MAJOR PROBLEM Kerry Group Old Shares

Bellview

fepper wrote:

Don't know if he's from Kerry but is Kerry's boss in Asia and that dividend will drop considerably for us I fear for unforseen costs in 2016

Yes he is a kerry man. He played with St kierans as a minor think he may have played senior too.. you now know the gaa district..

fepper

Yurt123 wrote: »

I've been told that he's practically gone into hiding, doesn't go outside the door anymore and refuses to answer the phone

Like I said I don't want to say too much on boards but it really sounds like he's cracking under the pressure, as the saying goes "if you can't handle the heat then get out of the kitchen"… it's just going to get embarrassing for him from here on out

I met him at a funeral lately and certainly does not look like a recluse and seems to be perfectly normal to me,maybe he's hiding that kinda pressure very well

fepper

Yurt123 wrote: »

Below here in Kerry we've the worst land, my cows are in 6/7 months of the year, not really fair to compare my ability to make profit with that of a fella below in the very best of land in Cork

It's said that it costs at least 27c/L to produce milk, we're getting paid 30c/L now at the moment, the average fella produced 300,000 litres of milk a year, in a year like this one he can hope to make €9,000 profit from his dairy farm… fees into universities each year alone are €5,000… when you factor in what it costs to rear a family these days dairy farming isn't at the races

Agree with you 100% but dairy farmers all up the western seaboard would have the same problems but wouldn't have the shares so wouldn't have that safety net as farmers here in Kerry if they had coop shares

Yurt123

fepper wrote: »

I met him at a funeral lately and certainly does not look like a recluse and seems to be perfectly normal to me,maybe he's hiding that kinda pressure very well

Jesus I don't know so I've heard it's all getting to him, all the pressure… sure who are we to speculate what goes on in his head. I couldn't care less what he does or doesn't do once he stops this crazy idea of trying to make himself feel important by stopping us from converting our shares… Kerry co op is over, he needs to get with the times… he's just a normal farmer milking 50 cows, why should he be in charge of all our money

Yurt123

Would the IFA or ICMSA be of any help to us I wonder?

popa smurf

Well I am very surprised the C shareholders haven't taken a legal case against the co op .. plenty solicitor s around with co op shares these ABC should not stand up in any company.

Yurt123

popa smurf wrote: »

Well I am very surprised the C shareholders haven't taken a legal case against the co op .. plenty solicitor s around with co op shares these ABC should not stand up in any company.

Is there much that any given C shareholder can do though without it costing an arm and a leg in solicitors fees? Could a C shareholder report the Co Op board of directors for the mismanagement of their assets to any government body?

fepper

Yurt123 wrote: »

Jesus I don't know so I've heard it's all getting to him, all the pressure… sure who are we to speculate what goes on in his head. I couldn't care less what he does or doesn't do once he stops this crazy idea of trying to make himself feel important by stopping us from converting our shares… Kerry co op is over, he needs to get with the times… he's just a normal farmer milking 50 cows, why should he be in charge of all our money

That coop board are under no pressure I can assure you but its no harm to throw the spotlight on them and challenge their continued need when their investment strategy is costing me instead of increasing my dividend income,bad fund managers no doubt about it and still getting paid for non investment returns,how long do they expect this gravy train to continue!!!.....

fepper

fepper wrote: »

That coop board are under no pressure I can assure you but its no harm to throw the spotlight on them and challenge their continued need when their investment strategy is costing me instead of increasing my dividend income,bad fund managers no doubt about it and still getting paid for non investment returns,how long do they expect this gravy train to continue!!!.....

What mismanagement?? They are minding your shares for you as they think you might go on a mad spending spree and regret it so its for your own good that they are doing you a favour here

Yurt123

It's a joke that they're a so called investment company now (Kerry co op) and with all the millions of euros paid out in wages to the board they've only ever made one investment, that's when they sold Kerry Group shares which would today be worth about €250mn to buy One51 shares which today are pretty much worthless, nice work there by them

kerry cow

Can they buy shares like that ; on a whim .do they have the power to swap shares for steel and concrete .???

Yurt123

kerry cow wrote: »

Can they buy shares like that ; on a whim .do they have the power to swap shares for steel and concrete .???

Yeah that's the problem, they can sell our shares and buy any sort of rubbish they want… their latest plan is to start buying up hotels with our money now. If they're not stopped in their tracks they're gonna blow all our money

Don't bother paying the tax bills on these co op shares coz as things stand they're worthless

fepper

Yurt123 wrote: »

Yeah that's the problem, they can sell our shares and buy any sort of rubbish they want… their latest plan is to start buying up hotels with our money now. If they're not stopped in their tracks they're gonna blow all our money

Don't bother paying the tax bills on these co op shares coz as things stand they're worthless

One51 was part of set up of other coops including Kerry coop joint venture which went spectacularly wrong ,the investment had to go through a special EGM to get passed I think,the board cant make these decisions unless its passes by shareholder majority at meeting,but the board can suggest a pyramid type investment or other ludicrous scheme which in part is their job and if sold nicely to shareholders and they like it and pass it in majority then the board can fire away and hope for the best for that part of the investment,if it fails money lost on your shareholdings,if a winner,big dividends to us so lads don't be spreading sensational headlines like that ,its up to shareholders to drive this on, not the other way round

BannerBarry

fepper wrote: »

One51 was part of set up of other coops including Kerry coop joint venture which went spectacularly wrong ,the investment had to go through a special EGM to get passed I think,the board cant make these decisions unless its passes by shareholder majority at meeting,but the board can suggest a pyramid type investment or other ludicrous scheme which in part is their job and if sold nicely to shareholders and they like it and pass it in majority then the board can fire away and hope for the best for that part of the investment,if it fails money lost on your shareholdings,if a winner,big dividends to us so lads don't be spreading sensational headlines like that ,its up to shareholders to drive this on, not the other way round

Not true. The co op Directors can decide to make investments on our behalf.
They do not have to call an EGM except for coming under 10% of the co op.
They can spend the €20m as they see fit and sell 6.5m Group shared worth
€ 468m before they need to call a vote.
They can also salvage the One51 shares worth 7m or so.

They have the power to almost spend a half a billion without our permission I believe.

They sold a few million Group share in 2008 or so to take up their option to buy some One51 shares and mad a bags of it. The One51 fell to a third since and the Group trebled or more. That was done without EGM.

The C's can take legal action against the co op Directors for not acting in their interests.
If the shares are being supressed by over €1 billion (book value versus grey market value) then it's very likely some C shareholders would say enough is enough and take a joint action against the co op Directors to get the true value for the shares.
Any fund manager who's share price was a fraction of the book value would be dismissed in the real world.

fepper

So Barry we cant get our dividends unless it passed by ourselves at AGM and board can spend €500m of our share value without same vote for passing our dividend vote,I find this incredible that this is the case,at least with the one51 disaster that once is enough times to be burned was a good lesson to be learned

BannerBarry

fepper wrote: »

So Barry we cant get our dividends unless it passed by ourselves at AGM and board can spend €500m of our share value without same vote for passing our dividend vote,I find this incredible that this is the case,at least with the one51 disaster that once is enough times to be burned was a good lesson to be learned

That's it. Every company had to have Dividends approved by the shareholders at the AGM (money that will never return to the company).

The €500m can be spent buying a farm in Beaufort if its an " investment" and our investment managers do so with the intention it would be in the interests of the Society or have the potential to grow in value... its crazy stuff I know but they are the old rules.they abide by.

They can also loan that money out to members without requiring our authority to do so... Crazy stuff.

fepper

Jesus Barry thats really challenging to digest that news and power they have is awesome,this could be tricky

fepper

These rules need changing while coop still in place then kill this monster!!

Yurt123

We've always had the same amount of co op board members, it should have been getting cut down over the years in accordance with the decline in the number of dairy farmers

BannerBarry

fepper wrote: »

Jesus Barry thats really challenging to digest that news and power they have is awesome,this could be tricky

Very tricky historically... what if they had spent it on say bricks and mortar.
Thankfully with the 2014 legislation shareholders can potentially block a large move via the courts should they be able to show the Co Op board are not acting in the interests of the Co op and it's shareholders.

Great point also on the 28 directors... the gravy train should have been reduced as the share in the Group reduced.. its milking it with that many unqualified directors running an investment holding company in my opinion.

Yurt123

Saw that glanbia co op are pissing away more shareholders shares today to buy processing plants etc off Glanbia PLC, how come there farmers aren't up in arms over this?

BannerBarry

Yurt123 wrote: »

Saw that glanbia co op are pissing away more shareholders shares today to buy processing plants etc off Glanbia PLC, how come there farmers aren't up in arms over this?

Agreed on your point.
The Glanbia Co op have cost themselves hundreds of thousands each at this stage buying back the Agribusiness, to be paid less for their milk and to subsidise the Joint Venture ' profits (Glanbia PLC'S share price) with Co op's dry shareholders funds.

Crazy stuff again. Totally wrong except for the fact that the Glanbia Co-Op function is a Dairy Co Op not an investment holding company like Kerry co-ops function is.

fepper

Barry is Kerry coop a COOP now or is Kerry coop a company trading as KERRY COOP INVESTMENT HOLDING COMPANY,any difference between the two entities and different rules how both should be run? Or are the two working together side by side

BannerBarry

fepper wrote: »

Barry is Kerry coop a COOP now or is Kerry coop a company trading as KERRY COOP INVESTMENT HOLDING COMPANY,any difference between the two entities and different rules how both should be run?

Kerry Co Op function per it's accounts is an investment holding company.
Glanbia Co Op function per it's accounts is Dairy... not sure what the definition of Dairy is.

Both are co ops governed by older legislation but are also governed by Register of Friendly Society and also company law.
Kerry Co op also falls under the guise of the co op society or some other organisation that is not moving with the times.

fepper

I'm looking at it from revenue point of view where revenue are saying that they got paid extra by Kerry coop share allocation on milk supply only but Kerry coop didn't process or receive this milk but still gave out these shares even though they were and still are an investment holding company which maybe they shouldn't have been allowed to do as it didn't look like an investment to me but giving away part of its equity,if a milk coop I would think that transfer of shares would be ok

BannerBarry

fepper wrote: »

I'm looking at it from revenue point of view where revenue are saying that they got paid extra by Kerry coop share allocation on milk supply only but Kerry coop didn't process or receive this milk but still gave out these shares even though they were and still are an investment holding company which maybe they shouldn't have been allowed to do as it didn't look like an investment to me but giving away part of its equity,if a milk coop I would think that transfer of shares would be ok

I think if the patronage shares were issued proportionally to all shareholders there would not be an issue by the revenue because there would be no movement of wealth between different shareholders when they were issues.
The co op gave 5% of thr company away for 1.25 each year so the B's and C's share asset value was diluted down by that amount. The A's got a gain and the Revenue say this gain, because it was proportionate to Milk supply to a designated purchaser (Kerry Group) is taxable.
The indications are the revenue do not have the legislation to support their argument here.

fepper

Revenue not issue here thats for another day, new suppliers to Kerry plc that never supplied Kerry coop or had Kerry coop A shares were also able to qualify for Kerry coop shares so it wasn't a equal internal distribution here,my point being if Kerry coop that trades as a investment holding company should be protecting existing shareholders by not diluting it if new suppliers had to be issued new coop shares that were never in the system before that why I question the whole coop/company here

BannerBarry

fepper wrote: »

Revenue not issue here thats for another day, new suppliers to Kerry plc that never supplied Kerry coop or had Kerry coop shares were also able to qualify for Kerry coop shares so it wasn't a equal internal distribution here,my point being if Kerry coop that trades as a investment holding company should be protecting existing shareholders by not diluting it if new suppliers had to be issued new coop shares that were never in the system before that why I question the whole coop/company here

And that's the issue the revenue have as such, a movement of Co op value unequally meant a taxable charge for those that benefitted.

fepper

BannerBarry wrote: »

And that's the issue the revenue have as such, a movement of Co op value unequally meant a taxable charge for those that benefitted.

And I think that revenue are right to question this transaction but that still begs the question as to why this correlation was forged between two different entities namely a milk processing group and a investment holding company,I cant see no connection here bar the investment company hold shares in company that processes milk and what entitlements have any milk supplier whether new or ex Kerry coop supplier of another milk processor to a Kerry coop /investment holding company share when the obvious way to do was the plc to offer a shareholding in their plc company as part of supply incentive scheme by them

fepper

BannerBarry wrote: »

And that's the issue the revenue have as such, a movement of Co op value unequally meant a taxable charge for those that benefitted.

If that the case the revenue defo have a case because if I bought shares from a coop shareholder ,my shareholding would increase and sellers his/her shareholdings would go down and that movement transaction could be liable to cgt if profit made by beneficiary so to be fair those extra shares that were given out should be charged as equally,I never came across any coop shareholders selling at €1.25 a coop share