Out Too Soon
My real name is King Julian ;)
- Joined
- 26 March 2006
- Posts
- 664
- Reactions
- 1
$3.07! This is just monday morning jitters isn't it? I've got a stop loss but it's way down & Pestpac Broken is broken again. 
GTP - Great Southern Plantations
- Thread starter Rafa
- Start date
CanOz
Home runs feel good, but base hits pay bills!
- Joined
- 11 July 2006
- Posts
- 11,543
- Reactions
- 519
Out Too Soon said:$3.07! This is just monday morning jitters isn't it? I've got a stop loss but it's way down & Pestpac Broken is broken again.
On my intraday chart it looks like its found some support at $3.07. Pretty light volume so i wouldn't panic, think of it as some excess supply being removed from the market!
Cheers,
CanOz
Home runs feel good, but base hits pay bills!
- Joined
- 11 July 2006
- Posts
- 11,543
- Reactions
- 519
Spoke too soon, just hit 3.05. .03 spread now.
2006 Sept Annual report is out today.
In the short 3 month period between July - September 2007, new debt increased by $412m, or 206%, from $200m TRESS1/2 to a total of $612m, or say $2.00/s.
Total equity reduced by $73m to $682.8m.
Debt/Equity ratio increased from 29% to 90% !!! Much higher next year!
Well done, John Young!
In the short 3 month period between July - September 2007, new debt increased by $412m, or 206%, from $200m TRESS1/2 to a total of $612m, or say $2.00/s.
Total equity reduced by $73m to $682.8m.
Debt/Equity ratio increased from 29% to 90% !!! Much higher next year!
Well done, John Young!
michael_selway
Coal & Phosphate, thats it!
- Joined
- 20 October 2005
- Posts
- 2,397
- Reactions
- 2
Jackob said:
omg 90% is that dangerous?
thx
MS
- Joined
- 14 November 2005
- Posts
- 1,319
- Reactions
- 12
Jackob said:
Aren't the results due in part to smoke and mirrors - in that because of the nature of the business this three month period will always look very ordinary when taken in isolation. It is only due to the change in reporting period (30 September 2007) that has put the spotlight on the figures. Am I correct in thinking that had a report been tabled between 1 July 2005 and 30 September 2005 it would have also been unflattering?
Duckman
I wouldn't worry about these figures...i have spoken to management and it is the next reporting period they are focused on....why do you think they didn't book in sales revenue yet..............because saving it for a big year
she will be fine ..........you'll see.
she will be fine ..........you'll see.
Duckman#72 said:
The large debt increasing in the recent 3 month period is at least unprecedented. The following is the GTP’s debts history in the last 3 years.
05/10/2004 TRESS-2 $80 M
22/09/2005 TREES-3 $120 M Total $ 200 M
7-9/2006 Bank debt $412 M Total $ 612 M
savtin said:
Hi Savtin,
There is no way to stop GTP from borrowing more and more debts in escalating amount year by year for every year.
I new bank debts of $412 M borrowed in the last 3 months have been spent already according its report.
I reckon GTP needs at least $500M extra debts in this FY to keep itself surviving.
GTP can always do a TIM and lease land.. Buying it is their principle not for this harvest period, but in future land rotations.
The only reason they are using debt instead of capital is that their huge growth in earnings have been offset in huge dilution. So what would you prefer? erosion of per share earnings via continual dilution, or funding through a debt instrument where current shareholders are not short term penalised for the future return on equity that the company will enjoy? At least via debt the burden is spread over a longer time period.
As the land they purchase becomes unencumbered the asset value will be recognized and this will also mean the debt to equity ratio will reduce again.
So I have no problem with them borrowing to invest in quality assets that will return value for the company for many years to come.
I have also heard that the MIS review has been completed and not a lot is going to change. The commonwealth bank seems to think so anyway - they have piled into GTP recently..
The only reason they are using debt instead of capital is that their huge growth in earnings have been offset in huge dilution. So what would you prefer? erosion of per share earnings via continual dilution, or funding through a debt instrument where current shareholders are not short term penalised for the future return on equity that the company will enjoy? At least via debt the burden is spread over a longer time period.
As the land they purchase becomes unencumbered the asset value will be recognized and this will also mean the debt to equity ratio will reduce again.
So I have no problem with them borrowing to invest in quality assets that will return value for the company for many years to come.
I have also heard that the MIS review has been completed and not a lot is going to change. The commonwealth bank seems to think so anyway - they have piled into GTP recently..
Out Too Soon
My real name is King Julian ;)
- Joined
- 26 March 2006
- Posts
- 664
- Reactions
- 1
Jackob said:
It all depends on what they do the the cash doesn't it.
Personally I'm out of GTP simply because the sp headed in the wrong direction but I'm ready to jump back on as I still beleive the sp will head towards $4 ish again. All a matter of wtching & waiting.
Latest News: Crackdown on timber tax breaks
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20930223-2702,00.html
Crackdown on timber tax breaks
Steve Lewis, Chief political correspondent
December 15, 2006
THE Howard Government faces an election-year showdown with the powerful forestry sector - and Macquarie Bank - after deciding to crack down on tax breaks for mass-marketed timber plantations.
Cabinet's decision, taken this week, will also ignite another partyroom brawl, with regional MPs resisting the plan to wind back the tax breaks for the so-called "managed investment schemes". More than $2 billion has been ploughed into MIS plantations since 2000, with a small group of investment firms reaping millions of dollars in commissions and fees.
The Government has been forced to get tough amid concerns "Pitt Street farmers" were snaring lucrative tax breaks at the expense of legitimate agricultural operations.
Ministers fear rich investors are abusing the tax break, with too much money in some schemes spent on managers' salaries and commissions or inappropriate projects rather than legitimate forestry plantations.
MIS funds will now have to prove that at least 70 per cent of the investment is for actual tree plantations, or their investors lose the full tax deductibility.
Senior ministers believe the tax changes will weed out speculators, and cut down on the huge fees being paid to the small number of pooled fund managers.
"The reality is that a lot of it is city money. But this will flush them out," a senior government figure told The Australian. Another source said cabinet had agreed to the crackdown because of concerns it had been "open slather" for tax-minimisers.
"The clear view is that a lot of the money (going into MIS) is being pilfered out of it by investment bankers and advisers," the source said.
Senior ministers held a robust debate about the contentious tax plan in Sydney on Monday. It is understood Peter Costello has led the charge against the tax breaks.
Macquarie Bank, Timbercorp and Great Southern Plantations have been the main backers of MIS forestry since special tax rules were introduced in 2000.
The three have formed a peak lobby group - Agriculture Investment Managers Australia - to argue their case in Canberra.
AIMA claims that commissions paid by agri-MIS projects "are no higher than other financial products". They also point to the strong growth in plantations with more than 500,000ha of timber planted since 2000 - helping Australia meet its Kyoto target.
The National Association of Forestry Industries, which played a crucial role during the 2004 election by opposing Mark Latham's Tasmanian forestry plan, has warned that changing tax laws would "disadvantage" forestry growers and reduce much-needed regional investment.
Catherine Murphy, NAFI chief executive and a former adviser to John Howard, last night backed the MIS arrangements, which she said had worked well.
"We believe that the current MIS arrangements have delivered over $2 billion to rural and regional Australia, as well as contributing four percentage points or 20 million tonnes of CO2 annually towards offsetting our Kyoto targets," she said.
Wilson Tuckey, a former forestry minister, yesterday warned the Prime Minister he would face another partyroom revolt if he tried to tighten up tax laws.
But another Liberal backbencher, Geoff Prosser, said management fees charged by MIS firms were exorbitant and distorted regional economies.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20930223-2702,00.html
Crackdown on timber tax breaks
Steve Lewis, Chief political correspondent
December 15, 2006
THE Howard Government faces an election-year showdown with the powerful forestry sector - and Macquarie Bank - after deciding to crack down on tax breaks for mass-marketed timber plantations.
Cabinet's decision, taken this week, will also ignite another partyroom brawl, with regional MPs resisting the plan to wind back the tax breaks for the so-called "managed investment schemes". More than $2 billion has been ploughed into MIS plantations since 2000, with a small group of investment firms reaping millions of dollars in commissions and fees.
The Government has been forced to get tough amid concerns "Pitt Street farmers" were snaring lucrative tax breaks at the expense of legitimate agricultural operations.
Ministers fear rich investors are abusing the tax break, with too much money in some schemes spent on managers' salaries and commissions or inappropriate projects rather than legitimate forestry plantations.
MIS funds will now have to prove that at least 70 per cent of the investment is for actual tree plantations, or their investors lose the full tax deductibility.
Senior ministers believe the tax changes will weed out speculators, and cut down on the huge fees being paid to the small number of pooled fund managers.
"The reality is that a lot of it is city money. But this will flush them out," a senior government figure told The Australian. Another source said cabinet had agreed to the crackdown because of concerns it had been "open slather" for tax-minimisers.
"The clear view is that a lot of the money (going into MIS) is being pilfered out of it by investment bankers and advisers," the source said.
Senior ministers held a robust debate about the contentious tax plan in Sydney on Monday. It is understood Peter Costello has led the charge against the tax breaks.
Macquarie Bank, Timbercorp and Great Southern Plantations have been the main backers of MIS forestry since special tax rules were introduced in 2000.
The three have formed a peak lobby group - Agriculture Investment Managers Australia - to argue their case in Canberra.
AIMA claims that commissions paid by agri-MIS projects "are no higher than other financial products". They also point to the strong growth in plantations with more than 500,000ha of timber planted since 2000 - helping Australia meet its Kyoto target.
The National Association of Forestry Industries, which played a crucial role during the 2004 election by opposing Mark Latham's Tasmanian forestry plan, has warned that changing tax laws would "disadvantage" forestry growers and reduce much-needed regional investment.
Catherine Murphy, NAFI chief executive and a former adviser to John Howard, last night backed the MIS arrangements, which she said had worked well.
"We believe that the current MIS arrangements have delivered over $2 billion to rural and regional Australia, as well as contributing four percentage points or 20 million tonnes of CO2 annually towards offsetting our Kyoto targets," she said.
Wilson Tuckey, a former forestry minister, yesterday warned the Prime Minister he would face another partyroom revolt if he tried to tighten up tax laws.
But another Liberal backbencher, Geoff Prosser, said management fees charged by MIS firms were exorbitant and distorted regional economies.
Latest News: Tax breaks for city farmers under fire
http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...ers-under-fire/2006/12/16/1166162374066.html#
Tax breaks for city farmers under fire
Carmel Egan
December 17, 2006
Senior federal cabinet ministers worried about the future of farming families want to slash the tax breaks offered to speculative agriculture schemes.
"Collins Street farmers" pouring money into almond and olive orchards and other such ventures promoted as "managed investment schemes" have been accused of distorting traditional markets and gaining unfair advantages because of their enormous buying power.
Liberals expect a party room showdown in February, a senior Government source told The Sunday Age.
Several senior ministers and the Tax Office want to see the Managed Investment Schemes (MIS) stripped of their ability to promote horticulture products to city-based investors looking for tax breaks.
A seven-month brawl between cabinet ministers over the future of similar tax breaks for MIS plantations was finally settled last week.
It was agreed to allow 100 per cent tax deductibility for investments in blue gum and pine plantation enterprises that could prove 70 per cent of their management fees were actually spent on tree husbandry.
There had been concern about the size of managers' salaries and investment in projects rather than legitimate forestry enterprises.
Tax incentives were initially offered in 2000 to MIS promoters such as Macquarie Bank, Timbercorp, Gunns and Great Southern Plantations to encourage investment in the plantation timber industry and reduce dependence on logging in native forests.
Since the tax incentives were extended to horticulture in 2001, there has been rapid expansion into new markets such as nuts, citrus, tomatoes, avocados and even dairy.
But many regional MPs are under increasing pressure from traditional farmers, who believe the MIS managers are motivated by the windfall to be made offering tax breaks rather than long-term profits, growth of agricultural businesses or what is good for the rural community.
The cashed-up schemes have been accused of buying up the water rights of desperate farmers, inflating rural property values and distorting commodity prices.
It is believed regional MPs will press for a crackdown, and that the Government will be less sympathetic to lobbying for these ventures than it was to the politically sensitive forestry industry.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...ers-under-fire/2006/12/16/1166162374066.html#
Tax breaks for city farmers under fire
Carmel Egan
December 17, 2006
Senior federal cabinet ministers worried about the future of farming families want to slash the tax breaks offered to speculative agriculture schemes.
"Collins Street farmers" pouring money into almond and olive orchards and other such ventures promoted as "managed investment schemes" have been accused of distorting traditional markets and gaining unfair advantages because of their enormous buying power.
Liberals expect a party room showdown in February, a senior Government source told The Sunday Age.
Several senior ministers and the Tax Office want to see the Managed Investment Schemes (MIS) stripped of their ability to promote horticulture products to city-based investors looking for tax breaks.
A seven-month brawl between cabinet ministers over the future of similar tax breaks for MIS plantations was finally settled last week.
It was agreed to allow 100 per cent tax deductibility for investments in blue gum and pine plantation enterprises that could prove 70 per cent of their management fees were actually spent on tree husbandry.
There had been concern about the size of managers' salaries and investment in projects rather than legitimate forestry enterprises.
Tax incentives were initially offered in 2000 to MIS promoters such as Macquarie Bank, Timbercorp, Gunns and Great Southern Plantations to encourage investment in the plantation timber industry and reduce dependence on logging in native forests.
Since the tax incentives were extended to horticulture in 2001, there has been rapid expansion into new markets such as nuts, citrus, tomatoes, avocados and even dairy.
But many regional MPs are under increasing pressure from traditional farmers, who believe the MIS managers are motivated by the windfall to be made offering tax breaks rather than long-term profits, growth of agricultural businesses or what is good for the rural community.
The cashed-up schemes have been accused of buying up the water rights of desperate farmers, inflating rural property values and distorting commodity prices.
It is believed regional MPs will press for a crackdown, and that the Government will be less sympathetic to lobbying for these ventures than it was to the politically sensitive forestry industry.
I like the stuff you post - keep it up. Its good to challenge ones reasoning.
FTR, I was flicking through the Australian Financial Review today and they had an article that was pretty much the opposite of what you have quoted above. I could not find the article online, but it was to the effect that little was going to change to MIS rules..
Anyway, I don't know if you have access to it, I can't find it online sorry. But if anyone has it handy it would be worthwhile posting the gist of it here..
regards
FTR, I was flicking through the Australian Financial Review today and they had an article that was pretty much the opposite of what you have quoted above. I could not find the article online, but it was to the effect that little was going to change to MIS rules..
Anyway, I don't know if you have access to it, I can't find it online sorry. But if anyone has it handy it would be worthwhile posting the gist of it here..
regards
pch,
I am glad that you like my posts.
I read the AFR articles in a library, so don't have an electronic copy either.
I reckon the 2 sides of opinions in the press are about equal (if the negative views are not prevailing), but as the newspapers, similar to the brokers, usually only put good words to stocks, thus the negative views in press deserve our more attention.
I am glad that you like my posts.
I read the AFR articles in a library, so don't have an electronic copy either.
I reckon the 2 sides of opinions in the press are about equal (if the negative views are not prevailing), but as the newspapers, similar to the brokers, usually only put good words to stocks, thus the negative views in press deserve our more attention.
