Ann: Response to media speculation, page-27

"So MND is well managed, that doesn't preclude them from making an acquisition at the right price."

Why would they buy a business in order to participate in a certain economic sector (be it to design, build or maintain stuff in that sector), when they can simply build their own business in order to do so?
Without any of the potential legacy, cultural and contingent liability issues.

In other words, why would they pay someone else for a whole lot of goodwill, when they can simply create their own goodwill value?

In the light of that question, the "right price" for an acquisition, in my book, would be one for which they paid a zero premium above net asset value. And I don't see any deals happening on that basis, in the case of merely half-decent businesses.

When something isn't broken, one shouldn't try to fix it.


"If I was in the hot seat - with this huge net cash I would have bought back stock aggressively at $6 or whatever it was a year ago. For they will never understand another business as well as their own."

With respect, I'm not sure you really understand how this business works.
Unless the board wants to start depending on the banks to fund their business - which it doesn't and which as a shareholder, I don't wanto - that huge cash balance is not available for splashing about.

Firstly, performance guarantees on construction projects require significant capital amounts to be set aside as a condition of the project awards being made.

Secondly, when projects are awarded - be they construction or maintenance - the initial working capital investment can often run into the tens of millions of dollars.