Saturday, April 17, 2010

Bottome Line? Goldman Sachs Are Scums!

WHY ARE AMERICANS ALLOWING THIS TO HAPPEN?




Mentioned on CNBC:

"This makes the investor sit back and say, 'This is exactly why I'm not in the market. It's a good-old-boy network'" says one market pro of the Goldman Sachs charges.

ps: Goldman Sachs: The Engineer Of Every Market Manipulation



The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

Any attempt to construct a narrative around all the former Goldmanites in influential positions quickly becomes an absurd and pointless exercise, like trying to make a list of everything. What you need to know is the big picture: If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain — an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.

They achieve this using the same playbook over and over again. The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased. They've been pulling this same stunt over and over since the 1920s — and now they're preparing to do it again, creating what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet.

The basic scam in the Internet Age is pretty easy even for the financially illiterate to grasp. Companies that weren't much more than pot-fueled ideas scrawled on napkins by up-too-late bong-smokers were taken public via IPOs, hyped in the media and sold to the public for megamillions. It was as if banks like Goldman were wrapping ribbons around watermelons, tossing them out 50-story windows and opening the phones for bids. In this game you were a winner only if you took your money out before the melon hit the pavement.

It sounds obvious now, but what the average investor didn't know at the time was that the banks had changed the rules of the game, making the deals look better than they actually were. They did this by setting up what was, in reality, a two-tiered investment system — one for the insiders who knew the real numbers, and another for the lay investor who was invited to chase soaring prices the banks themselves knew were irrational. While Goldman's later pattern would be to capitalize on changes in the regulatory environment, its key innovation in the Internet years was to abandon its own industry's standards of quality control.

Goldman's role in the sweeping global disaster that was the housing bubble is not hard to trace. Here again, the basic trick was a decline in underwriting standards, although in this case the standards weren't in IPOs but in mortgages. By now almost everyone knows that for decades mortgage dealers insisted that home buyers be able to produce a down payment of 10 percent or more, show a steady income and good credit rating, and possess a real first and last name. Then, at the dawn of the new millennium, they suddenly threw all that shit out the window and started writing mortgages on the backs of napkins to cocktail waitresses and ex-cons carrying five bucks and a Snickers bar.

And what caused the huge spike in oil prices? Take a wild guess. Obviously Goldman had help — there were other players in the physical-commodities market — but the root cause had almost everything to do with the behavior of a few powerful actors determined to turn the once-solid market into a speculative casino. Goldman did it by persuading pension funds and other large institutional investors to invest in oil futures — agreeing to buy oil at a certain price on a fixed date. The push transformed oil from a physical commodity, rigidly subject to supply and demand, into something to bet on, like a stock. Between 2003 and 2008, the amount of speculative money in commodities grew from $13 billion to $317 billion, an increase of 2,300 percent. By 2008, a barrel of oil was traded 27 times, on average, before it was actually delivered and consumed.

The history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled-dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates. By now, most of us know the major players. As George Bush's last Treasury secretary, former Goldman CEO Henry Paulson was the architect of the bailout, a suspiciously self-serving plan to funnel trillions of Your Dollars to a handful of his old friends on Wall Street. Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's former Treasury secretary, spent 26 years at Goldman before becoming chairman of Citigroup — which in turn got a $300 billion taxpayer bailout from Paulson. There's John Thain, the asshole chief of Merrill Lynch who bought an $87,000 area rug for his office as his company was imploding; a former Goldman banker, Thain enjoyed a multibillion-dollar handout from Paulson, who used billions in taxpayer funds to help Bank of America rescue Thain's sorry company. And Robert Steel, the former Goldmanite head of Wachovia, scored himself and his fellow executives $225 million in golden-parachute payments as his bank was self-destructing. There's Joshua Bolten, Bush's chief of staff during the bailout, and Mark Patterson, the current Treasury chief of staff, who was a Goldman lobbyist just a year ago, and Ed Liddy, the former Goldman director whom Paulson put in charge of bailed-out insurance giant AIG, which forked over $13 billion to Goldman after Liddy came on board. The heads of the Canadian and Italian national banks are Goldman alums, as is the head of the World Bank, the head of the New York Stock Exchange, the last two heads of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York — which, incidentally, is now in charge of overseeing Goldman.

But then, something happened. It's hard to say what it was exactly; it might have been the fact that Goldman's co-chairman in the early Nineties, Robert Rubin, followed Bill Clinton to the White House, where he directed the National Economic Council and eventually became Treasury secretary. While the American media fell in love with the story line of a pair of baby-boomer, Sixties-child, Fleetwood Mac yuppies nesting in the White House, it also nursed an undisguised crush on Rubin, who was hyped as without a doubt the smartest person ever to walk the face of the Earth, with Newton, Einstein, Mozart and Kant running far behind.

Rubin was the prototypical Goldman banker. He was probably born in a $4,000 suit, he had a face that seemed permanently frozen just short of an apology for being so much smarter than you, and he exuded a Spock-like, emotion-neutral exterior; the only human feeling you could imagine him experiencing was a nightmare about being forced to fly coach. It became almost a national cliché that whatever Rubin thought was best for the economy — a phenomenon that reached its apex in 1999, when Rubin appeared on the cover of Time with his Treasury deputy, Larry Summers, and Fed chief Alan Greenspan under the headline the committee to save the world. And "what Rubin thought," mostly, was that the American economy, and in particular the financial markets, were over-regulated and needed to be set free. During his tenure at Treasury, the Clinton White House made a series of moves that would have drastic consequences for the global economy — beginning with Rubin's complete and total failure to regulate his old firm during its first mad dash for obscene short-term profits.

After the oil bubble collapsed last fall, there was no new bubble to keep things humming — this time, the money seems to be really gone, like worldwide-depression gone. So the financial safari has moved elsewhere, and the big game in the hunt has become the only remaining pool of dumb, unguarded capital left to feed upon: taxpayer money. Here, in the biggest bailout in history, is where Goldman Sachs really started to flex its muscle.

It began in September of last year, when then-Treasury secretary Paulson made a momentous series of decisions. Although he had already engineered a rescue of Bear Stearns a few months before and helped bail out quasi-private lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Paulson elected to let Lehman Brothers — one of Goldman's last real competitors — collapse without intervention. ("Goldman's superhero status was left intact," says market analyst Eric Salzman, "and an investment-banking competitor, Lehman, goes away.") The very next day, Paulson greenlighted a massive, $85 billion bailout of AIG, which promptly turned around and repaid $13 billion it owed to Goldman. Thanks to the rescue effort, the bank ended up getting paid in full for its bad bets: By contrast, retired auto workers awaiting the Chrysler bailout will be lucky to receive 50 cents for every dollar they are owed.

Immediately after the AIG bailout, Paulson announced his federal bailout for the financial industry, a $700 billion plan called the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and put a heretofore unknown 35-year-old Goldman banker named Neel Kashkari in charge of administering the funds. In order to qualify for bailout monies, Goldman announced that it would convert from an investment bank to a bank-holding company, a move that allows it access not only to $10 billion in TARP funds, but to a whole galaxy of less conspicuous, publicly backed funding — most notably, lending from the discount window of the Federal Reserve. By the end of March, the Fed will have lent or guaranteed at least $8.7 trillion under a series of new bailout programs — and thanks to an obscure law allowing the Fed to block most congressional audits, both the amounts and the recipients of the monies remain almost entirely secret.

Converting to a bank-holding company has other benefits as well: Goldman's primary supervisor is now the New York Fed, whose chairman at the time of its announcement was Stephen Friedman, a former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs. Friedman was technically in violation of Federal Reserve policy by remaining on the board of Goldman even as he was supposedly regulating the bank; in order to rectify the problem, he applied for, and got, a conflict-of-interest waiver from the government. Friedman was also supposed to divest himself of his Goldman stock after Goldman became a bank-holding company, but thanks to the waiver, he was allowed to go out and buy 52,000 additional shares in his old bank, leaving him $3 million richer. Friedman stepped down in May, but the man now in charge of supervising Goldman — New York Fed president William Dudley — is yet another former Goldmanite.

The collective message of all of this — the AIG bailout, the swift approval for its bank-holding conversion, the TARP funds — is that when it comes to Goldman Sachs, there isn't a free market at all. The government might let other players on the market die, but it simply will not allow Goldman to fail under any circumstances. Its edge in the market has suddenly become an open declaration of supreme privilege. "In the past it was an implicit advantage," says Simon Johnson, an economics professor at MIT and former official at the International Monetary Fund, who compares the bailout to the crony capitalism he has seen in Third World countries. "Now it's more of an explicit advantage."

Fast-forward to today. It's early June in Washington, D.C. Barack Obama, a popular young politician whose leading private campaign donor was an investment bank called Goldman Sachs — its employees paid some $981,000 to his campaign — sits in the White House. Having seamlessly navigated the political minefield of the bailout era, Goldman is once again back to its old business, scouting out loopholes in a new government-created market with the aid of a new set of alumni occupying key government jobs.

Gone are Hank Paulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place are Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm's co-head of finance.) And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits — a booming trillion- dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an "environmental plan," called cap-and-trade. The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Goldman Sachs Charged With Fraud

The NY Times article U.S. Accuses Goldman Sachs of Fraud


  • Goldman Sachs, which emerged relatively unscathed from the financial crisis, was accused of securities fraud in a civil suit filed Friday by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly devised to fail.
  • Goldman itself profited by betting against the very mortgage investments that it sold to its customers.
  • The instrument in the S.E.C. case, called Abacus 2007-AC1, was one of 25 deals that Goldman created so the bank and select clients could bet against the housing market....As the Abacus deals plunged in value, Goldman and certain hedge funds made money on their negative bets, while the Goldman clients who bought the $10.9 billion in investments lost billions of dollars.
  • According to the complaint, Goldman created Abacus 2007-AC1 in February 2007, at the request of John A. Paulson, a prominent hedge fund manager who earned an estimated $3.7 billion in 2007 by correctly wagering that the housing bubble would burst.
  • .. the deck was stacked against the Abacus investors, the complaint contends, because the investment was filled with bonds chosen by Mr. Paulson as likely to default. Goldman told investors in Abacus marketing materials reviewed by The Times that the bonds would be chosen by an independent manager.
  • Robert Khuzami, the director of the S.E.C.’s division of enforcement, said in a statement. “Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party.”
  • But when Goldman sold shares in Abacus to investors, the bank and Mr. Tourre only disclosed the ratings of those bonds and did not disclose that Mr. Paulson was on other side, betting those ratings were wrong.

From Jesse: http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/04/sec-formally-charges-goldman-sachs-with.html

  • This is just the tip of the iceberg. The Wall Street Banks are knee deep in fraud.

    No one can obtain the kind of systematic returns that Goldman was producing without either cooking the books or engaging in some other frauds. That is the same 'tell' as the steady and outsized returns that Madoff is producing.

    Let's see if this goes any deeper, and if serious punishments and reforms result.

    The SEC can only enforce the Securities Laws, but cannot bring criminal charges. Certainly Goldman will be subject to civil lawsuits and discovery. But the real test of the Obama government will be any role that the Justice Department does or does not take in this. They could of course defer, using the show trials of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission as a rationale to take no action.

    This is blatant robbery, outright fraud, being conducted by an organization that is paying half the Congress and the Administration, and staffing key positions in the government with its employees.

    Meanwhile, the market manipulation continues...

On CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/id/36595454

  • Stocks skidded Friday, snapping a six-day winning streak, after the SEC shocked the market, charging Goldman Sachs with fraud over its handling of subprime mortgages.

    The market had already started in a sour mood as the latest batch of earnings were solid but fell short of the market's lofty expectations and consumer sentiment unexpectedly fell.

    "The market was going along pretty good. We were a little weak, that's for sure, but we had good news the other day from JPMorgan, great earnings today from Bank of America, and then for this to come out, really put a damper on the whole sector," Alan Valdez, vice president of Hilliard and Lyons, said on CNBC.

Should KNM Management Resign After Failed Management Buyout?

Posted the other day: KNM's MBO Fails

I just asked Uncle Google a simple question "management quits after failed management buyout"

Some old examples.

2004.

  • BRITISH Airways has insisted The Air Miles Travel Company is not for sale following a failed management buyout attempt by departing managing director Drew Thomson.
    Thomson and finance director Robin Wooldridge will leave the company at the end of May after BA management rejected their bid. (
    source here )

2003.

  • Diagonal parted company with its chief executive and finance director yesterday over failed buyout talks at the IT group that were never disclosed to the market ( source here )

2005.

  • Terry Chapman has quit as managing director of Schal, the construction management arm of Carillion, after the failure of his attempt to buy it. ( source )

2006.

  • 4 execs quit Saturn Electronics; Spurred by failed attempt to buy the company. ( source here )

See? They all quit after the management buyout failed.

Why?

Well.. you tell me why.

Does these management have the best interest of the company at heart? Or does the management care only about their own vested interest?

How?

OilCorp: No Audited Accounts Due To Shortage Of Staff

This is NOT an earth shattering news clip but it is seriously disturbing to read such state of affairs in one of our listed companies. ( Hmm.. hope this is not one of the QUALITY stocks listed in the exchange!)

  • Oilcorp fails to submit annual statements
    Written by Loong Tse Min
    Thursday, 15 April 2010 22:41

    KUALA LUMPUR: OILCORP BHD will be unable to issue its annual audited financial statements for the financial year ended Dec 31, 2009 (FY09) by the stipulated deadline on April 30, 2010, the company said on Thursday, April 15.

    In a statement on Thursday, the PN 17-affected issuer said it had on the same day asked for an extension from the stock exchange to file the financial statements by July 31, 2010.

    Among the reasons for the delay, Oilcorp said its negotiations with lenders as well as its unfinalised regularisation plan were expected to affect accounting issues and treatments, and as such, its
    directors felt that it would be appropriate to submit the audited accounts after "having the conceptual regularisation plan finalised".

    The company said it had been faced with a shortage of staff as a majority of them had left and rehiring was made difficult with its cash flow constraints, while the group's current state made it difficult to attract new applicants.

    Oilcorp said it was also engaging a professional firm of valuers to determine the valuation of the group's assets to assess impairment, the results of which would be made available by end-April.

Well? Is this acceptable or not?

What's the "having the conceptual regularisation plan finalised" got to do with audited accounts?

Shortage of staff issue? Majority of them had left and rehiring was made difficult with its cash flow constraints?

Is that a valid excuse? In the posting OilCorp's Fiscal year Losses Explodes To 405 Million! and OilCorp Needs To Explain More On Why It Lost 405 Million!, I have loaded a snap shot of OilCorp's balance sheet. See this


There is money in there yes? So what is this "rehiring was made difficult with its cash flow constraints" OilCorp is talking about? Why nobody wants to do their accounts? Why has the majority of the staff left?

Totally shocking, really!

Oilcorp said it was also engaging a professional firm of valuers to determine the valuation of the group's assets to assess impairment..

So what is wrong with the previous valuers? Weren't they not valuers? So what is this about engaging a PROFESSIONAL firm of valuers? Are OilCorp saying that the previous valuers are not professional enough?

Good grief!

Thursday, April 15, 2010

KNM's MBO Fails

It was a laughing stock the day KNM's management announced its proposed management buyout.

It was noted in the postings
KNM: Do Show Us The Money! and KNM: Should I Stay Or Should I Go?

Yesterday KNM announced what was simply expected.


  • Further to the Company’s announcements dated 4 February 2010 and 22 March 2010 in relation to the above, the Board of Directors of KNM wishes to announce that after due deliberation, the Company and BlueFire Capital Group Ltd (“BlueFire”), including its partners GS Capital Partners VI Fund L.P and Mettiz Capital Limited, are unable to reach an agreement on the pricing of the Proposed Acquisition. Hence, the parties have mutually agreed that the proposal made by BlueFire on 4 February 2010 has lapsed.

Company and the bidders unable to agree on the pricing of the proposed acquisition? ( That announcement link: here )

That's all it can say? Is that all?

What a bloody disgrace!

Surely the company can be more transparent and shows the respect to the investing public how they failed to come into agreement on the pricing issue. What was BlueFire final bid? Was the proposal on 4th Feb 2010, the only proposal? Any newer proposal made by BlueFire? Was BlueFire even serious about the management buyout?

And who are the members of KNM management that are involved in the management buyout?

Last but not least, given what has transpired, and if the management that are involved in BlueFire's acquisition bid continues to remain in charge of the company, how should the minority shareholder view what has happened? Biggest question that needed to be asked is, "Does the current management even has the interest of the minority shareholders in mind?"

What if the management and BlueFire returns with a much lower pricing? Not possible?

Exactly. How can the minority shareholders trust the current management now?

The current management involved with BlueFire, should look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves what have they been doing the past couple of months? Have they been focused on running and managing the company? Or are they only interested only in doing the management buyout for their own vested interest?

Stinks doesn't it?

In my flawed opinion, the board of directors should review the loyalty and the integrity of the current management involved in BlueFire. If there is no loyalty and no integrity, these management should simply go!

The Star Business carried a much detailed article: KNM deal falls through

  • Thursday April 15, 2010
    KNM deal falls through
    By RISEN JAYASEELAN

    Offer lapses due to disagreement on pricing

    PETALING JAYA: The deal to acquire the assets and liabilities of oil and gas company, KNM Group Bhd, has fallen through due to a disagreement on pricing.

    The company said yesterday that the offer had lapsed by “mutual agreement of the parties,” as there was no agreement on the pricing.

    It is understood that a meeting between the buyers and the board of directors of KNM had taken place yesterday afternoon, prior to the announcement.

    StarBiz had three weeks ago highlighted the possibility of the buyers withdrawing the offer or lowering their price. Then, the buyers had completed their due diligence on the assets of KNM and yet, had not come up with any firm offer. The buyers had made a conditional offer to buy the assets of KNM on Feb 4, subject to a due diligence. The offer was at an indicative price of 90 sen per KNM share, totalling RM3.5bil.

    It is not clear what price the buyers had offered yesterday but an analyst familiar with the situation said the board had asked the buyers for a price which was at a certain premium over the market price of KNM’s shares.

    That, however, was more than what the buyers were willing to pay for KNM’s assets, the analyst said.

    Maybank Investment Bank believed that the buyers had made a final offer of between 60 and 70 sen. In a note issued yesterday, Maybank Investment expected the market to react negatively over the deal falling through. Should the deal fall through, “we tactically downgrade KNM to a sell in the short term, ahead of this negative newsflow,” Maybank Investment wrote.

    On the other hand, Kenanga Research head Yeonzon Yeow said that should KNM’s price dip below 60 sen a share, it would be a buying opportunity. Yeow has a fair value of 70 sen per KNM share, based on a price earnings multiple of 10 times the 2011 forecast earnings of KNM.

    But some other research houses have a lower fair value of KNM, such as OSK Research, which has a fair value on KNM at 59 sen and TA Research at 62 sen. Both research houses said their fair values exclude considerations of the then indicative offer of 90 sen.

    KNM founder and major shareholder Lee Swee Eng, a private equity firm called Mettiz Capital and a Goldman Sachs unit, are all part of the group seeking to buy KNM’s assets which include foreign companies in Germany and Italy.

    The due diligence, which was conducted by foreign-based consultants including KPMG, is said to have cost the buyers a few million US dollars.

    It is not surprising that the buyers are no longer keen to pay 90 sen a share for KNM’s assets as the latter posted an unexpected loss of RM31mil in its fourth quarter ended Dec 31, 2009. This dragged KNM’s full-year 2009 net profit to RM171mil, almost half the previous year’s RM336.4mil. The result was also significantly below analysts’ consensus forecast for FY2009 of RM288.7mil.

    The poor fourth quarter results were due mainly to provisioning for foreseeable losses in its operations in Brazil, Canada and Indonesia, coupled with a revaluation of the group’s Canadian properties. Analysts said that due to the low price of oil and the general economic malaise, many of the projects that KNM was supposed to have participated in had failed to materialise.

    Analysts said it was unlikely another offer for the assets of KNM could happen soon, considering that this group of buyers had already gone though a due diligence and yet could not agree on a price with the board.

    The attempted KNM deal may also go down in corporate history as one of the last attempted mergers and acquisitions that had sought to use the assets and liabilities route that required only a simple majority of shareholders to approve. It would also have been the largest private equity deal ever done in the country.

    The regulators are very likely to raise the shareholder approval threshold of such deals to 75% in the coming weeks.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

The Greece Aid Doesn't Solve Anything, It Just Buys Time!

Here is a brief summary of the Greek Aid from Kathy.

  • The euro has strengthened significantly over the past 24 hours as EU officials finalize a prescription for Greece. Here are the details:

    1) bilateral loans from European governments for 3 years

    2) up to €30bn lending by euro area members states for the first year, in addition to the IMF’s contribution (€12.5 to 15bn reportedly)

    3) lending rates near 5% calculated as 3-month euribor plus 300bp spread with further 100bp for more than 3 years and plus 50bp for operational cost

    4) IMF loans priced according to their formula (currently 3.25% for a loan of 10x quota)

    The package is larger than the market had anticipated and the rate is much lower than market rates. (
    http://www.kathylien.com/site/eurusd/terms-of-eu-support-for-greece )

On FT.com Markets rally on Greek aid resolution

  • Greece’s borrowing costs fell sharply and its stock market rallied on Monday as investors welcomed details of a proposed €30bn rescue by eurozone nations.

    Share prices in Athens rose 3.5 per cent, their biggest one-day gain since early January. Bank stocks jumped more than 6 per cent after heavy losses last week.

    “The solid form given to the Greek aid package, whether they use it or not, has given the market a much-needed psychological boost,” said Mike Berg, strategist at 4Cast consultancy.

    The euro also benefited. The currency enjoyed its best single-day gain since August last year, adding 1.43 per cent before easing to $1.3583, up 0.7 per cent by mid-afternoon in New York. Two-year Greek borrowing costs fell 0.78 percentage points to 6.11 per cent, having dropped as low as 5.42 per cent in early trade.

    The Greek government is set on Tuesday to borrow €1.2bn in six and 12-month loans to repay existing debts. The sale is expected to go smoothly.

    However, former International Monetary Fund officials said there was uncertainty over how the eurozone would work with the IMF, which would be involved in a rescue.

    Morris Goldstein, a former deputy director of the fund’s research department, said the lines of responsibility in the emerging deal were unclear.

    Mr Goldstein said both groups might want to take the lead should Greece ask for aid.

    The fund, he said, would insist on playing a leading role in setting the conditions for lending. These were likely to involve tough fiscal targets, more transparency on public finance data and possibly some structural reform to hold down wages and reduce costly pension rights.

    “This has the makings of a strange dog’s breakfast,” said Mr Goldstein. “If a regional grouping can set IMF conditionality, what is the point of the fund anyway? This could create a very dangerous precedent.”

    The rescue package agreed by eurozone members at the weekend would set interest rates of about 5 per cent – higher than eurozone countries’ own borrowing costs, but lower than the levels available to Greece in the markets.

    Analysts said the details of the rescue plan had left questions unanswered, including whether it implied that eurozone members were now liable for each others’ debts.

    The ongoing struggles of the eurozone to reach a deal have also left a “sour taste” in investors’ mouths, said Simon Derrick, head of currency strategy at Bank of New York Mellon.

Bull on the Euro? Euro gains on Greek aid, but downtrend intact (Kathy featured again. :D )

  • NEW YORK, April 12 (Reuters) - The euro advanced to its highest level against the U.S. dollar in nearly a month on Monday after euro zone finance ministers agreed on a financial aid package for Greece.

    The finance ministers approved a 30 billion euro ($40.5 billion) rescue package of loans, which Greece could tap if needed. At least 10 billion euros are also expected from the International Monetary Fund.

    The euro zone, however, pared gains as investors sought details about the plan. Analysts also said the bailout package was not a game-changer for the euro and many still expect the currency to head lower in the next few months.

    "The package has the size and terms the market wanted to see and it came quicker than expected," said Jens Nordvig, senior currency strategist at Nomura Securities in New York.

    "There is still procedural uncertainty about activation and disbursement,
    but the bottom line is that we now have something concrete for the first time in this saga, and that should be important for markets."

    The massive financial safety net boosted investor appetite for riskier assets, lifting U.S. stocks and briefly helping the Australian dollar rise to its highest in five months, before it fell later in the session.

    Investors, however, were still cautious, prompted in part by the need for clarification of details on how the aid mechanism could be activated.

    Christoph Steegmans, a German government spokesman, said on Monday that euro zone leaders, not those of the full European Union, would need to meet to activate the aid package for debt-ridden Greece. Earlier, Steegmans had said such a decision would require a full meeting of EU leaders.

    When asked by Reuters to clarify the point, he said a meeting "of government leaders from euro zone countries" would be needed.

    EURO RALLY NOT "EARTH-SHATTERING"

    The euro rose to $1.3691, its highest since mid-March, according to Reuters data, before trimming gains to $1.3581 in late afternoon, up 0.6 percent on the day. From trough to peak, the euro has climbed about 4 cents since last Thursday.

    "That said, the euro/dollar rally has not been earth-shattering and that fits with the notion that there are medium-term asset allocation shifts at play, a negative for the euro," said Nordvig of Nomura Securities.

    "I am pretty comfortable with (Nomura's) existing path for euro/dollar, which sees a moderate move lower in Q2 to $1.32, followed by a further slight decline in Q3 to $1.30."

    Analysts also expect short-term unwinding of net euro short positions, which were reduced slightly after hitting record highs a few weeks ago. That could probably take the euro to $1.38-$1.40 in the short term.

    The single euro zone currency is still down more than 5 percent against the dollar and 4.6 against the yen in 2010 to date, making it an underperformer among major currencies.

    The high-yielding Australian dollar AUD= briefly rose as high as US$0.9382 on improved risk appetite in Asia before retreating to US$0.9285, down 0.5 percent.

    The dollar rose 0.1 percent against the yen to 93.25 yen JPY=, with a possible revaluation in China's yuan currency in focus. Chinese President Hu Jintao visits Washington this week for a nuclear security summit and is expected to hold a one-on-one meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday.

    Currency investors are also likely to focus on first-quarter U.S. corporate earnings, which unofficially starts with the release of Alcoa Inc. (AA.N) results on Monday.

    "If earnings are healthy, stocks could extend their gains, which will help sustain risk appetite in the forex market. With the VIX index falling to the lowest level (since July 2007), equity investors are optimistic and not anticipating any major surprises," said Kathy Lien, director of FX research at GFT in New York.

However, not all are optimistic. Ask Stephen Roach.

  • April 12 (Bloomberg) -- The aid package offered by European governments “just buys Greece time” as the country still faces a “massive fiscal adjustment,” Morgan Stanley Asia Ltd. Chairman Stephen S. Roach said.

    “It may certainly reduce the possibility of default on a near-term basis,” Roach said today in a telephone interview with Bloomberg Radio from China.
    “But you have to ask yourself how the heck is Greece going to do the type of massive fiscal adjustment that they have supposedly agreed to in a short period of time to get these funds.”

    Forced into action by a surge in Greek borrowing costs to an 11-year high, euro-region finance ministers said yesterday they would offer as much as 30 billion euros ($41 billion) in three-year loans in 2010 at around 5 percent. As much as 15 billion euros would also come from the International Monetary Fund.

    “The economy is already in recession and they can only get deeper,” Roach said. “I think that will undermine the willingness of Greece to stay the course of this fiscal adjustment.” The aid deal “just buys time, that’s all it does,” he said.

    The Greek government has yet to request a European lifeline, confident that this year’s planned budget cuts will stem speculation that it’s heading for the euro region’s first- ever default. ( source:
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-12/greek-aid-package-just-buys-time-morgan-stanley-s-roach-says.html )

Just for the record: Greece needs to borrow around 11 billion euros by the end of May to refinance its debt. ( Read more: here )

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Is It Fair On The Minority Shareholders?

Reply to posting: How Badly Does The Minority Wants Takeovers?

  • solomon said...

    I guess from the minorities, it depends on their stock entry points and whether the stock has the potential to grow. All in all, whether a fair deal is envisaged?

    I am pretty "sure" a banker want more revenue which likely to come abt here via the major shareholder privatisation move. Nonetheless, historical records do suggest that minorities are not equally treated as it intends.

    For eg, if I am allowed to hold on the old MAXIS stock til now, does it mean that I could access to the jewel AIRCEL growth?? The recent listing of MAXIS without the jewel only give some the bitter feelings that are they being peel off in the certain regards.

    Obviously, when we have different goals we will made the different statements. Looks like we have one here, between a minorities and a banker.

Soloman,

Yeah, the banker. I wonder for whose interests?

Anyway on Aircel again.


How did Maxis managed to grow Aircel? Where did the funding come from? If I am not wrong, was it not from Maxis Communications. The old listed Maxis.

And would you not say the minorities HELPED fund the development of Aircel.

How was Aircel doing? Was it poor?

Nope. According to the horse's own mouth, it is growing at "one million new subscribers every month. We now have about 26 million subscribers," See posting here

So what's the implication now that Maxis relisted without Aircel.

Does the minority feel abused and mistreated?

Now let's look back at the minorities.

Lets no one forget that despite the name 'minority', these are shareholders and the last I checked my dictionary, a shareholder is a part owner of a company.

So why does anyone wants to be a shareholder? Do you think one would buy a share and be a long term shareholder for a 20% gain? Would a 20% gain even compensate the risk of the markets?

Yes, bear market crashes the stock but with owners taking the cheap excuses after a crash, such as the market is not valuing their stock correctly and that the stock is not loved and to use this excuse to privatise the stocks at a low price stinks doesn't it? Yes, current facts shows that some major shareholders are willing and wanting to delist the stock at the expense of the minorities. So would the threat of delisting be consider as yet another stock market risk!

So from a minority shareholder point of view, why do they have to endure yet another risk? Fair game? Yeah life is fair but only if you are the major shareholder.

Lastly, a minority shareholder buy a stock, say at 1.00. Why? The shareholder thinks the stock should be worth at least 4.00. And because he/she feels the reasoning and the justification is valid, they are willing to take the risk to be a shareholder. Now after enduring the ups and down of the market, the shareholder gets hit with a privatisation offer of 1.50 for the stock. Yes, a 50% gain is a gain but is it a fair and fully compensated gain in the eyes of the minority shareholder who feels strongly that the stock is worth 4.00? Surely the feel short changed yes?

Yeah, despite being not fair, the minority shareholder actually have a great option. Yes they can avoid these such shares like plague.


Friday, April 09, 2010

How Badly Does The Minority Wants Takeovers?

On Star Business the other day: Nazir says SC proposal would severely hit M&As

  • “I have heard comments that the higher the takeover threshold the better, especially for minorities. It is not true that the more power to minorities the better it is.
    “Minorities also need deals, mergers and takeovers,” he said. (Nazir)

Is not that the minority does not favour takeovers but the privatisation or the takeover of a listed subsidiary by its holding company has been rather tasteless.

Past issues:

The Bumi Armada issue.

  1. The Pirates which seized the Armada ( See also Pirates attempt to seize whole Armada: pitfalls of investing in Malaysia )

The Metrojaya issue.

  1. MUI's purchase of MetroJaya
  2. MUI's purchase of MetroJaya II

The current Astro issue.

  1. Astro Privatisation And Sun Direct TV's Immense Potential

The listing and delisting of Maxis. Yeah Maxis re-listed but without the jewel, Aircel.

The privatisation of Hume Industries.

  1. Who Is Public Investment Bank Trying To Kid By Saying Offer For Hume Industries Is Fair?
  2. Taking Of Hume Industries 1,2,3!
  3. Comments On Hume Industries Privatisation

Why do you think certain minorities is so against such takeovers?

How badly do minorities need takeovers when such 'rewarding' takeover practices occurs so often?

If this continue to happen, why be a minority when they do get a fair compensation for the risk taken to be a minority shareholder?

And if everything continues to be so lopsided against the minority, why invest?

Can the market exist without the minorities?

Also on today's papers: Support for 75% threshold proposal for takeovers