Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
IBRC Sale of Siteserv at €100 million loss.
Options
Comments
-
I didn't. I suggested that he may have. My scenarios just showed that there were a number of different ways to get to the end figure, there was no qualitative assessment of those scenarios. I've said all along that we don't know whether he made or lost money, but you insisted that there was only one possible outcome.But you can extrapolate multiple loss making scenarios in between to suit the tone of your arguement.
Except that there has to be some consideration given for the acquisition of shares, it was a public company.There is no evidence to suggest he purchased 1 share in the company.
I am making nothing up. Pull your horns in and at least admit that there's a possibility that he could have lost money given the huge drop in the value of the shares. Even taking the float price as a starting position, the sale price represented a 93% loss.Your assumptions are unrealistic on the basis of what information we have and what information you're trying to make up.
I wanted???? Do you think you're talking to Denis O'Brien or somethingYou don't have to make your point again, what you need to do is concede I am right, that the net end scenario for the company is exactly what you wanted.
A few weeks? From the date of the EGM until the announcement of the awarding of the contracts (three separate ones were awarded) was roughly 69 weeks. It would have been about 35 weeks before tenders were even invited. But if you take your start point at when they decided to sell the company then it was almost two years before the contract was awarded.I would have been in no rush to sell it.
I would have waited at least the few weeks until the awarding of the Irish Water contract was announced.
I don't know. Which is why I'm asking the question. To me, it's the most glaring one of them all.I'll ask you your question, why do you think IBRC just didn't give the company the write off directly?
Did they think that a sale would get them more money than they'd have to write off directly with the company?
Was there a policy in place in IBRC not to do write down deals with customers? I somehow doubt this but it has to be asked.
Were IBRC already in wind down mode and trying to offload customers as quickly as possible?
That's why I asked the question. Nobody has even addressed it yet.0 -
I didn't. I suggested that he may have. My scenarios just showed that there were a number of different ways to get to the end figure, there was no qualitative assessment of those scenarios. I've said all along that we don't know whether he made or lost money, but you insisted that there was only one possible outcome.
Negative, I said given the information we know, the realistic assumption would be he didn't lose "a bucket load of cash" on his shares.
Now if you can support this assumption apart from hearsay, then go ahead, otherwise your assumption all though within the realms of possibility is not realistic given the information we actually know.I am making nothing up. Pull your horns in and at least admit that there's a possibility that he could have lost money given the huge drop in the value of the shares. Even taking the float price as a starting position, the sale price represented a 93% loss.
Well you are either making stuff up or getting things wrong intentionally, I've all ready corrected you when you claimed the shares floated for €50. It was 55cent a share.
They eventually sold for circa €4. i.e a lot higher than 55 cent.
So where does the 93% loss come from?
Also you are assuming he paid for the 22% share holding at the floatation price, he reduced his share holding from 27%. I don't know if he paid for the 22% or was given them as a condition of the float.
Either way, your numbers and therefore your assumptions are based on to be kind misinformation.A few weeks? From the date of the EGM until the announcement of the awarding of the contracts (three separate ones were awarded) was roughly 69 weeks. It would have been about 35 weeks before tenders were even invited. But if you take your start point at when they decided to sell the company then it was almost two years before the contract was awarded.
We have been through this, Bord Gais were all ready a major client of Siteserv, one could reasonable assume given the "happy" working relationship in place they would have been more than considered for any future public contracts.
It was suggested at the time by numerous commentators, they were bang on.I don't know. Which is why I'm asking the question. To me, it's the most glaring one of them all.
Did they think that a sale would get them more money than they'd have to write off directly with the company?
Was there a policy in place in IBRC not to do write down deals with customers? I somehow doubt this but it has to be asked.
Were IBRC already in wind down mode and trying to offload customers as quickly as possible?
That's why I asked the question. Nobody has even addressed it yet.
Nobody is addressing it I imagine because it is moot.
Doubt it was in IRBCs remit to show prefential treatment to certain companies whilst obliterating others, would have been a legal mind field.
The current board of directors / management would have had junk credit ratings anyway, so approving effectively 10s of millions to bail it out would have been unsound business practice.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
I don't think you know what hearsay is? I'm not reporting something somebody else said, I'm proposing an alternative using the exact same 'information we know' and it seems that some of the information you 'know' is wrong. See below.Negative, I said given the information we know, the realistic assumption would be he didn't lose "a bucket load of cash" on his shares.
Now if you can support this assumption apart from hearsay, then go ahead, otherwise your assumption all though within the realms of possibility is not realistic given the information we actually know.
I accepted that they floated at 55 cent although it's also true that they went to 90 cent at an early stage.Well you are either making stuff up or getting things wrong intentionally, I've all ready corrected you when you claimed the shares floated for €50. It was 55cent a share.
They eventually sold for circa €4. i.e a lot higher than 55 cent.
So where does the 93% loss come from?
Well that's where you're wrong. They were basically a penny share in early 2012 and you've a couple of decimal places out on their final value. It sold for 3.92 cents not 3.92 euro.
About half way down the page you'll see the final value paid to shareholders.
When a private company floats, the shareholders funds in the private company are converted to shares in the public company but are diluted by the amount that is floated. This dilution is dependant on the percentage of the company that is given for sale on the stock market. So if you own 50% of the company and 50% of it is sold on the market your shareholding is halved to 25%.Also you are assuming he paid for the 22% share holding at the floatation price, he reduced his share holding from 27%. I don't know if he paid for the 22% or was given them as a condition of the float.
Either way, your numbers and therefore your assumptions are based on to be kind misinformation.
As was pointed out above, a tender is never a done deal. As it turned out, Siteserv effectively got one sixth of the contract; the country was divided in three equal parts and GMC/Sierra got one third but GMC/Sierra is not a subsidiary of SiteServ, it's a joint venture between Sierra (a subsidiary of SiteServ) and GMC (a separate company owned by Gerry McCloskey).We have been through this, Bord Gais were all ready a major client of Siteserv, one could reasonable assume given the "happy" working relationship in place they would have been more than considered for any future public contracts.
It was suggested at the time by numerous commentators, they were bang on.
These deals are happening all over the country. What do you think 'haircut' means in the context of loan book transfers to NAMA and bad debt provisions and write downs mean in the context of individual bank's accounts?Nobody is addressing it I imagine because it is moot.
Doubt it was in IRBCs remit to show prefential treatment to certain companies whilst obliterating others, would have been a legal mind field.
The current board of directors / management would have had junk credit ratings anyway, so approving effectively 10s of millions to bail it out would have been unsound business practice.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
so you can go in there and have a look yourself if you want to check it.
Ah no, you're grand. :pac:Not in a normal (below tender level) business relationship. But once you get into tender level (and there are thresholds for tenders to be national only or EU wide) and especially when it gets to EU level (which this was) none of that matters. Companies tendering MUST meet the tender requirements to the letter and the award has to be in accordance with the tender criteria. Anything even slightly amiss and you're open to massive penalties and legal consequences.
Yeah, I think there is too much creed being place in the tendering process and how it is a bastion of complete impartiality.
It's not. Final decision comes down to the company tendering.
I'd question the severity of penalties as well, we got a verbal warning over the postcode tender, but that was more due to the process than the actual final awarding. No one is arguing that any of the companies selected didn't fill the form out correctly and meet the criteria, which is basically what it is.Well this is the crux of it. I don't know in the case of IBRC what the policy was, because all I can find is reference to write offs relating to company sales. It's clear that other banks were doing it because they are saying so in the case of SMEs and mortgage holders.
So the question is still open in my mind.
Yeah banks were doing it, AIB not so much BOI.
But were IBRC allowed do it and if you can't find any evidence of it, then I suggest you close it in your mind.
0 -
CheersAh no, you're grand. :pac:
Ah, it's more than a form! These tenders end up the size of large encyclopaedias, they're massive! Even the tender request documents can be huge. You should have a look at some of the ones on etenders.gov.ie. The real deterrent though is that under-bidders in a tender could potentially sue for the full tender price.Yeah, I think there is too much creed being place in the tendering process and how it is a bastion of complete impartiality.
It's not. Final decision comes down to the company tendering.
I'd question the severity of penalties as well, we got a verbal warning over the postcode tender, but that was more due to the process than the actual final awarding. No one is arguing that any of the companies selected didn't fill the form out correctly and meet the criteria, which is basically what it is.
The problem is that search results are heavily weighted towards SiteServ and anything else gets drowned out in the noise.Yeah banks were doing it, AIB not so much BOI.
But were IBRC allowed do it and if you can't find any evidence of it, then I suggest you close it in your mind.
But I did come across this about Jurys Inns. There are no separate figures for each of the banks involved, but clearly IBRC were involved and Jurys Inns continued as a going concern.
So the answer is yes, IBRC were doing it (with the caveat that they were part of a group of banks involved and presumably had to go along with the others).0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
nice_guy80 wrote: »http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0506/699218-dail-siteserv/
Government win Dail vote on Siteserv inquiry.
The government wins every Dail vote by default. I fail to see how the government winning a vote is ever considered a story, or how any Dail vote which might criticise the government is ever seen as a cause for hope by those opposed to government policy.
News organizations should just plaster "If there were any Dail votes today, the government automatically won them" instead of reporting on individual votes
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement