Swiber Holdings

[CY09]

Hi CF and specuvestor, thanks for the very interesting discussion.
As a rule of the thumb, can we say that SSH with about 30~40% stake is ideal?

Stake is large enough so that the SSH is interested in the fate of the company, but not enough control to oppress the OPMI.

Hi gzbkel 

Dnt think there is ideal number. See singholdings thread where SSH has shareholdings of abt 30+%

[specuvestor]

yes it's actually difficult to have rule of thumb. People like shortcuts but reality is it needs work If really need a figure I think 1/3 SSH is optimal, sufficient stake above 30% but insufficient to bulldoze.

I'll stick to management like Buffett with 10% (EDIT: previously 10% B shares and own 37% of A shares) stake but 99% net worth in the company and drawing $100k pay That's ideal but in reality it's somewhere in between so we have to guess how much is the incentive. Noble and Las Vegas Sand and Osim, whether we agree with them or not, is showing us where their interest lies

In any case this Swiber is really weird... very un-protocol. Looks like they didn't discuss with creditors before they announce liquidation. I wonder why the rush job... Board rushing for Friday night boogie? Personally I think the "error" is because creditors now bark louder and say Board made an error

"Separately, Swiber said that "an error" was made in an earlier announcement regarding director and group chief financial officer Leonard Tay's resignation, and he remains as its CFO.

It also clarified that Mr Tay, group vice-chairman Francis Wong, and director Nitish Gupta continue to remain as directors of certain subsidiaries of the group."
http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companie...ation-move

The company has filed winding-up application voluntary, rather than by creditors.

This is a good salient point that you pointed out:

http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companie...dation-bid

[CityFarmer]

yes actually difficult to have rule of thumb. People like shortcuts but reality is it needs work

I'll stick to management like Buffett with 10% stake but 99% net worth in the company and drawing $100k pay That's ideal but in reality it's somewhere in between so we have to guess how much is the incentive. Noble and Las Vegas Sand and Osim, whether we agree with them or not, is showing us where their interest lies

In any case this Swiber is really weird... very un-protocol. Looks like they didn't discuss with creditors before they announce liquidation. I wonder why the rush job... Board rushing for Friday night boogie?

"Separately, Swiber said that "an error" was made in an earlier announcement regarding director and group chief financial officer Leonard Tay's resignation, and he remains as its CFO.

It also clarified that Mr Tay, group vice-chairman Francis Wong, and director Nitish Gupta continue to remain as directors of certain subsidiaries of the group."
http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companie...ation-move

The company has filed winding-up application voluntary, rather than by creditors.

This is a good salient point that you pointed out:

http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companie...dation-bid

It is weird indeed, thus contributing a "likely" scenario. No hard-selling of the point here, but an additional input to our discussion. There might be other scenario(s) 

[specuvestor]

I'm here to learn / benefit from friendly intellectual discourse

Since it is so unorthodox... it will be really ironic if they keep the current management post JM cause they toh-balek the process

JM usually happens cause the creditors lose faith in management and decides it cannot be saved and want to liquidate slowly. Otherwise they can actually use Scheme of Arrangement.



NB seems like JM has to be auditors. I am actually not sure if it is compulsory not to use current management under JM.

http://www.cnplaw.com/en/media/files/ser...gapore.pdf

[CityFarmer]

I'm here to learn / benefit from friendly intellectual discourse

Since it is so unorthodox... it will be really ironic if they keep the current management post JM cause they toh-balek the process

JM usually happens cause the creditors lose faith in management and decides it cannot be saved and want to liquidate slowly. Otherwise they can actually use Scheme of Arrangement.



NB seems like JM has to be auditors. I am actually not sure if it is compulsory not to use current management under JM.  

http://www.cnplaw.com/en/media/files/ser...gapore.pdf

I am making sure our time is well-spent on most interesting and relevant topic. 

One of the sources of incentive, from orphan companies, is key management payment, vs the effort and outcome of management. I am yet to do the work, but speculatively, the "incentive" as owners, should be much less than as managers.

(don't know much about the company, but suggesting for further discussion)

[CityFarmer]

It shows that, the winding-up application, is a big surprise, to DBS, which has tightened the credit to O&G sector lately...

DBS loaned US$146 mil to Swiber in last two months: documents

SINGAPORE (Aug 2): DBS Group Holdings, Singapore's biggest bank, made two loans to oil and gas services firm Swiber Holdings totalling US$146 million ($196 mil) weeks before the company filed for liquidation, according to court documents seen by Reuters.

Swiber used the money to redeem maturing bonds, an affidavit filed by the company's chairman Raymond Goh showed. These two loans, made in June and July, accounted for 27% of DBS's total exposure of $700 million to Swiber.
...
http://www.theedgemarkets.com.sg/sg/arti...-documents

[specuvestor]

People forget DBS is actually short form for Development Bank of Singapore. That's the root which Temasek forgotten

It doesn't make economic sense but is O&G a strategically important sector for Singapore? I think so. Go regional was also a strategic thrust. So it depends which side of the fence you choose to sit on eg customers, managers, opmi, citizen etc. When one choose to be a opmi than one should know the company's mission, which might include creating wealth for major shareholders like some other O&G companies, or maybe even just a vehicle to rip off the capital markets.

I am actually quite surprised they will let Swiber go but like I said it is probably because for some reason they came to the conclusion that it is no longer feasible. When a company is insolvent, the creditors talk louder than the board.

It is not surprising that DBS tried to save Swiber. It is surprising and unorthodox that Swiber didn't consult with DBS first before filing for liquidation. Usually that means something funny was happening inside but under liquidation all the cockroaches will come out anyway so that seems unlikely

IMHO more likely is Swiber pulled a fast one on DBS and probably misrepresented to DBS. So the key is probably to find out who are the owners of the redeemed bonds. Follow the incentives.

[whatamidoing]

People forget DBS is actually short form for Development Bank of Singapore. That's the root which Temasek forgotten

It doesn't make economic sense but is O&G a strategically important sector for Singapore? I think so. Go regional was also a strategic thrust. So it depends which side of the fence you choose to sit on eg customers, managers, opmi, citizen etc. When one choose to be a opmi than one should know the company's mission, which might include creating wealth for major shareholders like some other O&G companies, or maybe even just a vehicle to rip off the capital markets.

I am actually quite surprised they will let Swiber go but like I said it is probably because for some reason they came to the conclusion that it is no longer feasible. When a company is insolvent, the creditors talk louder than the board.

It is not surprising that DBS tried to save Swiber. It is surprising and unorthodox that Swiber didn't consult with DBS first before filing for liquidation. Usually that means something funny was happening inside but under liquidation all the cockroaches will come out anyway so that seems unlikely

IMHO more likely is Swiber pulled a fast one on DBS and probably misrepresented to DBS.

I'm surprised nobody has really checked what AMTC (the supposed savior of Swiber) is. For them to inject 200m into Swiber, it must mean that their portfolio is in the billions as no fund would concentrate that much money into a single investment unless it is a small %.

This is what you get when you google:
http://amtcltd.co.uk/ - a website with NO mention of any portfolio companies and NO mention of any funds raised. very weird for any fund not to have such mention, unless you're already well known in the industry
https://about.me/amtcltd someone from AMTC wrote a profile on about.me..which is more of a social media website
http://www.howtofilescams.com/current-sc...c-amtc-ld/ AMTC is mentioned on a scam website. See comments below from the website:

I've lost everything due to this fraudster. My life has been smashed to smitherings. Would be good to connect with others. Deliberating what the next step is.

[url=http://www.howtofilescams.com/profile//][/url]I can put you in touch with a number of others who have been similarly scammed by these guys. Email me on the email address above and I can provide further information. 

I obtained a County Court judgement against AMTC for the return of the fee I paid them, plus my costs and expenses. If they do not pay me, I will wind the company up.

[specuvestor]

^^ interesting note... I had assumed that AMTC walked away cause Swiber cannot be saved... but who exactly is AMTC LTD... maybe 1MDB related

http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/head...iB0y3.dpbs

So the key is probably to find out who are the owners of the redeemed bonds. Follow the incentives.

[CityFarmer]

So the key is probably to find out who are the owners of the redeemed bonds. Follow the incentives.

A good lead to find out more and better understand of the saga...