IBRC Sale of Siteserv at €100 million loss.

micosoft · 27-04-2015 11:25pm

rrpc wrote: »

You are continually confusing profit and cashflow. They are not the same.

And as anyone who knows business 101 it's cashflow that kills businesses. Not lack of profit.

jcon1913 · 28-04-2015 12:25am

micosoft wrote: »

Sure. I get all that. But this has to be seen in the context of the firesale that was IBRC who needed a clean sale. Court cases, delays etc would have scuppered the deal. It's definitely less then ideal and I'm sure in retrospect some things could have been done differently with the wind down of IBRC. In retrospect.

And I agree - the problem with an independent state the size of Ireland is that naturally it will come down to a small group of the usual faces. Not sure what can be done about that though..... an interesting separate thread....

Agree on court cases etc leading to a dangerous delay possibly wrecking any chance of a sale.

Disagree on the KPMG connection. Plenty of guys could have done the liquidation, either PWC or Deloitte would have the muscle to take on the IBRC liquidation.

Grant Thornton took on the liquidation ( or was it examinership / adminstration ) of the Quinn group.

Mazars or BDO could have been asked to advise on the sale of Siteserv, or could have liquidated Siteserv.

Its not good emough to shrug the shoulders, and then appoint the same firm for all these functions.

delahuntv · 28-04-2015 7:55am

As expected the Sunday Times "journalist" who didn't ask for share register details because he "assumed" he would not get it, has egg on his face.

Share register and dealings in the run-up to the sale have showed nothing abnormal. A lot of daytrading and gambling, but most deals were small.

Journalistic standards seem these days to be - "get a headline and avoid asking any questions that may dilute the headline" - Basically forget the truth, it about selling papers and selling papers only.

Boggles · 28-04-2015 7:59am

micosoft wrote: »

And as anyone who knows business 101 it's cashflow that kills businesses. Not lack of profit.

That is indeed true, but not applicable here, this company had both plus an overdraft facility.

rrpc · 28-04-2015 9:44am

Banjo String wrote: »

.

In June/July 2013. http://m.independent.ie/business/irish/th-punt-harvey-off-to-pastures-new-29346094.html

http://m.independent.ie/business/irish/siteserv-appoints-corkery-as-new-chief-executive-29457958.html

More than a full year after the sale to OBrien.

My post stands. Harvey kept his position and pocketed €800k.

Nice work if you can get it.

Some lads are persistently trying to indulge in a bit of sweeping under rugs on this thread.

So he got to keep his job for a year. It's hardly surprising that you wouldn't have a ready made CEO hanging around ready to jump into a new job at the drop of a hat. The new guy came from Dell, he didn't come from one of DOB's companies, so perhaps they took a while to find someone suitable?

The 800k came from the sale of his shares. Now unless you can tell me that he paid less than 800k for them, he hardly can be accused of making some sort of profit. This is the guy who started the company, which when it floated was at €50 per share and went as high as €90. The sale price per share to DOB was 3.92 cents per share. In that scenario it's far more likely that he took a massive loss than any kind of profit.

But I'll be clear on this, I don't know what his shareholding cost him. I'm just pointing out that it's far more likely that he made a whopping loss than a profit.

As for sweeping stuff under rugs, I have no skin in this game, I couldn't care less either way. There are a lot of people here adding 1+1 and getting massive numbers that don't even make sense when viewed as binary.

However not one person on this thread (or anywhere else for that matter; and I'm including Catherine Murphy and all the so called journalists on the fringe or in the mainstream) has asked the one pertinent question about the SiteServ deal that should be asked:

If IBRC were prepared to take a debt write down on the sale of the company, then why weren't they prepared to write down the debt directly with the company?

Banjo String · 28-04-2015 10:36am

So he got to keep his job for a year. It's hardly surprising that you wouldn't have a ready made CEO hanging around ready to jump into a new job at the drop of a hat. The new guy came from Dell, he didn't come from one of DOB's companies , so perhaps they took a while to find someone suitable?

Not directly.

But he has connections with one of DOB's companies, ironically enough, one that was found to have been given a contract under corrupt circumstances.

CHANGE is afoot at SiteServ. The company has just appointed Sean Corkery as its new chairman and chief executive, a man whose experience ranges from Esat to AST Computer to Apple.

http://m.independent.ie/business/irish/siteserv-appoints-corkery-as-new-chief-executive-29457958.html

As for the rest of your post, I'm not Implying you've 'skin in the game' just that you're missing some obvious details.

Boggles · 28-04-2015 10:40am

rrpc wrote: »

However not one person on this thread (or anywhere else for that matter; and I'm including Catherine Murphy and all the so called journalists on the fringe or in the mainstream) has asked the one pertinent question about the SiteServ deal that should be asked:

If IBRC were prepared to take a debt write down on the sale of the company, then why weren't they prepared to write down the debt directly with the company?

That's essentially what did happen though.

Out of the 150m debt, 105 was written off and the bulk of the rest was transferred to AIB.

Shareholders, got a few quid, some people were allowed keep their jobs, other people got new jobs.

Everyone involved in the process got paid.

Job Done.

It was the same company at the end of it, it just had a different owner.

rrpc · 28-04-2015 10:43am

Banjo String wrote: »

Not directly.

But he has connections with one of DOB's companies, ironically enough, one that was found to have been given a contract under corrupt circumstances.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not Implying you've 'skin in the game' just that you're missing some obvious details.

Obvious if it is what we were discussing, but not so obvious in the context of posts about Brian Harvey.

On which topic; do you accept then that Harvey could have actually lost a bucket load of cash on his shares?

rrpc · 28-04-2015 10:52am

Boggles wrote: »

That's essentially what did happen though.

Out of the 150m debt, 105 was written off and the bulk of the rest was transferred to AIB.

Shareholders, got a few quid, some people were allowed keep their jobs, other people got new jobs.

Everyone involved in the process got paid.

Job Done.

It was the same company at the end of it, it just had a different owner.

Way to miss the point.

You asked the same basic question but coming from the wrong standpoint. i.e. that the company was solvent. I and others have been arguing that it was not solvent and couldn't carry the debt burden it had built up through over-priced acquisitions during the sceptic kitten era.

The obvious corollary to this is why didn't IBRC just write down/restructure the debt so that the company could continue in it's own right with more sustainable borrowings?

If you're going to be outraged at debt write downs/restructures per se, then be prepared to have your outrage meter in the red for the foreseeable future because that's the flip side of 'haircuts' and loan book sales.

Boggles · 28-04-2015 11:15am

rrpc wrote: »

S

The 800k came from the sale of his shares. Now unless you can tell me that he paid less than 800k for them, he hardly can be accused of making some sort of profit. This is the guy who started the company, which when it floated was at €50 per share and went as high as €90. The sale price per share to DOB was 3.92 cents per share. In that scenario it's far more likely that he took a massive loss than any kind of profit.

The share price when floated was 0.55cent not €50.

rrpc wrote: »

On which topic; do you accept then that Harvey could have actually lost a bucket load of cash on his shares?

You are assuming Harvey bought shares?

He ended up with less shares than he started with, so one would assume he sold shares at some point.

rrpc wrote: »

Way to miss the point.

You asked the same basic question but coming from the wrong standpoint. i.e. that the company was solvent. I and others have been arguing that it was not solvent and couldn't carry the debt burden it had built up through over-priced acquisitions during the sceptic kitten era.

The obvious corollary to this is why didn't IBRC just write down/restructure the debt so that the company could continue in it's own right with more sustainable borrowings?

If you're going to be outraged at debt write downs/restructures per se, then be prepared to have your outrage meter in the red for the foreseeable future because that's the flip side of 'haircuts' and loan book sales.

I didn't miss any point, nor am I outraged or refuting the unsustainable debt burden of the company.

I am merely point out what you suggest should have happened did happen.

All be it in a round about less obvious way.

I mean substitute IBRC and AIB for THE STATE.

The State wrote off 70% of the companies debt and then refinanced the other 30% (rounded off). Harvey got a few quid for his troubles, and kept his job, but he got a new boss, appointed by The State.

Banjo String · 28-04-2015 11:16am

rrpc wrote: »

Obvious if it is what we were discussing, but not so obvious in the context of posts about Brian Harvey.

You brought the new ceo in to it. I pointed out that Harvey got an 800k sweetener on top of staying on in his role.

On which topic; do you accept then that Harvey could have actually lost a bucket load of cash on his shares?

Do you accept that he walked away 800k better off than he should have, considering the tax payers shouldered €105 million of his losses?

meglome · 28-04-2015 11:32am

jcon1913 wrote: »

Heres a few conflicts of interest:

Auditors of Irish Nationwide Building Society ( INBS )- KPMG

Liquidators of the company INBS was merged into ( called Irish Bank Resolution Corporation or IBRC ) - KPMG ( even though you are not supposed to liquidate a company once audited by you.... )

Advisers to Siteserv in the sale of the company - KPMG

Adviser to IBRC in the sale of Siteserv - former Director at KPMG Walter Hobbs

Liquidator of Siteserv after the company is stripped of the trade- KPMG

Inquiry in to the whole sorry mess at the behest of the Irish GOvernment - KPMG

Really - this is such an unholy mess its unspeakable.

This is pure 911 stuff. In Ireland, given it's a small country, it would be a surprise if these interactions were not the case. You've found some possible links and declared it a conflict of interest. You obviously have information that the rest of us don't. Right?

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/high-court-judge-to-assist-review-into-siteserv-controversy-31176728.html

The Government has appointed a retired High Court judge to assist in the review into deals at the under-fire Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC).

Judge Iarfhlaith O'Neill will be tasked with responding to any potential conflicts of interest that arise throughout the review by IBRC liquidator KPMG.

Though why do I think if he finds nothing wrong he'll be in on it too.

rrpc · 28-04-2015 11:36am

Boggles wrote: »

The share price when floated was 0.55cent not €50.

You are assuming Harvey bought shares?

He ended up with less shares than he started with, so one would assume he sold shares at some point.

All discussions on his shareholding are assumptions. We don't know what he bought or sold or at what price. There is a blanket assumption being made that he made €800k. I'm just pointing out that there is an alternative assumption.

Boggles wrote: »

I didn't miss any point, nor am I outraged or refuting the unsustainable debt burden of the company.

I am merely point out what you suggest should have happened did happen.

All be it in a round about less obvious way.

I mean substitute IBRC and AIB for THE STATE.

The State wrote off 70% of the companies debt and then refinanced the other 30% (rounded off). Harvey got a few quid for his troubles, and kept his job, but he got a new boss, appointed by The State.

You are still missing the point.

And you should leave out the loan(s) that AIB made post sale unless you are somehow insinuating that they won't be repaid?

You say you are not refuting that the debt burden was unsustainable. Are you therefore saying that some of it should have been written off?

rrpc · 28-04-2015 11:39am

Banjo String wrote: »

Do you accept that he walked away 800k better off than he should have, considering the tax payers shouldered €105 million of his losses?

I'm suggesting that there was an alternative approach that would not have resulted in shareholders being paid off. Nobody seems to have grasped this yet...

Boggles · 28-04-2015 11:58am

rrpc wrote: »

All discussions on his shareholding are assumptions. We don't know what he bought or sold or at what price. There is a blanket assumption being made that he made €800k. I'm just pointing out that there is an alternative assumption.

They are not all assumptions.

We know when the company floated he had X amount of Shares, when the company was sold he had Y amount of Shares.

x = 22%
y = 16%

You do have an alternative assumption, but it's not a realistic one given the figures above.

rrpc wrote: »

You are still missing the point.

And you should leave out the loan(s) that AIB made post sale unless you are somehow insinuating that they won't be repaid?

You say you are not refuting that the debt burden was unsustainable. Are you therefore saying that some of it should have been written off?

Again, I'm not missing the point.

I am purely trying to say to you what you suggested should have happened, actually happened.

Do you get me?

JRant · 28-04-2015 12:09pm

rrpc wrote: »

So he got to keep his job for a year. It's hardly surprising that you wouldn't have a ready made CEO hanging around ready to jump into a new job at the drop of a hat. The new guy came from Dell, he didn't come from one of DOB's companies, so perhaps they took a while to find someone suitable?

The 800k came from the sale of his shares. Now unless you can tell me that he paid less than 800k for them, he hardly can be accused of making some sort of profit. This is the guy who started the company, which when it floated was at €50 per share and went as high as €90. The sale price per share to DOB was 3.92 cents per share. In that scenario it's far more likely that he took a massive loss than any kind of profit.

But I'll be clear on this, I don't know what his shareholding cost him. I'm just pointing out that it's far more likely that he made a whopping loss than a profit.

As for sweeping stuff under rugs, I have no skin in this game, I couldn't care less either way. There are a lot of people here adding 1+1 and getting massive numbers that don't even make sense when viewed as binary.

However not one person on this thread (or anywhere else for that matter; and I'm including Catherine Murphy and all the so called journalists on the fringe or in the mainstream) has asked the one pertinent question about the SiteServ deal that should be asked:

If IBRC were prepared to take a debt write down on the sale of the company, then why weren't they prepared to write down the debt directly with the company?

I would have thought the answer to that question is quite clear.
Dukes signs off the debt write down on the sale.
DOB swoops in and gets it for a song.
Hogan gives DOB a lovely state contract to install meters.

They're not even trying to hide it. Just in your face cronyism.

rrpc · 28-04-2015 12:32pm

Boggles wrote: »

They are not all assumptions.

We know when the company floated he had X amount of Shares, when the company was sold he had Y amount of Shares.

x = 22%
y = 16%

You do have an alternative assumption, but it's not a realistic one given the figures above.

22-6=16, yes I get it. But what about 22+12-18? or 22+5+3+9+x-y-z=16?

Given that Sean Quinn lost bucket loads on Anglo shares and Seany Fitz et al equally lost bucket loads and tens thousands of other people around the country lost bucket loads on bank shares either directly or indirectly through their pensions, the one possible outcome you can come up with, the only one realistic outcome without anything but the barest facts is that he made money?

Boggles wrote: »

Again, I'm not missing the point.

I am purely trying to say to you what you suggested should have happened, actually happened.

Do you get me?

JRant wrote: »

I would have thought the answer to that question is quite clear.
Dukes signs off the debt write down on the sale.
DOB swoops in and gets it for a song.
Hogan gives DOB a lovely state contract to install meters.

They're not even trying to hide it. Just in your face cronyism.

I didn't really think I would have to spell it out letter by letter, but the above makes me wonder if even this will be clear enough:

If they were prepared to write off over two thirds of the debt through a sale.

Why didn't they just write it off and not bother with a sale?

The same as Ulster Bank and AIB are currently writing down some mortgages and leaving the home owners in their houses, couldn't IBRC have just left the company run on as normal with a smaller debt?

Do you understand my point now?

Boggles · 28-04-2015 12:50pm

rrpc wrote: »

22-6=16, yes I get it. But what about 22+12-18? or 22+5+3+9+x-y-z=16?

Yeah, that's your assumption, not a realistic one as I said.

The realistic assumption would be he sold 6% of his shares at peak price or at the very least at profit.

rrpc wrote: »

I didn't really think I would have to spell it out letter by letter, but the above makes me wonder if even this will be clear enough:

If they were prepared to write off over two thirds of the debt through a sale.

Why didn't they just write it off and not bother with a sale?

Do you understand my point now?

I completely understand your point and again I'm telling you that is exactly what happened.

It might have been a "Show Sale", but at all times the integrity and future of Siteserv was paramount for the state. It was in the expressed conditions of the "Sale" that it remained untouched.

It needed someone credible to go guarantor on the debt transfer to AIB, but hey they found their man and appointed him, exclusively for a finish.

Again I repeat, you're asking why didn't The State just give Siteserv the debt write off and let them continuing trading with manageable debt.

I'm telling you this is 100% what happened, all though a few minor jumps along the way.

rrpc · 28-04-2015 1:33pm

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah, that's your assumption, not a realistic one as I said.

The realistic assumption would be he sold 6% of his shares at peak price or at the very least at profit.

As he was quite entitled to do. But you've just pointed out that his percentage was lower at the end than at the beginning. That could have happened through sale of shares or through dilution of his shareholding through the issue of new shares. You haven't any facts to explain or even prove that shares were sold or bought by him or what they may have cost him in the first place. So my assumption is just as valid as yours until there are some verifiable facts to look at.

Boggles wrote: »

I completely understand your point and again I'm telling you that is exactly what happened.

It might have been a "Show Sale", but at all times the integrity and future of Siteserv was paramount for the state. It was in the expressed conditions of the "Sale" that it remained untouched.

It needed someone credible to go guarantor on the debt transfer to AIB, but hey they found their man and appointed him, exclusively for a finish.

Again I repeat, you're asking why didn't The State just give Siteserv the debt write off and let them continuing trading with manageable debt.

I'm telling you this is 100% what happened, all though a few minor jumps along the way.

SiteServ plc (the company that was sold) is in liquidation. SiteServ Holdings is the new company which does not share any of the original directors or shareholders of SiteServ plc.

It's anything but 'untouched'.

So in light of that, would you mind reading what I posted again?

Thanks.

Boggles · 28-04-2015 1:42pm

rrpc wrote: »

As he was quite entitled to do. But you've just pointed out that his percentage was lower at the end than at the beginning. That could have happened through sale of shares or through dilution of his shareholding through the issue of new shares. You haven't any facts to explain or even prove that shares were sold or bought by him or what they may have cost him in the first place. So my assumption is just as valid as yours until there are some verifiable facts to look at.

Well, no my assumption is he sold some of his share holding for profit or he could have given away, I don't know.

Your assumption is, he went crazy speculating on his own company racking up huge losses.

It's my opinion that your assumption is not realistic and mine is. There is no evidence he splurged. Not even a hint of it.

rrpc wrote: »

SiteServ plc (the company that was sold) is in liquidation. SiteServ Holdings is the new company which does not share any of the original directors or shareholders of SiteServ plc.

It's anything but 'untouched'.

So in light of that, would you mind reading what I posted again?

Thanks.

Who cares about directors or Share Holders, they come and go all the time, especially when they rack up 150m worth of debt, they were hardly going to be asked stay, some of them got great jobs in other companies owned by the "winning bidder" though, which is bizarre given their track record with this one.

It's very much the same company, slight name change, same state and semi contracts and new ones which is important.

rrpc · 28-04-2015 1:50pm

Boggles wrote: »

Well, no my assumption is he sold some of his share holding for profit or he could have given away, I don't know.

Your assumption is, he went crazy speculating on his own company racking up huge losses.

It's my opinion that your assumption is not realistic and mine is. There is no evidence he splurged. Not even a hint of it.

I made no such assumption that he 'went crazy speculating'. Are you actually reading anything I write?

Boggles wrote: »

Who cares about directors or Share Holders, they come and go all the time, especially when they rack up 150m worth of debt, they were hardly going to be asked stay, some of them got great jobs in other companies owned by the "winning bidder" though, which is bizarre given their track record with this one.

It's very much the same company, slight name change, same state and semi contracts and new ones which is important.

It's essential to the point I made that it's understood that a new company is running the business.

If you can't see that or the point I made, I'm wasting my time.

Hollister11 · 28-04-2015 1:52pm

Shouldn't there have to be a vote, if the government want to sell assets, that really belong to the tax payer.

Timberrrrrrrr · 28-04-2015 1:53pm

Hollister11 wrote: »

Shouldn't there have to be a vote, if the government want to sell assets, that really belong to the tax payer.

What assets?

Boggles · 28-04-2015 1:55pm

rrpc wrote: »

I made no such assumption that he 'went crazy speculating'. Are you actually reading anything I write?

Go back and read your equations.

rrpc wrote: »

It's essential to the point I made that it's understood that a new company is running the business.
If you can't see that or the point I made, I'm wasting my time.

Yeah a "new" state sponsored company. With all the same contracts and more new shiny new ones.

But I mean the Net result is actually what avenue you wanted The State to take.

Your over labouring your cause at this stage, I know your claiming just to be playing Devils Advocate, but I'm not so sure any more.

rrpc · 28-04-2015 2:04pm

Boggles wrote: »

Go back and read your equations.

Seven share dealings in as many years is hardly 'crazy speculating'.

My examples were by way of showing that you can't take a start figure and an end figure and just extrapolate one scenario from them.

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah a "new" state sponsored company. With all the same contracts and more new shiny new ones.

But I mean the Net result is actually what avenue you wanted The State to take.

Your over labouring your cause at this stage, I know your claiming just to be playing Devils Advocate, but I'm not so sure any more.

I think that rather than try and make my point again, would be to ask you what your preferred alternative would have been?

As in you have a company with 'all the same contracts' and over-burdened with debt.

What's your play?

Boggles · 28-04-2015 3:25pm

rrpc wrote: »

Seven share dealings in as many years is hardly 'crazy speculating'.

My examples were by way of showing that you can't take a start figure and an end figure and just extrapolate one scenario from them.

But you can extrapolate multiple loss making scenarios in between to suit the tone of your arguement.

There is no evidence to suggest he purchased 1 share in the company.

Your assumptions are unrealistic on the basis of what information we have and what information you're trying to make up.

rrpc wrote: »

I think that rather than try and make my point again, would be to ask you what your preferred alternative would have been?

You 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.

rrpc wrote: »

As in you have a company with 'all the same contracts' and over-burdened with debt.

What's your play?

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'll ask you your question, why do you think IBRC just didn't give the company the write off directly?

jcon1913 · 28-04-2015 8:38pm

meglome wrote: »

This is pure 911 stuff. In Ireland, given it's a small country, it would be a surprise if these interactions were not the case. You've found some possible links and declared it a conflict of interest. You obviously have information that the rest of us don't. Right?

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/high-court-judge-to-assist-review-into-siteserv-controversy-31176728.html

Though why do I think if he finds nothing wrong he'll be in on it too.

You think its okay for one firm to have all these conflicting roles? Do you know that as liquidators of IBRC, KPMG get to decide on whether to sue the auditors of the companies they are liquidating?

It's not enough to do the right thing, you have to be seen to do the right thing.

Just repeating ''nothing to see here, move along now'' goes to show you dont appreciate this.

fly_agaric · 28-04-2015 11:35pm

meglome wrote: »

I'd describe them as the lessor of e... cowboys. It would have been far better in the last election if FG got an overall majority but probably was the best we could have done at the last election.. .

I don't understand this point. I know there's supposed to be cabinet responsibility or whatever but the bad smells have always come from FG ministries. Why would it be somehow better if FG had gotten their overall majority? Surely it would be worse!

meglome · 29-04-2015 12:11am

jcon1913 wrote: »

You think its okay for one firm to have all these conflicting roles? Do you know that as liquidators of IBRC, KPMG get to decide on whether to sue the auditors of the companies they are liquidating?

It's not enough to do the right thing, you have to be seen to do the right thing.

Just repeating ''nothing to see here, move along now'' goes to show you dont appreciate this.

I'm not even arguing it's okay to have roles on opposite sides of the same deal. I'm saying it's unsurprising given how small Ireland is and it may be difficult to get around it. There may only so many people available with the correct experience, at the correct level. What I'm not doing is assuming that having roles on both sides is automatically a conflict of interest, which you are doing.

I appreciate that convicting people in public opinion without the facts is not something I'm interested in. But each to their own.

meglome · 29-04-2015 12:12am

fly_agaric wrote: »

I don't understand this point. I know there's supposed to be cabinet responsibility or whatever but the bad smells have always come from FG ministries. Why would it be somehow better if FG had gotten their overall majority? Surely it would be worse!

Labour promised the world in the last election, which they had no real hope of carrying out. We may have gotten through the pain faster if labour didn't need to be appeased but we'll never know.

IBRC Sale of Siteserv at €100 million loss.

Comments