I am back. So is SGH, page-1867

Did you even read my post? Did you even read the SGH Market Update? Ok, so you did not even address any of the facts that I presented from SGH that show what the future of the current shareholders will be. Your lack of credibility is showing through very clear. If you want to point out any place where I have mislead, feel free. Oh, but you can't, so you will just attack the fresh air.

Correction, I am not criticising SGH. I am criticising your upramping posts. Your last post was literally full of factual inaccuracies. Even a casual observer would have recognised that after having read the the latest market updated from SGH. I am happy to help educate you, but you continue to ignore the updates from SGH, instead dreaming about what could have been. You don't want to address any of the things that I said about your postings in my last post?

You kept on saying that the recapitalisation would be in the best interest of ALL stakeholders. Now you are not so sure as you might vote no? So are you right or wrong with you "ALL" prediction? BTW, Anchorage is now not only your major lender, but will also be your major shareholder. Don't mix up the success of Anchorage with the potential of success for current shareholders.

When the calculations done previously (that you were totally happy with, despite it being based on very generous assumptions) was $800m and 15% net profit, it was a $3 share price (that was with no consideration for debt, warrants, convertible notes, etc). Here is a nice post by @steve068 on 10 April breaking down the $3 share price in detail and commenting on his calculations. Makes fore great reading. Well done @steve068 for predicting the future, where the market update has said that the directors and KMP are all voting to recommend the recapitalisation plan, where you said this:

Ok, back to the $3. That $3 is equivalent to 12c of the current price. Even in FY14 when S&G was flying high (with come questionable WIP calculations and acquisitions happening), the NPAT was not even 15%. So, the $3 now? That seems very generous scenario for a company that has declining revenue, is in a net loss, has little or no upside with WTG or sale of UK subsidiaries, loans of around $70m, further shares to be issued (unknown), has negative cashflow, still has unresolved CA lawsuits from shareholders, staff retention issues in the UK, a PIP that has still not delivered significant savings, a new Board of Directors to be appointed and a change in senior management. So based on your own calculations the current share value is significantly overpriced. That is why the share price has gone down 12% over two days since the announcement. I wonder where it will be in a weeks time. Why can't you admit you were wrong? That is not to much to ask, is it?

You said we should wait for the Lenders to value the business. Well, they have done that and they think they need at least 96% of the company, plus GBP250m in Convertible Notes and loans of around (up to) $70m left on the balance sheet. Sounds like they don't value the business much currently.

Conservative? You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

How would you even get to a valuation of $8 per share? I think most current holders of SGH on HC are reasonable with their expectations, but you seem to pluck numbers out of thin air. No, I cannot see how it could be worth $2.6b (and no, it is not the equivalent to 40c, as it is not a 95% dilution), that is frankly laughable, but I am interested in seeing what your calculations are behind this. Please share with the forum. But the fact that you used only a 95% dilution in your previous calculations show that your maths are not your strong point. I can only speculate that at 32c you might be back in the green with your investment so this is why you focus on $8. Five years is a long time to wait to see if you can break even.

The S&G business will continue. But current shareholders are being diluted to less than 4% with alot of knowns still around and most of them being negative. Five years from today SGH could be anything (sale of some UK subsidiaries?), but don't try to use false representation to misconstrue the facts of where SGH sits today for current shareholders. On the subject of dividends, I would not even take this into consideration for current shareholders as given your dilution rate, any dividend paid (however unlikely) will not be of a material amount to you anyway. There are still many questions that need answers from SGH. The only guarantee here is that the new owners will be making multiples times profit on their original investment. So, SWC, how is that about addressing the future? Facts - You should try to use them.

Apologies for the large blocks of text, but maybe I have provided a bit of light entertainment and information to those interested.

I am walking outside to the beach. Happy investing!