What
company has received $500 million in cash from the issue of new shares over the
past three years but only has a market value of $300 million?
Why
Gunns, of course.
What
company, when faced with the daunting prospect of repaying or renegotiating
almost all its borrowings of $600 million within 12 months, pretends that the
announced sale of all assets is to finance a new pulp mill rather than to
enable the solvency declaration to be signed?
What
company, having announced the sale of all assets, will be forced to publicly
reveal in its annual accounts the write down of the values to reflect current
market offers rather than pie-in-the sky expectations?
What
unprofitable company, whose operations have been sold, about to be sold or
closed down, can still claim “underlying profit” of $40 to $50 million?
What
company, operating in the native forest sector with decrepit assets and
diminishing markets, is demanding compensation for a cessation of its
loss-making activities?
What
company failed to foresee the decline in global demand for native forest
woodchips, yet nevertheless books income from plantations not due for six years
as current year income?
What
company brazenly tells the market that it is confident of gaining finance of
$2.5 billion without a joint venture partner — but is yet to reveal the
new business case despite adverse exchange rate movements, the proposed sale of
all forestry assets and the plummeting market assessment of its assets?
What
company has not bothered to explain a material matter as to how second and
third rotation tree crops needed as feedstock for a pulp mill, will be arranged
and financed now that MIS schemes are defunct and plantation land about to be
sold?
That’s
right, Gunns, in every case.