tmmonline.nz  |   landlords.co.nz        About Good Returns  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  RSS Feeds

NZ's Financial Adviser News Centre

GR Logo
Last Article Uploaded: Friday, December 27th, 9:33PM

Investments

rss
Latest Headlines

The choice for Hanover investors: Receivership or Allied Farmers?

Hanover investors face two choices: receivership or the Allied Farmers deal. Depositrates.co.nz compares the pros and cons of each option.

Monday, November 30th 2009, 1:52PM 1 Comment

The choice for Hanover investors can be boiled down to two options: receivership or the Allied Farmers' deal.

Grant Samuel says in its independent report that if Hanover continues under its moratorium, or debt repayment plan (DRP), it is "more likely than not to ultimately end in receivership."

It says Hanover has insufficient assets to meet its obligations under the plan.

Grant Samuel says the value gap between the two is reducing and a key difference is the shareholders' support package which was agreed to with the moratorium last year.

That package saw shareholders Mark Hotchin and Eric Watson put in cash and assets valued at $96 million.

With the down turn in the market the property part of the package is now valued at $44.5 million, and there is still a $20 million, uncalled cash pledge, bringing the total to $64.5 million.

Half of this pledge can be called, if required, at the end of this year to make the next payment to investors. If the company makes the next payment using its own funds, then that $10 million pledge component lapses.

Grant Samuel says the value gap between the moratorium and receivership further narrows when the net present value of payments likely under the repayment plan is compared with receivership.

"The key differences between a continuation of the DRP and receivership are the likely to be the timing of cash flows and the costs associated with a receiver. In Grant Samuel's opinion the difference between the two scenarios is minimal."

It says a receivership will be costly while the Allied proposal is a longer term play which has more chance of greater loan recoveries than recievership.

"Grant Samuel believe that a managed realisation of the loan assets by Allied Farmers has the potential to produce greater value to investors than under a receivership where the receiver will look to maximise price over a shorter term."

Receivership fees would be substantial. It is estimated fees could be around $2 million in the first year to December 2010, $1.5 million the following year and $1 million a year in the third and subsequent years.

The good news for investors is that, according to Grant Samuel, investors haven't lost any additional value by choosing the moratorium last year, rather than opting for receivership.

« Allied’s Hanover deal better than receivershipDorchester to end its moratorium »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 3 December 2009 at 9:49 am William said:
DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT ALLIED FARMERS HAVE THE SKILLS TO GET BETTER VALUE FOR THE HANOVER PROPERTIES THAN EITHER HANOVER THEMSELVES OR LIQUIDATORS/RECEIVERS????? I DOUBT IT.
WHAT DO YOU THINK AN ALLIED FARMERS SHARE WOULD BE WORTH IF THIS DEAL GOES AHEAD???? REMEMBER GENEVA????? THE SMART MONEY HAS TO BE RECEIVERSHIP.
Commenting is closed

 

print

Printable version  

print

Email to a friend
Today's Best Bank Rates
Rabobank 5.25  
Based on a $50,000 deposit
More Rates »
News Bites
Latest Comments
  • The good guys get told off
    “Very prudent points as always @JohnMilner. Whilst I don’t disagree with the process, I question any advantages from the...”
    3 days ago by Pragmatic
  • [The Wrap] The year that was - and what may happen next year
    “Hope you have a good recovery Phil. Interesting points 1.Box ticking already happening with SOA 's that look identical...”
    5 days ago by Very Frustrated Adviser
  • [The Wrap] The year that was - and what may happen next year
    “Nice summary Phil. In short: . Consumers will expect more from the industry for less . Advisers will be increasingly time...”
    5 days ago by Pragmatic
  • The good guys get told off
    “I can't quite reconcile the rationale, or lack thereof, with the comments so far. Pathfinder were found to have made misleading...”
    7 days ago by John Milner
  • The good guys get told off
    “As a follow on to this conversation: I'm assuming that the Regulator will be consistent by 'naming and shaming' the other...”
    8 days ago by Pragmatic
Subscribe Now

Deposit Rates newsletter

Previous News

MORE NEWS»

Most Commented On
About Us  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy  |  RSS Feeds  |  Letters  |  Archive  |  Toolbox  |  Disclaimer
 
Site by Web Developer and eyelovedesign.com