A QUESTION OF BUSINESS By P. GUNASEGARAM firstname.lastname@example.org
Permodalan Nasional Bhd‘s surprise bid for SP Setia raises more questions than answers
IT must be great to have so much firepower at your fingertips. But it is also a huge responsibility. How do you get your target and keep it intact at the same time? It’s the old question of having your cake and eating it too.
That’s a dilemma that not just Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB) but many government-linked companies (GLCs) face. They have the money to buy over property companies but if they don’t do it right, they stand the risk of losing the people behind these companies.
If the worst happens the staff leave, the company is unable to undertake its projects, quality of houses and other developments drop, launches get less imaginative, public perception deteriorates, and, ultimately, value gets destroyed.
By seeking to own the golden goose body and soul, it is sometimes killed. Occasionally, there is in the corporate world a very thin line between protecting and enhancing your investments and making a wrong move which may send their value plummeting down, if not immediately, in time.
The latest episode (see our cover story this issue) has raised eyebrows not least because of the manner in which PNB has made its bid for one of most respected and admired property companies in Malaysia, SP Setia.
PNB already has about a 33% stake in SP Setia but is seeking to raise this stake to over 50% by offering RM3.90 a share, about an 11% premium over the closing price before the announcement of its notice of takeover. It offered 91 sen per warrant, a premium of nearly 100%.
It has had its stake of just under 33%, the point at which a general takeover offer is triggered under the takeover code, since 2008 but pushed this to just over trigger point on Tuesday and announced its intention for a takeover the following morning.
The offer is conditional upon PNB getting control of SP Setia. PNB also announced its intention of keeping SP Setia listed by ensuring a shareholding spread even if it got more than 90% of the offer shares.
Initial calculations based on 75% control and acquisition of all warrants indicate that the takeover could cost PNB over RM3 billion, a lot of money for most private investors in Malaysia but a mere drop in the ocean for PNB which has over RM150 billion under management.
It’s the second largest fund manager in the country after EPF which is twice as big with over RM300 billion in funds. But PNB is probably the largest equity investor in the country because of a much higher proportion of funds invested in equity. There is hardly a major listed company in Malaysia in which PNB does not have a stake.
The big puzzle is why has PNB launched this takeover offer which could potentially affect adversely the value of its quarry? What was PNB fearing? Was it just a matter of increasing its stake in a depressed market which undervalued SP Setia’s assets or was there something else? And why did it not consult with senior management and shareholders even after its notice of takeover?
At this stage one can only conjecture on the answers and make educated guesses.
But first, what’s wrong if PNB took a majority stake? Previously SP Setia had PNB as a major but not a majority shareholder. PNB did not intervene in management and had two board representatives. If the SP Setia board put up a proposal for shareholder approval, PNB cannot by itself stop it if other shareholders supported it. They include the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) with 13.4%, SP Setia president and CEO Tan Sri Liew Kee Sin with 11.26% and Kumpulan Wang Amanah Persaraan or KWAP with five per cent.
One must still note that the government-linked funds or GLFs already control over 51% of SP Setia. But with PNB alone poised to take over a 50% stake, feathers are being ruffled and questions are being asked as to what that means.
What would have been the ideal situation for SP Setia? Four factors would have contributed. An independent management, a good board which represented all parties, strong minority shareholders, and a diversified institutional base so that no shareholder dominated. The first three are pretty much in place but the fourth was not achieved because PNB had since 2008 been holding a stake of just under 33% and with two other GLFs, the stake came to over 50%. But was there a way of dispersing shareholding?
One deal being negotiated, it was reported, was for Sime Daby, a PNB company, to take a 20% stake through the issue of new shares in exchange for land banks. If it had come through, it would have helped to dilute PNB’s shareholding. Still, Sime is related.
The underlying problem is this. GLFs and GLCs have lots of money and not many places to put them in. Good companies attract their attention but if they take control, and especially if they take management control as well, the move can destroy value.
Some of PNB’s property purchase and privatisation acts in the past have not been particularly successful, if at all. The major reason is key staff leave after GLCs take control. That’s a phenomenon that’s happened quite a few times.
So far, PNB’s stake in SP Setia had not been a problem. PNB had its two board representatives and it was quite satisfied with its stake. A balance seemed to have been reached with senior management, especially Liew who is also a major shareholder.
But that has been thrown askew with PNB’s latest move. Part of the solution will be to convince the market that there will not be management interference unless things go wrong. But the only assurance of that is if stakes are far below 50%, perhaps not more than 30%.
PNB is primarily a passive investor. Thus its motivation should not be to stop dilution of its shareholding or moves to widen shareholding among companies it owns. Control should not be its primary aim.
Instead, it must focus on getting best value for its current stake, which may well be achieved by continuing to be clearly a passive investor. That’s better than having a bigger stake in a less valuable company. Perhaps it could have put its RM3bil in other investments. But it looks like it’s a bit too late for that.
l Managing editor P Gunasegaram is plainly perplexed by PNB’s bid to take over SP Setia. Any explanations?
Leave it to the real businessmen !
ON THE BEAT WITH WONG CHUN WAI
Questions are being raised as to why Permodalan Nasional Bhd is making a takeover bid on SP Setia, a reputable housing developer.
IT may not have caught the attention of ordinary Malaysians but it is a big story that is now the hottest topic among the business community.
Housing developer SP Setia is a reputable name that many Malaysians are familiar with because of the quality homes it builds.
It has also ventured outside Malaysia and made its presence felt in Vietnam, Australia, Singapore and even Britain.
The man at the helm of SP Setia is 52-year-old Tan Sri Liew Kee Sin, a down-to-earth bank officer-turned-developer.
Some would even say SP Setia is Liew Kee Sin and Liew Kee Sin is SP Setia.
Fiercely proud of his humble beginnings in Johor – his father was a lorry driver – the Universiti Malaya graduate wanted to study law but was offered economics instead.
SP Setia started off as a construction company – a syarikat pembinaan as conveyed in its initials SP.
Liew turned it into a big-time property developer when he injected two projects – Pusat Bandar Puchong and Bukit Indah Ampang – into the company in 1996.
Liew has faced many challenges but he is now looking at the biggest fight of his career – one that is heavily staked against him.
Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB), the country’s largest asset manager and owner of 33% of SP Setia, is making a bid to take over the company.
On Friday, PNB bought an additional 23.5 million shares in the open market for RM3.868 a share, just 3.2 sen shy of its proposed takeover price of RM3.90.
PNB, with a RM150bil cash chest, is seeking to raise its stake to over 50% with its RM3.90 offer, which is about an 11% premium over the closing price before the announcement of its notice of takeover.
Such a takeover bid is not unusual in the corporate world, and more so when Liew only has an 11.3% stake in the company.
Other major shareholders of SP Setia include the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) with 13.4%, Kumpulan Wang Amanah Persaraan with 5% and over 40% are in the hands of minority shareholders.
But the manner in which it was done has led to much unhappiness.
Despite having two PNB directors on the board, there was no courtesy of a verbal notification prior to the takeover move.
The general offer notice only reached the company on Wednesday at 8.30am, just before the market opened.
Some may argue that the element of surprise was for strategic reasons but there was still no call even after news broke out of the takeover bid.
In a nutshell, relations have been strained.
PNB has issued a statement saying it wishes to maintain the management team, which is known to be fiercely loyal to Liew, but no one is sure how events will unfold in the coming days.
However, questions have been raised as to why PNB is wanting to take over a company that is being run competently instead of remaining as a passive investor that is satisfied with good investment returns.
If the Government is actively pushing for the private sector to be the engine of growth, we have the right to ask why the GLCs are competing with the private sector.
Widening its shareholding base is one thing but controlling private companies will lead to speculation over its agenda, cause unnecessary concerns as well as send the wrong signals.
The whole exercise will cost PNB RM3bil, which is chicken feed to them, but there are political and economic ramifications that the country’s leaders should take note of.
It may not be such a grand scheme in the end for PNB if Liew decides to leave SP Setia and set up his own venture, and gets his senior management team to join him.
PNB may then find itself in a spot even after gaining control of the company.
No one would believe that there would not be interference from PNB, so let’s not kid Malaysian investors.
Civil servants who manage public funds should leave the business of running businesses and making money to the real businessmen.