Share
clock Created with Sketch.
24/05/16
11:30
Share
Originally posted by PointBreak5
↑
Totally disagree with you, I think it was fine to tap outside investors for the $500m rather than further gear the balance sheet. The structure is OK - farmers keep voting control and majority economic control. Investors only get economic control. The company was too aggressive with maintaining farmgate, but given the news that they sold 30 tons of milk powder in a day - there is a reason why they were optimistic on china story.
Long term - the unit and structure will give the ability for MG to issue more units when they need to invest in long term projects. I also think it shared the risk with the farmers instead of gearing the balance sheet by another $500m when milk prices were dropping.
You are nothing but a bear who adds no positive view, except negative news stories. Bottom line, when milk prices rally and farmers get paid a higher farmgate because of the $500m they raised - everyone will be happy.
BOTTOM LINE - the farmers got a great deal on the outside capital - $500m raised at a $1.3billion company valuation - with now the company valuation at $500m..... its an amazing feet. Farmers have given up a small amount of equity (30%) for $500m... pretty amazing. The structure works- and the negative stories out there are just to fill newspapers. Farmers are resilient and the company and banks will offer interest free loans to get them over the next 12 months of hardship - LONGTERM everyone will be better off, farmers & investors.
Expand
Yes farmers are resilient and would certainly retaliate IF MG had the gall to offer interest free loans. If they can afford to give loans then they can afford to revert back to the FGMP that was in force before this debacle that they have instigated.
IMO DYOR