GTP - Great Southern Plantations

bv2726 said:

GTP have issued a statement to the ASX - the Cattle projects have both reached the 75% mark.

The 2006 project was 75.8%.

I cannot believe that now I am going to lose my cattle and get given dud shares and have to pay tax even though I said no.

Click to expand...

I believe you have re course,Dennis and co,

curious as to how many individual and gtp institutional investors made up this vote?

Also the punters that voted for this will get a rude shock unless they wake up
and realised that the intrinsic value is not there for them and reverse their vote before the cooling off period expires

Interesting that 75% or more cattle investors voted yes but less than half that took the individual offer. Less than half of the yes voters were happy to say yes but didn't want to go it alone?

Well that might keep the banks off GTP for a while. Thanks to the cattle the plantations will be harvested as per the contract. To all the cattle project NO voters I am really sorry, they have inflicted the losses and tax on you.

I still wonder how an individual investment contract can be torn up by one party and the investment seized against the wishes of the investor, all under the guise of corporations law? Aren't they separate sections of law? That would imply that ANZ or Colonial First State can seize investments against an investor's will if they can sway enough OTHER individual investors.

HOW DOES ASIC LOOK THE OTHER WAY? Surely this is EXACTLY the situation they were supposed to stop?

PS. In my plantation prospectus it says twice that GSL is under no obligation to buy back investors' woodlots. How's that for a misleading implication!

ThePav said:

Thankfully the trees didn't go over. We need to arrange an new RE ASAP before the ship goes down. I think the winegrape projects should also be looking at a new RE.

Click to expand...

i am open to any ideas,but at the moment rhodes has stated he respects our decision and we be bussiness as usual.

what this means is that you and me and others will need to be more vigilant and more proactive in

1 getting in writing that the contract will be honoured as an MIS investor,

meaning no shfty bussiness in changing co.constitution to grab trees

2 remember colesy said it was in the best interest of investors

3 actually go and see the lots ,I have asked the locals and gauged the feel from them

4 we also started on this forum, as individual investors now maybe its time,to get properly organisd, the tree eaters will be back my feelow hobbitts

indeed the tree eaters will back soon. id say in a years time... i have no doubt they are going to carry on with the project "eat trees" they will slowly pick off the easy taregets. the tremilally ill, the old the lame, so they will slowly try to acquire the magical 75% of the years' investment.

until everyone relaises that 75% of MIS means squat. i mena why 75% why not make it 88% or 73%

i think we knwo what ASIC is. its a straw man in a corn field. its there to tell foreign an local investors there is regulation. there isnt in terms of protecting from corporate fraud.

there is no doubt the courts will uphold the sanctity of the contract. there are some constitutional law issues here as well. when its all done. gtp will be buried and i can see right now that laws were broken in ths whole afffair.

noone is above the law.

They did say only tax law stopped them from including projects from 2004 onwards. So in 10 months the 2004 investors will be getting their explanatory memorandum.

Slim, don't destroy GSL until the 2000 harvest is complete. I need my distribution!

Forenth said:

They did say only tax law stopped them from including projects from 2004 onwards. So in 10 months the 2004 investors will be getting their explanatory memorandum.

Slim, don't destroy GSL until the 2000 harvest is complete. I need my distribution!

Click to expand...

as 2004 tree hugger,Iwill do my utmost Forenth to realise your dream or go down screaming

I am voting NONONONO

Forenth said:

They did say only tax law stopped them from including projects from 2004 onwards. So in 10 months the 2004 investors will be getting their explanatory memorandum.

Slim, don't destroy GSL until the 2000 harvest is complete. I need my distribution!

Click to expand...

hehehe, i have no doubt they are preparing the explanetory memorandum right now. i can see it now.... "dear investor, what better way to cut your capital gains tax than by eliminating your capital gains. by voting yes, you can do just that!!!"

i dont have to do anything to destroy GTP. the directors will do that all by themselves. but i think all those that have suffered a loss, real or imagined should be able to take a chunk out of this beast, both before and after insolvency.

am i alone in thinking that watching trees grow is not that hard? am i alone in thinking that selling woodchip is not that difficult?

you can buy and sell woodchip contracts on the chicago mercantile exchange. its not rocket science. just because the traders wear expensive suits and talk funny dont mean that they are any more sophisticated then a khazakstanian fruit wholesaler.

and who will turn the wood into woodchips.... well our federal governement is busy swellign the ranks of the unemployed, soon we will be able to find despearte day labourers with signs "will work for food".

if a new managenet company takes it all over, its no problem!..... if they dont...... its even less of a problem!!!

ThePav said:

I have to say I feel sorry for the cattle voters that votes NO that really sucks for the others well I can't help but think that perhaps you deserve each other. You need to start taking ownership of your poor financial decisions and now you need to swallow your bitter medicine.

Click to expand...

No one deserves to have such a fundamental change in their investment forced upon them by the decisions of others.

As has since been noted Great Southern could try again so MIS investors (in the later schemes in particular) should not necessarily count themselves as being out of the woods before their trees are harvested.

One possibility is that Great Southern could run this buyout on an annual basis in an attempt to creep towards the 75% threshold.

slim pickins said:

hehehe, i have no doubt they are preparing the explanetory memorandum right now. i can see it now.... "dear investor, what better way to cut your capital gains tax than by eliminating your capital gains. by voting yes, you can do just that!!!"

i dont have to do anything to destroy GTP. the directors will do that all by themselves. but i think all those that have suffered a loss, real or imagined should be able to take a chunk out of this beast, both before and after insolvency.

am i alone in thinking that watching trees grow is not that hard? am i alone in thinking that selling woodchip is not that difficult?

you can buy and sell woodchip contracts on the chicago mercantile exchange. its not rocket science. just because the traders wear expensive suits and talk funny dont mean that they are any more sophisticated then a khazakstanian fruit wholesaler.

and who will turn the wood into woodchips.... well our federal governement is busy swellign the ranks of the unemployed, soon we will be able to find despearte day labourers with signs "will work for food".

if a new managenet company takes it all over, its no problem!..... if they dont...... its even less of a problem!!!

Click to expand...

Nothing is going to save great southern what you are seeing are the death rattles of a badly managed company .

If I was a director I would hurry the process up so I coulld pick the carcass over with my gross payout when the fire sale starts

Slim Pickings,

Tell me how you sell woodchip?

Consider what is happening to BHP and RIO regarding selling even easier commodities. Also consider the amount of the cut they will experience in coking coal for 2009. The falling Aussie exchange rate relative to the yen and USD is not helping that much.

BHP and RIO can cut production until the world markets improve. They can preserve their resource assets for better days.

MIS Investors have a finite time under their leases to harvest trees if Great Southern goes under.

You should begin your research regarding the spot timber market.

You should also research why GMO (US funds manager) likes trees. One point they make is, in downturns, if you own the trees and the land, you do not have to cut the trees down.

Good luck if you have to sell your trees in a down market, because Great Southern goes under. Considering reading all the press, I am not sure there is any sector that is not expecting decreased demand for product. Like the decreases in prices for other commodities, the reduction in prices for timber may be significant.

If you accepted the Great Southern offer, there would be no set harvest date. The trees could keep growing until the market improves.

Seriously, I think the MIS Investors should fund an independent valuation report based upon expected 2009 and beyond demand and prices of their trees from an advisor such as URS Forestry or Poyry (Grumpy Old Man will confirm their suitability). I am sure the market price for timber is likely to fall during 2009. Maybe then the MIS investors will come requesting a new deal from Great Southern.

If you think that will never happen, maybe the MIS investors should begin requesting to buy the land from Great Southern.

Seriously, if the free on board price of timber falls, it is not the harvesting crews that take the full extent of the loss.

If you understand what is happening to the margins in mining for BHP and why many mines are closing down (i.e. stopping production for a while), you may understand the similarities between timber plantations and mineral mines. Plantations can also become uncommercial when the timber prices are depressed (i.e. it costs more to get the trees to the mills than the mills are willing to pay for timber). However, you wait until the markets improve and you re-open a mine or commence harvesting a plantaion.

Really think about the issues. You still have time to accept the individual offer to swap MIS interests for shares and then shares for some cash. It is not that I think Great Southern is going under, but I am not sure trees harvested in 2009 or 2010 will generate net profits for plantation owners after the cost of harvesting and transport. Even if Great Southern is in existence, the fact the MIS scheme remains means the trees must be harvested at a specific time no matter what. If that was a corporate decision it would be regarded a very poor business decision.

I guess many of you also wished you sold more shares 12 months ago, but you thought their value was so much more. Even Aussie bank shares are falling. When will they stop falling.

Can anyone tell me how many shares in the ASX 200 are higher than they were 12 months ago (provided they were in the index 12 months ago)?

Dr Smith,

I know how you feel about being forced to sell when it is not your decision.

I cannot tell you how many times I have had to sell my better shares when there has been a take-over and the 90% compulsory acquisition rule came into play.

What are your views regarding ASX listed share take-overs?

Investor1 you're the least objective poster that I have ever seen and that includes all the professional posters working on behalf of companies. Now you are spruiking the individual offer, hilarious. Throw in a set of steak knives and I'll consider it.

Hi,

Australian Eucalyptus chip export prices have more than doubled the past six years and are currently US$167/odmt FOB vessel in Tasmania for native species and about US$187/odmt for plantation wood chips. Australia, which is the major supplier of hardwood chips to Japan, currently supplies 34% of the Japanese total import volume.

Click to expand...

Export prices for both pine and Eucalyptus wood chips have gone up substantially in 2008 in Australia as a result of increased demand in Japan and a tighter supply of wood chips throughout the Pacific Rim region, according to the Wood Resource Quarterly.

Click to expand...

Investor1, if there is no demand for the woodchips, then why does GTP want the trees??

bye

AFR 21/01/09,page 43

Quote paragraph--- (grat southern will pursue the sale of its extensive cattle operations under plans to slash debt and improve cash flow,but remains saddled with its unwanted plantation assets after efforts to buy out investor stakes in the operations failed).

Further paragraph down states about $88 million of cattle assets would be exchanged for 176 million shares in the company under the proposal including the current level of acceptance on the plantation projects,it would issue a total of 299 million shares.
If my maths are right then the cattle deal works out at 50 cents a share,but add the 123 million shares from the plantations that said yes then a lower figure comes to about rounded up to 30 cents a share.

On that basis,when these shares are put on the share market,it will be like an abbatoir and the cattle shares and trees will be pulped to mince meat.

Investor1 said:

Dr Smith,

I know how you feel about being forced to sell when it is not your decision.

I cannot tell you how many times I have had to sell my better shares when there has been a take-over and the 90% compulsory acquisition rule came into play.

What are your views regarding ASX listed share take-overs?

Click to expand...

When a listed company takes over another and aquires any remaining minority shareholders under the 90% compulsory acquisition rule these investors are getting like for like (shares for shares).

Project transform is different in that there is a fundamental difference between the two investment types (commodity and shares). The risk profile is completely different. It is more comparable to a bank forcing deposit holders to exchange their money for shares in the bank.

There is also the difference in the compulsory acquisition threshold (75% vs 90%) but even if these thresholds were the same the change in investment type noted above remains.

Compulsory acquisition can be shares for cash, not just shares for shares.

Regarding demand and prices for pulpwood, like demand for oil, demand for coal, demand for copper, has highs and has lows.

If you don't chop down trees at the time of lows, you can harvest in times when prices are up. MIS schemes have limited choice as to the timing of when the trees are harvested.

Great Southern if it owned the trees can hold off sales until times and prices improve.

Just like RIO and BHP cutting production. The world price for their commodities are falling and stockpiles are rising even with their massive announced cuts in production. Imagine the implications should they say we will not cut production. They are saving their resources to sell when markets are better.

Regarding bias, I really do not care which way you guys proceed. I just feel you know what I am writing makes some sense and you just don't want to accept you may have made a mistake.

Ignoring woodchips, consider sawlog timber. Sawlog timber is generally used for houses. If housing construction falls, do you keep chopping down the same volume of timber. If so, the mills, the hardware stores will have to discount or they cannot sell the product. Prices decline. The value of timber declines. The value of plantations decline.

Use common sense, think of what commodity other than possibly gold is rising at the moment.

Investor1 said:

Dr Smith,

I know how you feel about being forced to sell when it is not your decision.

I cannot tell you how many times I have had to sell my better shares when there has been a take-over and the 90% compulsory acquisition rule came into play.

What are your views regarding ASX listed share take-overs?

Click to expand...

Investor1 - the ASX listed share take over rule of 90% is a rule that has been there in black and white for a long time by the ruling authority, and applies to all ASX listed companies.

The "GTP we get 75% scheme acceptance votes and then we rustle your cows" rule was something that the directors of GTP (or some shifty advisors) made up on the spot, and now they are going to take my cattle without my permission.

There is no comparison here.

wooduk said:

AFR 21/01/09,page 43

Quote paragraph--- (grat southern will pursue the sale of its extensive cattle operations under plans to slash debt and improve cash flow,but remains saddled with its unwanted plantation assets after efforts to buy out investor stakes in the operations failed).

Further paragraph down states about $88 million of cattle assets would be exchanged for 176 million shares in the company under the proposal including the current level of acceptance on the plantation projects,it would issue a total of 299 million shares.
If my maths are right then the cattle deal works out at 50 cents a share,but add the 123 million shares from the plantations that said yes then a lower figure comes to about rounded up to 30 cents a share.

On that basis,when these shares are put on the share market,it will be like an abbatoir and the cattle shares and trees will be pulped to mince meat.

Click to expand...

Cameron Rhodes is quoted by AFR that the cattle operations provide the most short term benefits because they are very liquid assets in terms of the cows themselves and our(gtp) land holdings.
The forestry projects were always about the long term and the fact we have a high level of individual acceptances provides additional future cashflows andearnings for the business

Should I feel more relaxed knowing that gtp will not need my investment to subsidise the demise of MIS investment any further ?????

Investor1 said:

Compulsory acquisition can be shares for cash, not just shares for shares.

Click to expand...

Compulsory acquisition cannot be shares for cash so I'll assume you mean cash for shares.

Cash would represent a lower risk profile to MIS investors than the timber so that would be in their favour.

In any case Great Southern did not offer cash as an option. If they did the scheme would have received a more favourable resopnse from MIS investors overall.

Investor1,

Use common sense, think of what commodity other than possibly gold is rising at the moment.

Click to expand...

Answer woodchips.

Reason, because the US lumber industry is in freefall because of the housing slump. Exports of woodchips as a byproduct of the lumber industry have crashed causing prices to rise. If you really knew what you have been spouting on about, you would have already known this.

Also, just changing the standing trees use from woodchips to sawlogs is not a simple, or the correct option. The tree spacing is based on them being harvested at a young age. Selective thinning would be needed to keep the remainder (this would be an expensive way to harvest). The trees that remain have been fast growing, leaving problems with the quality of the cut timber. Bluegums are nowhere near the preferred timber type for hardwood sawlogs.

Your option of just leaving the trees standing shows a lack of understanding about basic forestry practices.

brty