Jump to content



Recommended Posts

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Please read my post carefully, I never stated the 44c and 10c NTA figures were official statutory figures.


They are my own estimations of what the true NTA is. Each person have different ideas of what a valuation for a particular share might be. Just because it doesn't match what the company reports its valuation to be, doesn't mean it is false.


Yes, the statutory NTA is around $1.32 per share and the 'conservative' NTA given by Ron is $1.12 per share as at 22/12/08. But how conservative is it when it assumes Coats is worth $600m+, without needing a cent of capital injections, and when it takes its portfolio values at market price without discounting them (that's fair value, not a conservative value)


My 44c NTA isn't that unreasonable really, it assumes discounting its portfolio on 22/12/08 by 50%. Out of its 4 largest investments 3 of them have already fallen significantly since then. CSR from $1.67 to sub $1, Canberra investment corp from 60c to 35c, Turners and Growers from $1.55 to $1.30.


The 44c value per share doesn't seem that far fetched to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be seen as a downramp... but I'd prefer to see it as a conservative valuation. It might not be 'fair value' but in the current market you pay fair value, and then within a month 'fair value' has just dropped by 20%!!


I'm a GPG holder, and I'd like to get a handle on the value of the shares, preferably a value that takes much of the risks out of the stock. Then I can make an informed decision when to average down, rather than just blindly average down.


While I can understand people feeling upset at seeing these kind of valuations, it's not my intentions to deliberately upset anyone, in particular I'm hoping people (perhaps with more insight and knowledge than I) can contribute alternative views. For example, does anyone think Coats can make it through the current conditions without needing more capital injections, and why? Hopefully someone with special insight into the industry, as I like know nothing about threadmaking and can only make decisions based on the information presented by the company, on internet searches, etc.


If anyone feels grief considering my values at least consider that I'm a conservative investor in the current environment, and I'm probably biased towards pessimism!





Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that hits the problem squarely on the head!

Coats is such a big critical factor in the future of GPG and as investors, we don't really have access to enough detailed information about it have a really good feel for its prospects.

Add in the GPD/AUD/NZD currency issue and its no wonder we're nervous!


Disc: Holding GPG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, just in case people think i'm too biased...


There's a possibility the shares will be worth $2+ a few years from now. If Coats can survive current conditions when things turn who knows, it might fetch $3-4billion. Or at least $1.50 per share net of liabilities. Management seems to think a $2billion valuation on Coats' assets is underpriced. So if you take managment's word, the shares have very little downside, and a good chance of $2+ per share in the future.


However my view is that such a probability is very, very low.


But I'm just doing what most investors would do in the current environment. If you simply don't know how likely an event is, and you have very little info to work with, you have to err on the side of caution.


Who knows, I could be wrong, I usually am. You could argue that it's management's assessment versus an poorly informed retail investors' assessment and as such you'd have to side with management's more optimistic valuations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few things have changed since then!


And a few things will change before 2010. :laugh:


And for the better. Macd must have a buy on this one. I think I remember reading a report about a year ago that said the registry was looking top heavy with instos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...