15225 replies to this topic

[Captainfrom82]

one last comment before i start with my green stuff haha

 

to the ouks that follow football.....u look at what mourinhno(coach) was doing with manchester united....., he had excellent players in the team but they where going nowhere

 

then the owners dropped mourinhno and put in solskjaer, same players but they making a world of a difference.....

 

steinhoff, great business model/ great potential.....wrong coach, they will go nowhere

 

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

[DayTraderDad]

Indeed DayTraderDad,

 

This is a key part of the restructuring that the Board and Management have repeated throughout 2018.  It will have to happen.

 

It is a finely balanced matter with Steinhoff having to consider giving up control of their subsidiary and moving away from consolidation (as they account for Pepkor, Conforma, etc) to accounting for the subsidiary via equity basis (as they do or did for their interest in PSG and KAP).  

 

This is important because the value of the debt (and off course the assets) in the subsidiary could be materially different under the two scenarios.

 

It is worth remembering that Steinhoff has appointed a full time very high profile Chief Restructuring Officer (Richard Heiss), have appointed AlixPartners and Moelis & Co, etc all with a view to restructuring.

 

The real trick is to dilute their holdings in the weaker / non-performing assets with large debt (Mattress Firm, Conforama, and now possibly Greenlit (even likely given the statements by the CEO) , while holding onto the good assets (Pepkor, PepCo Europe, etc). 

 

Mattress Firm is particularly interesting.  Incidentally, I have a cursory look through your debt assessment calcs.  I think that you have made an error regarding the 525m Mattress Firm number where if I understand your thinking correctly, you have indicated that this reduces the debt.  This is not the case.  Steinhoff did not receive 525m or not even one cent for the 49.9% of Mattress Firm they have given up.  This was a calculated strategy towards removing the huge MF debt off the Steinhoff books - it is a little like those sales for R1 or $1 where the token price paid is merely a formality to ensure that the requirements of a "sale" to have taken place (the 2 key parts under law of sales is (a) there must be a price paid (willing buyer and willing seller); and ( there must be a merx (agreement that something is being sold).

 

In a nutshell, Steinhoff will move from consolidation accounting for MF to equity accounting.  This will have a massive (positive) impact on the debt reporteded.

 

Best Regards

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.

[DayTraderDad]

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.

Sorry forgot the importance of the CVA was to convert the convertible bonds into ordinary loans so that equity can be exchanged for debt or loans paid off with cash from the proceeds of the sale of the various companies equity.

[Captainfrom82]

Interesting the results that are mention above are very much in line with the article of Sarel Oberholster!!!

 

Indeed DayTraderDad,

 

This is a key part of the restructuring that the Board and Management have repeated throughout 2018.  It will have to happen.

 

It is a finely balanced matter with Steinhoff having to consider giving up control of their subsidiary and moving away from consolidation (as they account for Pepkor, Conforma, etc) to accounting for the subsidiary via equity basis (as they do or did for their interest in PSG and KAP).  

 

This is important because the value of the debt (and off course the assets) in the subsidiary could be materially different under the two scenarios.

 

It is worth remembering that Steinhoff has appointed a full time very high profile Chief Restructuring Officer (Richard Heiss), have appointed AlixPartners and Moelis & Co, etc all with a view to restructuring.

 

The real trick is to dilute their holdings in the weaker / non-performing assets with large debt (Mattress Firm, Conforama, and now possibly Greenlit (even likely given the statements by the CEO) , while holding onto the good assets (Pepkor, PepCo Europe, etc). 

 

Mattress Firm is particularly interesting.  Incidentally, I have a cursory look through your debt assessment calcs.  I think that you have made an error regarding the 525m Mattress Firm number where if I understand your thinking correctly, you have indicated that this reduces the debt.  This is not the case.  Steinhoff did not receive 525m or not even one cent for the 49.9% of Mattress Firm they have given up.  This was a calculated strategy towards removing the huge MF debt off the Steinhoff books - it is a little like those sales for R1 or $1 where the token price paid is merely a formality to ensure that the requirements of a "sale" to have taken place (the 2 key parts under law of sales is (a) there must be a price paid (willing buyer and willing seller); and ( there must be a merx (agreement that something is being sold).

 

In a nutshell, Steinhoff will move from consolidation accounting for MF to equity accounting.  This will have a massive (positive) impact on the debt reporteded.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[DayTraderDad]

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

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.

Edited by DayTraderDad, 02 February 2019 - 12:32 PM.

[DayTraderDad]

Hi DayTRaderDad,

 

Steinhoff reports in Euros for their financials.  Any weakening of ZAR will not "help" as the weaker ZAR will result in fewer Euros.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

Hi Captain,

Yes that is a fact that many people overlook. My hopes for SNH is not focused in SA with the PEPKOR because the Africa growth story for me is doubtful and SA has big problems with poeple being cash strapped. The only real income SNH gets from PEPKOR is the dividend the rest is just paper because the turnover gets incorporated into the accounts but does not help SNH cash flow.  In view that the EU has over 500 mil people and 27 countries  the PEPCO story has lots of space to grow and this is for me where the true value of SNH lies. At present they growing over 20% per year and that makes it in 5 years double in size and eventually will outgrow PEPKOR by 2020. Another thing that is being overlooked is the fact that in three years time PEPCO turnover would have increase by 60% and EBITDA could be around 447 mil if not more. In Europe people love shops like PEPCO because they like buying cheap stuff.

The good thing is I believe in time the SNH share price will be set in Frankfurt and with a weaker Rand the JSE price will be higher so for me a weak rand is more favourable.

Quote from news feed:

 

JOHANNESBURG, Dec 12 (Reuters) - Shares in Steinhoff rose more than 20 percent on Wednesday, on track for their biggest daily gain in nearly a month, after the company's Pepkor Europe business reported a jump in annual revenue growth.

 

Pepkor, which owns discount retailers Poundland and Dealz as well as clothing and accessories chain PEPCO, said revenue rose 10.6 percent to just above 3 billion euros ($3 billion) in the year to the end of September. In the final quarter revenue grew strongly by 12.9 percent to 781 million euros.

 

Progress was helped by Poundland's return to like-for-like growth and strong like-for-like growth in PEPCO, one of the largest non-food retail chains in central and eastern Europe.

[Captainfrom82]

The only concern is have is that Steinhoff becomes a new entity. I heard Louis du Preez say it may during the parliamentary enquiries. If it does we could lose the bet ala Icelandic Bank. There are no signs of this yet so it is just something I keep in the back of my mind as possible. I don't know if they are obliged to give existing shareholders in Steinhoff shares in a new entity. That is a move they could make only if there is no other option and courts would approve to maintain jobs. This is my only concern and I do not see it happening yet.

Sent from my SM-J111F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

 

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

[Captainfrom82]

Forgot the rand will also start the weakening process that will help.

 

Hi DayTRaderDad,

 

Steinhoff reports in Euros for their financials.  Any weakening of ZAR will not "help" as the weaker ZAR will result in fewer Euros.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[Polly]

Big big big correction to this false statement...

 

Only one person trying to message the doom and gloom. Others including you all shouting screaming buy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

and that to most saying buy when price was well over R20.00....R15.00 R5.00 and now R1.60

 

 

I sad doom and gloom the day its captain jumped ship and blamed the tea boy!!

and as a trader , i made the easy money..

 

hence stopped trading it as now the difficult part..

 

 

 TIP: For any investor, 90% of  your time for should be spent mitigating risk , only 10% on future " imaginary valuations" etc!!

[DayTraderDad]

Big big big correction to this false statement...

 

Only one person trying to message the doom and gloom. Others including you all shouting screaming buy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

and that to most saying buy when price was well over R20.00....R15.00 R5.00 and now R1.60

 

 

I sad doom and gloom the day its captain jumped ship and blamed the tea boy!!

Polly why is you can never bring figures into your post just BLA BLA? Just like the explanation to andy22 its pathetic why not put figures instead of some story telling. The worst part is PEPCO being very successful including the shop in a shop at Poundland yet you say its a failure. So show us put figures down I have in a number of post put my thought from my models why not put yours? Surely you must have a financial model that gives you the ZERO possibility. For me its a pity your attitude because many of your comments are good and makes one think but your negativity at SNH with inaccurate figures at times destroys all the good statements.  Why don't you just simply put figures then you would be well received by everybody. Anyway think about it have a nice weekend I am off to the bottle store to buy more green beer. Haha

[DayTraderDad]

Seifert is a thorn... Fact

Du preez is also a thorn... Opiniated

Yea let's see how this plays out... I'm being cautious

Are you all aware how a board works? Are you all aware how a CEO gets appointed? So if you are so happy with Heather Sonn you would know that CEO can only be appointed if she agreed. Further part of the LUA was for creditors to appoint their own people to the board and that has been done with appointment of high calibre people so why all this noise about one person???

[DayTraderDad]

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.

Polly you are misinformed TITAN has been buying since September 2018  as bellow further this fact was confirmed by the company that  sends mew the information of shareholding in the JSE every month. You see why I say you are just lots of waffle no facts!!!!! 

 As of end of January Wiese owns 264 mil and Titan 246 mil.

 

So in summary:

September bought: 137,558,263

December bought: 106,426,164

January bought: 2,123,923

Total purchases: 246,108,350

 

Below inserts from the reports: 

 

STEINHOFF INTERNATIONAL HLDG N.V. Shares Held 2018/09/28 Change in Shares Held Shares Held 2018/08/31

TITAN PREMIER INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD 137,558,263 137,558,263 0 

 

STEINHOFF INTERNATIONAL HLDG N.V. Shares Held 2018/12/28 Change in Shares Held Shares Held 2018/11/30

TITAN PREMIER INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD 243,984,427 106,426,164 137,558,263 

 

STEINHOFF INTERNATIONAL HLDG N.V. Shares Held 2019/01/25 Change in Shares Held Shares Held 2018/12/28

TITAN PREMIER INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD 246,108,350 2,123,923 243,984,427 

 

Edited by DayTraderDad, 02 February 2019 - 11:18 AM.

[Polly]

It is unfortunately not, with many here shouting doom and gloom.

 

Big big big correction to this false statement...

 

Only one person trying to message the doom and gloom. Others including you all shouting screaming buy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

and that to most saying buy when price was well over R20.00....R15.00 R5.00 and now R1.60

 

 

I sad doom and gloom the day its captain jumped ship and blamed the tea boy!!

[Polly]

Polly, could you please SUM up the points that you see as negative in the pepkor report.

Yes, finance cost shot up but obviously they had to pay back the 15 billion rand loan to Steinhoff. They had to secure other financing here.

Yes, the divided was relativly small, but obviously they are using the rest of the profits to reduce debt. They paid around 2 billion dividends.

After all this they covered their interest expense, kept around 1 billion rand from the proft to repay debt.

I would say getting out of the scandal this is some solid results. If u look at current environment in SA.





Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

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!!!!!!!!!

Edited by Polly, 02 February 2019 - 10:38 AM.

[Lionelza1]

Seifert is a thorn... Fact

Du preez is also a thorn... Opiniated

Yea let's see how this plays out... I'm being cautious

[Polly]

Facts not fiction! 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. Everyone makes up there own minds and takes the risk or doesn't. No good absorbing full on negative news that is recycled a number of times in the press it is just noise. The real test will be in the 2019 trading results with audited financials behind us then the restructuring. I believe Heather Sonn that the best outcome for all parties is what they are working towards

Sent from my SM-J111F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

 

 

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.

Edited by Polly, 02 February 2019 - 10:12 AM.

[seeking knowledge]

U don't look at what assets a company has or has not.... U look at who's controlling it and how much credibility around their character..... I have absolutely no confidence in this useless ouk

Heather Sonn is there and that is positive. Also all the moves so far are more in line with Daytraderdad's future views. Sarel Oberholster's article's and subsequent commentary are also insightful. Overall I am positive that we should see a good outcome for all involved and that is why I am not stressed by these short term market movements. I am looking to 2019 results and beyond. There are some difficult day's ahead but the worst should be behind us. Siefert remains a thorn and that needs to be removed ASAP

Sent from my SM-J111F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

[Lionelza1]

one last comment before i start with my green stuff haha

 

to the ouks that follow football.....u look at what mourinhno(coach) was doing with manchester united....., he had excellent players in the team but they where going nowhere

 

then the owners dropped mourinhno and put in solskjaer, same players but they making a world of a difference.....

 

steinhoff, great business model/ great potential.....wrong coach, they will go nowhere

[Lionelza1]

U don't look at what assets a company has or has not.... U look at who's controlling it and how much credibility around their character..... I have absolutely no confidence in this useless ouk

[Lionelza1]

The only concern is have is that Steinhoff becomes a new entity. I heard Louis du Preez say it may during the parliamentary enquiries. If it does we could lose the bet ala Icelandic Bank. There are no signs of this yet so it is just something I keep in the back of my mind as possible. I don't know if they are obliged to give existing shareholders in Steinhoff shares in a new entity. That is a move they could make only if there is no other option and courts would approve to maintain jobs. This is my only concern and I do not see it happening yet.

Sent from my SM-J111F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

you are correct, he did say that, infact he said alot of things....and thats the problem i have with him....NOT TRUSTED

 

let me try a different angle....if Heather Sonn was given the task.....i would PUMP my life savings into this share!