Jim what I agree about is this:
* Many comments being made in the UK, some with more detail /force than others. As for the banks calling in any loans, I can't yet see any evidence of this beyond the increased Westpac provisioning. Looking at the latest PPSR registrations (Australia, only and then only for Slaters Limited), Westpac was still registering securities up to a week or so ago over fit-out, computer equipment, IT etc. But I couldn't see anything offhand regarding the NAB. It could well be that different loans etc have been made to the different entities rather than solely on a consolidated basis, both here and in the UK. So, if anything has occurred, then it likely concerns one of the minnow participants (Citi or Macquarie, etc) which has always been a primary risk consideration.
What however I disagree with is the suggestion that banks will never move on someone because they risk not getting their money back. Once a bank sees the risk realising itself before them, they will first agitate and then quite possibly move in. If still supportive, terms will change, interest will be repriced for greater risk, and control will be more strident. But if at risk of losing their money, they will not (except in exceptional circumstances or against more security being provided) lend more good money after bad. If in doing so, they have to take a hit, then the banks will do so or otherwise they will force other alternative outcomes which is unfortunately where the arguments arise concerning CR and DEQ arrangements possibly being considered.
* My comments regarding what I consider is required from an OPEX and headcount perspective are well known on HC. I still consider that if these are done then the major syndicate members will continue to support even if the minnows didn't. But of concern is that they are now >2 months on from where they should have started (at the very least) and so they will now be starting so much further behind the 8-ball.
* Shareholders likely will have to consider 6 things - (*) size of the OPEX cuts, (*) size of the writedowns, (*) missed revenue marks, hence profitability pushed well back in time, (*) increased banking control /restrictions, (*) management /board changes, and (*) the ever looming prospect of a forced CR (I have argued against this in the past) in the event that the OPEX cuts, management and business process changes do not yield sufficient enough results in quick enough time. If so, then they are likely to tick some off, whilst react against others. That's why any resumed trading will really be anyone's guess once it resumes and then settles down.
Elsewhere, I've laid out what I consider is required of SGH to go forward. If most of this is done, then the banking syndicate, as nervous as it might be, would very likely remain supportive (even if the minnows might have to be otherwise dealt with) rather than call anything in, but life going forward would be very much controlled and anything but free flowing.
Now, as for some other upcoming priorities, the first deferred payment of $10M due to Nowicki arises on or before the 28th which practically means, by tomorrow. If not made, then this will likely cause an issue. if however made, it's likely to further increase the cashflow pressure that presently exists. Equally, it is doubtful that Nowicki's deferred payments (now plus the $10M due in 28/2/17) would be unsecured. So, again, if not paid, there could well be some sideline risks that might well arise. This however would be one of many different things that are presently being juggled around.
Another would be the need to cancel /suspend the dividend payment.
Expand
