This is a total ₩608.4bil rights offer. This is larger than initially expected. A projected ₩543bil will be raised through common share issuance. The other ₩65bil will be raised in the form of RCPS. This is a combined 72.56% capital increase with a 42.05% share dilution.
80% will be allocated to the stockholders. Per share allocation for the stockholders is 0.58. Mar 27 is the ex-rights day for both Common and RCPS. Subscription rights will be listed and trade on Apr 19~25 only for Common. May 2 is for final pricing. New Common shares will be listed on May 29.
Offering size is much larger than initially expected. In the short-term, DHICO shares will likely take a harsh beating. At this point, we’d better stay away from it for now.
Frustration on the slow progress of the LTAP bid came to a head at the recent AGM, where shareholders registered what appeared to be protest votes aimed at Graincorp Ltd A (GNC AU)’s director elections and remuneration. The Board has currently three options to unlock shareholder value – achieve a binding LTAP bid, commence the portfolio review driven sale process or adopt the Tanarra Capital proposal.
The option with the highest potential to unlock shareholder value remains the LTAP bid. However, the Board’s dithering and pursual of unattractive alternative options have given LTAP more justification to lower than bump its bid, in our view.
Get Straight to the Source on Smartkarma
Smartkarma supports the world’s leading investors with high-quality, timely, and actionable Insights. Subscribe now for unlimited access, or request a demo below.
This is a total ₩608.4bil rights offer. This is larger than initially expected. A projected ₩543bil will be raised through common share issuance. The other ₩65bil will be raised in the form of RCPS. This is a combined 72.56% capital increase with a 42.05% share dilution.
80% will be allocated to the stockholders. Per share allocation for the stockholders is 0.58. Mar 27 is the ex-rights day for both Common and RCPS. Subscription rights will be listed and trade on Apr 19~25 only for Common. May 2 is for final pricing. New Common shares will be listed on May 29.
Offering size is much larger than initially expected. In the short-term, DHICO shares will likely take a harsh beating. At this point, we’d better stay away from it for now.
Frustration on the slow progress of the LTAP bid came to a head at the recent AGM, where shareholders registered what appeared to be protest votes aimed at Graincorp Ltd A (GNC AU)’s director elections and remuneration. The Board has currently three options to unlock shareholder value – achieve a binding LTAP bid, commence the portfolio review driven sale process or adopt the Tanarra Capital proposal.
The option with the highest potential to unlock shareholder value remains the LTAP bid. However, the Board’s dithering and pursual of unattractive alternative options have given LTAP more justification to lower than bump its bid, in our view.
Petrus (again) highlighted the premature termination of the Fortuna licence. Ophir announced a $300mn non-cash impairment in early January following the denial of the license extension for the Fortuna project in Equatorial Guinea (EG), having previously written down $310mn back in September. Ophir had invested ~US$700mn in the licence. Petrus accused Schrader of dropping the ball after the departure of CEO Nick Cooper in April 2018, who held key businesses relationships in EQ.
In its prior letter to Ophir on the 14 January, Petrus recommended selling the South-East Asian (SEA) assets to Medco, with a low-end fair value, before synergies, of £0.64/share, through to £1.42/share on a blue sky basis.
Furthermore, Petrus reckons no marketing effort has been for the Mexican license and the 20% ownership in Blocks 1 & 2 in Tanzania, which together have low-end value of $60mn (£0.065/share). Petrus added that Schrader had not actively solicited and considered alternative offers from other buyers; together with stonewalling demands for Ophir to return capital to shareholders.
Petrus signed off its latest salvo with a cordial “This is your final reminder to preserve and build value. We reserve all our legal rights in this situation“.
Further stirring the pot is alternative hedge fund Sand Grove, who has increased its exposure, via cash-settled derivatives, to 17.28% (as at13 February), up from 6.79% on the 1st February. I have heard, but yet to confirm, there are other shareholders seeking to disrupt this Offer. Ian Hannam, who advised Ophir’s board on its 2013 right issue, is understood to have also written to Ophir’s interim CEO Alan Booth and the board saying Medco’s offer is too low.
Trading marginally through terms. Medco’s Offer is conditional on 75%+ approval from Ophir’s shareholders, which appears tenuous.
Medco has the option to switch into a Takeover Offer, which in theory could be conditional on a 50% acceptance level, if Medco was in any way inclined to maintain Ophir’s listing. And a switch to a Tender Offer with a reduced shareholder condition, may further flesh out an alternative bidder to come over the top.
Ophir appears a worthwhile punt up at or just below terms. The next key event is the expected issuance of the Scheme booklet on the 28 February.
Get Straight to the Source on Smartkarma
Smartkarma supports the world’s leading investors with high-quality, timely, and actionable Insights. Subscribe now for unlimited access, or request a demo below.
This is a total ₩608.4bil rights offer. This is larger than initially expected. A projected ₩543bil will be raised through common share issuance. The other ₩65bil will be raised in the form of RCPS. This is a combined 72.56% capital increase with a 42.05% share dilution.
80% will be allocated to the stockholders. Per share allocation for the stockholders is 0.58. Mar 27 is the ex-rights day for both Common and RCPS. Subscription rights will be listed and trade on Apr 19~25 only for Common. May 2 is for final pricing. New Common shares will be listed on May 29.
Offering size is much larger than initially expected. In the short-term, DHICO shares will likely take a harsh beating. At this point, we’d better stay away from it for now.
Frustration on the slow progress of the LTAP bid came to a head at the recent AGM, where shareholders registered what appeared to be protest votes aimed at Graincorp Ltd A (GNC AU)’s director elections and remuneration. The Board has currently three options to unlock shareholder value – achieve a binding LTAP bid, commence the portfolio review driven sale process or adopt the Tanarra Capital proposal.
The option with the highest potential to unlock shareholder value remains the LTAP bid. However, the Board’s dithering and pursual of unattractive alternative options have given LTAP more justification to lower than bump its bid, in our view.
Petrus (again) highlighted the premature termination of the Fortuna licence. Ophir announced a $300mn non-cash impairment in early January following the denial of the license extension for the Fortuna project in Equatorial Guinea (EG), having previously written down $310mn back in September. Ophir had invested ~US$700mn in the licence. Petrus accused Schrader of dropping the ball after the departure of CEO Nick Cooper in April 2018, who held key businesses relationships in EQ.
In its prior letter to Ophir on the 14 January, Petrus recommended selling the South-East Asian (SEA) assets to Medco, with a low-end fair value, before synergies, of £0.64/share, through to £1.42/share on a blue sky basis.
Furthermore, Petrus reckons no marketing effort has been for the Mexican license and the 20% ownership in Blocks 1 & 2 in Tanzania, which together have low-end value of $60mn (£0.065/share). Petrus added that Schrader had not actively solicited and considered alternative offers from other buyers; together with stonewalling demands for Ophir to return capital to shareholders.
Petrus signed off its latest salvo with a cordial “This is your final reminder to preserve and build value. We reserve all our legal rights in this situation“.
Further stirring the pot is alternative hedge fund Sand Grove, who has increased its exposure, via cash-settled derivatives, to 17.28% (as at13 February), up from 6.79% on the 1st February. I have heard, but yet to confirm, there are other shareholders seeking to disrupt this Offer. Ian Hannam, who advised Ophir’s board on its 2013 right issue, is understood to have also written to Ophir’s interim CEO Alan Booth and the board saying Medco’s offer is too low.
Trading marginally through terms. Medco’s Offer is conditional on 75%+ approval from Ophir’s shareholders, which appears tenuous.
Medco has the option to switch into a Takeover Offer, which in theory could be conditional on a 50% acceptance level, if Medco was in any way inclined to maintain Ophir’s listing. And a switch to a Tender Offer with a reduced shareholder condition, may further flesh out an alternative bidder to come over the top.
Ophir appears a worthwhile punt up at or just below terms. The next key event is the expected issuance of the Scheme booklet on the 28 February.
The BGF Holdco/Sub duo is making a very dynamic movement. Yesterday, they made a 2σ jump. Sub went up 5.38%. Holdco stayed flat with a 0.24% gain. The day before yesterday, they made an exact opposite movement. Holdco was up 2%. Sub suffered a 3% loss. This also resulted in a 2σ jump, just the opposite way.
Still, local street sentiments are heavily divided on Sub’s fundamentals. There is no news or anything that may possibly reverse the tide at this point. Shorting on Sub is still going very strong. It seems that a lot of short-term traders both at home and abroad are trading on the duo lately.
On a 120D horizon, Holdco is still undervalued relative to Sub by about 10%. The duo should be again reverted back to a mean in favor of Holdco today. I’d suggest going long Holdco and short Sub now if you had closed the previous position which we initiated last week on Feb 13.
Get Straight to the Source on Smartkarma
Smartkarma supports the world’s leading investors with high-quality, timely, and actionable Insights. Subscribe now for unlimited access, or request a demo below.
There are still two schools of thought on the HMG restructuring. Glovis/Mobis merged entity as a holdco is the one. Only Glovis as a holdco with Mobis→HM→Kia below is the other. Since late 3Q last year, the local street started speculating on the latter.
This has pushed up Glovis price relative to Mobis. They are now near 200% of σ in favor of Glovis on a 20D MA. Glovis made a 2+σ jump upwardly just in 4 trading days. On a 120D horizon, they are almost at the 120D high.
At this point, neither is a hassle free way. In the latter, Glovis has to come up with nearly ₩2tril to buy Kia’s Mobis stake, highly likely through new debts. This financial burden wouldn’t be light on Glovis. Glovis may also be facing a risk of forceful holdco conversion. This will create a serious headache with Kia as a grand grand son subsidiary.
The current speculation pushing up Glovis relative to Mobis has yet to be sufficiently substantiated/justified. This suggests Glovis is being overbought on a speculation that will very likely be short-lived. I expect there will soon be a mean reversion for Mobis. I’d go long Mobis and short Glovis at this point.
Get Straight to the Source on Smartkarma
Smartkarma supports the world’s leading investors with high-quality, timely, and actionable Insights. Subscribe now for unlimited access, or request a demo below.
The news released on the 11th of March, about Tesla Motors (TSLA US) choosing CATL (A) (300750 CH) as battery supplier has focused much attention on the two companies and other battery suppliers. CATL which grabbed Panasonic Corp (6752 JP)’s leading position in the industry last year now seems to be grabbing the latter’s key customer as well. The news circulating states that, CATL could power Tesla’s Model 3 cars which Tesla is planning to start assembling at Tesla’s new factory near Shanghai. Following the release of this supposed deal, the stocks of the two companies moved positively, with CATL surging by almost 6.7% while Tesla rose by almost 2.4% during the day. However, both parties have not commented on this news yet or made any formal announcement regarding such a potential deal. In our Insight, Tesla Drifting Away Could Leave Panasonic Struggling to Gain Traction in China, we mentioned that Tesla was looking to locally source its batteries in China and that CATL could potentially be one such supplier. However, in January this year, it was reported that Tesla had signed a preliminary agreement with China’s Tianjin Lishen to supply batteries for its new Shanghai car factory, making the current news look less believable. Although it seems like the ongoing news about a Tesla-CATL pair up lacks integrity, with CATL sort of denying its intend to work with Tesla (according to an updated news release), the news does look interesting and its effect upon the related companies seems noteworthy.
After 6 months of haggling and due diligence, debt negotiation, and structuring, global education company Navitas Ltd (NVT AU) has now signed a Board-recommended Scheme Implementation Deed with a consortium led by Australian Private Equity firm BGH Capital consortium which includes Navitas Founder Rod Jones (also the largest holder at 13%) and AustralianSuper.
The agreed Scheme Price of A$5.825 is a 6% uplift from the original A$5.50 offered in the preliminary, indicative, non-binding offer announced on 10 October 2018 and a 34% premium to the undisturbed price of 9 October 2018 of A$4.35/share.
This history is that the consortium came in at A$5.50 (plus another cash+RollCo scrip offer), a month or so later the company effectively rejected it by not allowing the consortium to do due diligence after management lifted earnings guidance. This upset a number of shareholders. In November the share price ranged from A$4.95-5.25 or so and Chairman Tracey Horton got only 51% support at the AGM that month. The shares fell briefly below A$4.70 in early January this year before BGH came back in mid-January with a “revised indicative offer” of A$5.825 whereupon the shares bounced from about A$4.90 to about A$5.50 then climbed to A$5.60+ on 10mm shares volume in 3 days.
The shares hovered around A$5.58-5.62 for 6-7 weeks until the beginning of March, briefly traded into the A$5.70s, and then traded back down the last few days this week to the A$5.59-5.63 area.
On Thursday 21 March the shares were halted for the day, StreetTalk had an article about the deal being imminent, and late in the afternoon, the BGH SID was announced.
Now we start the official process. The Scheme document is expected to be dispatched in May 2019 with a deal completed by end-June or early July. I expect this deal gets up.
Navitas Ltd (NVT AU), an Australian-listed education company, entered into a binding agreement to be acquired by the BGH Consortium. As a reminder on 15 January 2019, the BGH Consortium bid against itself by offering a revised proposal of A$5.825 cash per share, 6% higher than its previous rejected offer.
Navitas’ board have unanimously recommended the scheme. We believe that BGH Consortium’s proposal is attractive and shareholders should accept the offer.
All other details of the scheme remain unchanged. The court meeting is to take place on the 25 March, while the long stop is the 20 June – unless both companies agree to an extension.
On Petrus
Petrus has yet to respond to the Offer increase; however, it would be surprising if its stance against the takeover has altered.
In its prior letter to Ophir on the 14 January, Petrus recommended selling the South-East Asian (SEA) assets to Medco – excluding the Tanzanian and Mexican investments – with a low-end fair value, before synergies, of £0.64/share, through to £1.42/share on a blue sky basis.
Shortly before the increase, Petrus was quoted (paywalled) it would vote its 3.95% against the takeover, while adding “Our satisfaction with the value our board deems as satisfactory has decreased further“, with reference to the release of Ophir’s full-year results on the 12 March.
On Sand Grove/Coro
Subsequent to the bump, Coro Energy PLC (CORO LN), which had previously submitted a non-binding cash/scrip reverse takeover offer on the 8 March, declared it has no intention to bid.
Sand Grove has also announced it has given an irrevocable undertaking to vote its 18.73% in favour of the scheme. Coro held discussions with Sand Grove before abandoning its bid.
Trading Tight – Upside Less Assured
Medco’s Offer is conditional on 75%+ approval from Ophir’s shareholders, which appears less tenuous following the 4.5% bump and Sand Grove’s irrevocable undertaking. While I consider the offer for Ophir sub-optimal – and shares have closed above terms on 30% of the trading days since Medco’s initial offer – Petrus alone cannot disrupt the vote. Of note, the next three largest shareholders behind Sand Grove have reduced their holdings since end-December 2018.
The gross/annualised spread is tight at 0.7%/2.6%, assuming early-July payment. The risk/reward in punting at or just below terms is now less attractive following this Offer Price increase and the irrevocable undertaking.
The return on this pair trade was 8.2%. (Thisassumes no commission costs, pricing spreads, taxes, or borrowing cost) using closing share price as of March 12th to March 21st, 2019. This trade was made over a period of 9 days so the annualized returns would be 332%.
We believe that Hyosung TNC is up so much in the past 9 days mainly because it appears that a few investors saw this stock as an undervalued stock that was being ignored by the market. In our report, Korean Stubs Spotlight: A Pair Trade Between Hyosung Corp and Hyosung TNC, we mentioned that Hyosung TNC appears to be a turnaround story driven by the following four key factors:
Decline in raw material prices
Aggressive spandex investment in India
Stabilization of spandex prices in 2H19
Consolidation of the global spandex industry
Get Straight to the Source on Smartkarma
Smartkarma supports the world’s leading investors with high-quality, timely, and actionable Insights. Subscribe now for unlimited access, or request a demo below.
After 6 months of haggling and due diligence, debt negotiation, and structuring, global education company Navitas Ltd (NVT AU) has now signed a Board-recommended Scheme Implementation Deed with a consortium led by Australian Private Equity firm BGH Capital consortium which includes Navitas Founder Rod Jones (also the largest holder at 13%) and AustralianSuper.
The agreed Scheme Price of A$5.825 is a 6% uplift from the original A$5.50 offered in the preliminary, indicative, non-binding offer announced on 10 October 2018 and a 34% premium to the undisturbed price of 9 October 2018 of A$4.35/share.
This history is that the consortium came in at A$5.50 (plus another cash+RollCo scrip offer), a month or so later the company effectively rejected it by not allowing the consortium to do due diligence after management lifted earnings guidance. This upset a number of shareholders. In November the share price ranged from A$4.95-5.25 or so and Chairman Tracey Horton got only 51% support at the AGM that month. The shares fell briefly below A$4.70 in early January this year before BGH came back in mid-January with a “revised indicative offer” of A$5.825 whereupon the shares bounced from about A$4.90 to about A$5.50 then climbed to A$5.60+ on 10mm shares volume in 3 days.
The shares hovered around A$5.58-5.62 for 6-7 weeks until the beginning of March, briefly traded into the A$5.70s, and then traded back down the last few days this week to the A$5.59-5.63 area.
On Thursday 21 March the shares were halted for the day, StreetTalk had an article about the deal being imminent, and late in the afternoon, the BGH SID was announced.
Now we start the official process. The Scheme document is expected to be dispatched in May 2019 with a deal completed by end-June or early July. I expect this deal gets up.
Navitas Ltd (NVT AU), an Australian-listed education company, entered into a binding agreement to be acquired by the BGH Consortium. As a reminder on 15 January 2019, the BGH Consortium bid against itself by offering a revised proposal of A$5.825 cash per share, 6% higher than its previous rejected offer.
Navitas’ board have unanimously recommended the scheme. We believe that BGH Consortium’s proposal is attractive and shareholders should accept the offer.
All other details of the scheme remain unchanged. The court meeting is to take place on the 25 March, while the long stop is the 20 June – unless both companies agree to an extension.
On Petrus
Petrus has yet to respond to the Offer increase; however, it would be surprising if its stance against the takeover has altered.
In its prior letter to Ophir on the 14 January, Petrus recommended selling the South-East Asian (SEA) assets to Medco – excluding the Tanzanian and Mexican investments – with a low-end fair value, before synergies, of £0.64/share, through to £1.42/share on a blue sky basis.
Shortly before the increase, Petrus was quoted (paywalled) it would vote its 3.95% against the takeover, while adding “Our satisfaction with the value our board deems as satisfactory has decreased further“, with reference to the release of Ophir’s full-year results on the 12 March.
On Sand Grove/Coro
Subsequent to the bump, Coro Energy PLC (CORO LN), which had previously submitted a non-binding cash/scrip reverse takeover offer on the 8 March, declared it has no intention to bid.
Sand Grove has also announced it has given an irrevocable undertaking to vote its 18.73% in favour of the scheme. Coro held discussions with Sand Grove before abandoning its bid.
Trading Tight – Upside Less Assured
Medco’s Offer is conditional on 75%+ approval from Ophir’s shareholders, which appears less tenuous following the 4.5% bump and Sand Grove’s irrevocable undertaking. While I consider the offer for Ophir sub-optimal – and shares have closed above terms on 30% of the trading days since Medco’s initial offer – Petrus alone cannot disrupt the vote. Of note, the next three largest shareholders behind Sand Grove have reduced their holdings since end-December 2018.
The gross/annualised spread is tight at 0.7%/2.6%, assuming early-July payment. The risk/reward in punting at or just below terms is now less attractive following this Offer Price increase and the irrevocable undertaking.
The return on this pair trade was 8.2%. (Thisassumes no commission costs, pricing spreads, taxes, or borrowing cost) using closing share price as of March 12th to March 21st, 2019. This trade was made over a period of 9 days so the annualized returns would be 332%.
We believe that Hyosung TNC is up so much in the past 9 days mainly because it appears that a few investors saw this stock as an undervalued stock that was being ignored by the market. In our report, Korean Stubs Spotlight: A Pair Trade Between Hyosung Corp and Hyosung TNC, we mentioned that Hyosung TNC appears to be a turnaround story driven by the following four key factors:
In this report, we provide an analysis of our pair trade idea between Ecopro Co Ltd (086520 KS) and Ecopro BM Co Ltd (247540 KS). Our strategy will be to go long Ecopro Co and to go short on Ecopro BM. Our base case strategy is to achieve gains of 7-9% on this pair trade.
Our SoTP valuation suggests a value per share of 52,004 won for Ecopro Co Ltd (086520 KS), representing 65% higher than current share price. Ecopro Co. currently has a market cap of 691 billion won. Ecopro Co’s 56% stake in Ecopro BM is worth 819 billion won, representing 119% of its market cap. Ecopro BM’s share price has jumped nearly 50% since its IPO on March 5th. We believe Ecopro Co has a much higher upside right now versus Ecopro BM over the next one to six months.
Established in 1998, Ecopro Co started its business focusing on air pollution control related products. It also has major investments in companies such as Ecopro BM Co Ltd (247540 KS) and Ecopro Innovation (unlisted). Ecopro Co’s major customers include Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, and Hyundai Heavy Industries.
Get Straight to the Source on Smartkarma
Smartkarma supports the world’s leading investors with high-quality, timely, and actionable Insights. Subscribe now for unlimited access, or request a demo below.
Petrus (again) highlighted the premature termination of the Fortuna licence. Ophir announced a $300mn non-cash impairment in early January following the denial of the license extension for the Fortuna project in Equatorial Guinea (EG), having previously written down $310mn back in September. Ophir had invested ~US$700mn in the licence. Petrus accused Schrader of dropping the ball after the departure of CEO Nick Cooper in April 2018, who held key businesses relationships in EQ.
In its prior letter to Ophir on the 14 January, Petrus recommended selling the South-East Asian (SEA) assets to Medco, with a low-end fair value, before synergies, of £0.64/share, through to £1.42/share on a blue sky basis.
Furthermore, Petrus reckons no marketing effort has been for the Mexican license and the 20% ownership in Blocks 1 & 2 in Tanzania, which together have low-end value of $60mn (£0.065/share). Petrus added that Schrader had not actively solicited and considered alternative offers from other buyers; together with stonewalling demands for Ophir to return capital to shareholders.
Petrus signed off its latest salvo with a cordial “This is your final reminder to preserve and build value. We reserve all our legal rights in this situation“.
Further stirring the pot is alternative hedge fund Sand Grove, who has increased its exposure, via cash-settled derivatives, to 17.28% (as at13 February), up from 6.79% on the 1st February. I have heard, but yet to confirm, there are other shareholders seeking to disrupt this Offer. Ian Hannam, who advised Ophir’s board on its 2013 right issue, is understood to have also written to Ophir’s interim CEO Alan Booth and the board saying Medco’s offer is too low.
Trading marginally through terms. Medco’s Offer is conditional on 75%+ approval from Ophir’s shareholders, which appears tenuous.
Medco has the option to switch into a Takeover Offer, which in theory could be conditional on a 50% acceptance level, if Medco was in any way inclined to maintain Ophir’s listing. And a switch to a Tender Offer with a reduced shareholder condition, may further flesh out an alternative bidder to come over the top.
Ophir appears a worthwhile punt up at or just below terms. The next key event is the expected issuance of the Scheme booklet on the 28 February.
The BGF Holdco/Sub duo is making a very dynamic movement. Yesterday, they made a 2σ jump. Sub went up 5.38%. Holdco stayed flat with a 0.24% gain. The day before yesterday, they made an exact opposite movement. Holdco was up 2%. Sub suffered a 3% loss. This also resulted in a 2σ jump, just the opposite way.
Still, local street sentiments are heavily divided on Sub’s fundamentals. There is no news or anything that may possibly reverse the tide at this point. Shorting on Sub is still going very strong. It seems that a lot of short-term traders both at home and abroad are trading on the duo lately.
On a 120D horizon, Holdco is still undervalued relative to Sub by about 10%. The duo should be again reverted back to a mean in favor of Holdco today. I’d suggest going long Holdco and short Sub now if you had closed the previous position which we initiated last week on Feb 13.
With Form 247-3 (Intention to Make a Tender Offer) and the FY18 dividend (Bt2.30/share) for Delta Electronics Thai (DELTA TB)having been announced, this insight briefly provides an updated indicative timetable for investors.
The next key date is the submission of Form 247-4, the Tender Offer for Securities, which will provide full details of the Offer.
Date to be on the registry to receive full-year dividend
As announced
22-Mar-19
Last day for revocation of shares
20th day of Tender Offer1
29-Mar-19
Close of Offer
Assuming 25 business days tender period
2-Apr-19
AGM
As announced
3-Apr-19
Consideration paid under the Offer
Assume 3 business days after close of Offer
11-Apr-19
Payment of FY18 dividend
As announced2
Source: Delta, my estimates 1 assuming the shareholder has not forfeited the right to revoke 2 the dividend is subject to a 10% WHT for non-residents.
This above indicative timetable assumes a conditional offer based on a minimum acceptance level of at least 50%. Payment under the offer may indeed be earlier, as explained below, which also ties in with a shareholders’ right to revoke shares tendered.
In addition, investors should not tender once the offer opens – assuming the tender period commences on the 25 February – but wait until their shares are on the registry as at 4 March to receive the FY18 dividend.
Currently trading at a 2.2%/22% gross/annualised spread. Bear in mind the dividend is subject to 10% tax.
There are still two schools of thought on the HMG restructuring. Glovis/Mobis merged entity as a holdco is the one. Only Glovis as a holdco with Mobis→HM→Kia below is the other. Since late 3Q last year, the local street started speculating on the latter.
This has pushed up Glovis price relative to Mobis. They are now near 200% of σ in favor of Glovis on a 20D MA. Glovis made a 2+σ jump upwardly just in 4 trading days. On a 120D horizon, they are almost at the 120D high.
At this point, neither is a hassle free way. In the latter, Glovis has to come up with nearly ₩2tril to buy Kia’s Mobis stake, highly likely through new debts. This financial burden wouldn’t be light on Glovis. Glovis may also be facing a risk of forceful holdco conversion. This will create a serious headache with Kia as a grand grand son subsidiary.
The current speculation pushing up Glovis relative to Mobis has yet to be sufficiently substantiated/justified. This suggests Glovis is being overbought on a speculation that will very likely be short-lived. I expect there will soon be a mean reversion for Mobis. I’d go long Mobis and short Glovis at this point.
Get Straight to the Source on Smartkarma
Smartkarma supports the world’s leading investors with high-quality, timely, and actionable Insights. Subscribe now for unlimited access, or request a demo below.
Navitas Ltd (NVT AU), an Australian-listed education company, entered into a binding agreement to be acquired by the BGH Consortium. As a reminder on 15 January 2019, the BGH Consortium bid against itself by offering a revised proposal of A$5.825 cash per share, 6% higher than its previous rejected offer.
Navitas’ board have unanimously recommended the scheme. We believe that BGH Consortium’s proposal is attractive and shareholders should accept the offer.
All other details of the scheme remain unchanged. The court meeting is to take place on the 25 March, while the long stop is the 20 June – unless both companies agree to an extension.
On Petrus
Petrus has yet to respond to the Offer increase; however, it would be surprising if its stance against the takeover has altered.
In its prior letter to Ophir on the 14 January, Petrus recommended selling the South-East Asian (SEA) assets to Medco – excluding the Tanzanian and Mexican investments – with a low-end fair value, before synergies, of £0.64/share, through to £1.42/share on a blue sky basis.
Shortly before the increase, Petrus was quoted (paywalled) it would vote its 3.95% against the takeover, while adding “Our satisfaction with the value our board deems as satisfactory has decreased further“, with reference to the release of Ophir’s full-year results on the 12 March.
On Sand Grove/Coro
Subsequent to the bump, Coro Energy PLC (CORO LN), which had previously submitted a non-binding cash/scrip reverse takeover offer on the 8 March, declared it has no intention to bid.
Sand Grove has also announced it has given an irrevocable undertaking to vote its 18.73% in favour of the scheme. Coro held discussions with Sand Grove before abandoning its bid.
Trading Tight – Upside Less Assured
Medco’s Offer is conditional on 75%+ approval from Ophir’s shareholders, which appears less tenuous following the 4.5% bump and Sand Grove’s irrevocable undertaking. While I consider the offer for Ophir sub-optimal – and shares have closed above terms on 30% of the trading days since Medco’s initial offer – Petrus alone cannot disrupt the vote. Of note, the next three largest shareholders behind Sand Grove have reduced their holdings since end-December 2018.
The gross/annualised spread is tight at 0.7%/2.6%, assuming early-July payment. The risk/reward in punting at or just below terms is now less attractive following this Offer Price increase and the irrevocable undertaking.
The return on this pair trade was 8.2%. (Thisassumes no commission costs, pricing spreads, taxes, or borrowing cost) using closing share price as of March 12th to March 21st, 2019. This trade was made over a period of 9 days so the annualized returns would be 332%.
We believe that Hyosung TNC is up so much in the past 9 days mainly because it appears that a few investors saw this stock as an undervalued stock that was being ignored by the market. In our report, Korean Stubs Spotlight: A Pair Trade Between Hyosung Corp and Hyosung TNC, we mentioned that Hyosung TNC appears to be a turnaround story driven by the following four key factors:
In this report, we provide an analysis of our pair trade idea between Ecopro Co Ltd (086520 KS) and Ecopro BM Co Ltd (247540 KS). Our strategy will be to go long Ecopro Co and to go short on Ecopro BM. Our base case strategy is to achieve gains of 7-9% on this pair trade.
Our SoTP valuation suggests a value per share of 52,004 won for Ecopro Co Ltd (086520 KS), representing 65% higher than current share price. Ecopro Co. currently has a market cap of 691 billion won. Ecopro Co’s 56% stake in Ecopro BM is worth 819 billion won, representing 119% of its market cap. Ecopro BM’s share price has jumped nearly 50% since its IPO on March 5th. We believe Ecopro Co has a much higher upside right now versus Ecopro BM over the next one to six months.
Established in 1998, Ecopro Co started its business focusing on air pollution control related products. It also has major investments in companies such as Ecopro BM Co Ltd (247540 KS) and Ecopro Innovation (unlisted). Ecopro Co’s major customers include Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, and Hyundai Heavy Industries.
In my original insight on January 15, 2019 TRADE IDEA: Amorepacific (002790 KS) Stub: A Beautiful Opportunity, I proposed setting up a stub trade to profit from the mis-priced stub business of Amorepacific that was trading at its widest discount to NAV in at least three years. During the 65 calendar days that followed, Amorepacific Group (002790 KS) has gained 7.3% and the outperformed Amorepacific Corp (090430 KS) by 2.84%. The trade has reverted to average levels in a period of about two months and in this insight I will outline why I think the trade is over.
In this insight I will discuss:
Performance of ALL my recommended stub trades
a post-trade analysis on the Amorepacific stub
Get Straight to the Source on Smartkarma
Smartkarma supports the world’s leading investors with high-quality, timely, and actionable Insights. Subscribe now for unlimited access, or request a demo below.
The BGF Holdco/Sub duo is making a very dynamic movement. Yesterday, they made a 2σ jump. Sub went up 5.38%. Holdco stayed flat with a 0.24% gain. The day before yesterday, they made an exact opposite movement. Holdco was up 2%. Sub suffered a 3% loss. This also resulted in a 2σ jump, just the opposite way.
Still, local street sentiments are heavily divided on Sub’s fundamentals. There is no news or anything that may possibly reverse the tide at this point. Shorting on Sub is still going very strong. It seems that a lot of short-term traders both at home and abroad are trading on the duo lately.
On a 120D horizon, Holdco is still undervalued relative to Sub by about 10%. The duo should be again reverted back to a mean in favor of Holdco today. I’d suggest going long Holdco and short Sub now if you had closed the previous position which we initiated last week on Feb 13.
With Form 247-3 (Intention to Make a Tender Offer) and the FY18 dividend (Bt2.30/share) for Delta Electronics Thai (DELTA TB)having been announced, this insight briefly provides an updated indicative timetable for investors.
The next key date is the submission of Form 247-4, the Tender Offer for Securities, which will provide full details of the Offer.
Date to be on the registry to receive full-year dividend
As announced
22-Mar-19
Last day for revocation of shares
20th day of Tender Offer1
29-Mar-19
Close of Offer
Assuming 25 business days tender period
2-Apr-19
AGM
As announced
3-Apr-19
Consideration paid under the Offer
Assume 3 business days after close of Offer
11-Apr-19
Payment of FY18 dividend
As announced2
Source: Delta, my estimates 1 assuming the shareholder has not forfeited the right to revoke 2 the dividend is subject to a 10% WHT for non-residents.
This above indicative timetable assumes a conditional offer based on a minimum acceptance level of at least 50%. Payment under the offer may indeed be earlier, as explained below, which also ties in with a shareholders’ right to revoke shares tendered.
In addition, investors should not tender once the offer opens – assuming the tender period commences on the 25 February – but wait until their shares are on the registry as at 4 March to receive the FY18 dividend.
Currently trading at a 2.2%/22% gross/annualised spread. Bear in mind the dividend is subject to 10% tax.
There are still two schools of thought on the HMG restructuring. Glovis/Mobis merged entity as a holdco is the one. Only Glovis as a holdco with Mobis→HM→Kia below is the other. Since late 3Q last year, the local street started speculating on the latter.
This has pushed up Glovis price relative to Mobis. They are now near 200% of σ in favor of Glovis on a 20D MA. Glovis made a 2+σ jump upwardly just in 4 trading days. On a 120D horizon, they are almost at the 120D high.
At this point, neither is a hassle free way. In the latter, Glovis has to come up with nearly ₩2tril to buy Kia’s Mobis stake, highly likely through new debts. This financial burden wouldn’t be light on Glovis. Glovis may also be facing a risk of forceful holdco conversion. This will create a serious headache with Kia as a grand grand son subsidiary.
The current speculation pushing up Glovis relative to Mobis has yet to be sufficiently substantiated/justified. This suggests Glovis is being overbought on a speculation that will very likely be short-lived. I expect there will soon be a mean reversion for Mobis. I’d go long Mobis and short Glovis at this point.
Get Straight to the Source on Smartkarma
Smartkarma supports the world’s leading investors with high-quality, timely, and actionable Insights. Subscribe now for unlimited access, or request a demo below.
All other details of the scheme remain unchanged. The court meeting is to take place on the 25 March, while the long stop is the 20 June – unless both companies agree to an extension.
On Petrus
Petrus has yet to respond to the Offer increase; however, it would be surprising if its stance against the takeover has altered.
In its prior letter to Ophir on the 14 January, Petrus recommended selling the South-East Asian (SEA) assets to Medco – excluding the Tanzanian and Mexican investments – with a low-end fair value, before synergies, of £0.64/share, through to £1.42/share on a blue sky basis.
Shortly before the increase, Petrus was quoted (paywalled) it would vote its 3.95% against the takeover, while adding “Our satisfaction with the value our board deems as satisfactory has decreased further“, with reference to the release of Ophir’s full-year results on the 12 March.
On Sand Grove/Coro
Subsequent to the bump, Coro Energy PLC (CORO LN), which had previously submitted a non-binding cash/scrip reverse takeover offer on the 8 March, declared it has no intention to bid.
Sand Grove has also announced it has given an irrevocable undertaking to vote its 18.73% in favour of the scheme. Coro held discussions with Sand Grove before abandoning its bid.
Trading Tight – Upside Less Assured
Medco’s Offer is conditional on 75%+ approval from Ophir’s shareholders, which appears less tenuous following the 4.5% bump and Sand Grove’s irrevocable undertaking. While I consider the offer for Ophir sub-optimal – and shares have closed above terms on 30% of the trading days since Medco’s initial offer – Petrus alone cannot disrupt the vote. Of note, the next three largest shareholders behind Sand Grove have reduced their holdings since end-December 2018.
The gross/annualised spread is tight at 0.7%/2.6%, assuming early-July payment. The risk/reward in punting at or just below terms is now less attractive following this Offer Price increase and the irrevocable undertaking.
The return on this pair trade was 8.2%. (Thisassumes no commission costs, pricing spreads, taxes, or borrowing cost) using closing share price as of March 12th to March 21st, 2019. This trade was made over a period of 9 days so the annualized returns would be 332%.
We believe that Hyosung TNC is up so much in the past 9 days mainly because it appears that a few investors saw this stock as an undervalued stock that was being ignored by the market. In our report, Korean Stubs Spotlight: A Pair Trade Between Hyosung Corp and Hyosung TNC, we mentioned that Hyosung TNC appears to be a turnaround story driven by the following four key factors:
In this report, we provide an analysis of our pair trade idea between Ecopro Co Ltd (086520 KS) and Ecopro BM Co Ltd (247540 KS). Our strategy will be to go long Ecopro Co and to go short on Ecopro BM. Our base case strategy is to achieve gains of 7-9% on this pair trade.
Our SoTP valuation suggests a value per share of 52,004 won for Ecopro Co Ltd (086520 KS), representing 65% higher than current share price. Ecopro Co. currently has a market cap of 691 billion won. Ecopro Co’s 56% stake in Ecopro BM is worth 819 billion won, representing 119% of its market cap. Ecopro BM’s share price has jumped nearly 50% since its IPO on March 5th. We believe Ecopro Co has a much higher upside right now versus Ecopro BM over the next one to six months.
Established in 1998, Ecopro Co started its business focusing on air pollution control related products. It also has major investments in companies such as Ecopro BM Co Ltd (247540 KS) and Ecopro Innovation (unlisted). Ecopro Co’s major customers include Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, and Hyundai Heavy Industries.
In my original insight on January 15, 2019 TRADE IDEA: Amorepacific (002790 KS) Stub: A Beautiful Opportunity, I proposed setting up a stub trade to profit from the mis-priced stub business of Amorepacific that was trading at its widest discount to NAV in at least three years. During the 65 calendar days that followed, Amorepacific Group (002790 KS) has gained 7.3% and the outperformed Amorepacific Corp (090430 KS) by 2.84%. The trade has reverted to average levels in a period of about two months and in this insight I will outline why I think the trade is over.
I should have seen this coming. The asset is juicy enough, and they have a large enough stake, and the company is small enough, that this is an easy trade to do if you can get the funding. It makes eminent sense to be able to put the money down and go for it.
I have covered this minor disaster of an MBO (Management BuyOut) of Kosaido Co Ltd (7868 JP) since it was launched, with the original question of what one could do (other than refuse). Famed/notorious Japanese activist Yoshiaki Murakami and his associated companies started buying in and then the stock quickly cleared the Bain Capital Japan vehicle’s bid price. The deal was extended, then the Bain bid was raised to ¥700/share last week with the minimum threshold set at 50.01% not 66.67% but still the shares had not traded that low, and did not following the news. But Bain played chicken with Murakami and the market in its amended filing, including the words 「公開買付者は、本開買付条件の変更後の本公開買付価格を最終的なものとし、今後、本公開買付価格を一切変更しないことの決定をしております。」which roughly translates to “The Offeror, having changed the terms, has made This Tender Offer Price final, and from this point onward, has decided to absolutely not raise the Tender Offer Price.”
So now Murakami-san has launched a Tender Offer of his own. Murakami-affiliated entities Minami Aoyama Fudosan KK and Reno KK have launched a Tender Offer at ¥750/share to buy a minimum of 9,100,900 shares and a maximum of all remaining shares. The entities currently own 3,355,900 shares (13.47%) between them – up from 11.71% reported up through yesterday [as noted in yesterday’s insight, it looked likely from the volume and trading patterns prior to yesterday’s Large Shareholder Report that they had continued buying].
Buying a minimum of 9,100,900 shares at ¥750/share should be easier for Murakami-san’s bidding entity than buying a minimum of 12,456,800 shares (Bain Capital’s minimum threshold) at ¥700/share, but the Murakami TOB Tender Agent is Mita Securities, which is a lesser-known agent and it is possible that the main agent for the Bain tender (SMBC Securities) could make life difficult for its account holders.
The likelihood that Murakami-san doesn’t have his bid funded or won’t follow through is, in my eyes, effectively zero. Tender Offer announcements are vetted by both the Kanto Local Finance Bureau and the Stock Exchange. You know this has been in the works for a couple of weeks simply because of that aspect. But one of the two documents released today includes an explanation of the process Murakami-san’s companies have gone through to arrive at this bid, and that tells you it may have gone on longer.
So what next? The easy answer is there is now a put at ¥750/share. Unless there is not. Weirder things have happened.
Read on…
For Recent Insights on the Kosaido Situation Published on Smartkarma…
Smartkarma supports the world’s leading investors with high-quality, timely, and actionable Insights. Subscribe now for unlimited access, or request a demo below.
