Quadrise Share Discussion Threads

[quepassa] 21/8/2015 13:39

sf5,

I concur with maiken that this is a less likely scenario, although it would ultimately be a great prognosis for the share price if the Bidco offer were rejected with no counter offer in my view.

A vote of no confidence by shareholders in the current management would hopefully follow and the current management would hopefully be ousted for recommending such a low-ball offer.

If so, new management would be installed who would be tasked to deliver on creating real shareholder value rather than selling out at a low price to an opportunistic buyer.

Recommending selling the Company at March NAV +7% to an American opportunistic/distressed fund/ buyer is an absolutely astonishingly short-sighted and bad idea in my view. - Zoopla have just demonstrated that Wembley flats have gone up by almost that much in the last six months.


They effectively are recommending giving the company away for NAV in my view. Of course, in so doing, Lazards ( of which QED's Chairman Rucker is CEO) would likely share handsomely in the £7.2million of advisory fees pencilled into the prospectus. And CEO Max James may or may not negotiate an even more attractive remuneration package with the new American Lords and Masters of Quintain if the deal goes ahead, than he may be getting in a publicly listed and scrutinised company.

But shareholders are effectively in my view being shut out of the future upside development potential inherent in Quintain, whilst management on the other hand see the early crystallisation of executive options.


How long ago was it that Chairman Rucker said he wanted to return Quintain to a dividend-paying company when he spear-headed the Rescue Rights Issue? Was it four or five years ago perhaps? He gets "nul points" for delivering on that in my opinion.

New management should be able to unlock much greater value than the lousy 131p tabled so far if BidCo fall away.

It remains wholly unsatisfactory that current management with a mere 0.3% holding recommend this offer in my opinion, having carried out all negotiations behind closed doors.

It is even more unsatisfactory and perplexing in my view that management have not even required the most basic of steps to safeguard shareholder interests by obtaining up-to-date property valuations. The London market has moved a lot in the last six months especially since the resounding single-party win by The pro-development Conservatives in the May General Election.

Why would anyone propose selling a property company on valuations which are now approaching six months old in such a strong market?


If BidCo fails at 131p as I sincerely hope it does and in my opinion deserves to, the price may temporarily back-track.


However, if a US buyer has already tabled 131p and they have an IRR target of 25% on their fund, you already know for sure that Quintain is intrinsically worth significantly more than 131p.

The demand for London housing grows stronger by the day.

In my opinion, this deal stinks at 131p.

A reinstatement of a dividend by a new management team would immediately see the share rise to around NAV. Quintain could then be built out and developed over time which would produce a much greater return for shareholders than the diminutive 131p which has been tabled.


Additionally, if the company is in play - someone else will come knocking sooner or later at a far better price than Lone Star in my opinion.


It is a truly dreadful offer in my opinion at 131p.




ALL IMO. DYOR.

QP

[quepassa] 21/8/2015 10:30

Each of TT, Carlson and Fortress have again increased via RNS last night/this morning their LONG POSITIONS in Quintain. Especially TT going from 1.88% to 2.84%.


Latest tally:-

TT Int'l 2.84%

Carlson 1.3956%

Sand Grove 2.14%

New Peak 1.14%

Fortress 2.74%


That is now more than 10%. Plus others with positions lower than the reportable 1% threshold.

Looks to me like the anti-131p-Bidco movement is strengthening.

Any intentional or unintentional tactics of launching a bid over the quiet August holiday period and before half-year valuations are due will fail.

Investors will see through that and will likely join in the growing chorus and demand new valuations for Quintain's properties in my opinion.


ALL IMO> DYOR.
QP

[maiken] 20/8/2015 19:12

sf5,the current bid could certainly be rejected with no counter offer.Unlikely but by no means impossible IMHO.

[sf5] 20/8/2015 17:40

Could the current bid be rejected without a counter offer? If so, what prognosis for the sp? Would it go as low as 115-120 p level, acknowledging there is value but no one yet able and willing to unlock it? I'm wondering if some of the recent new institutions are viewing this as a low risk gamble - eg prepared to vote in favour at the very last minute if there's no whisper of a better bid?

[quepassa] 20/8/2015 16:20

In addition to Carlson INCREASING ITS LONG POSITION in QED at a price in excess of 131p, each of

- Highgbridge Capital from 2.26% to 2.77%

- Sand Grove CapMan from 1.89% to 2.14%

- TT International from 1.84% to 1.88%


have also similarly FURTHER INCREASED LONG POSITIONS as per RNS's today.



According to my calculations the tally of various LONG POSITIONS which have recently been added to at prices in excess of 131p is now as follows


-Fortress 2.74%

-New Peak 1.14%

-Highbridge 2.77%

-Sand Grove 2.14%

-TT Int'l 1.88%

-Carlson 1%




But the fascinating thing is the following.


These COMBINED POSITIONS alone add up to more than 9.5%.


I have to believe, in my view only, that there are other houses with smaller non-disclosable LONG CFD/physical share positions which would take the existing 9.5% figure (perhaps significantly) over the 10% level which is the trigger for BIDCO being capable of declaring that the offer could go UNCONDITIONAL.


Whilst it is clear that a good proportion of these figures is for CFD's, a not insignificant amount is also for physical securities which carry voting rights.


In my opinion only, these collectively augmenting LONG POSITIONS are likely to be indicative a surging ground-swell against the 131p BidCo offer.


Ask yourself the following question, if you just increased a CFD at a price over 131p and also held physical shares, which way would you vote on the 131p offer?


ALL IMO. DYOR.
QP

[quepassa] 20/8/2015 10:01

At yesterday's close, UBS Investment Bank (UBS London Branch) announced a major Shareholding in Quintain of more than 5%. More than 27million shares.

The RNS says that prior to this, UBS had a zero holding.

The RNS does not say that UBS are holding it for anyone else other than themselves. The RNS does not mention any nominee accounts.

Any views please on:-

1. Who sold the chunky position?

2. How much UBS paid for it?

3. Why UBS bought it?


As UBS have not in my understanding been a stalwart long-standing Major Holder, one can but ponder their motives in now picking up a 5% stake in Quintain.


With a 5.14% holding, UBS come straight in as the fourth largest Major Shareholder, behind Bank of America, BlackRock and Standard Life.

More than 5% of the voting rights being held by a newly declared Major Shareholder is not without interest.

ALL IMO. DYOR.
QP

[quepassa] 20/8/2015 07:30

With reference to my post 6847 yesterday, another hedge fund takes further exposure to QED by BUYING A LONG CFD at a price IN EXCESS of 131p.



If I read the RNS correctly, Carlson already owned physical equities of just less than 1%.

Today's RNS relates to increasing their overall position to just more than the REPORTABLE 1% threshold.

The new LONG CFD position at 131.2p is small (only 150,000 shares) but importantly takes Carlson over the 1% hurdle by which holders must openly declare positions of 1% or more.

Isn't that a bit like jumping on a wall and waving a flag in the face of Quintain, saying - "look here I've got 1% too"!!

In my opinion, Carlson wanted to make their position public by buying this small CFD position.

Why would a hedge fund do that? - I think I know the answer.

ALL IMO. DYOR.
QP

[r ball] 19/8/2015 23:23

Has anyone got Bloomberg and can they flash up shareholding list?

[r ball] 19/8/2015 23:22

Makes sense.

[davidosh] 19/8/2015 21:51

The other interesting fact is that if say 20% of new buyers are taking shares and expecting above £1.31 to ensure a healthy profit then they are going to vote against the offer and also we know that there are many PIs who are voting against so that along with a few long term holders who may be equally disappointed should allow the deal to be at least blocked for now forcing a higher price to be offered to get the yes vote they need or walk away !!

[r ball] 19/8/2015 17:37

Quite.

No reason to accept.

[quepassa] 19/8/2015 15:01

Interesting.

Both Highbridge Capital Management and Sand Grove Capital management have TODAY further increased their LONG CFD positions in Quintain at prices in excess of the 131p Bailey Offer price.


Here are some of the CFD ( and some equity) LONG POSITIONS which have either been taken out or recently increased at prices in excess of 131p since the Offer from Bailey/Bidco appeared:-


-Sand Grove Capital Management now LONG 9.965m or 1.89%

-Highbridge Capital Management now LONG 11.92m or 2.26%

-Fortress Investment Group LLC now LONG 14.425m 0r 2.74%

-New Peak Capital Partners LLC now LONG 6m or 1.14%

-TT International now LONG 9.65m or 1.84%


I guess you would only take out or increase LONG CFD or equity positions at a price above 131p if you thought there was a reasonable expectation that the initial 131p BidCo offering price will be exceeded one way or another.


Personally, I think this horse still has a long way to run before the finishing post.

When you look at the ZOOPLA price increases in Wembley over the last six months, it will certainly make investors consider the wisdom or otherwise of countenancing a low-ball offer based on March valuations.

It remains in my view wholly unacceptable and inappropriate that newly updated valuations have not been provided by Quintain.


ALL IMO> DYOR.
QP

[r ball] 18/8/2015 20:20

any thoughts mcks or urban and civil as alternatives to QED post take out?

[r ball] 18/8/2015 18:20

ps: don't accept. after all only the institutions have a meaningful holding/say on events.

[r ball] 18/8/2015 18:19

deadline a way off. patience.

[aberdare] 18/8/2015 12:45

looking thro the notices it looks like fortress have added a further 1000000
in the last 4 days so hope is not dead of a increase offer.

[aberdare] 18/8/2015 12:42

sand grove have added nearly 800000 in the last 4 days so they are looking for a further rise or am I misreading the notices.

rgds

[cszjrh2] 18/8/2015 10:59

Watching this drift back towards the offer price I'm fearing the "worst" and turning my attention to researching potential homes for my money should the bid go ahead. Anyone spotted any other similar commercial/residential property plays? My ideal would be similar MCAP (so itself a potential takeover target), manageable leverage, London or SE focussed with a discount to NAV ;). That formula has served me very well over the last couple of years as I originally held Minerva (MNR.L) and when they were taken over I switched to QED. If I can get a hat-trick that will probably be the mortgage paid off :)

[r ball] 17/8/2015 12:39

no hurry. might as well take the maximum time to decide.

£1.45 anyone??

[dov] 17/8/2015 09:59

what i dont understand if this is such a steal why has no one else tabled a better offer ?

[quepassa] 17/8/2015 09:41

A search on HIGHLY-REGARDED Zoopla this morning shows that the value for flats in WEMBLEY has increased by:-

a figure of 3.28% over three months AND an ASTONISHING 6.92% over 6 months.

How the valuers can say that ther has been no material difference in values since March beggars belief in my opinion.


In view of the above, selling Quintain at 7% over March NAV is an absolute disgrace in my view.


Shareholders need to DEMAND NEW CURRENT VALUATIONS in my view.

If ZOOPLA is publicly showing an uplift in value of Wembley flats by almost 7% in just six months, this seems very much at odds with surveyors saying there is no material difference in values since March.

ALL IMO. DYOR.
QP

[911man] 14/8/2015 13:27

My view is the CEO has to go!!

[quepassa] 14/8/2015 13:19

True.

Excellent example about St. Modwen.


But it certainly doesn't take long to tell your brokers to decline any ridiculously low offer. As I know from personal experience.


In my guess more and more investors are coming round to the realisation that this may be a really low offer for Quintain.

Without reference to Quintain, I wonder to myself how CEO remuneration for a London-centric property company which is publicly listed and publicly scrutinised may or may not compare to CEO remuneration/incentivisation for a similar property company which is privately owned by a USA private equity fund.


On a different note, the management/ performance/ Return fees and percentages which the managers/advisors may or may not be taking on Lone Star Ref IV are very interesting in my opinion.


I also wonder to myself whether the management of Quintain are doing their reputations much good within the property market by recommending a sale of the Company they manage at a price barely above NAV in such a strong market.

Does seem very strange to me -and perhaps to many others- that any London-centric property company with such a strong portfolio thinks it is worth barely above NAV.

Just can't work that one out.


ALL IMO. DYOR.
QP

[kramch] 14/8/2015 12:30

Enlightening to compare St Modwen's with Quintain, similar urban regeneration focus, SMP have the New Covent Garden development to go at in Nine Elms.

All except that their Market Cap is 144% of NAV, and we are being taken out at estimated NAV.

Shocking that the default setting for the brokers is to accept unless account holders advised otherwise.

K.