Interesting scenario?

There is a lot of anguish put out by the left about what Gina's aims are for SMH, but what are the consequences if she sells her shares.

SMH shares are not exactly gold plated and frankly I would not be buying them now anyway.

Gina could well afford to sell them all and walk away. Sure she could find other investments.

Banjo at last! I return to *the left*
Thoughts such as yours push me.
To think any one who wants a fair and balanced media is left is weird stuff.
To even while my party LACKS THE GUTS TO REMOVE GILLARD! we are all left?
We will find our brains, far too many left them and their hearts in the bin outside the door on entering Parliament.
Then we will turn united on the rich and powerful trying to buy media control to have only their views published.
This morning *Australian Print media has the blood of the recent and next boat people tragedy on it hands*
As it refuses to, just tell the truth Abbott would vote against his own policy rather than not be able to hold Labor accountable for his actions.
Surely power and privilege can find a better puppet?

Belly,
I was not thinking of the politics.

I was wondering what happens to SMH and the share price if Gina decides it is too much of a hassle and tells her broker to get rid of the shares. A loss here would not leave her broke. If she thinks the current board is not playing fair she could take her bat and go home.

She is a woman after all, and that species have been known to change their mind sometimes.

Gina too may think the price is too high.Best to buy in on a number of smaller volumes.She wants editorial control so it may not happen.

<<She wants editorial control>>

She certainly wants the other share-holders to believe so, but she doesn't strike me as someone who likes to write what nobody reads, sing when nobody listens and preach to a sleeping congregation.

More likely, she will scare away the other share-holders who will sell her the rest of the shares for nothing, then she will sell the lot for more. It's pure business (or a game of poker if you like)!

Remember that Gina owns only 19% of Fairfax.
The shares did not rise when she bought, so her stake did not increase the inherant share value as perceived by the market.
True, when she threatened to sell, the price did fall a few cents, probably because investors feared a sudden dumping of a large parcel onto the market.
My guess is that if she sells, the Fairfax price will fall a little and buyers would put a floor under the share price at somewhere in the low 50cents range.
I would be a buyer at around 50 cents+ as at that price the downside would look pretty minimal and it is now clear that Fairfax management are at last ready to do the hard transformational yards.
I think a sell by Rinehart would be good for Fairfax in the medium term.
And a win for democracy immediately.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Definitely got secret agenda, all she wants is 100% voting rights.
Chanel 10 in sights also.

579; to get 100% voting rights she would have to buy all shares.

The left handed journalists and others are worrying about nothing as
the ABC is still there.
You cannot get much further left than the ABC.
When my son started work at the ABC, he was told not to tell anyone
that he may vote Liberal if he wanted to have a career there.
There are no gays in the closet at the ABC because it is full of Liberal voters.

Bazz, is it possible, just barely possible, that you're overegging this custard - just a leeeetle bit?
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

If Gina sells out the shares will fall like a stone.

The company will become basically worthless.

The bunch of old boy directors will be chucked out on their ear, where they aught to be.

This tired old bunch, who let the inmates run the asylum will have got what they deserve.

The company will probably fail.

Gina may buy back in, much cheaper, but the company might still fail.

God lets hope Tony does the same with their ABC.

No Anthonyve it is very correct. A year ago approx I asked him about
it again and he said it is was worse than it was when he started there
about 20 years ago.
The internal structure is fairly rigid as the lefties have all got into
positions where they can affect promotions.
It is a bit like the Masons, you know, have you got the right handshake ? or should I say the left handshake, hi !

Gina as the single largest shareholder is entitled to some seats on the board. However, even 3 seats is not a majority, and not likely to enable her to manipulate the editorial content.

When she bought blocks of shares from other investors away from the trading floor, it made little difference to the share value. However, if she dumped 20% of the shares on the open market, the story is very likely to be different.

As the ability of organisations to borrow is linked to share price, a crash in share value would have severe effects on any companies liquidity.

how come she isnt asking for less bored members
lets face it boards SHOULD shrink..
as their board skill level's
reveals they got no clue

has it the same SIZE board
as its share price fell

personal note..clive..[and gina]..should buy it up
have a board seats just made up of their rich kids
media stopped doing what media claimed to be doing long ago

as revelations say
stars of media/sheron must fall
sheron is still in a coma..media is suiciding

usefull media fell long ago
its where you get time to tell the whole story
not just repeat the same stuff every 15 minutes..and stuff we watched quater a century ago

im over thinking about it

EASY ANSWER, IT GETS TO RETAIN IT'S EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE

Looks like Gina has written an open letter to the Fairfax chairman.

The letter sets out a number of criteria Gina expects the chair to meet by the November AGM or she expects the chair to resign.

Contrary to what has been in the press, it seems very little has to do with Editorial independence, more to do with directors able to get information on which to make decissions.

I expect the power she has as the major shareholder is to cause a spill of the board then. Her expectations revolve around increased value of Fairfax shares so she should get the support of the other major shareholders.

Interesting to see if Fairfax media carry the open letter tomorrow.

So, at this point, it does not seem likely she has ideas of selling.

http://www.themonthly.com.au/gina-rinehart-s-quest-respect-and-gratitude-what-gina-wants-nick-bryant-5024
I recommend this link.
A long one it points to a problem we are about to be engulfed in.
Always the rich and powerful buy influence.
It will always be so.
But the influence bought here will one day, say the voice of reason will be heard only by some.
Muffled by a voice that has no true under standing of the whole, just their views.
Shocking references to MURDERING all Australia's first people are not made in jest.
This family held and still holds equally insane views.