cash  relation to overall fraud committed

[Captainfrom82]

https://www.bloomber...impression=true

28 lake Avenue in benoni nogal, bought by a company linked to mj for R4.79mil and sold to steinhoff properties for R33.7 million bucks.... MA se donner

 

Yes Lionelza1,

Sadly this is a blueprint used that MJ used that I have been referring to in my previous posts. 

 

They did the same for the SAFCol transaction for an even bigger profit to MJ.  See my previous post where I pointed out MJ's settlement with the SARS for R207m.  This settlement meant that he had at THAT STAGE made over R500m in Capital Gains  or Income.

 

On the Hemisphere properties he scored alomost 6x in Euros and made over a Euros 1b.

 

The fraud took place over a number of years.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[Captainfrom82]

Good question on seeking alpha.
Wonder how write offs, leading to tax credits will affect snh? Surely everyone has to agree this is a positive for cash flow?

 

Hi LarryK,

 

This question has already been answered in the 1H18 financials. 

 

Theoretically the write offs should result in benefits to the Group.  However, my guess is that the benefits will be wiped out by the Bullet 4 on Page 45 says "liability, including, but not limited to, criminal prosecutions, financial penalties and injunctive action".

 

I would not bother factoring too much of positives from the tax authorities.  In fact, my hunch is that there is likely to be a material contingent  tax liability in thus regard.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[Lionelza1]

Yo captain America.... Do you have social media?

[Lionelza1]

https://www.bloomber...impression=true

28 lake Avenue in benoni nogal, bought by a company linked to mj for R4.79mil and sold to steinhoff properties for R33.7 million bucks.... MA se donner

[Captainfrom82]

much more than the 6.5 billion Euro has been worked into the share price way back. keep up.

 

Hi JK001,

 

While you are absolutely correct at the €6.5b income overstating the profit and created assets, you need to factor in that this was over a period of 9 years.

 

In other words, this €6.5b number is cumulative total.  You need to consider or example that companies share prices are not priced in terms of a cumulative profit over 9 years, but most (almost entirely) use the most recent numbers as the base. 

 

Put another way, every year over those 9 years, the share price was inflated by each year's overstatement.  It would be incorrect and futile to now sum this overstatement up and share prices are not cumulative.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[Captainfrom82]

Yes if I recall in Dec 2017 SNH mentions the Eur 6 mil.

 

No DTD,

 

You guys are mixing up various numbers.  See my post to andi222

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[Captainfrom82]

Apparently only 6 Billion euros will be written off of the 16 Billion euro share capital. That gives us an 2,3 Euro NAV. If this is true this share will fly next week. 

 

Hi andi222,

 

With respect my friend: .

 

1. The total adjustment to equity from the Sept 16 FYE (€m 16 635) to the 1H17 (€m 5 692).

2. While the Share Capital and Share premium is a healthy €m 20 989, the negative reserves result in equity of only €m 3793 (adjusting for NCI).

3. The NAV is €0.58

 

What are you referring to iro the €6b?

 

I am aware that €6b income was overstated as income.  Also, can you clarify your NAV calc.  I believe that you are incorrect.

 

My apologies if it is I who has misunderstood.

 

Best regards

Captainfrom82

[LarryK]

Good question on seeking alpha.
Wonder how write offs, leading to tax credits will affect snh? Surely everyone has to agree this is a positive for cash flow?

[Captainfrom82]

Shame, were you expecting a doomsday scenario. Fortunately what it does say is that a thorough process was undertaken and a phase two is required. Strategic valuable assets did not receive false income... Hence what we see is we got....
Culprits will be targeted and hopefully some recovery. Potentially minimal.
Blame lies with a few....
Need to understand the accounting of this and how it affects the valuation... Or as some say... Junk. Is junk... Or not.
This supports restructuring.
Helps defer blame with evidence....
Await the coming week conversation and seeking alphas report.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

 

Hey DVD,

 

Your analysis is spot one, both regarding Mini-Me as well as the report.

 

The report accurately supports what some on this platform had being arguing:

1. That there was a fraud; and

2. This involved a very small number of people

 

The important bit is that the good businesses were not impacted.  This is particularly important when viewed against the future strategic actions intended for those businesses.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82