lessthaniv Posted March 21, 2013 Author Posted March 21, 2013 NO PR from MERC to pull the offer yet, I take that it means they still plan to get forward, hopefully the remaining 54% will tender shares them. 1) I think you find out next week that Steel head has tendered to ABH. 2) That gives ABH control and kills the MERC deal. 3) ABH will extend the offer again under the same terms to allow remaining shareholders to tender without the competing MERC offer in the way. For those comfortable in following FFH et al into ABH, I think the proper decision was to sell FBK and immediately repurchase ABH over the last two days. FBK could be had for around $.98 after the Supreme Court Decision was made. ABH traded below $13. ABH stock is priced at $15.83 in the deal. So, this manual transaction gives you 22% more ABH shares not including friction costs. Volume was there to support larger trades. Just under 9M shares in the last 2 days. And, at least you could enjoy your weekend knowing you upped Prem by 22%. ;D (Hopefully, ABH doesn't reprice the deal above that! :'() With RFP pushing to $17.50 today ... the highlighted transaction together with the recovery of RFP have put me back into the money with my SFK.un / FBK purchases...... Took a while but with RFP looking very undervalued, I might get out of this with a nice profit yet !
FFHWatcher Posted March 22, 2013 Posted March 22, 2013 NO PR from MERC to pull the offer yet, I take that it means they still plan to get forward, hopefully the remaining 54% will tender shares them. 1) I think you find out next week that Steel head has tendered to ABH. 2) That gives ABH control and kills the MERC deal. 3) ABH will extend the offer again under the same terms to allow remaining shareholders to tender without the competing MERC offer in the way. For those comfortable in following FFH et al into ABH, I think the proper decision was to sell FBK and immediately repurchase ABH over the last two days. FBK could be had for around $.98 after the Supreme Court Decision was made. ABH traded below $13. ABH stock is priced at $15.83 in the deal. So, this manual transaction gives you 22% more ABH shares not including friction costs. Volume was there to support larger trades. Just under 9M shares in the last 2 days. And, at least you could enjoy your weekend knowing you upped Prem by 22%. ;D (Hopefully, ABH doesn't reprice the deal above that! :'() With RFP pushing to $17.50 today ... the highlighted transaction together with the recovery of RFP have put me back into the money with my SFK.un / FBK purchases...... Took a while but with RFP looking very undervalued, I might get out of this with a nice profit yet ! Thanks for the jinx!! Just be quiet!!
lessthaniv Posted March 22, 2013 Author Posted March 22, 2013 NO PR from MERC to pull the offer yet, I take that it means they still plan to get forward, hopefully the remaining 54% will tender shares them. 1) I think you find out next week that Steel head has tendered to ABH. 2) That gives ABH control and kills the MERC deal. 3) ABH will extend the offer again under the same terms to allow remaining shareholders to tender without the competing MERC offer in the way. For those comfortable in following FFH et al into ABH, I think the proper decision was to sell FBK and immediately repurchase ABH over the last two days. FBK could be had for around $.98 after the Supreme Court Decision was made. ABH traded below $13. ABH stock is priced at $15.83 in the deal. So, this manual transaction gives you 22% more ABH shares not including friction costs. Volume was there to support larger trades. Just under 9M shares in the last 2 days. And, at least you could enjoy your weekend knowing you upped Prem by 22%. ;D (Hopefully, ABH doesn't reprice the deal above that! :'() With RFP pushing to $17.50 today ... the highlighted transaction together with the recovery of RFP have put me back into the money with my SFK.un / FBK purchases...... Took a while but with RFP looking very undervalued, I might get out of this with a nice profit yet ! Thanks for the jinx!! Just be quiet!! doh!!
lessthaniv Posted February 21, 2014 Author Posted February 21, 2014 Nice move in the currency has helped out and together with above transaction + some additional purchases, FBK has finally worked out well for me. Corking a bottle tonight... Now about that FTP stock ...
Guest Quebec Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Rfp is doing a bit of a moonshoot this morning! Wondering if something is brewing or just a fast mean reversion. I wish they'd snatch FTP, it's rype!
Guest Quebec Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Michel Nadeau, a former Caisse de dépot hi level executive and now a governance expert, also believes the AMF (Autorité des marchés financiers) should look into the Fibrek take-over which smells like an insider bid. Details here: http://lejournaldequebec.canoe.ca/journaldequebec/actualites/quebec/archives/2011/12/20111219-184936.html Michel Nadeau speculates that Prem's investigation by the AMF could be Fibrek related: http://www.journaldequebec.com/2014/08/05/la-vente-de-fibrek-pourrait-interesser-lamf
finetrader Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 This saga involving Prem, Fibrek & Resolute.. I just thought that was poorly executed..
Guest Quebec Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Indeed. Still mad to be taken out for about 0.90$ when there was an 1.40$ offer on the table. The investigators can mine this board and stockhouse to find all they need
alertmeipp Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Yes, that was a rip off. If the investigation is really related to fbk, hope we can get compensated some how. 8)
SharperDingaan Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 HW is going to have to wear this for a very long time, & it ranks right up there with what SAC almost pulled off on FFH. We can debate similarities, but that is the perception - & years later it hasn't dulled any. Ultimately it is going to come down to what they have to do to shake the monkey off their back, & the AMF imposing it. We would be one of the compensated, but we would prefer a history making & precedent setting fine; massive enough to choke, but not kill. A headline 1B of funds to the endowment of a couple of Graham style investment chairs in Canada, payable over 2-3 holding periods of 3-5yrs each. If HW compounds at 15%/yr, the day 1 capital injection will double in 5 yrs & quintuple in 10. Upfront cost of 250M, the master demonstrates his craft over a decade to the recipients, & those recipients get a guaranteed minimum payout irrespective of investment performance. Straight forward modified DB pension plan. Sh1te happens, but it shouldn't kill you; & two wrongs don't make a right. SD
Parsad Posted August 13, 2014 Posted August 13, 2014 It was probably one of you jackasses who complained! No, let's not sue the Fibrek board, but go after the bidder. Sheesh! Cheers!
Guest Quebec Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-30/fairfax-says-insider-trading-probe-of-ceo-tied-to-fibrek-deal Michel Nadeau, a former Caisse de dépot hi level executive and now a governance expert, also believes the AMF (Autorité des marchés financiers) should look into the Fibrek take-over which smells like an insider bid. Details here: http://lejournaldequebec.canoe.ca/journaldequebec/actualites/quebec/archives/2011/12/20111219-184936.html Michel Nadeau speculates that Prem's investigation by the AMF could be Fibrek related: http://www.journaldequebec.com/2014/08/05/la-vente-de-fibrek-pourrait-interesser-lamf
SharperDingaan Posted May 3, 2015 Posted May 3, 2015 This is when you put on the long term hat, and DO NOT take the short-term advice. Even if you don't think you did anything wrong, when the perception is that you did - whatever you think is irrelevant. You win by demonstrating leadership, class, and going the extra distance. The benefits come back to you, over and over, in spades. The best public example is perhaps how Manulife’s Dominic D'Alessandro handled the scandal that arose from Manulife selling the mutual funds of a provider that ultimately turned out to be less than honest. Manulife had nominal financial exposure, but immediately announced that it would cover all of its clients to whom it had sold the funds. Took a lot of courage. They were not pushed, & took a lot of heat for it (changed the way the game is played), but it was the right thing to do, & protected their reputation. Ultimately it cost them nothing, but that goodwill …. went a long way to saving their ass later. SD
cwericb Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 This investigation was announced last August. Why is it news again in April when it seems nothing new has been released - or did I miss something? August 1, 2014, WSJ, etc: “Fairfax Financial Under Investigation for Alleged Insider Trading” May 1, 2015, CTV News, etc: “Fairfax under investigation for insider trading” Was May 1st a slow news day or something? Given all this, there was a certain bad smell about that deal and at the very least it added a dose of reality to the “Fair & Friendly” aspect of Fairfax. That is the reason why I try to avoid buying companies in which Fairfax has an interest. I doubt there was personal wrongdoing on anyone’s part, but it was a nasty deal. There were a lot of unhappy Fibrek shareholders and I can't help but wonder if some of them have pushed this investigation which, whatever the outcome, doesn’t add anything to Fairfax’s reputation when you keep seeing headlines like the above.
SharperDingaan Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 The fact that this thing keeps periodically reappearing means the fire is not out. Add to it that it is now 9 months later- & it may well also indicate that ground is being prepared ahead of some possible future action. Most folks acknowledge this thing WAS abusive; its just how much so - that is up for debate. They need to have a discussion, & agree to a neutral solution. There are many possibilities, but it is probably in their interests to initiate. SD
Guest Quebec Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 This investigation was announced last August. Why is it news again in April when it seems nothing new has been released - or did I miss something? The news is that the ongoing investigation is related to Fibrek. Prior to that, we only knew it was related to a Quebec company/transaction. With the timing when this first came out, it could have been MegaBlok, or something else.
Guest Quebec Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 The fact that this thing keeps periodically reappearing means the fire is not out. Add to it that it is now 9 months later- & it may well also indicate that ground is being prepared ahead of some possible future action. Most folks acknowledge this thing WAS abusive; its just how much so - that is up for debate. They need to have a discussion, & agree to a neutral solution. There are many possibilities, but it is probably in their interests to initiate. SD Agreed. Give us at least the 40 cents/share that Mercer offered us and we were denied. Here is my first post on COBF: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/resolute-forest-products-commences-takeover-bid-of-fibrek/msg63392/#msg63392 Here is pretty good summary of the unfairness: http://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard/t.fbk/fibrek-inc?postid=19743684
cwericb Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 “Agreed. Give us at least the 40 cents/share that Mercer offered us and we were denied.” Yup. Fairfax is my biggest holding and they are a great company and all that, but some here believe they can do no wrong. However, there are a lot of us on this board who were stung by what happened with Fibrek and won’t soon forget it. As a shareholder I hope they did nothing illegal, but Fairfax’s moto is “fair, friendly acquisitions” they just never stated to whom. Rather hypocritical in my humble opinion. Thanks Quebec for the references as I look back at those pages from 2011and see how many contributors to this board were involved with Fibrek and who are still active here.
lessthaniv Posted May 5, 2015 Author Posted May 5, 2015 I recall sitting at $.70 wondering how things were going to play out. Fairfax organized a transaction that allowed me to sell my FBK stock at > 50% premium to FBK's previous trading value and use the proceeds to reinvest with the acquirer at a 20%+ discount to the terms Fairfax got. In addition those shares were also undervalued and have since closed that valuation gap. Fairfax did right by their shareholders to remove them from the FBK mess and I'm grateful they provided me with an exit strategy too. FBK was the mistake I made. The ABH acquisition was the way out.
nodnub Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 The fact that this thing keeps periodically reappearing means the fire is not out. Add to it that it is now 9 months later- & it may well also indicate that ground is being prepared ahead of some possible future action. Most folks acknowledge this thing WAS abusive; its just how much so - that is up for debate. They need to have a discussion, & agree to a neutral solution. There are many possibilities, but it is probably in their interests to initiate. SD Agreed. Give us at least the 40 cents/share that Mercer offered us and we were denied. I have been stuck in situations like this a few times before. I'm guessing it will be a cold day in hell before any SFK/FBK shareholders see any additional $. ;)
SharperDingaan Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 We don't think we'll ever see a dime on this - but we're inclined to go with the ATF on this one. Big or small, the same rules apply to everyone in the sandbox. Agreed that FFH's involvement was beneficial to SFK/FBK shareholders, but you cannot be on both sides of a transaction - and then use that influence to force acceptance of the LOWER of two bids. THAT was the abuse, & it deprived ALL shareholders of the difference in value between the two bids. Make shareholders whole, evidence contrition, pay a modest fine for appearances sake, & this whole thing would very likely drop away - for good. It is not a lot of money, most would value their reputation more than the fine, & there is clear first mover advantage. But insist on being stubborn .... & you end up looking like Conrad Black and Hollinger. Rich men who forgot the company wasn't theirs, and couldn't see that what they did was abusive - even after it had been pointed out to them. SD
Nnejad Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Kind of extreme to call Prem's hard share lock-up agreement as Conrad Black-esque. Here was the original release, announcing a hard lock-up at a 39% premium before any news of a Mercer bid. In fact, thinking back on it, was Mercer ever really serious when it insisted on a majority tender as a stipulation to its bid? Seems like the whole bid was just noise thrown in to potentially protect a neighbor. http://resolutefp.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=28238&item=92853
lessthaniv Posted May 6, 2015 Author Posted May 6, 2015 Kind of extreme to call Prem's hard share lock-up agreement as Conrad Black-esque. Here was the original release, announcing a hard lock-up at a 39% premium before any news of a Mercer bid. In fact, thinking back on it, was Mercer ever really serious when it insisted on a majority tender as a stipulation to its bid? Seems like the whole bid was just noise thrown in to potentially protect a neighbor. http://resolutefp.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=28238&item=92853 X2
SharperDingaan Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 There is no denying the lock-up premium was beneficial, but when it was over - there was a 2nd HIGHER bid on the table, FFH was on both sides of the table, & they forced the firm into taking the related party LOWER bid. What one thought of the Mercer bid is really irrelevant; the fact is it existed, it was live, and it was the higher of the two bids. Because of the overt ability to influence, a higher standard of care exists of related parties. So much so, that External Auditors are required to make clients disclose (& validate the accuracy of) the nature of, activity, and names of any/all related parties the firm has dealt with over the preceding year. Sh1te happens, but related party abuse is not slap on the wrist stuff. Conrad Black WAS a related party abuser, but he is one end of the spectrum. It is very likely that in the heat of battle, FFH truly & unintentionally tripped the related party wire - & thereby represents the other end of the spectrum; but it is still related party abuse. When good people do nothing, they feed the negative perception. There is nothing to say that the other end of spectrum could not be perceived positively, it just takes the courage to have the discussion. The monkey is not going away. SD
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now