Strike own 8.16% of Warrego, so if we buy just another 22,506,000 shares in WGO then Beach cannot do a compulsory takeover by getting to 90%+ of shares.
Now if Strike shareholders individually already hold shares in Warrego, and stick to Strike's 'play' whatever it is, then Beach cannot get close to 90% compulsory T/O, which makes Beach have to try and T/O Strike as well. In the end it would make Beach have to pay up to get the Perth Basin assets they are after or have a stranded asset in Warrego, should they gain control of WGO.
It would be interesting to know how many WGO shares are held by Strike's shareholders separately from what Strike holds, and Strike could do a lot worse than get on the phone to a lot of large holders in Strike and have a 'chat' about the situation.
I can't imagine that Beach's offer of 20c, only 11% above Friday's close will go close to getting up, but they have shown everyone their cards now in what they want to acquire, after months of 'talk' about Beach making a strategic acquisition. They have not yet shown how many shares in WGO (nor STX for that matter) they currently own, if any.
The strategic thing for me is to buy more of both Strike and some WGO as I now know they are both in play underlining the longer term value of both companies, with hopefully a Strike script offer getting up eventually, or Beach having to pay a large premium to eventually get both. So buying more of both companies should be win/win for shareholders of Strike, while minimising downside risk.
All IMHO of course...
To me this move by Beach was a panic move generated by Strike's scrip bid for WGO. They can see the one asset they have been after, control of majority of Perth basin, slipping away. The STX/WGO combined company gives short term cashflow, lots of near term growth, plus upside in new ground (WGO's north PB assets in particular) for greenfields growth. Strike's ground being more brownfields given current discovery rate.
May we live in interesting times....
Expand
(20min delay)