We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quadrise Plc | LSE:QED | London | Ordinary Share | GB00B11DDB67 | ORD 1P |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.0375 | 2.58% | 1.49 | 1.435 | 1.545 | 1.52 | 1.435 | 1.50 | 7,414,909 | 16:35:03 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Crude Petroleum & Natural Gs | 0 | -3.09M | -0.0021 | -7.14 | 22.42M |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
21/9/2015 10:02 | Not sure, I know scheme of arrangement has minimum 75%, but I thought a takeover not done as a scheme of arrangement could operate with a lower threshold. | scburbs | |
21/9/2015 10:01 | As far as I understand ( but check for yourself) , there are two thresholds under the TAKE OVER CODE:- 1. If you get 75% acceptances you can go unconditional and apply to take the company private. 2. If you get 90% you have the automatic right to buy up the balance of shares. That is to say the right to compulsory purchase any balance of outstanding shares over 90%. Bidco/Bailey had built into their offer another Acceptance Condition of their own choice that they would only complete the bid ( SUBJECT TO CHANGING THE FIGURE - as they did on Friday ) if they got 90% acceptances. Effectively they had put a rider/condition on their bid, over and above Take-Over code regulations. On Friday, they changed that condition to bring it in line with the Take Over Code figure of 75%. My personal interpretation of the initial Bidco 90% Acceptance Condition was that they wanted to be conservative and perhaps initially felt confident of getting 90% without too much difficulty - and/or perhaps wanted a useful get-out clause if something transpired during the bid process. Perhaps also an indirect way of encouraging investors to accept the offer. But this 90% figure was never set in stone unlike the Take Over Code figures so it was always a flex figure. My personal interpretation of the Friday announcement is that they do not feel confident of getting a knock-out 90% so they lowered it, as they had the right to do, to the lower Take-Over code figure of 75%. So you might have had a position if they got 80% (hopefully not!) where they had the right under the Take-Over Code to go unconditional but their own Acceptance Condition of 90% effectively barred them from completing. I always personally viewed the special BidCo 90% figure as a technicality/get-out clause and viewed the Take Over Code figures as the real hurdles. Now both figures are aligned at 75% . The clock is now ticking fast. Second Closing is this Wednesday 23rd at 1300hrs. You'll know pretty soon after that if they get 75% or not. If they do get 75%, they have effectively won at 131p and can go unconditional and they would most likely apply to delist. The Offer will in my understanding then remain open for at least 14 days so that you can still accept the 131p. If they don't get 75%, they have two main choices. 1. Either to walk and that's curtains for the bid, or 2. To increase the bid and post a new offer document at a higher price. This is only my interpretation of the rules and offer ,so read the prospectus for yourself please. My personal view is that it is touch-and-go if they will get 75%. But that's my guess only given the relatively low 53% acceptance level at First Closing combined with the growing strength of the property market. If I had to put a figure on it - in my view and guess only- it is 50/50 that they will get 75%. If they don't get 75% - in my view and guess only - it is 70/30 that they would increase the bid. I must stress that these are my personal views and guesses only and nothing more. ALL IMO. DYOR. QP | quepassa | |
21/9/2015 09:37 | QuePassa, that's how I understood it under Take Over Code Rules. 75% minimum. | winsome147 | |
21/9/2015 09:34 | But surely they are caught by the Take Over Code at 75%. If they don't get 75%, they cannnot go unconditional and the whole bid collapses under the regulations of The Take Over Code with the 53% being returned to shareholders. ALL IMO. DYOR. QP | quepassa | |
21/9/2015 09:15 | Winsome147, The acceptance condition is part III section A1, i.e. the offer is conditional upon acceptances at least equal to the acceptance condition which was set at 90%. The acquirer is free to reduce this to 75% and they are also free to reduce it to 50.1%. Given they have over 50% already this ability could be a worry for holders, albeit their ability to implement their plans would presumably be much more constrained if they reduce it below 75%. | scburbs | |
21/9/2015 08:24 | I must admit I don't understand Friday's announcement either. The threshold was always 75%. Anyone else know? | winsome147 | |
21/9/2015 07:37 | Surely 131p is too low for Quintain in my view, as Bloomberg today reports that "UK House Prices Hit Record High as Squeeze leads to Extremes." Stating that "London led asking prices for UK homes to an all-time high in September..", the Bloomberg article highlights in my opinion why the 131p offer of March NAV + 7% is looking increasingly historic, out of date, out of touch and unattractive in my opinion. Link to full article: My guess is that the London portfolio may have moved up in value by some 5% so far this year, if not more. At a price/premium based on a March NAV of +7%, in my guess this is likely equating to a price/premium based on today's September values of barely above book value/net asset value. It seems to me that the great recent uplift in London property values since March is being handed to Lone Star for free. ALL IMO. DYOR. QP | quepassa | |
18/9/2015 21:23 | Directors that look after themselves and not shareholders are mentioned in this weeks show... | davidosh | |
18/9/2015 16:53 | I thought 75 was always the manic no what's changed | dov | |
18/9/2015 16:20 | Bidco is pleased to announce that it has reduced the percentage of Quintain Shares required to satisfy the Acceptance Condition to 75 per cent.So not so many more acceptances. | richard xii | |
18/9/2015 15:02 | Ok, come on, which of you just sold almost 4.9 million shares at 129.75p....?!So someone doesn't believe the offer will be increased, or go through, or is comfortable leaving £60K on the table and getting their hands on their cash a few weeks early...Interesting to see who when the RNS comes out. SoP | cszjrh2 | |
18/9/2015 09:06 | all fund manager who hold at QED should read this story to think ?? And make mind up is QED worth more or not ?? HOUSE prices are growing at a robust pace this month while mortgage lending has surged as the housing markets heat up. Estate agent Knight Frank’s house price sentiment indicator today scored 59.3 for September, with scores above 50 indicating price growth. The fastest current growth is in London. Households’ overall expectations of price growth over the next 12 months nudged up to a score of 70 from 69.5. However, prices in the south are expected to rise much more quickly than those in the north. | jaws6 | |
18/9/2015 08:53 | Another vote against - with my modest holding. Property is a long term investment and selling at a 'current' discount makes no sense. | inki | |
17/9/2015 23:54 | The Fed's 'hold' this evening must make QED more attractive on future returns basis, unless things in China get very 'iffy' and cause significant contagion. The refugees/economic migrants can only put more pressure on available housing stock. Can't see any point in accepting during the extension period. May as well just wait it out. | glavey | |
17/9/2015 11:00 | I voted no ofr my substantial holding. I don't necessarily think Lone Star will up their bid once they fail at 131p, or if an alternative buyer will offer upwards of 140p. But at least the share price should still hold up at current levels as the market knows what the company is worth and will still anticipate a better offer down the line. It's a no brainer. Let's hold out for 140p+. | winsome147 | |
15/9/2015 13:35 | Hi QP, Likewise I've rejected their lousy offer. With some takeovers it can be a difficult choice cash now or value later but I have no qualms in rejecting this offer. Yet another article in today's City A.M.: 'Housing crisis deepens as new listings dwindle' 'The UK is facing a housing supply shortage , with London particularly badly hit' 'New property listings fell 6.6% across the UK last month, while the number of homes put up for sale in the Capital slumped a staggering 24.8%' This article is based on the Property Supply Index compiled by HouseSimple.com With every day that goes by 131p looks more unattractive. It's time OUR Board recognized that this offer is not in THEIR shareholder' best interest and withdraw their recommendation. Regards, Maddox | maddox | |
15/9/2015 04:32 | For avoidance of doubt, I have again DECLINED and SAID NO to the extended 131p offer in respect of all of my holdings in Quintain. I have instructed my stockbrokers accordingly. In my opinion, the 131p offer significantly undervalues the true worth of the Company. ALL IMO. DYOR. QP | quepassa | |
14/9/2015 12:17 | Hi Jaws6, Whatever makes you think that the management, PR firms, analysts and financial institutions are not reading the BBs? In my experience they certainly are. Regards, Maddox | maddox | |
14/9/2015 10:23 | Well, you certainly make a very, very interesting point. Many people perhaps might agree. I always like to see a bid rejected a couple of times before finally being accepted and recommended by management at a higher price. I also much prefer when a Company informs its shareholders that they are in preliminary discussions with a certain party which may or may not lead to an offer being made for the Company. I'd love to know management's rationale for not doing that in this situation. In my opinion it is good market etiquette and good corporate governance to let shareholders know that you are in preliminary discussions. ALL IMO. DYOR. QP | quepassa | |
14/9/2015 10:22 | Why big shareholders not looking what we reading here .Not doing proper job them managers taking 131 p . 6904 post does raise some questions for QED board . | jaws6 | |
14/9/2015 10:18 | All I have today re instructed to reject the offer on my behalf. I'm sure we will receive at least 1.50 per share if we hold out. | colly01 | |
14/9/2015 10:09 | QuePassa - there appears to be a massive conflict of interest here. The present management are likely to stay and get paid more under the ownership of Lone Star.... they have very few shares in Quintain.... the whole thing in my view stinks...... investors are being taken for mugs... | trytotakeiteasy | |
14/9/2015 10:06 | According to an article dated 21st August in The Estates Gazette, the approach to Quintain by Lone Star took place a couple of months before the formal offer. It remains in my opinion unsatisfactory that Quintain did not inform shareholders or the market that they were in preliminary discussions. The Estates Gazette article references a rare interview with Angus Dodd, Lone Star's MD of UK and Ireland which makes fascinating reading. The article also states the following: "It will not be amalgamated with other aspects of the Lone Star portfolio or be taken on by its asset management arm Hudson. All of Quintain’s management is expected to remain in place." What I personally do not understand is the how article can report that management are expected to stay in place if any of salary/incentivaisat Although, nothing has been formally agreed in terms of a retention plan for Quintain senior management and executives, in my view it should be made public knowledge what, if anything, may or may not have been discussed in principle and or outlined in terms of a retention plan for senior management. The article also discusses that a new Masterplan for Wembley is expected to be submitted early next year to Brent to incorporate parts of Quintain's unconsented lands, including the down-at-heel nearby Wembley Retail Park. I personally do not recall, inter alia, that such information was given in the Offer Document about a New Masterplan or about Wembley Retail Park. It seems to me in my opinion only that this may or may not be material information. A new Masterplan would undoubtedly release significant extra value from the current Quintain estate in my view. This in many ways is one of the reasons why, in my opinion,the price of 131p remains wholly unsatisfactory and does not in my view represent fair value nor compensate shareholders adequately for the build-out potential of Wembley. My personal reading of the article is that a fair amount seems to have been going on behind the scenes. The article which speaks to Angus Dodd, MD UK/Ireland of Lone Star is in my view important reading for Quintain shareholders. Link to full article The article includes the words:- "In Lone Star’s view, the estate is worth more than the sum of its parts." . Personally, I cannot disagree with that statement but it makes me believe that far too much of the likely upside inherent in Quintain is being given away at a price which is FAR TOO LOW at 131p. The above article certainly reinforces my personal view that the 131p remains wholly unacceptable. ALL IMO. DYOR. QP | quepassa | |
14/9/2015 08:06 | Hi Guys, Lone Star Cowboy's will be considering what price they need to pay to secure the 75% acceptances they need. The more rejections they get to this extended (re-tabled) offer, the higher the price they will pitch. I've just rejected again the lousy offer for my holdings, and suggest all holders do likewise. Just say NO! Regards, Maddox | maddox | |
11/9/2015 11:34 | Hi QP Just to further emphasise your point. The 7% 'premium' that our Board have gladly accepted is a premium to NAV. Whereas the house price inflation of 6% will apply to the GROSS value of the completed developments. The NAV is net the debt which will not be subject to the inflation. Regards Maddox | maddox |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com |
ADVFN UK Investors Hub ADVFN Italy ADVFN Australia ADVFN Brazil |
ADVFN Canada ADVFN Germany ADVFN Japan ADVFN Mexico |
ADVFN France ADVFN US ADVFN Korea |