IBRC Sale of Siteserv at €100 million loss.

delahuntv

Sorry, but what I see is a politician, Catherine Murphy who is not likely to get a seat in next election looking for publicity.

she has zero business experience and absolutely no idea about what she was talking about.

so far I have heard nothing from anyone that would concern me - if anything, the minuting of every meeting and the questioning of all aspects of the deal at every stage shows how diligent it was done.

remember there's an anti denis o brien brigade out there - some people hate success.

delahuntv

Sorry, but what I see is a politician, Catherine Murphy who is not likely to get a seat in next election looking for publicity.

she has zero business experience and absolutely no idea about what she was talking about.

so far I have heard nothing from anyone that would concern me - if anything, the minuting of every meeting and the questioning of all aspects of the deal at every stage shows how diligent it was done.

remember there's an anti denis o brien brigade out there - some people hate success.

Muahahaha

blackwhite wrote: »

TBH - all this post shows is how little you know about the topic under discussion.

One simple difference:
If I'm selling a table on adverts, then there's not much chance of 2000 employees being less jobless if I sell it to someone who wants to break up the table and re-sell it for firewood.

All we're talking about is a simple phone call or email to the overbidders to ask them to drop or amend their T&Cs. If IBRC didnt do that (and it seems they didnt) then they werent very competent negotiators and weren't getting best value for the taxpayer. In that respect the situation was no different to doing any bit of business- the seller is supposed to get the best price. They had better prices but worse conditions. It is incumbent on them to try to negotiate, public money was at stake. That extra €15m might have built a school or a new Garda station but they didnt bother pursuing it. Thats bad business in anyones book.

Muahahaha

delahuntv wrote: »

Sorry, but what I see is a politician, Catherine Murphy who is not likely to get a seat in next election looking for publicity.

Link? First I heard of it

she has zero business experience and absolutely no idea about what she was talking about.

Neither do most of the cabinet who are running the country. In any case she seems to be completely on the ball, her single handed investigation of this has FG, Labour Denis O'Brien, IBRC, Siteserv all reeling and squirming in the media. Her job in opposition is to hold the government to account, in that regard she has done a superb job.

remember there's an anti denis o brien brigade out there - some people hate success.

Yeah sure thats it, we're all begrudgers on here :rolleyes:

seamus

Muahahaha wrote: »

All we're talking about is a simple phone call or email to the overbidders to ask them to drop or amend their T&Cs.

And how long do you think that would take?

It's not a matter of, "Ah yeah sure grand, tell you what, we'll do that. Let me know what your guys say".

More likely it's, "Well the next board meeting is next Monday, but I can try and call one in two days and hopefully we get enough people there to discuss it. Can you call off tonight's EGM and hang on for 72 hours and I'll definitely be able to give you an answer then about whether we can modify our offer?"

Eh, no, seeya later.

Muahahaha

Even more conflicts of interest in this tangled web
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/04/24/the-kpmg-connection/

Muahahaha

seamus wrote: »

And how long do you think that would take?

It's not a matter of, "Ah yeah sure grand, tell you what, we'll do that. Let me know what your guys say".

More likely it's, "Well the next board meeting is next Monday, but I can try and call one in two days and hopefully we get enough people there to discuss it. Can you call off tonight's EGM and hang on for 72 hours and I'll definitely be able to give you an answer then about whether we can modify our offer?"

Eh, no, seeya later.

The French bid might have come in late but there was another bid in the region of €55m that was in well on time. That too had T&Cs which again dont seem to be negotiated on so while I take your point above in relation to the French bid the other one doesnt seem to have spurred IBRC in trying to get a better price for the taxpayer. The fact that Siteserv made a profit of €9m in its first year would also suggest that the company was sold too cheap.

In any case this whole debacle reminds me of the offer Siemans made to give the Irish govt free water meters in exchange for a royalty per meter. Phil Hogan said it didnt represent value for money for the taxpayer and DOB ended up with winning the water meter contract whereby he is now installing meters that they know will be obselete in 10-12 years and they'll have to be installed all over again. Nice business if you can get it and it seems with Fine Gael some individuals most certainly can.

Seth Brundle

Muahahaha wrote: »

In any case this whole debacle reminds me of the offer Siemans made to give the Irish govt free water meters in exchange for a royalty per meter. Phil Hogan said it didnt represent value for money for the taxpayer and DOB ended up with winning the water meter contract whereby he is now installing meters that they know will be obselete in 10-12 years and they'll have to be installed all over again. Nice business if you can get it and it seems with Fine Gael some individuals most certainly can.

So Siemens are a charity and would have done it without making a crust(just a meagre royalty)?
Didn't Siemens want exclusivity and not have to propose for the work?
When it did go to public tender, did they apply?

If the Siemens offer was accepted, it would have represented complete disregard for the tendering processes that we have (regardless of your view on them)

rrpc

Muahahaha wrote: »

The French bid might have come in late but there was another bid in the region of €55m that was in well on time. That too had T&Cs which again dont seem to be negotiated on so while I take your point above in relation to the French bid the other one doesnt seem to have spurred IBRC in trying to get a better price for the taxpayer.

That's not how a bid system works though. You ask for bids, make a shortlist and run a final round with that shortlist. It's like an auction and your final bid can't be amended after bidding closes.

Muahahaha wrote: »

The fact that Siteserv made a profit of €9m in its first year would also suggest that the company was sold too cheap.

It may well have been profitable before the sale but crippled with huge borrowings would have wiped that out. Once the borrowing was eliminated the company would have been in a much better position.

Muahahaha wrote: »

In any case this whole debacle reminds me of the offer Siemans made to give the Irish govt free water meters in exchange for a royalty per meter. Phil Hogan said it didnt represent value for money for the taxpayer and DOB ended up with winning the water meter contract whereby he is now installing meters that they know will be obselete in 10-12 years and they'll have to be installed all over again. Nice business if you can get it and it seems with Fine Gael some individuals most certainly can.

How much per meter was the royalty? How much is the installation cost? You must have those numbers if you can make the assumption it was a bad deal.

nice_guy80

Some dirty laundry is going to be aired in this saga.

The whole thing stinks

Gringo180

Its also emerged that former executives at FAS that brought there wives on expensive foreign trips out of taxpayers money wont face legal action :pac:

rrpc

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Some dirty laundry is going to be aired in this saga.

The whole thing stinks

Really? Something was sold during the depths of the recession for one third its loan value?

In that case you'll probably need to investigate the sale of 46 houses in Dingle for less than 3 million and the sale of 29 housing units and 10 commercial units in Meath for just over a million. All of which happened last week.

http://www.thejournal.ie/allsops-auction-46-houses-sold-2061595-Apr2015/

Boggles

rrpc wrote: »

Really? Something was sold during the depths of the recession for one third its loan value?

In that case you'll probably need to investigate the sale of 46 houses in Dingle for less than 3 million and the sale of 29 housing units and 10 commercial units in Meath for just over a million. All of which happened last week.

http://www.thejournal.ie/allsops-auction-46-houses-sold-2061595-Apr2015/

Why does it need to be investigated, it was a public auction?

rrpc

Boggles wrote: »

Why does it need to be investigated, it was a public auction?

So was SiteServ. Exactly the same as an auction. Bidders put their prices in, a shortlist made and then those on the shortlist invited to make a final and binding bid.

A fuss is being made because one potential buyer who didn't bid turned up at the EGM and made a non-binding bid and didn't like it that they were excluded. This same 'bidder' then turned around and offered to buy SiteServ's UK subsidiary from DOB afterwards.

They were excluded from the bid process for the very good reason that they were in the same business and could have used the opportunity to obtain sensitive customer and pricing data that they could have used to further their own business interests without spending a cent. When they turned up at the EGM, they wanted eight weeks to go through SiteServ's books before committing to their bid. Eight weeks that SiteServ didn't have because they were insolvent and would have run out of cash and probably been liquidated by one of their many creditors.

But here's the real crux of the matter: When making their bid at the EGM, they offered almost double what DOB was offering the shareholders (the shareholders had an effective veto on any sale) but were outvoted 99 to 1. If it was such a solid bid, don't you think the shareholders would have gone for it?

The funny thing is that all this was reported widely at the time. There was an article in the Indo, the Times and a couple of days later the Sunday Times reported the offer to buy the UK subsidiary.

Boggles

rrpc wrote: »

So was SiteServ. Exactly the same as an auction. Bidders put their prices in, a shortlist made and then those on the shortlist invited to make a final and binding bid.

That's not how a public auction works, the example you cited above is very poor.

rrpc wrote: »

Eight weeks that SiteServ didn't have because they were insolvent and would have run out of cash and probably been liquidated by one of their many creditors.

Many creditors? You mean IBRC?

They had 8 weeks, in fact they ha 9 months.

They were fully credited until the end of the year.

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Siteserv+convenes+EGM+in+advance+of+O%27Brien+deal/id/19410615-5218-4f68-98e1-3a1705831049

The deal was being rushed all right. With another massive stroke of luck, just before Bord Gais a major client of Siteserv won the multi billion euro contract of Irish Water.

Siteserv simply couldn't fail, and was destined for greatness. One wonders what the future holds for it.

rrpc wrote: »

The funny thing is that all this was reported widely at the time. There was an article in the Indo, the Times and a couple of days later the Sunday Times reported the offer to buy the UK subsidiary.

It was also raised in the Dáil, where Noonan mumbled some nonsensical answers.

I agree though, all this was debated 3 years ago.

Most of it isn't new.

rrpc

Boggles wrote: »

That's not how a public auction works, the example you cited above is very poor.

You're right, sorry, it's a sealed bid process which is a bit different alright.

Boggles wrote: »

Many creditors? You mean IBRC?

They had 8 weeks, in fact they ha 9 months.

They were fully credited until the end of the year.

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Siteserv+convenes+EGM+in+advance+of+O%27Brien+deal/id/19410615-5218-4f68-98e1-3a1705831049

The deal was being rushed all right. With another massive stroke of luck, just before Bord Gais a major client of Siteserv won the multi billion euro contract of Irish Water.

The bank's facilities were extended to the end of the year. The key phrase is 'debt maturity date' which is when the loan has to be paid off. The cash flow problem relates to trade creditors which are not part of the bank lending. Creditors had to be paid and they were going to run out of cash to do that within eight weeks. The bank were clearly not going to lend them any more money and needed to get the business sold off before creditors could force a liquidation in which case the exposure to the bank would have been far greater.

Boggles wrote: »

Siteserv simply couldn't fail, and was destined for greatness. One wonders what the future holds for it.

It was going to fail. if it was destined for greatness do you think the shareholders would have voted to sell it?

Boggles wrote: »

It was also raised in the Dáil, where Noonan mumbled some nonsensical answers.

I agree though, all this was debated 3 years ago.

Most of it isn't new.

This is true, I'm not sure what (if anything) all the FOI requests have proven. If the Altrad bid was a 'pig in a poke' without any real substance, then the only other losers (apart from the taxpayer) were the two failed bids. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any complaints from them about the process.

Boggles

rrpc wrote: »

The bank's facilities were extended to the end of the year. The key phrase is 'debt maturity date' which is when the loan has to be paid off. The cash flow problem relates to trade creditors which are not part of the bank lending. Creditors had to be paid and they were going to run out of cash to do that within eight weeks. The bank were clearly not going to lend them any more money and needed to get the business sold off before creditors could force a liquidation in which case the exposure to the bank would have been far greater.

Unsecured Creditors i.e. other companies that provide goods or services on credit, can't force a liquidation.

They can ask for one through various courts, but because they are unsecured there is no guarantee of a return, especially when you consider how costly it is.

It would have been fair silly for any creditor to initiate a liquidation process, apart from the main one obviously, IBRC who would have got at least some return.

Also I have heard it the past couple of days as well, that Siteserv had only 8 weeks or so or it was bust. Is this documented or just the spoken word of someone involved?

This revelation is a bit bizarre, because Siteserv were a nice little profitable company that were signing new contracts, growing revenues and turning a profit. It was the pesky 150m debt accrued by the current management that was the problem.

rrpc wrote: »

It was going to fail. if it was destined for greatness do you think the shareholders would have voted to sell it?

It wasn't destined for greatness with the current management team or shareholders, they racked up 150m worth of debt, so how do you get rid of them, pay them off, which is what happened and is what all parties involved have admitted to.

rrpc

Boggles wrote: »

Unsecured Creditors i.e. other companies that provide goods or services on credit, can't force a liquidation.

They can ask for one through various courts, but because they are unsecured there is no guarantee of a return, especially when you consider how costly it is.

It would have been fair silly for any creditor to initiate a liquidation process, apart from the main one obviously, IBRC who would have got at least some return.

There are various levels of security that creditors would have. For example, they could have retention of title to goods supplied which they could recoup without any problems as title hasn't passed to the buyer and the goods don't belong to the liquidator. Even if they just stopped supplying the company, it would put them out of business since they couldn't continue to trade without a supply chain. The word would be out and everyone would steer clear.

Boggles wrote: »

Also I have heard it the past couple of days as well, that Siteserv had only 8 weeks or so or it was bust. Is this documented or just the spoken word of someone involved?

It would be documented in the company's books but the statement was made by the chairman of the company as far as I know.

Boggles wrote: »

This revelation is a bit bizarre, because Siteserv were a nice little profitable company that were signing new contracts, growing revenues and turning a profit. It was the pesky 150m debt accrued by the current management that was the problem.

It wasn't destined for greatness with the current management team or shareholders, they racked up 150m worth of debt, so how do you get rid of them, pay them off, which is what happened and is what all parties involved have admitted to.

With most companies, you don't really have to pander to the shareholders in this way, but apparently SiteServ had an unusual structure and it would have been much more difficult to sell without shareholder agreement. PwC had reported on this and recommended that some payment be made.

Boggles

rrpc wrote: »

It would be documented in the company's books but the statement was made by the chairman of the company as far as I know.

http://www.ise.ie/app/announcementDetails.aspx?ID=10932875

That's the latest set of accounts and forecasts available that I can find before the sale.

Cash flow had decreased, but it was still pretty cash rich with further "over draft" facilities to draw down on if desired. It's actually given the circumstances, glowing and performing very well.

How it can go from that to having 8 weeks to live and being unable to pay it's suppliers is truly bizarre.

rrpc

Boggles wrote: »

http://www.ise.ie/app/announcementDetails.aspx?ID=10932875

That's the latest set of accounts and forecasts available that I can find before the sale.

Cash flow had decreased, but it was still pretty cash rich with further "over draft" facilities to draw down on if desired. It's actually given the circumstances, glowing and performing very well.

How it can go from that to having 8 weeks to live and being unable to pay it's suppliers is truly bizarre.

Thanks for that, it makes interesting reading.

They may have had some cash (€5.5 million) but their creditors added up to 33 million and receivables were only 30 million. That deficit alone would have wiped out half their cash. When you look at the cost of servicing their borrowings from that year (2011), it almost completely wiped out their profits.

The most important thing to note from those accounts though is the fact that they had negotiated their loans down to interest only which is a sure sign of a business with cash flow problems.

Despite the 'glowing' report, we now know that they set in motion the process to sell the company within six months of those accounts being published. Clearly the turnaround in their fortunes never materialised.

hatrickpatrick

rrpc wrote: »

I suspect you're about to make the same mistake again and for the same reasons

Nit at all, because this time I'm not voting for anyone because they're not the current crowd, this time I'm voting for people for specific reasons. Independence, no whips, directly accountable to the people and will have to do what the people want and not what anyone else wants.

I'm aware that many don't agree with this stance, but I'm certainly not imagining that things couldn't be worse. They surely could be, but the current situation is so appalling that it's a risk worth taking in my book.

Boggles

rrpc wrote: »

They may have had some cash (€5.5 million) but their creditors added up to 33 million and receivables were only 30 million. That deficit alone would have wiped out half their cash.

But that wasn't likely to happen, it was still a functioning profitable company whose ongoing assets were higher than it's ongoing liabilities.

They also had the option to draw down another 5 million.

rrpc wrote: »

When you look at the cost of servicing their borrowings from that year (2011), it almost completely wiped out their profits.

The most important thing to note from those accounts though is the fact that they had negotiated their loans down to interest only which is a sure sign of a business with cash flow problems.

Despite the 'glowing' report, we now know that they set in motion the process to sell the company within six months of those accounts being published. Clearly the turnaround in their fortunes never materialised.

The company was always going to be sold, the bank effectively gave it 18 months to do it.

There is nothing there to suggest that the sale had to be completed by March though, if it was as terminal as has been suggested, I doubt the IBRC would have been as hands off in it's approach up to that point.

Personally I don't believe it had hit the wall and it had 8 weeks to conclude business or it was gone. There is no evidence at this point to suggest that is indeed an actual fact. If there is, I will accept it.

I would suggest though, with the news 3 odd weeks later that Bord Gais had won the Irish Water contract, that it would be a reasonable assumption that Siteservs value would have risen given the business partnership that already existed.

That though is effectively hearsay, without proof.

What isn't hearsay though is that the state in several different guises went out of their way to make sure this company was given every opportunity and beyond, I mean even our other State owned bank provided the bulk of the 45m to buy it. I'm starting to think we could have saved ourselves a fortune if we just nationalised Siteserv. :pac:

rrpc

Boggles wrote: »

But that wasn't likely to happen, it was still a functioning profitable company whose ongoing assets were higher than it's ongoing liabilities.

They also had the option to draw down another 5 million.

It wasn't profitable. In the two years shown in those accounts it made a net operating combined loss of €500,000 on combined turnover of €320 million. It increased its turnover by 17 million in 2011 and made €131,000 net profit. Clearly their costs were rising faster than their turnover..

Its net assets were €6.5 million. Included in that figure are intangible assets (basically goodwill and other notional assets with equally notional valuations) of €96 million. Their real value was shown by the low (relative to the accounts figures) bidding prices that they got.

The ability to draw down an overdraft is just more borrowing that has to be serviced and paid back, but because it's an overdraft it's got to be paid back in the short term; i.e. within a year.

Boggles wrote: »

The company was always going to be sold, the bank effectively gave it 18 months to do it.

There is nothing there to suggest that the sale had to be completed by March though, if it was as terminal as has been suggested, I doubt the IBRC would have been as hands off in it's approach up to that point.

I don't know that they would have seen a sale as a long term option initially. They gave them a capital repayment holiday and an extra overdraft facility to try and help them trade out of their difficulties but it's fairly clear that they kept a close watch on them, because they were looking at a sale quite quickly (Autumn of 2012 is mentioned).

They had to have been haemorrhaging cash though. If you take it that they increased their turnover in 2011 by 11% and their costs by the same percentage, they were standing on a precipice. Anything goes wrong in that scenario and it's curtains.

Boggles wrote: »

Personally I don't believe it had hit the wall and it had 8 weeks to conclude business or it was gone. There is no evidence at this point to suggest that is indeed an actual fact. If there is, I will accept it.

Those accounts are evidence enough for me. They increased turnover and their costs went up at almost the same rate. Their net profit percentage was miniscule: 0.1% of turnover. To make €1 million they'd have to quintuple their turnover. They had unsustainable borrowings: three times their tangible assets value. They needed an overdraft equivalent to one third their debtors just to get through the year and a capital repayment holiday of at least half that. It also looks like they were using their trade creditors for cashflow since they'd increased by 40% over the previous year, whereas their debtors were roughly the same.

Boggles wrote: »

It was 3 odd weeks later that Bord Gais had won the Irish Water contract, that it would be a reasonable assumption that Siteservs value would have risen given the business partnership that already existed.

There was no guarantee that they would have got that contract then, but even if they had they would have had to ramp up costs to cater for it. Even though SiteServ eventually got the contract, it was only through a joint venture with GMC who had the water expertise that Sierra did not (being mainly a cable company).

Boggles wrote: »

What isn't hearsay though is that the state in several different guises went out of their way to make sure this company was given every opportunity and beyond, I mean even our other State owned bank provided the bulk of the 45m to buy it. I'm starting to think we could have saved ourselves a fortune if we just nationalised Siteserv. :pac:

I really can't comment on that. I'm just looking at the facts that are available and putting them together to get a clearer picture of the situation.

There's also an assumption being made that the water meter contract is going to be some sort of goldmine for GMC/Sierra, but that may not be the case with all the delays and extra costs involved. It will be interesting to see their accounts in a year or so.

Boggles

rrpc wrote: »

It wasn't profitable. In the two years shown in those accounts it made a net operating combined loss of €500,000 on combined turnover of €320 million. It increased its turnover by 17 million in 2011 and made €131,000 net profit. Clearly their costs were rising faster than their turnover..

Sorry I meant to include this. Finances up to October 2011. Half yearly report.

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2011/1216/309970-siteserv/

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/lucrative-contract-wins-lift-profits-at-siteserv-to-48m-26802946.html

Again I don't see a company that was going from increasing profits, winning new and renewing existing contracts to hitting the wall in such a short space of time.

michael999999

Sunday Business Post running front page story tomorrow about more Debt deals for Fine Gaels Denis O Brien and TV3.

DOB owns TV3 doesn't he?

Can of worms well and truly blown open now!

davycc

michael999999 wrote: »

Sunday Business Post running front page story tomorrow about more Debt deals for Fine Gaels Denis O Brien and TV3.

DOB owns TV3 doesn't he?

Can of worms well and truly blown open now!

Topaz too im hearing the same debt deal - must be great to have cronies in high places..

rrpc

Boggles wrote: »

Sorry I meant to include this. Finances up to October 2011. Half yearly report.

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2011/1216/309970-siteserv/

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/lucrative-contract-wins-lift-profits-at-siteserv-to-48m-26802946.html

Again I don't see a company that was going from increasing profits, winning new and renewing existing contracts to hitting the wall in such a short space of time.

I'd need to see a balance sheet from that period to really analyse it properly. We're discussing this in the context of a company that said they were going to run out of cash by the end of May 2012 (roughly).

What a balance sheet would tell us is if borrowings had increased: They had an overdraft facility for ten million; had they run that up to the limit? They had an increase in trade creditors of 40% in the previous year; had that gone up again? They'd got an interest only deal until December 2012; were they going to be in a position to start repaying capital again? For example
in 2011 they borrowed more than they repaid (by 1.6 million) and in 2010 they repaid about three million.

I don't have the answer to those questions, but the profit figure has to be looked at in that context. All I can see from those reports is that although profits rose for the half year by 600k, it was on the back of sales increasing by €9 million. Their cost of sales seems to be very high and additional revenues seemed to come at a very high additional cost.

If the profit was to carry forward for the full year, then you could say that they would have generated another €1.2 million in profits and assuming that's a full cash benefit they are still woefully short of any capital repayment schedule that would have to be recommenced.

They just didn't seem to be generating enough cash to pay back their borrowings at any kind of meaningful level. The reports at the time of the sale say that they owed IBRC 150 million. I don't know if that's exact or rounded but if exact, it's an increase of 3 million on the borrowing figure in their 2011 accounts.

michael999999

Its now been revealed that two senior executives at KPMG, were also chairman and non executive directors at Siteserv!

And fine Gael have appointed KPMG to investigate the sale.

You couldn't make this **** up!

Oh and KPMG have receive more than 70 million in fees for liquidating IBRC.

Golden goose...kill....I dont think so!

Banjo String

michael999999 wrote: »

Sunday Business Post running front page story tomorrow about more Debt deals for Fine Gaels Denis O Brien and TV3.

DOB owns TV3 doesn't he?

Can of worms well and truly blown open now!

davycc wrote: »

Topaz too im hearing the same debt deal - must be great to have cronies in high places..

Beacon hospital too.

Interestingly, that's a private hospital.

Even more interesting is FG have plans to try and introduce mandatory, compulsory private health care.


Handy.

rrpc

Banjo String wrote: »

Beacon hospital too.

Interestingly, that's a private hospital.

Even more interesting is FG have plans to try and introduce mandatory, compulsory private health care.


Handy.

I thought that was to be universal health insurance and the elimination of the two tier private/public system?