Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

SGH

Click for more information

0.00%

54.5¢ slater & gordon limited

Hi Elit, From my experience I understand it to be common place...

First 32 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Nick Miller

1,276 Posts.

46

23/03/17

11:00

Post #: 23567235
Share

Originally posted by elit ↑

Let's be frank anchorage are buying sgh debt to make money and they would sell their grandma if it meant they could make more money.

So if was just ordinary shareholders involved absolutely in no uncertain terms shareholders would be completely wiped out.

But there lies the complication that it is not just ordinary shareholders as for anchorage to make money they need the business to stabalise. And key to this is retaining management and key staff in sgh as that is the base value of its business.

Most of those same management and staff own decent equity holdings in sgh as offer of equity and bonuses paid in shares is typical tool in competitive market for professional talent as retention tool, particularly as the competing model is the partnership model where top legal partners own equity in the law firm via partnership.

So anchorage will be about how can they offer as little as possible to shareholders (read those sgh management and employees who own sgh shares where other shareholders just get the add on benefits of being fortunate those sgh management and staff own shares as otherwise they would be completely screwed), whilst removing the considerable risks they disincentise those same management and staff with what they leave in terms of value of their remaining equity holding post recapitalization.

As if sgh management and staff end up with their shares as worthless, the sgh partners and directors will walk and set up their own law practices or go to other law firms, taking key sgh lawyers and clients with them, leaving anchorage with a worthless business. As that is why considerable equity positions are offered to law partners and directors to stop the risk of this happening.

Bankers versus the lawyers, if I was a shareholder I would be rooting for the lawyers who will be doing everything possible to get the best result for sgh management and staff. A by product of that is retaining sufficient value of key sgh management and staff's equity holding in the company to retain them. Sgh's advisors in negotiating with debt holders would be pushing this very hard in negotiations and anchorage and others should appreciate this is real risk they need to manage. Irony is they should be able to negotiate a deal that leaves something for sgh management and staff in terms of equity value (say 20 to 30%) which would reduce risk of mass walkouts by sgh staff and key management, taking other key staff and clients with them, while still leaving considerable room for debt holders to make a killing on the deal. But I would also not bet against anchorage and other debt holders pushing the envelope too hard as bankers from my experience know very little about managing businesses where key asset is its people and better doing recapitalization deals for capital intensive businesses like mining operations where they don't have to worry about people issues involved is more than bread and butter.

I personally think real risk of anchorage and other debt holders pushing the envelope too hard and end result is sgh key directors and lawyers walking and so taking any value of the business with them, leaving anchorage and other debt holders with nothing, and in either scenario shareholders with nothing. As personally bankers are worst sort of people you want involved in this sort of complex deals where ip is in the companies people as they have little expertise in such matters and over inflated ego's they they can screw those same people and still expect to make a lot of money.

Expand

Hi Elit,

From my experience I understand it to be common place for professional services firms to structure equity participation with non-competes, which limits their principles from just up and resigning and taking clients with them. 6 months gardening leave and 12 month non-solicitation of clients is not uncommon. Would appreciate Grant weighing in here with his own experiences. What are your thoughts on this as it appears to be largely omitted from your opinion above?

You also neglect to comment on equity vesting, which is another common place tool for staff retention. I understand this can apply to both equity for consideration of acquisitions and to STI / bonuses. Bringing this back to SGH, unvested equity at this point is practically worthless so Anchorage and other new lenders will have to be looking at other options to reset this to motivate staff going forward. Enter new incentive programs that can be offered to staff that don't necessarily need to be extended to all SGH shareholders.

SGH Price at posting: 11.5¢ Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Not Held
1 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

CMX

ChemX Materials kicks off first stage works at WA high purity alumina pilot

LU7

Lithium Universe (ASX:LU7) board visits Quebec to engage key stakeholders

SS1

Sun Silver gets that drill to thrill feeling from high grade hits at Maverick Spring

SVL

Silver Mines models five new calderas close to 396Moz Bowdens deposit

Week 26 Wrap: Cerberus of inflation barks – rents, electricity & fuel – and world watches two elders bicker

AVA

Ava Risk Group expands US presence with A$0.7M Substation Deal

Wealth Within weighs in on shock 4% inflation read – and stocks that could survive the gloom

RCE

Recce's R327 found effective against E.coli during clinical trial

Microcap Wrap: 5 explorers with news out today

LRV

Larvotto identifies new exploration target at NSW's Hillgrove, boosting shares by nearly 20%

There are more pages in this discussion • 51 more messages in this thread...

First 32 Last

Add SGH (ASX) to my watchlist

SPONSORED BY