Sanlorenzo IPO

[cvt]

The aborted Ferretti IPO which we debated in this thread didn't scare too much Sanlorenzo shareholders, who are going ahead with their plans.
In fact, last week they issued the IPO press release.
And I just read that it's scheduled to start in a couple of days (Dec. 5th), with the aim of being listed by Dec 10th.
So, time for placing your bets, folks. Wadduthink?

Apples vs oranges

FG is viewed as a PRC CCP SoE, and carries the attendant risk, especially in bookbuilding. Anytime "market conditions" are the stated reason for the withdrawal of the listing,there's another reason (like the time CVC withdrew F1 from the SGX).

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

Apples vs oranges

FG is viewed as a PRC CCP SoE, and carries the attendant risk, especially in bookbuilding. Anytime "market conditions" are the stated reason for the withdrawal of the listing,there's another reason (like the time CVC withdrew F1 from the SGX).

Well I for one am glad you cleared that up

 

[MapisM]

FG is viewed as a PRC CCP SoE

Mmm... I don't know.
Far from being a PRC fan myself, but in a world where more often than not "Market participants don't know whether to buy on the rumours and sell on the news, do the opposite, do both, or do neither depending on which way the wind blows" (if I may quote a notorious old statement), that kind of risk evaluation is as good as mine.
Do tell, even assuming that ultimately the CCP was the real issuer in FG IPO, would you consider it more risky than any private shareholders - or than western SoEs, for that matter? Seriously?
If you would prefer to invest let's say in Alitalia, I bet that the IT Govt would be happy to welcome you to the party...

That said, I fully accept your point on "market conditions" being just an excuse for all seasons, mind. But the PRC reasoning isn't much more convincing, either.
'Fiuaskme, the two main factors are as follows, one rather technical and FG-specific (but obviously well known to institutional investors), and one more generic, so potentially affecting also SL or any other builder:
1) Contingent liabilities are a huge headache for FG, well beyond the already relevant amounts of the provisions included in their B/S.
2) Very simply, we are not anymore (and more than likely, we'll never be again in the future) in the early noughties hangover, when the main problem of the boating industry was to keep up with the demand regardless of costs, and this is by now crystal clear to everyone and their dog.
This latter point is where FG and SL are both apples for good - or both oranges, as you prefer.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Well I for one am glad you cleared that up

I thought it was a Times cryptic crossword clue

 

[cvt]

If you would prefer to invest let's say in Alitalia, I bet that the IT Govt would be happy to welcome you to the party...

Actually participated in a review of AZ for a PEG in '91. Spent 1 day at MDC in Long Beach;learned no one in mgmt knew how to order an aircraft resulting in the most expensive MD-11s ever built. Endless change orders.

 

[MapisM]

See? I bet that at Weichai they know how to order diesel engines, instead!

 

[MapisM]

I thought it was a Times cryptic crossword clue

That's because you are too focused on trivial backyard politics M, like Brexit and the likes...
Now, where did I leave my helmet?

 

[MapisM]

Perrotti said a few years back that about 30 boats a year is where he sees Sanlorenzo at.
100 units a year is a hell a lot of boats especially when your smallest boat is the SX76 costing about 4 million euros.

Are you it was not in a context like Sanlorenzo is very close to building its 100th hull above 100 feet? Just as an example.

Sorry W, in my last posts I missed your question.
I am pretty sure to have read an article some time ago, according to which Perotti declared exactly what I reported.
But I can't for the life of me remember where - in fact, I'm not even sure if it was a webpage or a paper magazine.
Anyway, now I just made a websearch in the hope to find it, but all I got is this one of last week, in which Perotti does mention that also in their future plans they don't want to build more than 100 boats/year, but he doesn't say that they are already close.
Rather the opposite, sort of, because he adds that in the last years they stayed around the 50 boats/year mark.
So, either I dreamed of that previous article (but I don't think so), or Perotti gave a different version in it, or the journalist who wrote it was feeling generous (more likely, if I should bet)... :ambivalence:
Fwiw, the source I am now linking is a very reliable one, so I would trust that version, rather than the previous one I had in mind.

 

[MapisM]

According to the latest IT news, the IPO was closed today.
Book fully covered, greenshoe included, albeit at the lower end of the price range.
As of now, this is the only EN source which I found.
I guess other comments will soon follow.

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

because he adds that in the last years they stayed around the 50 boats/year mark.

50 is a real number putting Blue Game in the equation. Guess they managed to pull it off after all.

To be fair I see more substance in what Perrotti has been doing in the last years, which has been extraordinary from a boat building brand expansion perspective.

Although I am sure that in these circumstances it really counts little %.

 

[jfm]

According to the latest IT news, the IPO was closed today.
Book fully covered, greenshoe included, albeit at the lower end of the price range.
As of now, this is the only EN source which I found.
I guess other comments will soon follow.

Thanks Mapism. Interesting outcome and no surprise the thing got away only at bottom of price range. I predicted wrongly on timing but ok on value. Good going to all concerned though 6.9x forward ebitda is a long way from jumping for joy territory.

50 sales, sheesh. It will be interesting to see how SanLorenzo’s numbers turn out in 2020 and 2021- think what happens to the numbers if some loyal customers choose to alter the timing of their re-up into a new boat by + or - a year or two (I’m speaking slightly in code; think about the risks).

@cvt, I’d love to read a few lines from you on why the F1 Singapore ipo a was pulled at the last minute (and why SGX was chosen at all - ManU was New York exchange fe)

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

@cvt, I’d love to read a few lines from you on why the F1 Singapore ipo a was pulled at the last minute (and why SGX was chosen at all - ManU was New York exchange fe)

I had already got the popcorn in when he mentioned that!

 

[cvt]

I had already got the popcorn in when he mentioned that!

Well, I'd hate for you to waste good popcorn.

In the case Constantin Medien AG v Ecclestone, Mr Justice Newey wrote

"The likelihood is, I think, that Dr Gribkowsky’s version of events is broadly accurate. It is consistent with, and in important respects supported by, other
evidence, while the evidence given by Mr Ecclestone and Mr Mullens contains inconsistencies and is otherwise unsatisfactory. Further, bribery
is far more probable than the only other explanation offered for the Payments, viz. that they were made in response to a “shakedown”. The blackmail/“shakedown” story is thoroughly implausible.

On balance, accordingly, I consider that the Payments represented a bribe.

More specifically, I find that:
i)Mr Ecclestone entered into a corrupt agreement with Dr Gribkowsky in May 2005..."

This legal finding by Justice Newey conflicts with fitness test criteria for officers & directors of SGX listed companies (that are SG legal persons upon listing).

The primary Singapore statutes prohibiting bribery are the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) Chapter 241 Section 37 that gives the anti-corruption legislation extraterritorial effect, because if the act of bribery takes place outside Singapore and the bribe is carried out by a Singaporean citizen, section 37 of the PCA states that the offender would be dealt with as if the bribe had taken place in Singapore., which applies to both private sector bribery and bribery of public officials.

Dr Gribkowsky, of Bayerische Landesbank, was considered a German State public official.

The only recourse was to appeal directly to PM Lee for some kind of relief,otherwise IPO was kaput.

 

[jfm]

That Uk court doc was available to anyone to read online in Feb 2014. The ipo was summer 2016.

 

[cvt]

That Uk court doc was available to anyone to read online in Feb 2014. The ipo was summer 2016.

The IPO was to be in Summer 2012, then 2013, but withdrawn due to "market conditions".

The civil legal case with BLB relating to Gribkowski & bribery wasn't resolved until Dec 2016,so there wasn't going to be any SGX IPO over the Summer. Anyway, by this time Liberty was in the frame, and in their filings characterized the impact of Justice Newey's finding as such:

"the Judge made an adverse finding about some aspects of Mr. Ecclestone's conduct."

 

[jfm]

Thanks. I’ve confused things with a typo- doh, sorry - I meant to write summer 2012 not 2016. My point was meant to be (sorry) that the ipo was pulled summer 2012, some 1.5 years before justice Newey’s 2014 adverse comments on Mr E, so I was trying to ask you how could an event 18 months later be the reason for something that happened 18 months earlier, if you see what I mean.

 

[cvt]

Thanks. I’ve confused things with a typo- doh, sorry - I meant to write summer 2012 not 2016. My point was meant to be (sorry) that the ipo was pulled summer 2012, some 1.5 years before justice Newey’s 2014 adverse comments on Mr E, so I was trying to ask you how could an event 18 months later be the reason for something that happened 18 months earlier, if you see what I mean.

As with my original comment on this thread, about the FG IPO and the real reason behind it's withdrawal vs the public,stated reason, there are similar stories about the SGX F1 listing. The release and timing of Justice Newey's finding only served to make public what was already known privately by Morgan Stanley,UBS et al and, surprisingly,publicly commented on by Norges and Waddell & Reed.

And I'm confident none of this is news to you.

 

[roa312]

Yes English thanks, my IT only extends to ordering bobardinos in Val Gardena

As they are putting this to US investors as well , there must be a EN version knocking about.

Apologies for the late reply. I can confirm that a English version of the prospectus exists but they do not allow this to be shared freely. I don't understand why but for some reason they chose to only submit the Italian version (link to Italian prospectus).

However, I know that S&P CapitalIQ have performed a (less than perfect) in-house English translation of the prospectus - anyone with access can just contact contact them and they will provide it. For those that don't have access to CapIQ but are very interested I can probably provide a copy if you just let me know.

 

[jfm]

...Justice Newey's finding only served to make public what was already known privately by Morgan Stanley,UBS et al

I gotta admit that I’m struggling with the theory. An IPO is millions of dollars of fees and loads of working thru the night. Why would anyone even start all that if they already knew something profound enough to make them cancel?.

 

[cvt]

Why would anyone even start all that if they already knew something profound enough to make them cancel?.

Sorry,only someone with access to the DSM-5 could address this question.