Take-over Bids

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31907, 7 February 1969, Page 10

Take-over Bids

Sir, —The general manager of the Waitaki Farmers’ Freezing Company (Mr J. Neilson), asked to comment on suggestions that Waitaki had “dragged its heels” on providing the required standards in its works, gave Waitaki’s usual evasive reply (see “The Press,” January 17). May Mr Neilson be asked, please, to answer the two following questions: (1) Are Waitaki standards of hygiene, processing methods, laboratory control, and general works development of sufficiently high standard to qualify for the export of meat to the United States? (2) Do Waitaki, in actual fact, possess a licence to export to the United States?—Yours, etc., INQUIRER. January 17, 1969.

[This letter was sent to Mr Neilson for comment, but no reply has been received. — Ed., “The Press.”]

Sir, —A close perusal of the Waitaki Farmers’ Freezing Company balance-sheet indicates unprofitable financial adventures, using shareholder funds, into fields quite foreign to operating a freezing works. Could the chairman of the Waitaki board (Mr D. Malcolm) please provide answers to the following questions: (a) What is the total loss of shareholders' funds incurred in unprofitable ventures? (b) Is Waitaki in serious trouble? Are they hoping for a successful “take-over” of C.F.M. to get them out of their troubles? (c) Is there a sharebroker connected with the Waitaki “take-over” scheme, and to what extent would he benefit? (d) What other organisations are behind the Waitaki bid?

To what extent will they profit in the unlikely event of success?—Yours, etc., FOREWARNED. January 16, 1969. [This letter was sent to Mr Malcolm for comment, but no reply has been received. — Ed., “The Press.”] Sir, —“Skilled Investor” displays only microscopic knowledge of Waitaki works standards. Granted they do meet certain Department of Agriculture requirements for marketing within New Zealand, and some other countries, but Waitaki does not meet equipment, processing, methods, hygiene, and housekeeping standards required to obtain a licence to export to the U.S.A. “Skilled Investor” should travel south and see for himself the high standards represented by C.F.M. and the minimum by Waitaki. “Observer’s” letter dated February 5 destroys the myth of Waitaki’s export marketing profitability.—Yours, etc., INVESTOR.

February 6, 1969. Sir,— May “Skilled Investor’ be assured that no-one was kidding on January 26. Waitaki works need a lot of time, effort and money spent to raise their standard; the services of a good “galigali man” would help them too. —Yours, NOT JOKING. February 6. 1969.

Sir.—“ Skilled Investor” would seem to be deliberately trying to mislead with a lot of inaccurate statements. You cannot compare the profits of a company that confines the bulk of its work to killing and processing only with those of a company that is primarily concerned with overseas trading in the interests of the country’s economy. If C.F.M. confined most of its activities to killing and processing only on a cost-plus basis as Waitaki does it could not help but make profits, year after year. The only question would be how much. As “Skilled Investor” is so knowledgeable perhaps he would tell us how much overseas exchange Waitaki has earned for the country and how much meat it has sold to countries other than the United Kingdom compared with the C.F.M. Then we will have some basis for comparison.—Yours, etc., “FACTS NOT FANTASY” February 7, 1969.

[This correspondence is now closed. Ed., “The Press.”]