| 发布于: 修改于: | iPhone | 转发：3 | 回复：8 | 喜欢：0 |
大股东不同意交易对价，看样子要在11/28前收敛价差了。
这次套利就此结束，合计持仓三个月，收益11.82%。
情景分析来说，审批已经完成，股价也突破了收购价一大截。所以值得重新分析一下市场在想什么：
1. 现有股东要求新交易价格，这个交易价格应该会反映出来brookfield收购时的20倍pe和目前的13倍pe
2. 新竞争者搅局，提供报价
3. 无法达成交易价格，brookfield停止收购
从可能性来说1最可能，首先origin最大的机构股东支持价值重估并增持股票，其次目前交易价虽然是high base但是比收购价低也是不争事实。
其次是2基本不可能，考虑到审批流程，交易复杂性以及交易对价的融资要求。
最后是3，这个可能性存在但是应该比1小一些，除非股东要求的价格比较离谱。
综上来看，考虑到股价波动反应出的预期，整个交易价格加上分红可能在10.5-10.8每股左右。如果年底前完成交易那么整个回报预期提升至20%或年华50%左右。
市场已经交易8.835一股，考虑到审批还在继续且有不确定性，目前价格反应的是收购价需要重估，且向上调整。持有一个月的收益已经达到4.5%，后面具体能到更高的程度将看审批结果和后续价格谈判
The temperature is rising at Origin Energy suitor Brookfield.
Having offered $18.7 billion for Origin alongside oil and gas investor EIG Partners, Brookfield needs competition approval.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, fresh from blocking 网页链接{ANZ’s acquisition of Suncorp Bank} and 网页链接{Telstra and TPG Telecom’s mobile network sharing deal}, is due to make its decision later this month.
The approval process is playing out relatively publicly. Brookfield and EIG went down the authorisation route, where submissions are made and published like volleys, making for a back-and-forth argument between the parties.
The documents make it clear there are some things the ACCC isn’t quite buying, or at least understanding the way the bidders would probably like it to. It is putting big Canadian fund manager Brookfield through the wringer while EIG, which is proposing to buy the bulk of Origin’s stake in the Australia Pacific LNG project in Queensland, is in the clear. (If Brookfield passes this hurdle, a pricing discussion could be next.)
The heat is on Brookfield because it owns AusNet, a big electricity transmission lines and poles and wires company in Victoria that it acquired from the ASX boards in February last year. Origin Energy is Australia’s biggest electricity supplier, which delivers power to customers via infrastructure owned by the likes of AusNet.
Hilariously, the ACCC asked Brookfield to explain why it would not be possible to sell its 45.4 per cent AusNet stake, so it could buy Origin.
Even if you think there’s a conflict in owning both (and Brookfield does not), the answer, obviously, is that AusNet was an investment made only 18 months ago and Brookfield has a fiduciary duty to its funds’ investors who give it capital to invest for the long term. The AusNet investors are different from the Origin investors, and selling the AusNet fund investors out after only 18 months just to clear the way for the Origin fund’s investors would be brain-dead and dubious, at best.
Advertisement
Reading the room, Brookfield offered to internally separate its Australian team to make sure there is definitely no overlap. It argues ringfencing is not legally required – AusNet is a highly regulated business and would be owned via separate pools of capital and investors than Origin’s energy markets arm – but proposes to do it anyway.
So, the ACCC is now looking at the situation through a prism where Brookfield’s renewables team would run Origin Energy (on behalf of a pair of Brookfield-managed renewables/transition funds and co-investors Singapore’s GIC and Temasek), while its infrastructure team manages AusNet for the firm’s “super-core” fund and co-investors including Australian Retirement Trust.
There would be no overlap at manager or board level.
That’s a simple fix – remove the threat of any anti-competitive behaviour between infrastructure owner and user, even if it is a mirage. If the ACCC is going to run its analysis assuming Brookfield owns both and that it ringfences the two, then it may as well comply.
The bigger issue, though, is much broader than Brookfield and exactly on whose behalf it would own/manage a big energy markets business. It is who is going to fund Australia’s already difficult, lagging and expensive energy transition.
The companies best placed to build the renewable energy generators, firming plants, hydropower or whatever else is in Australia’s future energy mix, are the ones with the big customer bases. That means Origin Energy, AGL Energy, EnergyAustralia and Alinta Energy.
Not all capital is equalWithout the customer bases – a big book of electricity users to sell to at the likely higher prices of the future – big renewables projects at the size and pace required to transition Australia’s market cannot be funded. Without funding, they cannot be developed.
That’s the big change in Australia’s energy markets in the past year or two. There is plenty of capital out there for de-risked renewable energy assets – those backed by a long-term contract to a customer – including from relatively passive infrastructure investment funds and their mates in the pension and superannuation fund world.
But there is a dearth of both equity and debt capital for anything that isn’t contracted. The market has split between small would-be renewables owners with options over land seeking backing, and the big players who need customer contracts to turn desktop projects into developments and generators.
The gentailers, with their big customer books, can effectively write their own contracts. They can build a renewable generator knowing they also have the retail arm that can charge more or less for power prices, as required. That’s the same reason 网页链接{why Macquarie took a look at EnergyAustralia}. They can also use near-term cash flows from old coal-fired generators to fund developments. The gentailer model is as strong as ever.
So, it is the gentailers that are going to have to invest the tens of billions of dollars if the transition is to happen.
And buyers also are not exactly tripping over themselves for the gentailers. AGL Energy’s corporate interest came and went, EnergyAustralia’s stake has been for sale for years without a firm bite, while 网页链接{Brookfield and EIG are the only parties on the scene at Origin}. What eventually happens with Hong Kong-owned Alinta Energy is anyone’s guess.
So, it is a bit of a moment in time for the ACCC, which considers two things as part of its authorisation process: whether the deal would be likely to substantially lessen competition, or if it would likely result in a net public benefit.
Based on the back-and-forth volleys between the parties and on full display, it looks like the ACCC is applying a pretty low bar when it comes to the potential substantial lessening of competition and a high bar on the public interest test.