15225 replies to this topic

[Polly]

and to be honest , i dont think anyone whos been long or buying for longer term in the money yet ...only losses i see for those who got out...

 

obviously things can change once afs and reports come out....

[Polly]

im absolutely  very keen to see the pumpers average buying in here .....

 

Have they got the face to show it???

[Polly]

Row row row your boat, gently DOWN the stream haha and that's not even funny! Some of u ouks r WAY ahead of yourselves with your fictional figures and unrealistic assumptions. Agree to disagree haha just as clueless as this awesome management. In your defence IN u did not know any better, and the fact is we still do not.

And this useless management is telling me to expect AFS 18th April 2019, but I must also expect that not to happen... Like WTF!

I had hope... No more, not the way they doing things.... I'm out cheers... I now play with my BALLS

Polly, Snippy u guys r wrong... Those characters don't dissappear.... They still here.. All they do is they change their alias

 

 

WTF Lionel...You buy high and sell low....wake up

[DayTraderDad]

Moral : there is no moral to this story . It is what we have become following others..

 

 

Do you own homework is the key

So Polly did you manage to confirm if TITAN bought 2 mil shares or 246 mil?

[DayTraderDad]

Row row row your boat, gently DOWN the stream haha and that's not even funny! Some of u ouks r WAY ahead of yourselves with your fictional figures and unrealistic assumptions. Agree to disagree haha just as clueless as this awesome management. In your defence IN u did not know any better, and the fact is we still do not.

And this useless management is telling me to expect AFS 18th April 2019, but I must also expect that not to happen... Like WTF!

I had hope... No more, not the way they doing things.... I'm out cheers... I now play with my BALLS

Polly, Snippy u guys r wrong... Those characters don't dissappear.... They still here.. All they do is they change their alias

18 trading days to Q1 and PwC report. So Lionel what is your take has management been bulsxxxt and Q1 is bad or is it good? The problem with always having the glass 1/2 empty one never gets to see the glass 1/2 full!!! Words of wisdom from green beer hangover. "you going to kick yourself"

[DayTraderDad]

Moral : there is no moral to this story . It is what we have become following others..

 

 

Do you own homework is the key

I agree with you anyone that invests on the basis what people say in chatrooms, TV, etc and don't have their own idea always loose on the long run just hope they not playing with CFD's!!!

[DayTraderDad]

Row row row your boat, gently DOWN the stream haha and that's not even funny! Some of u ouks r WAY ahead of yourselves with your fictional figures and unrealistic assumptions. Agree to disagree haha just as clueless as this awesome management. In your defence IN u did not know any better, and the fact is we still do not.

And this useless management is telling me to expect AFS 18th April 2019, but I must also expect that not to happen... Like WTF!

I had hope... No more, not the way they doing things.... I'm out cheers... I now play with my BALLS

Polly, Snippy u guys r wrong... Those characters don't dissappear.... They still here.. All they do is they change their alias

Haha the three mosquetiers!!!

 

Edited by DayTraderDad, 04 February 2019 - 10:59 AM.

[Lionelza1]

Row row row your boat, gently DOWN the stream haha and that's not even funny! Some of u ouks r WAY ahead of yourselves with your fictional figures and unrealistic assumptions. Agree to disagree haha just as clueless as this awesome management. In your defence IN u did not know any better, and the fact is we still do not.

And this useless management is telling me to expect AFS 18th April 2019, but I must also expect that not to happen... Like WTF!

I had hope... No more, not the way they doing things.... I'm out cheers... I now play with my BALLS

Polly, Snippy u guys r wrong... Those characters don't dissappear.... They still here.. All they do is they change their alias

[Polly]

Top 10 money makers following stock watch on TV...

 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

 

     

 

no one.....merely brokers punting shares to get their fees...

 

Moral : there is no moral to this story . It is what we have become following others..

 

 

Do you own homework is the key

Edited by Polly, 04 February 2019 - 10:14 AM.

[Polly]

Top 10 money makers following stock watch on TV...

 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

 

     

 

no one.....merely brokers punting shares to get their fees...

[Lionelza1]

Shock horror, I agree with Lionelza1 in this regard.

 

(With apologies again to Polly - we agree to disagree on Steinhoff's likely future), if one were to exclude for one moment the alleged fraud committed by Jooste, Steinhoff's growth was without doubt as a result of his forceful, tough guy, take no prisoners vision for growth.  Without a strong minded, and charismatic leader I do fear for Steinhoff in the longer term.  

 

I believe that the business is deeply under-valued at the moment due to the enormous negativity surrounding the events of late 2017.  I do not believe for one moment that it will return to even 1/2 its previous highs.  However, I do believe that there will be a positive correction in the same price over the next 3 years.  I will take that and probably look to lighten my holding thereafter.

 

Steinhoff's return on assets would likely never meet my threshold for me to be a long-term shareholder.

 

Best regards

Captainfrom82

carefull u dont get a heart attack, im not here to be agreed/disagreed with. your knowledge together with most on here far exceeds what i know. i use the expertise i have together with feedback from this platform to assist me in making the best possible decision. i play with real money and not your monopoly/inherited money.

 

and when i read too much BS on here, i start playing with my balls....so far it won me some and lost me more....

 

im hoping to get the timming right

[Captainfrom82]

Thanks for your comments. This was something that I heard when watching Stock Picks and Wayne McCurrie first raised it in the early post Jooste days. I was then again reminded of this when a stockbroker warned me that it may become a different entity. As Steinhoff appointed experts to assist in the turnaround one of them had experience with Lehmann brothers and the successor to Icelandic bank. That made me think why? Is it positive or negative. Being in already I then looked for the outcome if Steinhoff hived off to a separate entity and then liquidation occurred. As you point out not good for anyone. Steinhoff have leverage to turn the business around and have appointed experts to make it happen so the future has to be more positive once restructuring has taken place.

Sent from my SM-J111F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

 

Thank you SK,

 

Hmmm, yes, Wayne McCurrie is a somewhat knowledgeable character .  The problem however, is that restructuring is a very complex topic, and even after restructuring the jury may be out as to whether it added value or destroyed value.  There is no actual way to quantify the impact and deduce if it is positiive compared to what may have happened in the event of no restructuring.

 

The Iceland Bank example you quoted is not quite a correct comparison (read "Boomerang" by Michael Lewis for some insight into what went wrong in Iceland and why.  In a nutshell, almost the entire country with most of its over 300k population was part of a massive "hedge fund".  When the global financial crisis exploded, Iceland was caught swimming naked).  Its fascinating stuff, if you like that sort of reading material.

 

I do not fully understand the positives or negatives of Steinhoff being hived off to become another entity.

 

The most obvious benefit would be the impact of the lawsuits and regulatory issues.  I do not know what happens to the claimants if Steinhoff changes into a different beast.  I need to consider the various scenarios and what it means.  I very much doubt that Steinhoff would immediately lose all culpability or accountability.  Under M & A laws, when one company takes over another, it takes all their obligations and contingent liabilities as far as I know.

 

I am not sure if others here could contribute more (Polly, DadtraderDad??).

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[Captainfrom82]

Yes Captain that is correct the MF was a switch that why I deducted from the initial debt. It was not money they received but debt removed. I am expecting some impairment because they sold the 49% for less then they had in the books so expecting the NAV to drop to 45cts Euro. The MF was the first move towards the final restructuring.

 

Hi DayTraderDad,

 

I think that we are missing each other here.

 

To be clear, there is no / was no debt reduction to the tune of 525m.  The Steinhoff debt position is exactly the same as it was prior to this transaaction.

 

The MF debt is $3.8b (of which $3.2b is Loans to Group Entities).  The $525m being bandied about does not relate to this and in fact related to various a loan that MF received as part of the Chapter 11 restructuring under the auspices of DIP financing.

 

I also believe the simplified way that you have reviewed the debt settlement is not a correct way to proceed.  However, I cannot prove this with empirical evidence and will therefore accept that we all have different methods of assessing a company.

 

Good luck with that.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[Captainfrom82]

Just to give something to think about: I believe the Steinhoff name is going to disappear a new holding company going to be formed where will hold 71% of PEPKOR, 51% Mattress Firm, 71% PEPCO, 51% Conforama and 51% Greenlit Brands. The existing debt will be distributed between all different companies pro rata and the new Steinhoff will have no debt only income will be dividends.

 

 

Hi DayTraderDad,

 

I agree with the overall sentiments stated of Steinhoff giving up equity to reduce their overall debt.  However...

 

In terms of IFRS and IAS, if as you say Steinhoff (or whatever their new name is) holds over 50% of their subsidiaries, the subsidiaries  assets and debt will be consolidated into Steinhoff/New Company financials.  The subsidiary debt will reflect.

 

It is only if Steinhoff has less than 50% (or no control) of the company that they can proceed to equity accounting.

 

You should read up on the Trencor case with their holding in Textainer.  It is a  fascinating case study.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[Polly]

Hi Polly,

 

Your response is not relevant or appropriate as the fraud detailed above took place in 2003 - well before the global financial crisis.  The company's recovery from this fraud therefore did not owe 1c   to the US Governments TARP polcies for the "too big to fail" companies.

 

Your response was either uninformed or  a little disingenuous.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

 

, there was no bailout b

 

agreed , i was more referring to those companies being helped during financial crisis and dont see our govt coming to steinhoffs aid

[Polly]

Hi Polly,

 

It is  no secret that there has been share dilution in the company.  No one is trying to hide this fact, least of all not Pepkor.  They have provided details and a like for like comparison whenever they have released financials.

 

What is the source that you use that they issued shares to open the additional new stores?  Others may argue that this was organic growth.  Pepkor have provided like for like comparisons and these are not influenced by new stores etc.

 

Can you please clarify?

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

 

as in new acquisitions/ businesses during fy

[Captainfrom82]

Hi A

 

 

Lets say  you own 20 stores making R 20m turnover and R5m heps

 

You then but another 10 stores for  R10m by issuing shares

 

Will your turnover increase? Of cos yes right. Will that say you doing very well / solid in today's economic climate? how can you make that decision on  a 3 month trading update without bottom line figures. This im talking abiout very solid trading update...What a joke to read " solid results"

 

now back to Sept 2018 with same scenario

 

from 20 stores u have 30 stores.

 

turnover up but heps down 37% due to increase in shares issued...called dilution.

Wahst does this drop in heps tell you?  For me either overpaid or new stores acquired not profitable as thought or overall business not doing what it should be.

 

Solid results huh??

 

careful of the finance costs increasing and change of divi policy to reduce dividends..always a red flag going foward

 

Pepgro was Wieses crown jewel and an excellent business generating cash like a printer... Going forward i now have my doubts especially with its trojan overseas. ( no SA retail business has made it overseas with its SA model...YES 100% failure rate)

 

My Saturday 2c against the pumpers...Now back to my Saturday tech analysis homeworkon cfd trading shares and alsi....rather than wasting time on this thread!!!!!!!!!

 

Hi Polly,

 

It is  no secret that there has been share dilution in the company.  No one is trying to hide this fact, least of all not Pepkor.  They have provided details and a like for like comparison whenever they have released financials.

 

What is the source that you use that they issued shares to open the additional new stores?  Others may argue that this was organic growth.  Pepkor have provided like for like comparisons and these are not influenced by new stores etc.

 

Can you please clarify?

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[DayTraderDad]

Shock horror, I agree with Lionelza1 in this regard.

 

(With apologies again to Polly - we agree to disagree on Steinhoff's likely future), if one were to exclude for one moment the alleged fraud committed by Jooste, Steinhoff's growth was without doubt as a result of his forceful, tough guy, take no prisoners vision for growth.  Without a strong minded, and charismatic leader I do fear for Steinhoff in the longer term.  

 

I believe that the business is deeply under-valued at the moment due to the enormous negativity surrounding the events of late 2017.  I do not believe for one moment that it will return to even 1/2 its previous highs.  However, I do believe that there will be a positive correction in the same price over the next 3 years.  I will take that and probably look to lighten my holding thereafter.

 

Steinhoff's return on assets would likely never meet my threshold for me to be a long-term shareholder.

 

Best regards

Captainfrom82

I believe the future management of Steinhoff not going to be one person each identity will have its own management team so the structure going to be decentralised. Each identity will grow at its own pace. The present management is there to complete the restructure only. It could well happen that each identity will be listed and existing shareholders will get shares in each identity prorata. There are already interested parties in Australia and I believe there is interest in Conforama buy Muebles Boom from Spain to a big position on SNH in Jan 2018 and want to expend into Europe.

[Captainfrom82]

Hi SK ,

 

I iike this part of your posts......"I believe Heather Sonn that the best outcome for all parties is what they are working towards"

 

Glad you made that point as its a very good point for investing and something for others to consider.

Irrespective of share price one of the most important principles in investing often overlooked is , as an investor if you have full confidence in any new management going foward  and having done your homework.......should be a key for you to invest..

 

 

So SK if you did your homework and happy about them going foward , go for it..

 

i am not invested here and have no intention to invest  as i see other more problems/risk so have not  gone into the management analysis side of things.

 

 

However some also see new management as " Useless" etc so always two sides to a coin. 

 

My questions  on what you should be asking yourself on new management as you cant take things on face value that management doing well:

 

1. is Sonn and / or du preez a fixing specialist having done so with other distressed companies?

2.  Do they have retail and or international experience?

3. Who appointed them and for what reasons?

4. Is there appointment a quick fix or long term?

5. what is their remuneration package and do you think its warranted for work they putting in?

6. Since being in the jobs, do you confidence in what they doing? Have they been open and clear about the path forward, been open to shareholers about all the investigations and progress of company?. How about monthly progress reports to shareholers on everything and anything. Are sens isssued by company reasonable and fair or only trying to show one side of the story..." Pumping"

 

can go on but above would saffice for now.

 

 

next point :

 

"Think of a business with poor systems that allowed for fraudulent behaviour being completely overhauled to improve efficiencies. Will it be negative or positive? Is there no chance of survival. "

 

open to big  debate with pros and cons. But your point about management brings me to this....You say completely overhauled to improve efficiencies?

 

 Is this happening? If so how do you know especially if you say fact?

 

 

another point you make  " No good absorbing full on negative news that is recycled a number of times in the press it is just noise "

 

Dont shoot the messengers please. Old news being recycled may still be bad news as warning to potential new investors.

 

and finally your point :

 

The real test will be in the 2019 trading results with audited financials behind us then the restructuring."

 

 

exactly...they we all will know whether management was bullshitting or not , extent of fraud , o and which catagory this company will fall in per Captains post as follows:

 

 

"The contingent liabilities are indeed a concern.  However, many companies have ongoing contingent liabilities and in fact this could be seen as a cost of doing business.  Currently he following companies are facing lawsuits:

• Glencore has them regarding their mining operations in DRC,
• BP has them regarding the Gulf of Mexico issue (which has not yet been completely settled),
• BHP has this for the tailing dam failings in South America,
• Vale has this for their own dam failure over the past week,
• Huwei has it with the CEO and the supposed Iran sanctions issue,
• Samsung has it regarding their influencing the previous President.
• VW, Audi and BMW are all caught up in the emissions scandal.

The list is endless.  As long as someone feels suitably aggrieved, they will sue. Do you see the contingent liabilities wiping any of those companies off the map?  Of course some companies do fold (Lehman, Enron, WorldCom, etc).

 

But many do not - certainly not for the relatively small scale of the Steinhoff irrgularities.

• Freddie Mac (the famous US company) committed $5b financial fraud in 2003 by mistating their earnings (they paid $120m fine).  This did not stop Warren Buffett taking a large  in the company.
• AIG committed a $3.9b fraud. They settled for around $2b.  the CEO Greenberg was fired but never faced criminal charges."

 

 

Most of above companies above had had cash and turning cash  to pay fines etc... If enforced will Steinhoff be able to do it. Unknown what the fine, if any will be at moment. Some companies bailed out by their govts above like Freddie Mac...Steinhoff is not a bank so do not think our bankrupted govt will assist in any way especially when white monopolistic capital in their words involved.

 

and final point...Wiese buying 2 m shares at +-R4m...is this a joke to be investing here because of that? Check Ellies thread where i warned about directors buying and dumb investors following. Dont be a dumb investor to be following 2m shares of Wiese.

Wieses increase of +-2m holding could have been because of share incentives , options , bonus etc and not formal buying on JSE.. If he had confidence he would have been buying 200m in cfds and not 2m because i know how he operates.

 

Hi Polly,

 

Your response is not relevant or appropriate as the fraud detailed above took place in 2003 - well before the global financial crisis.  The company's recovery from this fraud therefore did not owe 1c   to the US Governments TARP polcies for the "too big to fail" companies.

 

Your response was either uninformed or  a little disingenuous.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

 

, there was no bailout b

[seeking knowledge]

Hi SK,

Thank you for a considered response. Unfortunately, I do not quite follow up. I am conversant with the Icelandic Bank matter, but cannot see any similarities with Steinhoff. Can you please clarify?

Steinhoff shareholders are the residual holders of the "value" in Stenhoff. This means that they get the bit (if any is left) that is left after the creditors (and Preference shareholders have been paid) Obviously the Lenders are the premier holders, and will get as much value as is required to settle their debt. If you read the Steinhoff CVA applicatons, there is a very well considered, unambiguous and independent calculation of what would happen if Steinhoff was forced to settle all the debt with immediate effect. This would be anarchy and all stakeholders would receive a very small part of the pie due to the distressed nature of the sale.

It was for this reason that significantly over 80% of the lenders (and quite a few non-financial creditors) supported the CVA process.

Don't fool yourself or be fooled by the negative comments written everywhere. Almost any company the world would battle to settle their entire debt simultaneously. This is not a risk that is unique to Steinhoff, but it is a fact that is seldom mentioned. Go and see what would happen to Glencore (a Top20 Forture 500 company), BHP, Anglos, etc if all their lenders demanded settlement simultaneously.

If there is a residual value left (unlikely), this would be apportioned among the 4219m shares. If there is a new entity created, these shareholders would be part of that process to the value of their residual holding.

I would be grateful if you could perhaps provide some clarity on your post.

Best Regards
Captainfrom82

Thanks for your comments. This was something that I heard when watching Stock Picks and Wayne McCurrie first raised it in the early post Jooste days. I was then again reminded of this when a stockbroker warned me that it may become a different entity. As Steinhoff appointed experts to assist in the turnaround one of them had experience with Lehmann brothers and the successor to Icelandic bank. That made me think why? Is it positive or negative. Being in already I then looked for the outcome if Steinhoff hived off to a separate entity and then liquidation occurred. As you point out not good for anyone. Steinhoff have leverage to turn the business around and have appointed experts to make it happen so the future has to be more positive once restructuring has taken place.

Sent from my SM-J111F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app