Shares

Companies which uncapped SPPs after strong demand


December 6, 2022

This list tracks companies which announced a cap on the overall size of an SPP and then lifted it to ensure there was no scale back. Also, check out this list of companies which stuck rigidly to their SPP cap, plus this list of those which partially lifted the cap but still imposed a scale back.

ANZ, 2009: The offer document mentioned a cap of $350 million following the $2.5 billion placement at $14.40 but the bank accepted all $2.2 billion worth of applications from 178,000 holders or some 40% of the register. This remains a record 529% expansion of an SPP.

ANZ, 2015: The ANZ SPP ended up raising $720 million at $26.50, a healthy 14.37% discount to the earlier $2.5 billion institutional placement at $30.95 which subsequently became the subject of some ASIC enforcement action. Investors were offered a 2% discount to VWAP in the SPP and the original $500 million cap was lifted to $720 million so there were no scale backs.

Austin Engineering, 2014: $15,000 SPP at $3.20 after placement. In the money after Bradken offer lifted stock. Expanded $5m cap to $5.5 million. See announcement.

Australian Strategic Materials, 2022 (ASM): $30m placement at $1.73, a 12.4% discount to the previous close of $1.975, followed by a $4m placement to the chair requiring shareholder approval and a $10 million SPP with no VWAP alternative which was uncapped after the board elected to accept all $11.1 million in SPP applications without saying precisely how many shareholders participated.

Automotive Holdings, 2014: After raising $115 million from institutions at $3.49, attempted to limit SPP to just $10 million. After ASA representations, this was expanded by 200% to $30 million so no scaleback.

Bank of Queensland, 2019: announced a $25 million cap after completing a $250 million placement but then accepted all $90 million worth of applications at a 2% discount to VWAP which finished at $7.27 or a a 6.5% discount to what the institutions paid. See announcement.

Bega Cheese: Expanded a 2017 SPP from the capped amount of $37.5 million to accepted all $50.5 million in applications after receiving an ASA letter requesting the cap be lifted.

Bendigo & Adelaide Bank, 2014: $230 million selective institutional placement at $10.85 to fund Rural Finance purchase. First announced a soft $50 million cap and $5000 individual limit on the SPP but this was lifted to $7,500 after ASA representations. Only a $270m SPP would have retained pre-raising relativities between institutions and retail. They ended up accepting full $150 million so no scale-backs and 200% expansion on initial soft indicative cap.

Calix (CXL), 2022: initial capital raising was a $60m placement at $4.55 on October 19, an 11% discount to the previous close of $5.12. Stock then tanked after Albanese government cancelled $41m grant for carbon capture, use and storage projects. However, the subsequent $20m SPP had secondary pricing based on a 2.5% discount to VWAP. They accepted all $21.6m in SPP applications with the final price being $4.24, a 21c or 4.6% discount to the $4.60 placement price.

Cann Group (CAN), 2020: after a $14.3 million placement at 40c, launched a $10m SPP at the same price but ended up accepting all $25.6 million in applications bringing the total raising to $40.2 million and being a rare example (see list) of an SPP being larger than the earlier placement. The SPP participation disclosure was good with 2,793 applicants, comprising 14.5% of the nearly 20,000 shareholders.

Carnegie Clean Wave, 2017: announced a $6m SPP cap but then accepted an additional $9m plus added a $3m private placement to keep diluted shareholders sweet. See $18m raising outcome announcement.

Charter Hall Education, 2019: following a $120 million placement at $3.35, announced a $5 million cap on the SPP but ended up accepting all $19.29 million in applications. See announcement.

Charter Hall Retail (CQR), 2019: completed a $150 million institutional placement at $4.51 and announced a $10m cap on the subsequent SPP but ended up accepting all $14.7 million in applications. See announcement.

Charter Hall Retail (CQR), 2020: $275 million placement at $2.90 followed by a $25m SPP at the same price with no VWAP alternative. Lifted the cap and accepted all $29.4 million in applications. See outcome announcement.

Charter Hall Social Infrastructure (CQE), 2019: launched a $100 million placement at $3.35 and initially proposed limiting SPP to just $5 million but then accepted all $19.3 million in applications. See outcome announcement.

Charter Hall Social Infrastructure (CQE), 2020: $100m placement comprising 15% of issued capital at $2.20, followed by a $15m SPP at $2.20. Received $19.3m in applications, which were all commendably accepted.

Charter Hall Group, 2017: announced a $15 million cap on the SPP, following a $275 million placement. The company accepted all applications after $15.76 million in applications were received.

City Chic Collective (CCX), 2020: $80 million placement at $3.05, a 4.7% discount to the previous close, followed by a $10 million SPP at the same price of a 2% discount to VWAP over the final 5 days of the offer. The placement represents 13.1% of issued capital and the SPP is just 11.1% of the capital raising. Placement conclusion announcement silent on allocation policy or take-up by existing holders. Ended up accepting all $31 million in SPP applications with no scale back which was generous for retail shareholders.

Dexus, 2015: $400 million institutional placement at $7.32 and then announced a $50 million SPP but eventually accepted all $77.8 million in applications.

Dexus, 2019: responded positively to our request for an expansion of its $50 million Share Purchase Plan when it announced that it would be accepting all $63.9 million in applications with no scale back. This was still pretty light on after a $900 million placement.

DUET Group, 2014: announced a $30 million SPP cap in 2014 after the latest of a long line of institutional placements but then accepted all $43 million in SPP applications after representations from the ASA. Expanded by 43.3% to achieve no scale back.

GPT, 2019: lifted a $50 million cap on its SPP to $66.8 million and then used these excellent words in the outcome announcement: “The SPP offer was sent to 31,781 eligible Security holders and valid applications were received from 5,980 Security holders. This represents a participation rate of 18.8% and an average application worth approximately $11,170.”

Growthpoint, 2019: announced it was expanding its $15 million Share Purchase Plan to accept all $23 million in applications. The $15,000 offer was priced at $3.97 against a market price of around $4.36 when it issued. Growthpoint also adopted the new model for disclosing participation rates in the SPP with these words: “The SPP offer was sent to 3,958 eligible securityholders and 1,672 applications were received, providing a take-up rate of 42.24% and an average application of $14,086.”

Hansen Technologies 2015: aimed to raise $10 million under an SPP in conjunction with a $15 million placement. The company lifted the cap after receiving over the SPP was oversubscribed by approximately $2 million.

IAG, 2014: announced a $200 million cap on SPP in 2014 but then accepted all $236 million in application after representation from the ASA. Expanded by 18% after ASA representations to achieve no scale back.

Insurance Australia Group (IAG), 2020: a $650 million placement at $5.50 followed by a $100 million SPP which was uncapped when $125.9 million came through the door and was priced at $4.97 based on a 2% discount to the closing VWAP of $5.07.

Independence Group, 2016: announced a $30 million cap on its SPP, which followed a $300 million institutional placement. The company lifted the cap after receiving $31.4 million in subscriptions from shareholders.

Ingenia (INA), 2020: $150 million placement at $3.45 followed by a $25 million SPP. Only has about 3500 holders so the theoretical maximum for the SPP is $105 million and the company ended up accepting all $27.9 million in SPP applications, marginally lifting the $25 million cap. Only about 30% of shareholders participated even though it was more than 20% in the money.

Invocare, 2020: announced a $50m cap on its SPP following a $200 million placement but then accepted all $74 million worth of applications. See announcement.

Macarthur Coal, 2009: After a $190 million placement at $6, the SPP offer document talked about a plan to raise $20-40m but then they accepted all $62 million in applications. See announcement.

Macquarie Atlas Roads, 2017: announced a capped $15 million SPP in March 2017 after doing a $185 million institutional placement and ended up accepting all $22 million in applications.

National Storage (NSR), 2020: $300 million placement at $1.57, followed by a $30m SPP which was expanded to $48 million with no scale back. See SPP outcome announcement which didn't include any participation data.

NIB (NHF), 2022: $150 million raising comprising a $135 million placement at a floor price of $6.90 which was the final price, followed by a $15m SPP at the lower of the placement price and a 2% discount to the VWAP. The annual report claims the company has 132,516 shareholders which means the theoretical maximum application is $3.975 billion and the capped amount of $15m only represents 0.37% of this amount or just $113 for each shareholder on average. Emailed the company on November 6 requesting expansion of the $15m cap and full disclosure of SPP participation data. Ended up being priced at $6.74 and accepted all $21.3m in applications without disclosing participation data.


Norwest Energy, April 2022: the Perth-based company accepted all $3.324 million in SPP applications rather than scaling it back to the $3m cap.

SCA Property Group, 2018: after a $262 million institutional placement to fund an acquisition, announced a $50 million SPP but ended up accepting all $111 million in applications at the $2.32 offer price. See announcement.

Seafarms, 2017: announced $2m SPP funding target with provision to accept an additional $2 million for a $4m cap but then accepted all $4.67m in applications.

Super Retail Group, 2010: $76 million institutional placement followed by $10,000 SPP at $4.80. Announced $10 million cap on SPP but ended up accepting all $12.4 million in applications after 24% expansion.

White Rock Minerals, 2020: initially announced a $1.5m cap on its SPP but then uncapped the offer and accepted all $10 million worth of applications at 3c, meaning the SPP ended up being almost double the earlier $5.85 million placement.

Transurban, 2019:
$500 million placement at $14.70 (a $3.48% discount to market) followed by $15,000 SPP with a soft cap of $200 million which was priced at $14.64 based on the 2% discount to VWAP. Transurban accepted all $312 million worth of applications.

Westpac, 2019: announced a $500 million cap on its $30,000 SPP in late 2019 after a $2 billion placement and then accepted all $770 million in applications with no scaleback which were priced at a 2% discount to VWAP so retail investors only paid $24.20, compared with $25.32 for the placement. See announcement.

Wisetech, 2019: Announced the SPP at $20.90 was capped at $30 million but then expanded it to $35.9 million. See announcement.

Zip Co (ZIP), 2020: announced a $150 million capital raising comprising a $120 million placement priced at $5.34, a 4.1% discount to the previous close of $5.57, and a $30 million SPP which included a secondary pricing mechanism based on a 2% discount to VWAP. Under-written by Merrill Lynch with Shaw assisting. The placement outcome announcement talked about over-subscriptions but there was no reference to whether existing shareholders were given priority. The SPP received $56.7 million in applications which were accepted in full.