Sdic Power Discussion Threads

[sleepy] 06/12/2010 11:27

Speymill plc trading statement out today and Speymill plc shares have doubled

[davidosh] 06/12/2010 11:14

I am rarely shocked but the advisory fees and general charges in the annual accounts are truly ridiculous and of course not an executive director to be found nor FD to answer to my absurdity claims !!

Non execs at SDIC receive about 150% above the norm for an AIM company so why should they see all these fees as horrendously high ???

Examples....

The NOMAD...claimed 375k in the year to 30/6 that was nearly nine times higher than the previous year !! Why ?

The BROKER... pocketed 167k up from 101k. For what ?

The ADMINISTRATOR and REGISTRAR ...needed 259k to perform his duties but be thankful they are new and the last lot Galileo charged over 500k for the same work last year and the year before managed to get 550k.

The AUDITOR....WELL HE GETS TO SEE WHAT EVERYONE ELSE IS CHARGING so do not expect any favours there....244k and that was up 15%. Yup this is a recession and they are very competitive prices...lol

Truly shocking and Panorama will have a field day when they finish with FIFA

[davidosh] 05/12/2010 13:17

Has anyone done any accurate analysis of the following at SDIC ?


1. Total monies raised in funds to be invested in property ?

2. Total invested in property assets ?

3. Total spent on refurbishment ?

4. Fees over the period since launch including float costs ?

5. Fees charged to manage refurbishments ?

6. Fees charged to manage the tenants ?

7. Others fees charged including debt collection etc ?

8. Total rent collected ?

9. Total paid in interest charges ?

10. Other charges ?

11. Total paid to directors and related advisors ?


I suspect when we have the totals for each of these headings over the full period since to launch of this company through to the current day we will then have a good idea where the money has gone and who has gained and lost !

[alunmorris] 05/12/2010 09:35

I've made far more in other Mellon companies (EML, Polo Resources) than I've lost in SDIC.
Whilst a lot of investors distrust Mellon, why would he deliberately sully his reputation by twice tipping SDIC at Master Investor show? Driving up the share price? They didn't take the opportunity to make a big issue when they could have.

Mellon bought plenty at 30c and 6c so he did not want or expect shareholders to get shafted, at least at those levels.
I do think SDIC was cynically created to pay GOAL very high fees but that was in the price at 30c. The plan failed with GOAL's own goal of useless management which went unchecked by SDIC's placeman board.

[the troll] 02/12/2010 13:10

the only hope for 'trapped' shareholders ( IMHO ) lies in JM's own investment ( @ c 14%, or c 44m shares ) which must have cost him serious £m's to build over time. no one can afford to take that kind of hit very often & stay 'rich'. I cannot see his appointment as chairman stops him buying it ( & renegotiating the debt himself ) but the 'independent' directors of SDIC / the lenders / the receivers would need to endorse any deal ?

[scburbs] 02/12/2010 10:56

The company only really has the PLC level cash, disclosed at €6.5m as at 30 June 2010 plus the unencumbered properties that have miraculously appeared from left field only in time to be offered to Jim Mellon as security for his loan! The other safe asset (i.e. the lower geared properties) they gave to SYG. The rest of the NAV is made up of the subs that the banks are enforcing against. There is no reason to believe that the company can hold on to the €6.5m cash as they have wasted the PLC level cash at an unbelievable rate. A textbook example of the opposite of what a highly geared group with no bank security at PLC level should do!

[steve36] 02/12/2010 10:26

If the properties were sold at book value - which is supposedly market value - then there would be a surplus left for shareholders of > €.30. However, in a fire sale they will do well to raise sufficient to repay the loans let alone leave any surplus. It only takes a 10% discount to leave shareholders with nothing - except I suppose Goal. How stupid do the directors look, the day after they announced confidence in reaching a satisfactory conclusion. I hope noone here bought on the back of that - I was tempted to add, but fortunately managed to resist.

[sleepy] 01/12/2010 23:19

What, if any, assets do they have other than the companies in trouble?

[the troll] 01/12/2010 22:14

....the Company, itself, remains SOLVENT....& has net assets of E116.5m ?? ( per RNS ), what the hell does that mean ?? they can walk away & start again !

[bisiboy] 30/11/2010 15:45

thank you scburbs
is your take that there is now no option other than a wind up.
it is most strange that the anouncement came the day after the results, obviosly i am bitter but cant help but feel there has been negligence somewhere.

[scburbs] 30/11/2010 15:20

Hardly a surprising response from the banks to the non-payment of interest. Very poor (but entirely consistent with management performance) that SDIC have not focussed on keeping some of the Silos safe to ensure some value is safe for shareholders (e.g. the small silos with clear value that they have given away and the securitised one on which they may have been able to avoid default).

The enforcement of land charge security does not seem to be the quickest thing in the world for the bank (it is not clear whether the land charge is what they are trying to enforce or whether they are using another form of security). The enforcement of cross-collateralisation has also proved to be a problem on certain deliquent loans (not sure for Germany). A third staw to clutch at is that the property is held in Isle of Man companies which may cause additional enforcement problems.

"Normally, the documents involved in security provide for pre-conditions before the security can be enforced. Typically, the borrower must be in default or a declared default must have occurred. Generally, the lender must give notice of enforcement to the grantor of the security before starting enforcement procedures. In addition, a land charge (Grundschuld) must be terminated before enforcement; the mandatory termination notice period is six months.

Once the contractual requirements for enforcement are met, the land chargee/mortgagee may apply to the court to commence a public auction process and forced administration proceedings. Before proceedings can be commenced the land charge/mortgage deed must have been formally delivered to the property owner."

[horndean eagle] 30/11/2010 09:41

All the way through this has stunk. Acquiring exceptionally poor properties even after credit crunch started. Spending an absolute fortune refurbishing them for pretty much zero return. Lining the pockets of Goal and Speymill though all this refurbishment. When the investment managers have bled the company dry they then walk off with compensation for the management agreement being cancelled. Now we are left with all the liabilities. Need a full blown investigation into what has gone on. A claim against Speymill for the return of assets would be a start. At least there was equity left in those SPV we handed over to them.

[bisiboy] 30/11/2010 09:16

dont beleive this
so we have paid speymill for goal which on a wind up wouyld become a liability to us.
some serious questions to answer for some!

[gary1966] 30/11/2010 07:39

Think I can w/off this money now!!

[envirovision] 29/11/2010 11:42

Well I have seen how vacancy rates have been improving at Gagfah this year.

I can only conclude for vacancy to have faired so badly here, that many of the properties are becoming un-inhabitable.

[hosede] 29/11/2010 11:33

Scburbs can't disagree with that!

[davidosh] 29/11/2010 10:42

That is simply a stunningly awful amount deducted in fees compared to income achieved on the property portfolio especially when 15% of the properties are empty. Have the directors made full comparisons with other property managers in Germany to see how this performance compares ???

In previous years there has been a results presentation. What happened to that or are they no longer singing about their achievements as property managers and telling us that the refurbishment programme will solve the problem ?

[scburbs] 29/11/2010 08:43

Total fees paid to the Manager and related entities, an eyewatering €31.9m! (including the termination payment)

"The former Manager is considered to be a related party. Management and termination fees paid to the former Manager during the year amounted to €17,607,920 (2009: €10,220,729). This amount includes investment advisory fees paid to GOAL service GmbH ("GOAL"). GOAL (the Investment Adviser) is related to the former Manager and performs property management and administration related services. Management and administration fees payable to GOAL for the year amounted to €10,999,988 (2009; €7,038,858).

Goal reporting services GmbH ("GRS") is also related to the former Manager and performs bookkeeping services. Bookkeeping fees payable to GRS for the year amounted to €1,066,428 (2009: €1,119,339).

GOAL construction GmbH ("GOAL construction") is also related to the former Manager and performs project management services. Construction project management fees payable to GOAL construction for the year amounted to €1,324,587 (30 June 2009: €2,039,734).

ZELOS Forderungsmanagement GmbH ("Zelos") is also related to the former Manager and performs collection enforcement services. Fees payable to Zelos for the year amounted to €940,546"

[scburbs] 29/11/2010 08:31

Mellon on board as Chairman so presumably not the one bidder for the entirety. Banks almost entirely in control since the non-payment of interest on 4 out of 6 facilities. Given the Mellon loan only extended to 7 January imminent action may be expected.

Confirmation that the most valuable assets (to shareholders) were transferred to SYG.

"Deutsche Genossenschafts-Hypothekenbank AG was the lender on the two smaller silos totalling €18m of debt. These two smaller silos were disposed of post period end through the transfer of the property owning subsidiaries holding these loans as part of the consideration for the termination of the Investment Management Agreement (see note 26 of the consolidated financial statements for further details)."

[scburbs] 25/11/2010 21:00

Hosede,

My take on it is more like the patient was fine, went in for a check up after a bit of a cold, but was operated on anyway (private hospital at significant cost!) and died.

[scburbs] 25/11/2010 12:28

"Germany's economy minister Rainer Bruederle has given an upbeat assessment of his country's recovery, including the assertion that "full employment will soon be possible".

He said that Germans were "doing well and spending again", and that domestic consumption was strong.

Data released this week showed German business confidence at a 20-year high.

...

"Germans are in an expansionary mood. We're investing again, we're consuming again, people are doing well and people are spending again," he said.

He added that domestic demand was now contributing more than half of the country's economic growth, while "the council of economic experts say next year 90% of growth will come from the domestic economy".

This is significant given that Germany is the world's second-largest exporter.

Mr Bruederle also said the German job market was in good health.

"There are fewer than three million unemployed now, down from five million. Even the number of long-term unemployed is now decreasing, which has never happened in the past," he said.

"I'm convinced that full employment will soon be possible.""

[davidosh] 23/11/2010 12:26

Still no results as I presume they are dependent on a funding solution for sign off. The finals came out in early October last year.