We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Civitas Social Housing Plc | CSH | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 79.80 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 79.80 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 09/5/2023 12:50 by 2sporrans Minor observation:Under the terms of the accepted 80p/share offer, the Q4 divi 1.425p, gets paid out 'on top of' the 80p; XD date 18May23. Any further divis that may be issued before the deal all goes through will result in their value being knocked off the 80p/s price. So, seems basically a good idea to either wait until 18 May, or thereafter, to sell; or do so if/when the Q4 divi gets factored into the share price "Civitas Shareholders who are on the register as at the close of business on 19 May 2023 will also be entitled to receive and retain the quarterly dividend of 1.425 pence per Civitas Share in respect of the period from 1 January 2023 to 31 March 2023, as announced by the Civitas Board earlier today (the "Fourth Quarter Dividend")." But note the XD date is 18May23. |
Posted at 26/4/2023 09:46 by lucydesouza1 Auckland was controlled and owned by Lalani and Mawji for years until they sold it to The Social Housing Family CIC, which was set up by Paul Bridge, a CSH executive.Lalani and Mawji sold many properties to CSH through a shell game similar to that employed by Fairhome, earning millions of pounds in profits. It might be natural to assume that some of those profits ended up funding lease payments from Auckland and Falcon to CSH, given Lalani and Mawji also controlled those major tennants which have since proven to have serious governance defficiencies (much like the Fairhome/Westmorelan Auckland subleases a number of the properties to TLC, which is owned by Civitas execs and their associates. This arrangement might allow profits from other related party transactions to flow back to CSH through Aukland. Cleaning up Aukland and Falcon is key to resolving "governance" concerns at CSH and CSH's direct involvement in the process should be seen as undesirable, in my opinion. |
Posted at 10/2/2023 13:35 by chucko1 Wskill, tend to agree with your moderate view on CSH. It has had its own accusers, but some other tangible factors such as rent collection/increases etc. and concrete actions regarding lease terms and one or two other things suggest good value at the yield.Although SOHO have more exposure to MySpace, they did not have the issues CSH were dealing with one or two years back regarding good governance, and that strikes me as equally, if not better, value. Easy to say during the hour in which its share price has just risen 4%, but CSH has just bounced 20% the past month, so some SOHO movement is not surprising. Especially that they are also cited positively in the Fitch note on CSH. Fitch are far from all-knowing, but at least they are a neutral and intelligent voice. |
Posted at 28/1/2023 06:08 by up4itt Lucy, although the exact text of the lease clause has not been made public, the following summary by Marten & Co includes more detail than was provided by CSH in their RNS of 13th September 2022:The clause would allow a housing association to temporarily stop paying rent in certain circumstances, such as if it had not received housing benefit from a local authority. This would apply after an initial period of time, and then only if paying the rent in full would cause the housing association to fail to meet the regulator’s standards. CSH would receive rent arrears as and when the housing benefit is subsequently received by the housing association. Under the terms of the clause, the housing association would provide CSH with full data and step-in rights. (Source: google Civitas lease clause) Yes, it is clear from what they say in the interim results: the clause is being applied to a very limited number of leases (ones that are not subject to borrowing, I believe). As you rightly say, JLL have assured CSH that the new clause would not adversely affect valuations of CSH’s properties. On the face of it, as you suggest, this does not make complete sense if genuine “sharing of risk” is involved. One would have to look at the details and rationale offered by JLL. It may be the case that the clause has been cleverly drafted to protect CSH’s interests (see above). But in any event, the clause has not yet been widely applied. I understand your point that CSH might end up caught between the demands of the RSH and the rights of its lenders. But as I see it, they are adopting the old bureaucratic tactic of “making haste slowly”. CSH can claim, with some justification, that they are engaging with the regulator’s concerns about compliance. They are also buying time, because the clause will not be rolled out yet and only “with the clear understanding that its inclusion will assist housing associations in achieving regulatory compliance”. The discussions with the lenders (I’m not sure I would call them “negotiations& |
Posted at 27/1/2023 11:18 by lucydesouza Up4itt, CSH agreed with certain customers to introduce a new clause to their leases - this was in Q2/Q3 last year. The RSH liked the new clause because it increased the "sharing of risk" between CSH and its customers. I think this initiative stemmed from the RSH's concerns over the financial health of the RPs. JLL (responsible for all CSH's valuations) said that the amendment doesn't impact the value of the leases to CSH, despite it increasing the risk that CSH is exposed to (!). However, last I heard, it still needed approval by CSH's lenders, and the language used in the interim results appears to downgrade the likelihood of the new clauses roll out.It would be nice to see CSH clarify whether this has indeed been approved by the lenders and share the actual language of the new clause. Otherwise, one might jump to the conclusion that the lenders have rejected the amendment and that CSH is caught between the demands of the RSH and the rights of its lenders. |
Posted at 24/1/2023 17:56 by lucydesouza "Round tripping" is when a company sends money to its customers that then comes back as reported income. In the case of Fairhome, some of the profits from the transactions with CSH were lent to a related party of Fairhome, called Westmoreland. And Westmoreland took on the leases with CSH. The money that Fairhome lent to Westmoreland helped pay the rent to CSH.That was a while ago, of course, but the opportunity for a similar set up still exists, at least in FY2022. For instance, CSH acquired properties from Herleva last year. Herleva is/was indirectly owned by SHO (the Isle of Man holdco that is part owned by CSH insiders). SHO also owns TLC Care which leases/subleases CSH properties. In a separate transaction last year, CSH sold the operating business of CPI Care to a subsidiary of SHO, at quite a low earnings multiple. So, you still have the same opportunity for profits from these transactions to end up coming back to CSH as rental income. CSH spent as much on acquisitions in FY2022 as it earned in operating cash flow, and at least half of its acquisitions involved some sort of related party transaction. In effect, broadly speaking, CSH borrowed money to pay the dividend having spent half its operating cash flows on related party transactions. I'm not saying that CSH are engaged in "round tripping" in the traditional sense. But it is a matter of public record that some of the profits earned by Fairhome ended up coming back to CSH as rent from Westmoreland. And the SHO structure that has profited from transactions with CSH is also paying rent to CSH through TLC Care. |
Posted at 18/1/2023 14:59 by lucydesouza The scheme: Flip the property into the REIT at a massive profit, round-trip some of the gains through the RPs as income. (RP stands for "regulated provider" but could also be "related party"). This is why so many of CSH's transactions are related party - they need to keep feeding their customers. Note: The Herleva Properties and CPI Care transactions in 2022FY (which represented half of CSH's acquisitions) effectively saw cash and/or an operating business taken over by customers of CSH. Herleva and CPI Care are part of the infamous Specialist Healthcare Operations structure. That structure includes TLC Care, which sublets some of the properties owned by CSH. In other words, the Herleva and CPI Care transactions effectively transferred value to customers of CSH, which in turn are controlled by Pridmore and his associates.This game of musical chairs will eventually stop when the customers of CSH become unable to pay the rent. How long will that be? Have they fired five bullets, or six? :) |
Posted at 18/1/2023 11:32 by catch007 The 'contagion' is actually the doubts and dark clouds across the whole sector now imho. Home appears to be a basket case and CSH was also recently subject to a shorting attack. It does appear CSH are being proactive to reassure investors, a prompt succinct response to alanpro1 is a good example as well as the steps taken re leases to satisfy regulators.We can't see under the bonnet for CSH or Soho so I hold with a watching brief. I added recently to CSH holding circa 59/60p on dividend considerations. The over arching consideration in social sector is the desperate need for such services - where do people go if these services become unavailable? |
Posted at 16/12/2022 10:29 by lucydesouza The yield is, on the surface, highly attractive. But I think there's a good reason for this.The history of CSH is one where massive profits were earned (not by CSH) through properties being flipped into the REIT at huge mark ups, with some of those profits coming back to CSH in rental payments through the RPs. Fairhome/Westmorelan Fairhome (a "property developer") would set up a shell company, which then bought a property. The shell company would then be sold to CSH at a big uplift in value generating a huge profit for Fairhome. This was repeated dozens of times generating tens of millions of profits for Fairhome. Some of those profits were loaned to Westmoreland, which became the tenant on the property taking on the lease with CSH. So, in effect, some of the profits from the flip were used to pay the rent on the property. But a big chunk of the profits were paid out in dividends by Fairhome or used to service steep interest payments on a "deep discount bond" that Fairhome had issued. And here's the kicker - Fairhome was financed by an entity called Beaufort, in Jersey. And who ran that vehicle? That's right: Tom Pridmore and his associates. That was just one of several schemes used to build the CSH portfolio. It's in that context (and many other related party transactions) that you have to assess CSH. It's easy to rely on this being an audited, transparent, publicly traded REIT, with the valuation fully and independently assessed by the mighty JLL, no less. But the valuations are all entirely dependent on the rental income, rather than a true a mark-to-market on the properties. In effect, this is mark-to-model with the key input in the model being the rental income. And if you think it's "all in the past", check this out: In the year to March 2022, at least half of of CSH's new property acquisitions involved a related party transaction of one sort or another... and those related parties are the same shrewd chaps involved with Beaufort. This is why the yield is high. |
Posted at 10/8/2022 11:53 by cwa1 courtesy of davebowler from elsewhere:-Liberum on Civitas Social Housing 2.7% NAV TR in Q2 2022 Mkt Cap £500m | Share price 81.8p | Prem/(disc) -26.9% | Div yield 7.0% Event Civitas Social Housing’s NAV per share of 111.9p, as at 30 June 2022, represented a NAV total return of 2.7% in Q2 2022. The 1.4% increase in NAV per share reflected lease indexation in the period, partly offset by capital expenditure on some of CSH's properties. The other impact on NAV in the period was attributable to share buybacks (+0.06p) impact. The net initial yield of the portfolio reduced marginally to 5.25% (Mar-22: 5.28 %). CSH completed one acquisition in Q2, located in Wisbech, Cambridgeshire, for £0.6m. The asset is immediately income generating and subject to indexed leases with Chrysalis, an existing CSH counterparty. Liberum view The quarterly update is broadly in line with expectations. A key catalyst for the shares continues to be the regulatory clause CSH has been working on, in partnership with its approved providers, to help facilitate their achievement of regulatory compliance. CSH trades on a 27% discount to NAV and offer a CPI-linked, 7.0% dividend yield (based on the FY 23 target of at least 5.7p) |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
