|Sme Loan Fd
||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
Sme Loan Fd Share Discussion Threads
Showing 51 to 72 of 75 messages
|You'd think his maiden purchase would be at 90p placing price, but he's still paid less than NAV:
"The Company was notified on 14 March 2017 that Mr Richard Hills purchased 15,294 Ordinary Shares on 14 March 2017 at a price of 97.50p per share. "|
|A lovely rise back up, yet still trading below NAV. Hope SQN can get the cash currently in the co to work ASAP.|
|There were much earlier transfers between SMEF and GLIF which included GLIF taking back some impaired loans. I believe that SMEF has closely monitored the quality of the portfolio and the performance (including recent loans acquired from GLIF platforms)has been good. As you say, SQN would also have conducted DD on the portfolio.|
|Thanks for comments @james188, interesting to hear from someone who's been in SMEF from the start.
Hoping/expecting that SQN had a good look at the portfolio before agreeing to take it on - kitchen-sinking was my only concern. Am sure part of that process is why they made GLIF take on part of the book. The original SMEF book will become less important over time, particularly after SQN have raised more cash, as I'm sure they will do over the next year.|
|I have been a holder of SMEF since it launched and I am also a long term shareholder in GLIF. Actually, I am pleased with this deal from both those perspectives and relieved that it went through. The alternative would have been much worse.
SMEF never achieved anything like the intended size that was hoped for, although it has actually performed well in comparison to its peer group. This was partly down to the general malaise in the sector, but it is clear that investors have never been comfortable with the GLIF relationship, despite a number of tweaks to the original structure. As such,it was inevitable that the parties would need to go their separate ways.
A higher placing price would have been nice for GLIF, but it was really important that this placing was successful - and this for general credibility as much as to provide funds to pay off the expensive Sancus loan.
SQN provided an effective partial underwrite up to £7 million and so I think that the placing price had to be announced in advance. Probably not a coincidence that 90p per share was the written down value for the SMEF shares set out in the end June 2016 GLIF interims as part of a kitchen sinking exercise. It would have been hugely difficult for GLIF to accept a lower strike price. SMEF as managed by SQN has a different focus and so I also think that it made sense to exit some GLIF related loans - although it seems that some remain. It would be interesting to learn which ones - maybe those where the British Business Bank/Irish Strategic Investment Fund are co-lenders?
Time to move on.|
|Hopefully all those disappointed in the placing will look ad n the market|
|Yes topped up this morning. Very excited about this now. SQN can make an immediate impact with the funds already on the BS plus the £5m from GLIF and the substantial repayments due in April and May. Getting on for 30% of NAV isn't it? Need to do the maths. Medium term get the price up around NAV then look to further placings at a premium|
|Interesting seeing the trades pile through - in particular, somebody took 25.3m shares in the placing, and from my guesstimate of the scaling back, had asked for nearer 48m.
Appears to be at least 20 separate new holders from the trades so far - the 3.3m is of course SQN's shares. Not sure about some of the suspiciously round numbers (2x 1m, 1x 250k) & how they relate to my guess at the scaling back %.
Any which way, significantly more demand at 90p than could be supplied. The losers are GLIF, who clearly could have got more than 90p for their stake. Then again, with a loan due for repayment on the 15th, getting it away was the priority.|
|Substantially oversubscribed and scaled back - have to wonder why it fell to 89.5/89.75p.
GLIF also buying a few loans - seems SQN didn't want them despite the yield, but all good in hastening the repositioning fo the portfolio:
"Sale of Investments
Following its due diligence on SMEF's portfolio of loans, SQN identified a number of performing loans in the portfolio that are inconsistent with SMEF's proposed future investment strategy. GLIF has agreed to acquire these loans for cash at their aggregate face value (including accrued interest) as at 10 March 2017 of GBP5.27 million. Completion of the sale of these loans is expected to take place on or around 14 March 2017. "
And SQN only getting 3.3m shares, not £7m - does that indicate the extent of the scaling back?:
"SQN will acquire 3.3 million Placing Shares, representing 6.3% of the Company's issued share capital."
All looks good to me - the outcome we all wanted. Expecting a return to £1 in time, and wouldn't be surprised if next placing around that level, in say the next year IMO.|
|Did it go XD yesterday or not? Can't find mention of the March divi in the RNS, only the Feb one, and my data feed says no XD. But as the proposals are only proposals until voted on, I'd have expected divi to continue as before (& would also explain the mark down on the bid).|
|Just WINS unfortunately - faking is my guess! If we did that we'd have the FSA after us. I note he's not quite managed to go on the bid.
Edit - WINS yet to move back and although bid online is small size & only 89.5p, can no longer buy at 90p, so perhaps whatever overhang there was has been shifted. Still the small matter of placing tens of millions at 90p of course!|
|A sudden upward move in the offer price to 92.5p|
|@orinocor - but remember that relies on someone actually buying! As yet, it's up in the air. But per post above, I agree it's good news if they do get the placing away, and SQN appointed. I'd not have bought in otherwise.|
|My intepretation is not as negative as spec's and makinbuks. I don't believe a large shareholder can sell 45% of a company without it being at a large discount to what might be classed as fair value. So if they are selling it at 90p then whoever is buying must feel they are getting a more than generous deal.|
|@Kenny - best to read the recent RNS, they're about to undergo some big changes, in recognition of the fact that the co hasn't really succeeded in its original aims.|
|I don't know this company well so could someone who does comment on the following. The company does not seem to be producing sufficient returns to cover dividends so effectively the dividends are mostly return of capital?|
|Think we all agree the placing needs to get away, but WINS now below 90p on the offer - must be an element of "why take the placing price when can buy cheaper in the market".|
|From 90p to 115p in 5 years is a good return for people who have completely given up on life. Anyone paying 90p would have to be expecting a much better return than that surely?|
|Had a quick look at SQN Asset Finance Income Fund Limited and you can see the model they are trying to replicate here. Could be great if the placing gets away. Growing to the size they envisage depends on the shares being rated at a premium to NAV. GLIF and associates had the same plan|
|This is also significant:
"provide shareholders with an opportunity to vote on the continuation of the Company if it has not grown its net assets to more than £250 million by 31 December 2019."
So SQN have ambitious plans to raise funds and clearly see the demand to place that in the markets in which they operate|
|Also assumes little default risk?
I'm happy to buy here - but in the expectation it all goes through.|
|Today assets are c £53m costs are about 2% or £1m. To run off you need to maintain a company structure for maybe 5 years during which time costs reduce in a linear fashion to £200k in yr 5. Total costs £3m. Average loans outstanding through the 5 years of £24m (50% of current £48m) at 9% gives income of £11m. So you'd realize maybe £61m or £1.15 per share
That's very rough and rounded off the top of my head with no real research but its that sort of calculation that SQN are doing. Plus they get fees on the AUM as well.
So 90p is attractive if you have a medium to long term view but £1.15 in five years time is no use to you if you have loans to repay next month|