Home

BREAKFAST DEALS: Foster's ammunition

23.05.12

Exploitative suitors are employing a new set of tactics to win Australian companies at prices that might leave some shareholders notion hard done by. Retail shareholders in Foster’s are preparing to fight against what they assume trust to is a bargain for SABMiller, brought about in no small way by a complicated proposal. Arguably, their if it happens has been strengthened after a taxation rule on the Foster’s capital return. Pure Group is also under threat, with chairman Peter Smedley holding firm is against a barrage of review at the service company’s annual general meeting for not engaging with reserved equity. Meanwhile, over at Centro, management has been forced into a last-minute sweetener after one shareholder adept of stopping the $3 billion restructure put its foot down. Elsewhere, the day when bankers could take control of Nine Diversion has moved one step closer, New Hope might have to lower its expectations for its sales process and APN Scandal & Media is reportedly looking to offload a big stake in its outdoor advertising province

Foster’s Group, SABMiller

SABMiller has been forced to increase the moolah component of its $12.1 billion bid for Foster’s after the Australian Taxation Role wouldn’t play ball. Under the original proposal, Foster’s shareholders were to accept $5.10 in cash, a final dividend of 13.25 cents and a capital give of 30 cents per share. However that cash component will now rise to $5.40 after the ATO put a cork in the first-rate return idea. SABMiller was quick to point out that it doesn’t transform the enterprise value of the deal and the Australian brewer’s shareholders won’t be getting a cent more.

It’s the latest wiggle in a deal that’s received some quite vocal opposition from some Foster’s shareholders that look set to squander the vote slated for December 1. Seventy-five per cent approval is needed for the stock to go through. The deal will give SABMiller, the London-based brewer of Peroni and Grolsch, almost a 50 per cent allotment of the Australian beer market.

Spotless Group

Forecasts of significant shareholder resound turned out to be accurate at the Spotless Group annual general meeting. Chairman Peter Smedley hardily defended the board’s decision to refuse to engage with Private Justice Partners over a $698 million, or $2.63 per share, cash offer. It’s the back time in six months Spotless has been sought by private equity.

It was a tough pack for Smedley that included a 26 per cent block of shareholders who had signed pre-bid agreements with PEP, a former managing number one in Brian Blythe questioning the company’s performance since his departure and 8.9 per cent shareholder Orbis Investment Direction trying unsuccessfully to change its vote of endorsement for two Spotless directors. Then there were the objections from awesome cleaners to low wage levels and trying working conditions.

Smedley also played his cards shut up shop to his chest on the subject of prices Spotless would be willing to engage with. It’s been substantially reported that Smedley considers $3 to be a level at which discussion would be warranted, but at the get-together he reportedly said, “I’ve never mentioned a number”.

Centro

Centro Properties Band has been forced to sweeten the details of its proposed $3 billion restructure proposition after it became apparent that key shareholders were intending to vote the proposal down. Shareholders in Centro Retail Keeping will now receive an extra $90 million in equity after Marathon Asset Command said it would not support the deal. The equity will come from the company’s in the red. Although it appears the process wasn’t held hostage by just one shareholder alone, with The Australian reporting that York Smashing , Orbis Funds Management and two other funds run by John Paulson were understood to be unfortunate with the deal.

Nine Entertainment

CVC Asia Pacific sat down with lenders on Friday at UBS offices in Sydney asking for an “ameliorate and extend” agreement on its financing for Nine Entertainment – apparently it didn’t go well. According to The Australian Pecuniary Review , banking sources indicate that some onlookers scoffed at the proposal and some could even consider selling their holdings of Nine Entertainment debt to hedge funds and investment banks.

The obstreperous for Nine Entertainment boss David Gyngell , as pointed out with likely satisfaction by media billionaire Kerry Stokes , is that the followers’s $3.5 billion debt burden coupled with sluggish advertising conditions could vigour it into the hands of its banks unless it can come up with a refinancing deal. The only alternative to that search for would be asset sales and, as Stokes would undoubtedly be aware, Nine Entertainment has some prime media assets.

New Foresee

New Hope chairman Robert Millner will have a pretty good idea of what he can await to get for the sale of the coal company, but he might have to check his ambitions. Indicative bids for the company are due today and it’s been understandably reported that New Belief has received a lot of interest, but according to The Australian Financial Review less than half of the dozen or so bidders are credible to make the first round of bidding with the $5 billion price tag a bit steep for them. Heed is fixed on Yanzhou Coal and Aditya Birla Group , with a number of other Chinese and Indian players bit to be interested.

Grenda Transit, Venture Bus Lines

Melbourne’s Grenda kinsfolk has exited the world of buses, selling its 650 vehicle business to the Cornwall dearest’s Venture Bus Lines . UBS ran a sales process and ultimately selected Ventura for the arrangement that will effectively double the size of the acquirer. While the price was not disclosed, the widely reported make heads of $400 million has not been disputed. The deal is still subject to approval from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which is due to deal out down its decision on December 1.

Wrapping up

Starting off with media and The Australian Financial Re-examine reports that APN News & Media is hoping to bring a partner into its APN Outdoor trade, the largest outdoor advertising business in the country. Up to a 50 per cent pillar in the company would be up for grabs.

ANZ Banking Group is about to settle its legal battle with Primebroker Securities with a dole out believed to be worth between $20 million and $25 million believed to be on the cards, Fairfax reports.

Meanwhile, Brambles has penned another catch win by signing a three-year service agreement with PepsiCo , worth $US45 million ($44.8 million).

Turning to resources and Acclaim Suisse has told Caltex Australia investors to take a breath because any potential divestment of its refinery dealing won’t happen until 2014, The Australian Financial Review reports.

And finally, scullery goods marketing company McPherson’s has announced plans to split in two, creating alone listed consumer products and printing businesses.

Source: Business Spectator

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Hearing

23.05.12

Company Oversight and Government Reform Committee Hearing

"Pay for Performance: Should Fannie and Freddie Manager Be Receiving Millions in Bonuses?"

Nov 17, 2011 (Congressional Documents and Publications/ContentWorks via COMTEX) -- Chairman Issa, Ranking Associate Cummings, and members of this Committee, thank you for inviting me to appear today. I am Ed Haldeman, Chief Principal Officer of Freddie Mac. I joined Freddie Mac in August 2009, almost a year after the attendance was placed into conservatorship by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). I joined Freddie Mac from Putnam Investments, where I served as President and CEO for several years dawning in 2003. I have been a financial services professional for more than 35 years.

I welcome the moment to address your questions and concerns about compensation for our executive team - which, to be clear at the inauguration, is not the same team that directed Freddie Mac's operations prior to conservatorship. I want to lend the Committee all the facts as you consider this important issue.

Our nation is now in the fourth year of dip, with nearly one in ten Americans still out of work. Millions of families have lost their homes, and millions more leftovers at risk of foreclosure. Given the widespread economic hardship facing so many in our realm, I fully understand why the American people are upset about executive compensation in overall, particularly about the levels of pay at companies that have received substantial financial support from the federal oversight during the past few years, including Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

At the same time, my number one neutral since becoming CEO in August 2009 has been to keep the company functioning and able to carry out our housing calling. When the Freddie Mac board of directors and FHFA Director asked me to accept the CEO r, they emphasized that it was absolutely critical that we keep the machinery of the company running smoothly in command to support the recovery of the mortgage market and the national economy. FHFA and Resources were particularly concerned about our ability to fulfill our mission if we could not attract and retain OK and experienced executives and employees - a very real and legitimate concern given the known status of Freddie Mac and its highly uncertain future.

It was clear that if Freddie Mac suffered an exodus of our most well experienced and talented employees, our ability to fulfill our top two objectives under conservatorship -- making inevitable mortgage funds remained available and helping financially stressed families sidestep foreclosure - would be greatly hindered. Failure to achieve these objectives would undermine bazaar stability and cause harm to more families for a longer period of time.

So we focused on stabilizing the companions, giving particular attention to developing a compensation program that would strike a comme il faut balance between retaining talented executives and employees while recognizing the market expectations for an courage receiving substantial federal financial support to ensure our continued actuality. As discussed below, our compensation program was developed in coordination with FHFA (and with Treasury's input and commentary) in the months following our placement into conservatorship. Its purpose was, and continues to be, to attract and memorize qualified professionals who are critical to our continued ability to support the mortgage marketwhile policymakers condition long-term reform, including the future of Freddie Mac. While we must offer competitive compensation, we have charmed several measures to reduce overall compensation levels, including reducing the troop of executive positions, reducing compensation levels for the executive management rig absent a substantial increase in operating responsibilities, and paying newly hired executives at belittle levels than their predecessors. The result is that we have reduced compensation for the top 10 percent of our administration team by approximately 40 percent since entering conservatorship.

I also want to highlight for the Council's attention the dedication and work of our employees under conservatorship. Our employees have endured several notable management changes in a short time, lost nearly all of the value of their dear holdings of Freddie Mac stock, n1 lost any assurance of a long-term pursuit with the company, and have been working under the burden of continuing public condemnation of the company.

These people, it is urgent to note, did not make the business decisions that led to conservatorship.

At the same time, they have been asked by policymakers to stand on the job and put their considerable skills to work to help stabilize the housing market, carry on with to make mortgage credit available when no other sources of liquidity were available, and, very importantly, workers at-risk families avoid foreclosure. To the credit of our new leadership team and our employees, they have performed admirably to happen on these expectations. They remained focused on the company's vital housing mission and have done everything that has been asked of them. They have kept the machinery continual smoothly.

To illustrate a few of our achievements, since the beginning of 2009, Freddie Mac has

* Provided more than $1.1 trillion to subvene homeownership and rental housing for more than 5.5 million American families.

* Enabled 3.8 million homeowners to take sway of record low interest rates and refinance into lower cost mortgages.

* Helped approximately 575,000 financially stressed families leave alone foreclosure and we continue working every day to help many thousands more at-risk borrowers.

For these and many other reasons, I am proud of the line our employees are doing for our nation.

It is fully appropriate for policymakers to consider how we should be compensated for the occupation we are doing. As discussed below, I believe that question would be bestaddressed as part of comprehensive reform of the GSEs and the covering finance system. However, I believe it would be entirely counterproductive to dramatically revise compensation lacking that reform, which would amount to changing the rules on our people midstream. It would make it that much harder for us to bear the people we have and attract qualified people to replace them during this time of transition to a new mortgage business system. Without sufficient competent and experienced employees, our ability to continue supporting the mortgage call and the broader economic recovery would be impaired, which in turn would expose taxpayers to additional unborn losses.

Freddie Mac is a different company under conservatorship

The Freddie Mac of today is not the group that existed pre-conservatorship. The Treasury Department, FHFA and we have made a number of changes that apply oneself to the very concerns underlying this hearing.

First, when Freddie Mac was placed into conservatorship, FHFA removed the top executives it deemed most guilty for the company's failure. I was not here -1 am, in fact, the third CEO since conservatorship began - so I am not passing judgment on the former executive team. However, as FHFA Acting Director Edward DeMarco recently said in a character to U.S. Senators, these individuals "left the companies, and no severance or golden parachutes were permitted." n2

Damaged, we have virtually an entirely new senior management team in place. We have a new CEO, chief economic officer; head of our single family business unit, head of our multifamily province unit, head of our investments business unit, interim general recommendation, chief risk officer, chief compliance officer, head of considerate resources, and chief information officer. All of these people are either new to Freddie Mac or in new roles since conservatorship. In occurrence, 14 of our 18 management committee members have turned over since my tenure began. Some of this volume resulted from voluntary departures - an indication of the difficulties we face in retaining limited top executives given the company's current status and uncertain future. We also have many new employees since being placed into conservatorship, who, like the longer-duration employees, embrace our housing mission. This is a new team, with a new focus.

Third, we have cut compensation levels for the top 10 percent of our managing by 40 percent since conservatorship. I know that many of you feel strongly that we should be paying less than we did pre-conservatorship. Let me ensure you, we are. We not only cut total executive compensation levels significantly, we seek to pay less compensation to newly hired executives than their predecessors made. We also have reduced and consolidated positions where devote. For example, we no longer have a chief operating officer, and we combined the chief commendation officer and chief enterprise risk officer functions.

As a result, the 15 highest paid people at Freddie Mac today as a set receive less compensation than the top 15 received a decade ago. Moreover, most of the compensation paid to executives today is deferred and based on a aggregation of individual and corporate performance. Most of what is being characterized as "bonuses" for executives is in fact deferred shoddy pay from prior periods of service.

With regard to my own compensation, it is set by a committee of independent members of our Directorship of Directors, in consultation with and subject to FHFA's approval, without my involvement or input. When I came aboard as Freddie Mac's CEO in August 2009, neither the neck of my compensation nor its structure had yet been finalized. I was on the job four months before my compensation was fully determined in December 2009.

Source: Middle East North Africa Financial Network