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.
| Etf Name | Etf Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| -3x Short China | SCHE | London | Exchange Traded Fund |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Etf Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.12 | -1.76% | 6.682 | 16:35:02 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.682 | 6.802 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 09/9/2011 14:06 by bridge2far is sche still suspended or what? |
Posted at 09/9/2011 12:09 by aspers Come on guys keep up....I am sure HC-One is a re-work of SCHE, next we will hear that Mr Buchan is the MD.......I dont mind losing money in a fair and square way but I have lost near £50K in this dodgy deal and I will not rest till Mr Buchan's dodgy dealings are exposed to the rest of the world!!!! |
Posted at 01/9/2011 18:02 by rbcrbc the rent concessions by Landlords who have deferred rent payments due in SeptemberWhy dont they just cancel the agreements to pay any rent, that way there may be a possibility of a small profit at the end, and encouragement for the landlords to bring this scenario to an end. Just defering the rents due does nothing for shareholders. OK failure to pay the rent or occupying the homes with no agreement would lead to the possibility of eviction but that would be on the heads of the landlords. Surely continuing to trade whilst there is certainty of never being able to pay the bills (deferred rent) is against the law ???? p.s QED who own 7 of the homes have a AGM on Monday pps Southern Cross Healthcare Group own 15 homes is that wholly own by SCHE ? |
Posted at 01/9/2011 14:35 by aspers "Jamie Buchan's decision not to take compensation when he steps down as Chief Executive later in the restructuring process is entirely consistent with the tireless and selfless approach he has adopted while leading the management team at Southern Cross." ...........Aye bloody right!!!!NOT.....sha |
Posted at 23/8/2011 12:15 by boffster The situation seems ridiculous to me. It would appear that a lot of these smaller LLs have told SCHE that they will no longer be using them, but it looks like they haven't got a clue who they want to run them instead. If you ask me, LLs resentful of SCHE's rent cuts are cutting off their noses to spite their face. To me it seems absurd that a group specialising in the provision of care for the elderly and infirm should cease to exist. But WTFDIK. |
Posted at 24/7/2011 14:28 by b1llyboy As far as business models go.Yell has £2.7bn debt with annual revenues of £200m and profit of £24m. I am pretty sure SCHE will end up with 200 homes and around £250m revenues. HNP say they don't want SCHE assets,but may use their services infra structure which will attract revenues. I'm pretty sure SCHE will have a part to play in future care homes. I would not class this current situation as administration. It's about getting fresh capital injected and fending off the vulture. Who's to say NHP will survive for more than a year. SCHE has far less debt than NHP,NHP are around 120% debt/equity ratio at current commercial property prices,which is in breach of their bank covenants,which are 85% debt/equity ratios. So therefore a restructured lease back model,is a better business model than a commercial property equity swap business model, in a falling commercial property market. Compared to NHP, a skinny SCHE would present itself as a far better model than an even more bloated,indebted property backed company with no health care infra-structure,expe And as for Mr patel who failed to sell CMG for £100m this years has only known growing markets,his prowess has yet to be tested in the NHP/current climate scenario. Markets need to focus on the precarious balance sheet of NHP in relationship to care of the elderly before they kill off SCHE. Still a lot to play for IMHO. |
Posted at 23/6/2011 18:23 by b1llyboy Mav......SCHE/LL's & Banks etc have 3 MONTHS after the Dilnot commission report is released. So the Dilnot commission will certainly influence the frame work for restructuring.Income sources and streams will have a major say in the financial future of SCHE via initial voluntary insurance schemes, raising of savings threshold and eventually mandatory insurance for over 50 year olds, etc. The Dilnot report will provide the necessary buffer for the government to implement it's reforms to the care of the elderly,that along with a summer of discontent,should provide a handy smoke screen. This is going to be one of the cornerstones in the current governments proposals to shake up the whole of the NHS.(privatisation) SCHE,BANKS,LL's(inve With regards to the share price price.The IPO in 2006 gave the stock a fair value of 250p with 750 care homes=NAV per home of 33p.So if they retain 400 homes that equates to 133p.Assuming the homes become profitable after loan burden restructuring,or am i being to simplistic. Anybody any views on future share price after restructuring. |
Posted at 16/6/2011 23:42 by b1llyboy B2F.......The residents won't be effected at all,if anything they are now ring fenced (high profile).My thinking is SCHE hold the trump card, the residents,SCHE knew this all along and played their hand beautifully. Add to the story directors selling at the top of the markets,and the share price having the tit's shorted off it after.No different in selling a motor with an iffy MOT. Smacks 100% of hedge fund activity.(evil shorter's, you know the rest). Hedgie's had a field day wiv this un. This was done and dusted the day blackrock flogged it,and gave their buddies the heads up on a sure bet,knowing the business model would fail should the markets go against them.Think sub prime CDS in house(Poulson) short selling the original ball buster.The rest is history. I have had a punt here on the strength of the JJB rescue. There is however one huge difference in the Two case studies,namely JJB cried wolf early in their predicament,naivety, SCHE have played their hand a blinder,experience,e The upshot being for me is the latter tactics say to me,SCHE knew the end game...........Gover I rest my case. |
Posted at 16/3/2011 11:56 by kenny Boffstar, this is the same graph you posted at number 4492 and to which I replied as below in post 4500. Last time around, you did not attempt to answer the questions posed in my response; do you wish to try this time? Also, no one has attempted to answer the four questions posed in my post 4485, do you wish to attempt it? The inconvenient facts of SCHE's financial position cannot be ignored because over time they worsen not improve. Kenny - 21 Aug'10 - 00:32 - 4500 of 7179 Boffster, I have no problem with your graph but it only serves to support my contention that SCHE is in serious financial trouble. Your problem is that you have been reading too many pop-up books, you need to get out in the real world and study SCHE's figures and then you would realise that the problem with this real world company is that they are making trading LOSSES, when in order for SCHE to fit into your theoretical view of it, they should at this time be making profits. Using your graph to demonstrate, I think it is agreed between us that because the deferred rent liability on the balance sheet is in the rising part of your blue line (left half of the graph), EBITDA adjusted for future minimum rental increases should currently be well above reported profits. It is only somewhat, because losses for the six months to 31 March 2010 were £17.9m. That loss of £17.9m adjusted to add back minimum rental increases of £26.3m gives a positive figure for the period of £8.4m. So I ask you to answer the same question I posed to you in an earlier post where is SCHE going to get the CASH to pay the rent increases when they crystallise? Note net cash flow for that period was only £7.8m and net cash held at the period end was only £6.8m. SCHE is accruing short falls by making actual trading LOSSES when ideally at this point on your graph it should be making SUBSTANTIAL profits on an adjusted EBITDA basis - at least close to if not exceeding the future minimum rental increases of £26.3m for that six months (being the flat green line on your graph). In the real world, they are behind the curve (or fallen off your graph, if you like); they fell short by £17.9m for just six months. If they repeat that in the second half that is a shortfall of £35.8m for one year alone. In effect, fee income increases are not keeping up with baked-in rental increases and this will likely continue for at least the next two years. Once we reach the point in time when SCHE enters the right half of your graph, as your graph states, adjusted EBITDA becomes less than reported profits, eventually materially so. I trust you will agree that at that time cash flow also becomes negative, eventually materially so. My point being that SCHE has to accumulate the cash or other assets on the upswing of the blue line which it then utilises at the point in time when it is in the right half part of your graph (as rent keeps rising, the red line). Where is that shown on your graph? Perhaps you would like to have another properly considered attempt at answering the four questions in post number 4485, in particular the fourth question about what the company will use to pay the balance sheet liability; currently £235m and rising at over £50m per annum. Would appreciate a chart or graph that shows exactly how that will be paid. |
Posted at 14/3/2011 12:34 by kenny If you cannot answer the four questions below, posted last August, I suggest you avoid investing in SCHE. Today's announcement confirms what I was posting from May 2010 onwards, namely that the ordinary shares have no ultimate value and will be wiped out, one way or another:Kenny - 20 Aug'10 - 19:09 - 4485 of 7021 As you state - dcroston - I am not the sage of SCHE so I am not required to answer each and every question. In any event I did not include depreciation in "my" cash flow. Please DYOR as you clearly have a much better understanding than me of SCHE. Lets see what the annual results to 30 September 2010 indicate and if the accounting losses are about £40m or so. Not one of the posters who sees a bright future for SCHE has acknowledged the company is making a loss let alone explained: 1. Why that loss is irrelevent to their reason for investing? 2. How will the company move from losses to profits? 3. How many years it wil take to move to trading profits and what will the projected losses be for 2010, 2011 and 2012? 4. Finally, and most importantly, if you wish to compute current profits ignoring International Accounting Standard 17, I agree that would mean the company is worth a lot more than 19p per share. However, to use that valuation basis a proper explanation of the source of money the company will use to pay such deferred rent - when it falls due - needs to be set out. This liability is accruing at £52.6m per year. For example, by the beginning of 2013 the deferred rent liability will have increased to £392m, currently £235m on the balance sheet. If you cannot answer this point alone, I can only assume that you agree that it is only a matter of time before SCHE goes bust because any company that cannot meet its liabilities will go bust. Please let me see posts that are as comprehensive in answering the above questions as my answers to your questions. Any one line throwaway posters will be ignored as not adding anything to the pool of knowledge. Also do not show your ignorance by quoting any EBITDA figures as EBITDA has no relevance to any of the above 4 questions. |
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
