Sons Of Gwalia and Minister Chris Bowen

[doctorj]

I'd be shocked if Today Tonight and other 'hard hitting' journalists aren’t all over this one to protect the ‘little guy’ from the ‘corporate fat cats’.

Debt holders must rank before shareholders in a wind up regardless of director fault or debt holders are going to want equity-like returns. It isn’t about protecting the Banks but, as others have said, protecting the inherent differences in debt and equity instruments. Shareholders have unlimited upside but have the most at risk. Debt holders pay for reduced risk with limited upside.


Attached is a pathetic attempt to illustrate the link. Risk and return are always linked and, as some others have said, anything that results in a change in the risk profile of an instrument will result in the market finding an equilibrium – in this case through a higher interest rate.

 

[condog]

Re: Sons Of Gwalia Issue

Being a shareholder has never put you, as the owner, ahead of those that you seek to use their credit. That's just business fundamentals.

Thats just nonsense. Shareholders have always been after creditors. You seem to have no fundamental idea about what a company is.

I raised this issue , not because of where shareholders need to slot into the creditors list, but because Chris Bowen thinks shareholders should have no legal recourse against directors who intentionally and criminally defraud investors.....
Thats the bit thats astounding to me.....

Whether we are first or last in the creditors line is unimportant , as long as we know at the time of investment.....

But fact is ASIC requires full and timely disclosure. We make our investment on the presumption that will be upheld by the Govts own enforcer.....and now Chris Bowne comes out and says.....not only form here on , but retrospectively, shareholders have no right for legal recourse for being criminally defrauded by directors......

This astounds me and every shareholder in Australia should be filling Chris Bowens inbox voicing there absolute concern and discust.....

 

[condog]

Debt holders must rank before shareholders in a wind up regardless of director fault or debt holders are going to want equity-like returns. It isn’t about protecting the Banks but, as others have said, protecting the inherent differences in debt and equity instruments. Shareholders have unlimited upside but have the most at risk. Debt holders pay for reduced risk with limited upside.

Thats a good attempt, but i disagree...most debtors sell to a customer and if they have tight inventory control and efficient logistics, they recieve a 20%+ ROC within 30 days......thats a considerably higher return and lower risk then a lot of shareholders recieve.....

But again Im not arguing the order, just the fact the ministers communist views towards investors is appalling and needs urgent redress by shareholders....

By the way people we are not part of a union etc.....so our only voice is our collective individula voices..... If you agree please act NOW, by emailing, faxing or ringing the minister..... just google "Chris Bowen"

 

[skc]

Thats a good attempt, but i disagree...most debtors sell to a customer and if they have tight inventory control and efficient logistics, they recieve a 20%+ ROC within 30 days......thats a considerably higher return and lower risk then a lot of shareholders recieve.....

Huh? What are you talking about?

I thought we were talking about banks lending money at 7%, rather than 15%.

Surely the business return of a "trade debtor" has nothing to do with anything discussed here...

 

[Trembling Hand]

Re: Sons Of Gwalia Issue

I raised this issue , not because of where shareholders need to slot into the creditors list, but because Chris Bowen thinks shareholders should have no legal recourse against directors who intentionally and criminally defraud investors.....
Thats the bit thats astounding to me.....

Condog i just don't think you have a grasp of whats going on here. Firstly that's simply not true about no recourse from directors. It is still illegal to trade while insolvent just like it always is.

But. You seem to think that because employees defraud the company the company should be compensated by the company

It just doesn't make sense.

By the way people we are not part of a union etc.....so our only voice is our collective individual voices

You are right. We are shareholders/owners of companies. With that comes the freedom to choose what we own and what we walk away from. That comes with rewards that can be great but there is also risk involved.

If that risk to reward doesn't sit well with you may I suggest a nice unionised job in a factory production line. :

 

[doctorj]

Thats a good attempt, but i disagree...most debtors sell to a customer and if they have tight inventory control and efficient logistics, they recieve a 20%+ ROC within 30 days......thats a considerably higher return and lower risk then a lot of shareholders recieve.....

But again Im not arguing the order, just the fact the ministers communist views towards investors is appalling and needs urgent redress by shareholders....

By the way people we are not part of a union etc.....so our only voice is our collective individula voices..... If you agree please act NOW, by emailing, faxing or ringing the minister..... just google "Chris Bowen"

Surely it would be more 'communist' to change the risk/reward pay off for debt in favour of the 'average shareholder'?