Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

GTP - Great Southern Plantations

Jump to new
Hey Guys,

Have any of you been following the news regarding the introduction in 2010 of a Carbon Reduction Pollution Scheme (CPRS) in Australia? An impost on the use of carbon.

Have any of you read the rules that are proposed to apply to forestry?

Maybe it could add value to some of GTP's land.

Maybe some of you should have a read.

I think many countries around the world are introducing laws dealing with carbon pollution, not just Australia.

Maybe someone can perform some calculations of the revenues GTP may possibly be able to receive from the introduction of CPRS in 2010.
 
Investor1, you are truly a dangerous and mischeavous piece of work. It is clear from the Govt's green paper that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will not come into force for agricultural products before 2015 at the earliest.Please read Page 14 of the GTP 2008 Annual Report for confirmation.
Investor1, I have no idea what your agenda is and this 'gossip site' must allow all views, but you have been nothing but deceptive and misleading and inconsequential in all your ramblings.
 
cathadfab said:
Is it possible that as a shareholder he may be given information we are not given as investors? or does that information have to be made public?
Click to expand...
Listed companies such as Great Southern Plantations are required by law to make market sensitive information public.
 
I understand the Government will not mak a decision for general agriculture (i.e. cattle) until 2013 with a possible introduction date until 2015.

However, the Government stated position is forestry can elect in from scheme commencement.

goodie3shoes you can check that up yourself. If you read the first bullet point on page 13 it states:

"Participation by forestry in the CPRS is on an opt-in basis."
 
Forenth said:
There was an earlier post, which I can't find at the moment, referring to a 5 or 10% yes vote from investors to change RE for a project. So if it was required then we get a list of investors and write to ask them. eg. John Woodruff has a list of 17000 of the 42000 investors in the 2000 project and wrote to them.

Changing RE may not be that difficult. It would just have to be explained to investors clearly before the vote. Something GSL seem unable to do. Their 191 and 60 page explanations only made me wonder why if its a good deal why does it take more than 3 or 4 pages to explain. Of course the fine print on page 135 or so tells you why its not.

Also, in all those pages it does say that only projects up to 2003 were chosen due to the ATO requiring growers to have MIS investments for 4 years to keep their initial tax deduction. I read that as meaning the 2004 and successive projects will be targeted in future years. So if you're in them keep your eyes open!
Click to expand...

(I) Calling of meetings of members by members - 5% of members (CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 252D)


(II) Removal of responsible entity by members (CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601FM)


Members of MIS are empowered by the Corporations Act
 
Dennis and Co Action Fees

I am still trying to work out if there is any point in joining the Dennis and Co class action. I voted No of course to the proposal, but wonder if the company goes broke if there is any point risking $800 just in order to become a creditor.

Does anybody know if the legal costs are considered tax-deductible. As a primary producer, I would think that they are as I am paying money to deal with the failure of an entity that failed to manage my assets. But I am no tax-accountant, and mine is on holidays at the moment.
 
Re: Dennis and Co Action Fees

gavinabrown said:
I am still trying to work out if there is any point in joining the Dennis and Co class action. I voted No of course to the proposal, but wonder if the company goes broke if there is any point risking $800 just in order to become a creditor.

Does anybody know if the legal costs are considered tax-deductible. As a primary producer, I would think that they are as I am paying money to deal with the failure of an entity that failed to manage my assets. But I am no tax-accountant, and mine is on holidays at the moment.
Click to expand...

There are pages prior to this that ask questions and answer some of your anxieties,but do not direct or answer your query,about Dennis and co

the point is this ,when the titanic went down,some people survived the sinking only to freeze to death in the icy waters,while others ---a monority
got a seat in the liferaft.



:2twocents
 
Re: Dennis and Co Action Fees

gavinabrown said:
I am still trying to work out if there is any point in joining the Dennis and Co class action. I voted No of course to the proposal, but wonder if the company goes broke if there is any point risking $800 just in order to become a creditor.

Does anybody know if the legal costs are considered tax-deductible. As a primary producer, I would think that they are as I am paying money to deal with the failure of an entity that failed to manage my assets. But I am no tax-accountant, and mine is on holidays at the moment.
Click to expand...

I'm a 2000 and 2006 plantation investor and like all of you I have voted No (twice!). As far as I know legal costs are NOT tax deductible and ATO sees as a capital enpense.
 
worst case scenario..... noone offeres to manage the trees..... i will open a management company to manage the trees. mate they are trees..... you just insure them and watch them grow... its not your mothers tomato garden where oyu have to talk to them to see them grow :)
Click to expand...

Slim

Sounds like you are in for a big year.

A few posts ago you were a solicitor who was going to run a case against GS. (Post 1262)

Now you are forest manager.

I admire your multifaceted talents.

Good luck!
 
Investor1 said:
Hey Guys,

Have any of you been following the news regarding the introduction in 2010 of a Carbon Reduction Pollution Scheme (CPRS) in Australia? An impost on the use of carbon.

Have any of you read the rules that are proposed to apply to forestry?

Maybe it could add value to some of GTP's land.

Maybe some of you should have a read.

I think many countries around the world are introducing laws dealing with carbon pollution, not just Australia.

Maybe someone can perform some calculations of the revenues GTP may possibly be able to receive from the introduction of CPRS in 2010.
Click to expand...

The land and the trees have to belong to the same entity to get the carbon credits. As the land belongs to GS and the trees currently belong to the MIS investors, the revenue to GS will be nothing.
 
Ladies and Gents,

Until recently, this thread has been one of the most robust discussions at ASF. The arguements for either side have been well researched, thought out and presented. People have largely stuck to the topic at hand rather than attacking the poster.

Thanks to these high standards, shareholders and MIS investors alike have had the opportunity to learn more than they otherwise might through company announcements.

Any posts that threaten that high standard will be removed for the benefit of all those mature enough to participate in a productive fashion. We have already removed a few posts in the past few hours and will continue to monitor this thread closely.

Thanks for your cooperation.
 
The notion of the scheme's taking control of GS would be an attractive proposition if the company was in a more sound financial position. Unfortunately this ship is grounded and it will take a king tide to get it floated again. The scheme's in isolation are a far more attractive proposition.

Regardless of who managers the schemes these schemes have a legally binding lease agreement over the land. If the bank takes possession of the land and then sells this land to another party that party is legally obliged to honour the lease agreement so the ownership of the land is irrelevant. In fact Great Southern is currently selling such land to help keep the creditors at bay. This is a sign of their desperation. To sell land that is encumbered by lease you have to offer it at a huge discount as the purchaser is unable to do anything with it while the lease remains intact.

I believe project transform was designed primarily to gain access to the cattle properties to sell them to get cash to pay their $100m liability that is due in September.

Any arrangements regarding carbon credits are still a long way off and highly speculative. Owning land and trees, owning just trees, owning just land, who knows? I thinking the story of combining the land and the trees is convenient and Great Southern have decided to run with it as it works in their favour.

Also I would like to make comment on the 21% of voters in the 1998 project that have voted yes to the proposal. How could you? Wait 12 months and your sure to get a lot more than you are currently being offered. The only thoughts I have is that maybe it is a reflection management ownership.

I know there are a lot of people that just blindly follow their advisors opinions and this could be resulting in yes votes. If you have an advisor that is pushing the yes vote my suggestion is that you need to look around for a new one.
 
I feel the sale of assets is a form of entering into further form of debt for GTP, primarily because of the MIS require the land to be leased back -- effectively the same as interest only payments.
 
ThePav said:
Also I would like to make comment on the 21% of voters in the 1998 project that have voted yes to the proposal. How could you? Wait 12 months and your sure to get a lot more than you are currently being offered. The only thoughts I have is that maybe it is a reflection management ownership.
Click to expand...

I agree with you Pav. I can also imagine that GTP as a company in times of plenty, possibly re-invested in their own MIS scheme? You could probably find this in their accounts if you looked hard enough I suspect.

Would there be institutional investment in something like these MIS?
 
SDE said:
The land and the trees have to belong to the same entity to get the carbon credits. As the land belongs to GS and the trees currently belong to the MIS investors, the revenue to GS will be nothing.
Click to expand...

you have to be kidding,when carbon credits were first being touted Iasked gtp if I was entittled tothe credits,Iwas told you are not because you are only in it for a short time(10 years),it was indicated that it was a long term benefit and you do not own the land.


When the options on taking the coppice on the same lots if you invested after the first crop wre withdrawn you needed to remind yourself it was a two-way street,that is an option

by the way DOC, I have noted your statement
 
There was an article in today's (Thursday's) West Australian on this.

I can't find it online but it was a more interesting read than the West's online article from Tuesday (13/1/09) which was just a rehash of GTP's ASX release.
 
Just trying to sum up all the for and against arguments here, it dawned on me that what Investor1 is saying is that the shares are worth more than 17 cents.

This may or may not be the case. My arguments are/have been that they are not.

Assuming that Investor1 is correct and the shares do go to a much higher level and the company flourishes at some point in the future due to carbon credits/ new MIS/ high woodchip prices, then why would anyone buy them at ~68? cents a share when they can buy them for 17 cents??

and pay tax for the effort.

Sorry Investor1, you don't have any arguments to explain why this is a good deal for MIS holders, all you're really proving is why you think the share price is undervalued.

brty
 
brty,

You are starting to see the point.

If the share price is undervalued and if the Project Transform is good for the company and therefore the long term share price, the issue may be the MIS investor is short being a shareholder and long being an MIS investor.

At $0.17 share, the MIS may be able to buy up many GTP shares and any perceived loss they make on the MIS sale, may possibly be more than offset by appreciation in share price, even in an after tax sense.

But in an after tax sense, the MIS investor may be improving their position if they buy more shares. The share gain may be on CGT account and future gains may be able to be deferred indefinitely if shares are not sold. If trees are harvested, less tax income deferral opportunity. The current scheme seems to have a low actual assessable component and most of you can obtain tax advice to manage the situation. Your future company may even be able to help.

If you value the assets of GTP and the value of MIS investor trees, the sum of the two may be more than them separated.

The issue may be, MIS investors are currently not big enough shareholders, or alternatively, the MIS investors consider they are not receiving enough shares for their interests. The structure can be balanced by MIS investors buying shares at $0.17 and becoming shareholders. BE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE. HOW OFTEN DOES SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY ARISE? However, it may not take much to make GTP shares greater than $0.17 if Project Transform was to succeed.

Currently, in my opinion MIS investors are loosing opportunity to improve their position and MIS investors destroying possible wealth.

I consider the MIS investors should do more research on the value of the assets of GTP and also their assets in today's environment.

Replacing the management may be so much easier and cheaper than the approach being promoted generally at the moment.
 
Investor1 I have to say I do share the same concerns as you regarding the asset valuations.

Investor1 why are you not out their buying shares? why isn't anyone out there buying the shares? It looks like about $1m worth of shares have been traded in the last two weeks which is nothing. The analysis has been done on this company. It has from what I can tell five major issues (apart from the management)

1. The current financial show a $68m loss. Trading losses with such high debt levels is a very very bad sign. This alone would be enough to have investors shy away. Until they turn over a profit any smart traders are going to keep away.

2. MIS sales have always been the driving force of this company, last year they saw a significant reduction in this area. The next round of sales will be even lower, partly due to project transform, partly due to the general economy. This is only going to drive this profit position down further from an already negative position

3. Asset valuations, MIS companies have a reputation for paying above market to acquire assets. I don't have any confidence in the values on the financial statements.

4. No matter how you spin it the sums don't added up. I'll probably get my tax done in about 9 months from now, that’s when I will have my tax liability. To pay this liability I will have to sell my shares. Even if the share rises 300% to .50c (in a dead share market) I would rather take the risk with the project return.

5. Share offers like this inevitably drive the share price down in the short term. The market is not currently trading with large enough volumes to bring this price back up.

In my opinion the offer is too bad to consider. It is almost paramount to a donation and I am not in a generous mood.
 
The share price for GTP is "up" 17% today (on yesterdays close!). Is today the final day for acceptances?

I am a little nervous - I have Cattle and my project was at 68% acceptance. (With my NO in that). I don't want any shares.

Anyone think that the share price going up so much today may indicate something (along the lines of yes, they are going to seize my Cattle and have some assets to sell)...

Just wondering. I wonder how long I have to wait until GTP issue a statement....
 

Similar threads

System
SPD - Southern Palladium
Replies
5
Views
2K
mullokintyre
mullokintyre
K
Bank Makes a Mockery of ASIC Enforceable Undertaking
Replies
1
Views
3K
mjim
M
J
Great Southern loan deal to Javelin
Replies
14
Views
6K
JMT781000
J
exberliner1
LIT - Livium Ltd
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
27K
frugal.rock
frugal.rock
tech/a
Volume/Range/High Low and Close--reading and application
2 3
Replies
49
Views
29K
tech/a
tech/a
Top