Shares

Companies which scaled back retail applications based exclusively on size of holding


May 20, 2020

This list tracks companies which scaled back retail shareholders in entitlement and SPP offers based solely on size of holding, therefore giving small investors a minimal allocation.

Let's start with SPP where small holders were give tiny allotments

QBE Insurance, 2009: $5000 SPP $21.50 each. The $100 million offer received $226 million in applications and QBE came up with a unique scale back formula.

Geodynamics, 2012: $15,000 SPP at 7.5% discount to VWAP or minimum of 13.5c. Small holders only allocated $1000 worth of stock.

QBE Insurance, 2012: $15,000 SPP at $10.70 but small holders scaled back to virtually nothing given scale back formula was that all 86,000 holders got just 8.34% of their holding.

Western Areas, 2013: $15,000 SPP at $3.80. Small holders scaled back to just $70 investment after $26m applied for an offer capped at $15m. See scale back announcement.

The Reject Shop, 2013: $15,000 SPP at $16.20 after $30 million placement. Small applicants scaled back to meaningless figure. Offer document mentioned $10 million cap but after $25.5 million in applications this was expanded to $14 million. Conclusion announcement did not explain scale back formula but it was based on the size of an applicant's holding.

QBE Insurance, 2014: $15,000 SPP at $10.10 after placement. Capped at $160m, lifted to $200m but small holders only allotted 1 new share. Interest paid on overs.

GUD, 2015: $15,000 SPP at $7.45 after $79m placement. Small holders scaled back to virtually nothing. Was initially capped at $15m but after $55m in applications they expanded this to $26 million. Scale back formula was unique but punished the smallest holders. See announcement.

Western Areas, 2016: $15,000 SPP at $2 after $70m insto placement. Small holders heavily scaled back to virtually nothing.


NRW Holdings, 2017: $10,000 SPP after $25m placement at 68c. Capped at $5m. Allocated no shares to anyone with an unmarketable parcel. See scaleback announcement.


Kathmandu, 2018: $NZ15,000 SPP at $2.10. Scale back based on share size not application so small holders given just a handful of shares.


Entitlement offers with overs where small holders were given tiny allocations

McMahon Holdings, 2009: entitlement offer at 32c but the overs allotment was based on size of holding.

Hastie, 2009: entitlement offer at $1.15 with unlimited overs but small holders scaled back to virtually nothing.

Aspen Corporation, 2009: entitlement offer at 30c with unlimited overs but small holders scaled back to tiny allocation.

APN News & Media, 2009: entitlement offer at $1 with unlimited overs but small holders scaled back to tiny allocation.

Clean Seas Tuna, 2009: entitlement offer at 55c with unlimited overs but small holders scaled back to tiny allocation.

Charter Hall, 2009: entitlement offer at 33c with unlimited overs but small holders scaled back to virtually nothing because billionaire John Gandel scooped up the entire retail shortfall. See announcement.

PanAust, 2009: entitlement offer at 28c but investors scaled back to extras equivalent to only 50% of entitlement.

Asciano, 2009: entitlement offer at $1.10 with scale back based on size of holding.

Australian Infrastructure Fund, 2009: entitlement offer at $1.10 with scale back based on size of holding.

Virgin Blue, 2009: entitlement offer at 20c with unlimited ability to apply for extras but small investors scaled back to tiny sums.

Clarius Group, 2009 :
$20,000 into 1-for-3.5 entitlement offer at 64c but scaled back to just 10 new shares as formula was 2.3 times entitlement.

Gunns, 2009: entitlement offer at 90c with tiny allocation for small holders.

Redflex Holdings, 2009: 1-for-12 entitlement offer at $2.04 with small holders given tiny overs.

MAP, 2009: entitlement offer at $2.30 with overs where small applicants scaled back to virtually nothing.

Campbell Bros, 2009: 1-for-6 entitlement offer at $22 with extras but small applicants scaled back to virtually nothing.

Amalgamated Holdings, 2009: 1-for-5 entitlement offer at $4.10 with overs that delivered virtually nothing for small holders.

Penrice Soda, 2009: 1-for-2 entitlement offer at 70c with overs but small holders scaled back to virtually nothing.

KFM Diversified, 2009: 1-for-6 entitlement offer at 70c with overs but small holders scaled back to tiny amount.

Norfolk Group, 2010: 2-for-9 entitlement offer at 72c with overs but small holders scaled back to tiny amount.

Catalpa Resources, 2010: entitlement offer at $1.25 with overs. Small holders scaled back to virtually nothing.

Cardno, 2010: 1-for 6 entitlement offer at $3.25 with overs but small holders scaled back to tiny allocation.

Spark Infrastructure, 2010: 2-for-7 entitlement offer at $1 with overs. Small holders scaled to virtually nothing.

Thinksmart, 2010: 1-for-5 entitlement offer at 50c with overs. Small holders scaled back to virtually nothing.

Warrnambool Cheese & Butter, 2010: 1-for-6 entitlement offer with overs. Small holders scaled back to virtually nothing.

Transfield Services, 2010: 2-for-9 entitlement offer at $3 with overs. Overs banned for anyone who held less than 50 shares.

Symex Holdings, 2011: 5-for-14 entitlement offer at 42.5c with overs. Small applicants scaled back to virtually nothing despite shortfall which went to under-writers.

Engenco, 2013: 3-for-2 entitlement offer at 15c with overs. Small applicants received no shares.

Fleetwood Australia, 2018: 1-for-2.9 at $1.80 with unlimited overs. Small holders scaled back to sod all based on allocation driven by size of holding.

Harvey Norman, 2018: 1-for-17 at $2.50 with unlimited overs. Small holders scaled back to nothing as anyone with unmarketable parcel banned.