Krispy, interesting argument but just one query, what value now...

Krispy, interesting argument but just one query, what value now of the warrants that were issued last year - in terms of value, number of shares, and relative value now, compared to then? Mind you, I also saw (for the first time, last night) promos for the upcoming event series on NINE - BOND. I wonder how that show will pan out? Anyone know the ending? Mind you, it was great strategy by the NAB + banks (et al) to "wait until Bond was on the ocean sailing in the Sydney to Hobart in December 1989 before making their first big move in the courts to appoint receivers".
Read more:
http://www.copyright link/brand/cha...n-of-two-halves-20150605-ghhx9y#ixzz4c1UrfkIO

Banks aren't so silly even if they happen to sometimes end up being between a rock and a hard place. Secondary debt holders /distress debt funds and the like, however, are even less silly when it comes to parting with their $. Just because they have acquired at a 75% discount to face doesn't mean that they have then settled on a 10 - 20% investment return. Their investment case is, more often than not, built around an investment return of 200 - 300% or more.

So, as for the suggested swap into convertible bonds/warrants 2-3 years out at 20 % discount to market price of SGH at that time.) more likely they will have factored into their agreements (even if such an approach were to be embraced), a series of top up, no diminution, and minimum share issues meaning that they'll claw the upside as a supernormal gain, or swamp the downside if this is either necessary or required, whilst all along ensuring that their own internal, confidential ROI is preserved, protected and capital assured regardless of future outcome. They'll also ensure that no-one gets to stand either equal to or ahead of them in line, on a secured, going forward. Chances are, they'll also have an anti-dilutionary condition in place to ensure that any future share issues (even if ever possible) could not be used to then dilute their position.

Now, against this sort of background, they may very well trade off some of the opportunities that for them might arise but, if so, it will likely be against other consequences arising in the nearer term (ie: adjusted capital /security for higher fees, interest etc, or vice versa).