Creo Medical Share Discussion Threads

[longsight] 23/4/2010 16:57

pump & dump job - doubt the Singaporeans will be so gullable [if it gets that far]

[newswseller] 23/4/2010 13:15

looks like the next leg up has started

[newswseller] 23/4/2010 08:41

just a reminder of why I am invested here

[birdman101] 22/4/2010 23:36

This is an extract from AMB property's Q1 update to investors, trascripted by Seeking Alpha:


-----------------

"Looking to China, government policy, spending programs and an improvement in employment continue to support the economic economy and drive strong growth. We had a significant pick up in leasing activity in our development portfolio in the first quarter signing more than 330,000 square feet. This includes our first lease at [inaudible] logistic center one month before shell completion. We continue to see China on the front end of the global recovery. While there is considerable media coverage about potential real estate bubble in China, much of this speculation is in the residential sector. The industrial markets have maintained a more solid footing.

Operator

Your next question comes from Mitchell Germain – JMP Securities.

Mitchell Germain – JMP Securities

Can you guys talk about your customers in China and why you feel you're so isolated from a potential residential bubble?

Guy F. Jaquier

I don't know that we said isolated from a residential bubble but residential is a different market. There seems to be a lot of concern over speculative purchasing of condominiums, individuals buying two, three, four trying to rent them, flipping them and that sort of thing and Chinese government is looking at this very closely, is trying to enact policy to put a damper on this partly because of the concerns they don't want prices getting away from frankly the common man so they can't buy a house."

------------------------------


This ties in much with what CREO and TH see and illustrates the mistakes people are making by looking towards the residential market as the only market in China.

CREO has no residential exposure. It has office exposure and retail exposure.

[lbo] 22/4/2010 23:05

IMF Warns of East-West Growth Divide



India will grow by more than 8 per cent this year and next, but even that breakneck pace will be outstripped by China – where a boost to annual national output of 10 per cent in 2010 and 9.9 per cent in 2011 is foreseen.

[flip101] 22/4/2010 16:45

Start of the next leg. Should hear about the Singapore list soon.

[mikeja] 22/4/2010 13:37

Neither REO or TH have any interest in CREO.

[kramch] 22/4/2010 13:19

what are TH and REO's remaining stakes and interests here now? K.

[mikeja] 22/4/2010 13:15

longsight,it is said that a wise man says something only once.Enough already.

[longsight] 22/4/2010 12:55

Eddie - I realise I have outstayed my welcome here but I think that the comparison with WCC is misleading. WCC have superb corporate governance, imho. I think corp gov is the whole issue for me here - you fail to see anything disturbing about the relationship between CREO, REO & TH & I think you are profoundly wrong about that.

The performance / management fee might be historical to you, but given the relationship between TH & CREO i.e. common directors, is it really no big deal that TH hoovered out over £50m in 2008 simply because the portfolio of properties appreciated due to a large extent just currency movements. Don't you think there is any issue here about just who this Co is being run for?

I appreciate the main objective of this BB is to ramp the shares as hard as you can - good luck, I just hope innocent investors don't get screwed in the process - but maybe I'm a bit naive to imagine this matters to anyone on here.

[bandit99] 22/4/2010 12:02

If they relist in Singapore will they still be easily trableable in London?

[flip101] 21/4/2010 13:59

Exactly. No one saying the company is perfect however it is trading at a huge discount. Likely to close in on the straight NAV of c£9 as we move towards Singapore.

[eddie1980] 21/4/2010 13:09

Longsight - I understand you have a more pessimistic view than other posters, but some of your statements are just nonsense ..

Longsight"I wd consider buying CREO but only at the same price as REO sold them at i.e. £3.30 a share. Obviously REO thought they were getting a decent price at that. Don't really understand why they wd be worth much more - unless you are a Director of CREO / Treasury Holdings & therefore can remove big chunks of the Assets as "performance fees". If they do get the go ahead to list in Singapore, not sure the Singaporeans will want to pay much more for these when they read the listing document."

Why would they only pay £3.30 when the NAV is closer to £11. In the same way investors in the singapore market value companies closer to their NAV, is the same as WCC (which you say you see the bull case for!) being valued at a higher EPS multiple in HK - nothing has changed with WCC other than they are intending to list in another market which will value them higher. Applying your flawed arguement, why would HK investors pay more for WCC than £6.80 when they can buy it for that now. A stupid arguement.

I would expect that you would have the intelligence to understand that if you are a forced seller and selling a large amount of shares, you would receive less than the current mkt valuation - which was £3.70 when it was announced, otherwise the share price would be driven down far more if 15% of the total number of share were available in the market (meaning REO would have received even less than they did.)

The english AIM market has punished CREO for being a foreign real estate firm in a higher risk country - it does not mean that REO thought they were only worth that amount - but they obviously can only get what someone would pay. Don't forget WCC was once 48p because of the exact same reasons - foreign firm on AIM in uncertain market.

You also keep referring to historical performance fees, of which have already been stated that these were revised in 2009, and that the performance fees for 2009 are nil. Quoting historical fees on arrangements no longer in place is misleading.

[longsight] 21/4/2010 08:49

mikeja - I have already acknowledged that I made sceptical comments about wcc & it was obvious from those comments that I did have reservations about wcc then but was also considering buying in. Subsequently, I decided to buy wcc since the bull arguments overwhelmed my anxieties.

The position is different with creo. I fully intended to buy creo & therefore researched it. My observations on here are quite sincere & I think worthy of consideration.

Concerning my stated figures for perf & management fees & mkt cap - these refer to 2008. I think investors need to know something about the characters involved in creo / TH.

I can understand why you think that these concerns shd not be discussed but I disagree. In fact, many of my stated concerns have previously been reported in the Press.

As to whether BBs have an effect, lasting or otherwise, on share prices, is an interesting point. I'm not sure though I do note that any number of thinly traded shares do appear to be manipulated through ramping on the BBs - I'm not thinking of creo but mining shares do seem to be subject to this quite a lot.

[mikeja] 20/4/2010 21:31

longsight,there is no moral indignation in what I said.The fact is that I remember you running down WCC in rather the same sort of way as you are now doing with CREO.That is what makes me suspicious of your motives added to the fact you dont have any position in the stock.You said in an earlier post you would make no further comment on this bb yet you are continuously repeating the same things over and over again.I should also point out that the mkt cap of CREO is 200m pounds and performance fees for 2009 are recorded as 7.8m pounds in the accounts,not 50m.
Personally I hold 160k shares in CREO based on the underlying asset value which I calculate as 12 pounds per share.I am fully aware of the risks and am perfectly certain that bulletin boards have no lasting effect on a share price.

[flip101] 20/4/2010 10:00

I assume you also know the measures effect residential property and not commercial, which is 100% of CREOs portfolio. I suppose you also assume that the dynamics of both residential and commercial property are the same.

Also, REO did not think 330p was a good price. They took it because they needed the cash. The directors of CREO did however think 330 was a great price to buy as well as advising their families to buy.

No one is arguing that the relationship with Treasury is ideal however there is a point when this is adequately priced in. All directors have big stakes in CREO which aligns interests enough.

The performance fee has also been restructured.

[longsight] 20/4/2010 10:00

mikeja - might I ask you what your agenda here is? My best guess is that you see these BBs as a means of promoting shares you hold so you might profit from them. Therefore you really don't like it when others take a more sceptical approach. So why the moral indignation?

My agenda here fwiw is to assist potential investors to appraise CREO as an investment opportunity - both positives & negatives. If my scepticism is unwarranted then the market will ignore my observations. As it is I think it is worthwhile that someone shd attempt to examine why what on the face of it is such a simple asset play shd be accorded such a hefty discount by the market.

I might add that your post fails to acknowledge the disquiet about the relationship between REO, CREO & TH. Creditors of REO might look upon the tender as a sale at an undervalue to a related party.

Further, if the performance fee has been restructured then why is the new basis of it not clearly stated anywhere. How can you trust CREO when it has common directors with TH & it agrees performance & management fees of over £50m on a Co with a mkt cap of just over £100m & which has made a trading loss? It seems you have a touching faith in their good intentions yet a total suspicion of mine.

[mikeja] 20/4/2010 09:26

longsight,for someone who has no position and on 8th April said you would make no further contribution to the bb,you are very verbose.What is the agenda here?And can we expect a volte face as with WCC where you slag the stock off only to reappear when it has doubled and start recommending it?

[longsight] 20/4/2010 09:06

I wd consider buying CREO but only at the same price as REO sold them at i.e. £3.30 a share. Obviously REO thought they were getting a decent price at that. Don't really understand why they wd be worth much more - unless you are a Director of CREO / Treasury Holdings & therefore can remove big chunks of the Assets as "performance fees". If they do get the go ahead to list in Singapore, not sure the Singaporeans will want to pay much more for these when they read the listing document. I won't bother to reproduce the articles about the Shanghai Property market & the latest cooling measures taken by the PRC Gov since I assume most investors read the Press.

[birdman101] 19/4/2010 18:12

1) Cash at REO was incredibly tight and they may well have not been able to wait until June.

2) How would they have disposed of a 20% position at the higher price.

3) People are predicting a higher price in June/July based on the previously satisfied condition that there isn't a material stock overhang. No one is saying that the price would be higher if REO were still in the stock.

4) In case you missed it all the Directors and their family members filled their boots in the placing. I hardly think they would ensure an efficient exit for REO (which is effectively bankrupt and owned by the banks) while at the same time buying with their own savings.

[longsight] 19/4/2010 15:19

Why didn't they wait until June when they cd have got a lot more for the shares according to the avid posters on here? Surely it hade nothing at all to do with the fact that REO & CREO are related parties & that REO was in financial difficulties?

[kimboy2] 19/4/2010 15:12

Well one reason why REO sold is a covenant breach they have on a £220m loan to LBG for a start.

At 30/6/09 REO had loans of £1.621bn and property assets of £1.622bn.

The going concern statement had a few if, buts and maybes as well.

The REO board said;

The REO Board is pleased with the successful execution of the sale of this non-core asset in generating substantial cash for REO and represents an important milestone in strengthening the Company's financial position.

I think we can assume that they needed the cash.

[newswseller] 19/4/2010 15:00

longsight keep seeding doubt into peoples minds please, so that I can buy some more at a cheaper price ;-)

As you are aware REO are/were in financial difficulty and so rather than sell 8.5 million shares in an illiquid market, which would have destroyed the share price, the board did the tender offer.

The directors bought heavily in the tender offer, why would they do that?

Also after the tender offer 1.5 million shares were withdrawn off the market increasing the NAV

[longsight] 19/4/2010 13:52

Incidentally, I appreciate that the Singapore Exchange is notoriously relaxed about corporate governance [perhaps the reason why CREO chose it rather than HKex], but what are the chances that the listing application will be rejected in the light of the multidunious issues I alluded to im previous posts? I only say that because the completely uncritical BB here seems to be congratulating itself on the Singapore listing as though it is a done deal. Can you really be that confident? What impact wd the rejection of the application have on the SP?

A further thought to ponder - why were REO happy to sell their shares at 330p despite the apparently imminent Singapore listing & subsequent revaluation? Answer: either because the deal was crooked or because the shares were only worth 330p.