Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Heavenly deal between Primus and Eon Capital?

Published on The Edge Weekly edition. 18 Feb 2008: Big Money: What's Primus up to at EON Capital?


  • 18 Feb 2008: Big Money: What's Primus up to at EON Capital?
    By P Gunasegaram

    What is it in EON Capital that makes Primus Pacific Partners pay a hefty RM9.55 a share, a near 60% premium on its trading price, to gain a non-controlling one-fifth of the bank and financial services holding company for a hefty RM1.34 billion?

    And importantly too, why is it that other shareholders, apart from DRB-Hicom, which sold that stake to Primus, don't get to participate in that largesse? Is it right that a strategic shareholder, if Primus is one, pay a premium price to one particular shareholder, who happens to be a key shareholder for all intents and purposes, and is not required to make an offer to other shareholders on the same terms?

    However, such premium prices for small stakes are not unheard-of in Malaysia. Ironically, control of DRB-Hicom itself, the vendor in this instance, passed to tycoon Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary who only had to gain control of a mere 15.8% stake to be vested with management control.

    But he paid a hefty RM3.60 a share, a 64% premium on market prices then, in a deal worth RM560 million, announced in 2004 and completed after some complications in 2005 with government support. The stake came from the estate of the late founder of the DRB-Hicom group, Tan Sri Yahya Ahmad, who died in a helicopter crash in the late 1990s.

    Syed Mokhtar has since consolidated his hold on the DRB-Hicom group by injecting his own assets in return for shares.

    Primus however denies, almost vehemently, that it has management control but is making very forward-looking remarks about how value can be created, how it should be done, and mentioning that it will seek to help the EON Cap board in these respects.

    Yes, on paper at least, Primus does not gain management control but it is clear that it intends to influence existing management in a substantial way. To quote Primus managing director Jeroen Nieuwkoop: "We want to support the management team in developing a detailed business plan that outlines the opportunities for expansion and value creation."

    But then Nieuwkoop added, and we quote: "We are investors and not managers, and we do not want to step into the management's shoes. We leave that to Albert Lau (CEO of EON Bank) and his team."

    He said further that he had met the other shareholders and that there was no issue with them. Reports said that Primus executives had met Rin Kin Mei @ Rin Kei Mei, currently said to be the key person at EON Bank, EON Cap's main unit.

    Rin reportedly holds 15.4% in EON Cap, which together with Primus' stake of 20.2%, makes it 35.6%. Rimbunan Hijau group chief Tan Sri Tiong Kiew King has 17.1%, Khazanah Nasional Bhd, 10%, and the Employees Provident Fund, 5.3%.

    While it may not be officially in control, Primus certainly seems to be making announcements, which should rightly be coming from the board of EON Cap, for instance, the business plan, although Nieuwkoop says that EON Bank will release it.

    At the very least, that must mean that Primus must have had a lot of engagement with the board and existing management at EON Bank. And if it pays a 60% premium, it must have some amount of confidence that it will have at least some of its ways with EON Bank.

    Otherwise, why risk it, especially when you can take stakes in a number of local financial institutions if you think the Malaysian financial sector is so vibrant instead of putting all your eggs in one little basket for a huge price?

    And who is Primus anyway and how can it contribute? What expertise has it in running or helping to run a bank?

    At a press luncheon recently, Nieukwoop refused to even give out name cards and declined subsequent emailed questions to their local public relations agency by this newspaper. He did not disclose Primus' fund size or elaborate on its shareholders. He only said they comprised Middle Eastern investors, Asian families, and investors from other parts of the world.

    Very little information is available on Primus anywhere. Reportedly, Primus, set up in 2005, invests primarily in financial services companies. The EON Cap stake is its second investment after New China Life.

    The question that arises is, should such a fund be allowed to take a significant stake in a local bank and permitted to have such a strong influence, although not outright control, over management?

    It is high time the authorities took a more serious view of small stakes of less than the 33% trigger level changing hands at huge premiums on market prices, while significant management and directional changes take place behind the scenes. And there have been many such situations in Malaysia.

    Permitting some shareholders to benefit and exit from a listed company with a high price without the same benefit to all other shareholders is inherently unfair and smacks of insider dealings, which are unhealthy for the development of an equitable equity market.That's a situation that must not continue.

Do you agree with what's said?

*****************

Recommended commentary made by Salvatore_Dali

http://malaysiafinance.blogspot.com/2008/02/primus-pleases-itself-moolah-said-what.html

4 comments:

slowday said...

utterly dismayed at what is happening.... seems like as long as you are rich or have a strong political connection or both, there will be another set of rules that govern your action... and Primus, oh Primus... having paying 60% premium, you have a heart to call yourself an Investor, without interest in management? a total BS, believable only to morons non existant on planet earth anymore. Go DIE. way to go SC, close one... no both eyes and walk away, just walk away.. lalalallaala

SalvadorDali said...

moomoo,

i did a reply to yr post in my blog... i agree with the gist of yr points except for one...

SalvadorDali said...

p/s apologies to Moolah, the article cited was written by P Gunasegaram and not Moolah... should have known that cause you and I rarely disagree ... ; )

Seng said...

I just recently read this article as well as Dali's, and just posted some commments there. Thanks and kudos to both of you for highlighting this case!

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that I think the deal would probably have been done in a very, very legal and above board manner, that complies with all regulations, given the large size and the parties involved. (but I am just wildly guessing)

However, because there is such a large gap between $9.55 and market price (last closed $5.25), the vast majority of people - when they hear of this - will think of hanky-panky stuff, even if it's legal and above board and transparent.

My personal wish for this world (and most of my wish don't come true :-) ) is that policies made by regulators are not just fair in nature, but be also seen as fair to everyone as well. I feel there could be some fundamental policy flaws here, when one group of shareholders get to exit at 9.55, a substantial premium over market prices, notwitstanding the legalities of it.

If the regulators agree with my view, then, I hope they and the industry will do something about it. Just my 2 sen worth.

Cheers,
Seng.