You continue to disparage other posters who provide informative posts. And yet all you provide is another post that ignores all the facts and gives no references for your bizarre claims.
Let's look at this one by one, shall we.
You keep on telling people how DCF is the best and yet you have not once provided any data to back up your claim.
Your original post here about the DCF says that "At uni we were recommended the discount cashflow method", yet you clearly have no experience with it. Any person in business knows that to value anything (a company, a potential asset purchase, etc) you look at many different ways to value the company. So, even if you look at DCF, you would not ignore other methods. Maybe you need to review your lecture slides again? You never did provide us with those slides.
Another false claim by you, but I guess it is not unexpected. Well, on the upside, it seems that you have learned more about what happens when a company becomes insolvent. But maybe you forgot to read the
31 March 2017 Market Update, where SGH stated that
"The support of the New Senior Lenders continues to fundamental, as current levels of bank debt exceed total enterprise value." That means that SGH would be insolvent, if not for the support of the New Senior Lenders. Not behind in payments? Yeah, that might be because as per the SGH stated (in the same 31 March 2017 Market Update) that
"These amendments include caplitalisation of $32m of interest payments otherwise due for payment on 28 June 2017."
Also note that in the
Senior Lenders Scheme Explanatory Statement, SGH state that:
"If the Scheme is not implemented, the Scheme Company is at risk of becoming insolvent sometimes by May 2018, when the first of three tranches of the Syndicated Facility Agreement fall due."
It also notes that:
"the Scheme Company's level of debt (prior to the Scheme) significantly exceeds the Scheme Company's enterprise value." (my emphasis)
You keep on mentioning "scholars", yet you ignore actual independent experts. Yes, they were paid by SGH (well, who should pay for them??), but they are independent and their reputation is paramount to their continued business. I note that you have not quoted parts of their report or tried to support your claims with any actual data or references of your own, other than "they are wrong".
You also never mention that there is ~A$770m owing to the lenders. Surely only a person who has ulterior motives (or is stupid) would ignore this. You don't want to face the fact that you have to pay interest on that. What is the interest on that amount annually? Well, they don't state that (as there are different amounts due at different times) but if we assume it is, say, 4.5% then that would bean $35m in interest payments annually. You might want to add that into the DCF calculation that you are preparing.
BTW, historical data is not "useless". It is a excellent indicator of the future. No, it should not be relied upon 100%, but using historical information and other information available, you can give a reasonable forecast of the future. To suggest it is "useless" shows a distinct lack of financial understanding. Only a complete moron would not look at the history of a company.
You haven't made any point, as you are unwilling (or unable) to back up your DCF method with any valuation of your own, other than the "fact" that it must be much higher than any other valuation provided. And you clearly ignore facts and substitute your own lies.
The BOD and Senior Management (which you have both previously fully supported) support the recapitalisation agreement. The people working at SGH clearly think that this will give the best outcome for them.
You may want to revisit some of your previous posts.
Here is a post where you said "We are sitting on a potential goldmine." This was posted at 25.5c.
The share price is now 20% of that price. Sometimes you find a goldmine, other times you find just a bunch of rocks.
The difference between a good investor and a bad one is to realise when they are sitting on a bunch of rocks and move on. Many people did this when SGH released their FY17 H1 numbers. So, I wonder who will get the last laugh?
You might want to stick with the facts next time you want to post something. Surely it can't be that hard to read the company's ASX announcements. Being able to read financial statements and understand them is crucial for any investor who is investing long term.
Here is a post of yours, SWC, that you should re-read and re-evaluate.
(I will add the update in italics to help you. Maybe you can educate yourself.)
We all are trying to make money and improve our knowledge. It is wise not to believe anyone on anonymous forums, especially someone who has held a stock for a price that is multiple times higher than the current price and only posts to that stocks forum with positive posts, ignoring obvious facts and never provides any actual links or calculations to back up their claims.
Here are the
Forbes Top 40 Buffett-isms: Inspiration to Become a Better Investor.
I highly recommend that people read this and take something from it. Oh, and DYOR on SGH.
