C.H. Bailey Share Discussion Threads

[chrisdgb] 01/10/2007 09:26

I take the view that the value is clearly there, we can expect news on Malta in the short term. This will be a 'value crystallising' event and the share price as we know will move in one swoop. I have 45,000 shares and look forward to the next 12 months/holding tight.

[whilest2] 30/9/2007 09:52

Who are the 'newcomers' ansc - I have been a shareholder for over 25 years and have tried also to get answers from the company.What they don't want is a strong outside shareholder voice - as they still treat the company like a family business. What have they done about consulting their advisors who I assume told them to re-construct in the proportions they did and take themselves off the main market? Yes there is hidden gold in the property.

[ansc] 30/9/2007 08:31

I like the way these newcomers to the thread seem to know all the answers whereas we, the long-term investor sufferers, appear to know nowt about the company and its directors in spite of having spent years of frustration in trying to get answers out of the Bailey hierarchy - I've lost count of the years BLEY has been known to be a fantastic property play!

The sole reason that the company has never been taken private is that it would necessitate a TRUE valuation of its worth and the Bailey family would shirk at paying a fair price as such!!

[whilest2] 30/9/2007 00:13

Big.............Don't bully me - and learn some courtesy.

[bigbullman2] 29/9/2007 22:23

baggyrinkle - dont forget these are audited accounts and that the nomad has signed off the statements - Arden can't afford any more mishaps. I believe the value is in malta - prime sea front property - check out what a 3 bedroom flat can fetch in Malta with sea view. if you assume x acres can yield y units per acre at an average price of z...etc etc.

For whatever reason this company is commited to being in the quoted environment, look to the next stage of bringing in a property developer and by keeping a share of the development in house the upside could be massive.

whilst2 these things take time - the company has changed more in the last three years than its previous 80 - I sincerely hope you sell your 2 shares and smash the price so I can buy more. You are clearly not suited to be an equity investor can you go and whinge on another board please.

[whilest2] 29/9/2007 21:59

Why are the directors so anxious not to spend money on a valuation of the real assets of the company? The so called reconstruction was after advice from their consultants - it was to create a market but the family took such a bag of the new shares in exchange that there are few shares around - the truth is that no outsider wants anything to do with this load of..........
Sell up the property assets and distribute to the shareholders and then the bitty rump of businesses left can be the playfield for the family.

[baggywrinkle] 29/9/2007 18:41

Although the directors have put a market value of £25,000,000 on freehold and leasehold land and buildings, we do know not in which countries this value lies.

I had been assuming that much was in Malta. However, the area in Malta owned by the company is, I believe, not that great.

It occurs to me that a much higher proportion than I previously expected may be in Africa. If this is so, I would be inclined to apply a larger than normal discount to property values. Tanzania may be relatively normal, but I know, based on years of trading with the continent, that there is greater hysteresis when doing business there than in Europe.

Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to the split by location of the group's property assets ?

Callum: Maybe they would have to pay tax on the uplift, so prefer low figures until a deal is done which yields cash to pay tax ??

[ansc] 29/9/2007 17:13

"In the directors' opinion, the market value of freehold land and buildings...."

Before we all get carried away dreaming about future riches, let's remember what the directors predicted about share marketability, etc before the share reconstruction took place - how accurate did that turn out to be? If everything in the garden was that rosy (i) why is the share price languishing where it is, virtually half the value it was pre-reconstruction and (ii) why has so little progress in bringing these developments to fruition been made in the past 12 months?

Seeing is believing as far as this long-suffering shareholder is concerned!

[bigbullman2] 29/9/2007 16:54

Wow wakey wakey everyone as baggywrinkle points out the value of f/hold is in excess of £20m and long leasehold in excess of £5m per the 2007 report and accounts. Last year the numbers were £15m and £4m - so a £6m uplift is great progress. There must be lots going on behind the scenes for them to be comfortable to talk about such an uplift. Such values will be BEFORE any development gains. Bailey remains a gold mine of property - be patient and shareholders will be rewarded. £3.15 estimate of Baggywrinkle looks conservative.

[callumross] 29/9/2007 15:33

why, oh why, is the company not then putting the true value of the properties in the balance sheet? - I just don't understand it.

[whilest2] 29/9/2007 13:43

good points baggywrinkle - and that does not include the development value in Malta. Also what on earth is the company doing owing those huge directors salaries - who hasn't been paid and why - if they were the loss would be greater unless provision has been made....what is it all about?

[baggywrinkle] 29/9/2007 13:04

Annual report has interesting figures on market value of assets:

From Directors report:
"In the directors' opinion, the market value of freehold land and buildings is in excess of £20,000,000, and leasehold land and buildings is in excess of £5,000,000."

Updated NAV calculated as follows:

Freehold land and buildings at market £20,000,000
less book value 31/3/07 £5,576,636 per report
= Surplus over book £14,423,364

Leasehold land and buildings at market £5,000,000
less book value 31/3/07 £1,443,929 per report
= Surplus over book £3,556,071

Total surplus over book 31/3/07 = £17,979,435
Equity per accounts at 31/3/07 = £8,328,526

Equity including property at market value = £26,307,961

Shares in issue at 31/3/07 8,335,414

Adjusted gross NAV per share £3.15p

It is slightly worrying to see in NOTE 26 to the accounts that cross guarantees and debentures have been given, secured on the UK subsidiary, Malta, and Tanzania, to secure bank borrowings totalling respectively £128,051, £479,619, amd £389,451.

Company also owes Directors £380,159 (on which no interest charged).

This smells of group being strapped for cash, and therefore potentially under pressure to do a deal for short term cash reasons rather than maximising value of properties. I hope that I am wrong on this.

[whilest2] 27/9/2007 12:49

perhaps I should not dignify this share as having engendered a market opinion. It is just not even a minnow - run by the shrinking family - why should they begrudge the shareholders the right to have an up to date valuation of the property assets of the company on the grounds of its cost?

[whilest2] 27/9/2007 11:56

nobody wants to buy this wretched share - and can you blame them?

[whilest2] 27/9/2007 11:10

and look at what the market thinks - share price still marked down - still huge gap between bid and offer dead silence........This share will not move until a professional valuation shows the high NAV and either a dividend or
capital distribution emerges. Harrogate is right - this is not a plc company.

[harrogate] 27/9/2007 09:24

They could have been a lot worse and it is now entirely possible that the erosion of net asset value through trading is over.

Given they see asset value per share as an important number ( since they publish it ) why do they not show the number based on the £19m value of tangible land & buildings they put in that note last year - even as a secondary number.

I agree not a seller but I still see 2 year wait here - they didn't seem to suggest any imminent news on developments

[callumross] 27/9/2007 09:13

"But for the loss on the discontinued operation and adverse
exchange fluctuations the group would be reporting that it is profitable."

When was the last time CH Bailey was profitable at a trading level, at least! Only 3 months now to wait for the interims. Nothing in the results that makes me want to sell my humble 8000 shares. Too much future upside potential against limited downside risk by holding.

[callumross] 27/9/2007 08:52

still busy reading through the report chrisdgb!

[chrisdgb] 27/9/2007 08:39

surprised to see how quiet this thread is are all you doomsters sharpening your pencils??

[deep powder] 27/9/2007 07:22

Results early doors, a positive in itself. NAV 101p on v.low valuations, expect 'significant' developments in Malta...

[whilest2] 25/9/2007 13:45

mesquida
because we don't want to take our huge losses when the value is locked up in the company waiting to impact on the share price.

[whilest2] 25/9/2007 13:30

right on Harrogate - imho I don't see they either seriously care about the tiny outside shareholders and as for monitoring this site - codswallop. However there are dangers in their buying back the shares to go private before we know the real value of the underlying assets. I would put the minimum share value at £2.

[callumross] 25/9/2007 09:45

the strange thing is that you can sell in quantity for 3p more than the published bid price yet have to pay full whack if you are buying (and even then, only in 750 shares)

[mesquida] 25/9/2007 08:33

Still do not understand why some of you guys continue to hold when you are so obviously unhappy with the stock.

[harrogate] 25/9/2007 08:20

Monitoring posts !!!! - You're having a laugh aren't you -