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.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eur.Conv.Dev | ECDC | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.07 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.07 | 0.07 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 11/9/2014 16:47 by smithie6 .....once a dodgy gang...always a dodgy gang imhoNoting 1) there is no reqt. to return any cash to shareholders as cash 2) if the co. is unlisted.....and no cash back to shareholders...then shareholders remain ...trapped... and the mngmt..esp. Alexander Whammond and Charlemagne...(which has Jim Mellon as a large shareholder) ..can continue to milk the assets as they have over the last X years.... Alexander Whammond Charlemagne... Jim Mellon for trust or honourability...I personally give them each 0 out of 10. (Jim Mellon....look at his deals at Manx Financial and Charl. and AW in their creation and operation of ECDC and disgraceful opaque reporting to shareholders not to mention their blatant and wildly high costs taken each year from the shareholders assets they have never given a damn for the shareholders imo... why would that change now ?! And unlisted they are even further away from the hands of any rules and regulations. Who knows what they will do....or what new rules they will put in place AFTER de-listed. |
Posted at 07/8/2014 10:26 by smithie6 ECDC accounts are a disgrace imo...if not illegalvery little real data.....with pages of blah blah about Rumania and Bulgarian economies and property sale mkts...and for that Charlemagne charge 1M !! charging 1M is insane....when all the investments are in separate companies...that have own bods that also incur costs.....why or how Charlemagne charge 1M just to report what those other bods have or have not done....is nuts ! but Charlemagne exists to make money......so the ECDC bod (Charlemagne controlled) allow Charlemagne the manager to charge as much as they can.... ---- I asked the co. some basic questions about the accounts and I was told to look at section X of the accounts from 4 years ago....and section Y of accounts from 6 years ago !! Illegal imho. The accounts are required by law to give a true and fair report to shareholders....of all material information. Not including material data because it is in section X of the accounts from 4 years ago....and section Y of accounts from 6 years ago does not meet the reqt. to give true and fair reporting. ....it is intentional opaque reporting. But hey...London mkts...owned by the brokers....Charlemag |
Posted at 13/2/2014 11:24 by smithie6 ECDC....looks like a strong hold to me ---- bit of a shame the disastrous management of ECDC by Mr Whamond and Charlemagne who have turned maybe 80 M euros into a cap. value of under 10ME. original investors have been well and truly shafted, or robbed (a good part of their money is now in Charlemagne's pockets via high fees for their incompetent management) but for those investing now and since the low in 2012.....imo it looks good Cascade looks to possibly have significant value and noticeably cashflow positive imo (and personally, I would be happy if Mr Whamond and Charlemagne are replaced....with managers with lower annual cost and with separation between the bod and the inv. manager, as recommended by the Good Governance rules). One Lesson perhaps dont invest in any Charlemagne IPO ! ---- INSIDER trading perhaps ? in Jan. a co. with a Mr Patel as director (and previously with a diff. Patel as co. secretary ) bt. 300-350k pnds worth of ECDC shares "after" the year end but before the issuing of accounts I note that the controllers of ECDC and its inv. manager are all Charlemagne ...specialises in investing in Asia....and has Asian names included in the bod Patel is an Asian name A cynic might wonder if 'Patel' now has to scratch Charlemagne's back in return.... or maybe this is C. returning a prev. backscratch or favour. (it is common in London that if a large investor or 'friend' loses money with one investment (eg. investing in ECDC at the IPO price)....that the managers will try to help that investor out in return later on....in order to maintain that investor as a friend and as a client) imo the C. fund sold their stake to avoid it being visible to clients of C. and avoid damaging the arriving of new money for 'funds under management' (imo if new clients saw that C. had turned 80ME into say 10ME at ECDC then they might not be so keen to invest in current funds from C. or to invest so much) --- ECDC is traded on a London market, famous for corruption and insider dealing ...so if there was insider trading it wouldnt surprise me... in the USA they investigate insider trading....and people go to prison... not in the UK ---- to repeat ....looks like a strong hold to me |
Posted at 10/2/2014 14:48 by greedfear Smithie-Some information will not be given when asked as ECDC thinks that would have to be shared with all shareholders. Like you I think the risk/reward ratio is excellent. Although I currently hate the lack of transparency I must admit that it's also a cause of the share price being where it is, so I guess I should not complain too much. However, I feel it's an absolute necessity in order to close the gap between share price and net asset value to provide (potential) shareholders with better information. For instance, it's impossible to calculate what ECDC will get if Cascade was to be sold for 50.1 million . I've tried to but could not figure out how to get to proceeds of 15.8 million as mentioned in the annual report 2012. I did ask ECDC for details but did not get them (as they would have to share that information with other shareholders too). I'll try to avoid getting into a discussion about the existence of the NEF 3 (IOM 2) loan. I think it's still there, you think it's not. Fine with me. Regarding the costs in the NEF 3 (IOM 2) accounts: if you take a look at 2012 it shows revenues of 539,000 and a profit of 349,000. The difference between revenues and profits are the costs i.c. 190,000. Those costs are rather high for a company that has one asset (a loan to Cascade) and no further activities. Regarding the 55% share in NEF 3 (IOM 2). Somehow ECDC has got 55% of the voting rights but only a beneficial interest of 15%. 15% would make sense as initially NEF 3 (IOM 2) had assets of 2 million (coming from ECDC for an amount of 0.3 million and Shedlin 1.7 million ) That the benificial interest is only 15% gets confirmed by the valuation of ECDC's participation in NEF 3 (IOM 2). Valued at 1-1-2012 at 357,000 and per 31-12-2012 at 409,000, an increase of 52,000 (being 15% of the profits of NEF 3 (IOM 2) ad 190,000). It's true ECDC will be entitled to a 20% compounded interest rate on the 4.5 million loan. However, that can only be paid if there's money left when Cascade is sold and bank loans and NEF 3 (IOM 2) loan has been paid back. Then there's an another point that's not quite clear. When ECDC initially loaned out 4 million to Cascade, their joint venture partner loaned 1.6 million to Cascade. It would make sense to assume that they too would be entitled to 20% interest. Indeed the 60% joint venture partner would welcome a sale of Cascade as soon as possible as the proceeds they are entitled to gets eaten up by the ECDC loan (don't mind that ) [and the NEF 3 (IOM 2) loan]. |
Posted at 10/2/2014 14:26 by smithie6 ...btwif there is a loan still in position from Shelden from 2010...to Cascade 'Ltd' then the Cascade numbers already include the interest cost and hence if Cascade can pay off any remaining part of that loan (if any still not paid) ...such as by using its own cash ...or the cash sitting unused within Sliven ...and get an income for unused cash then it would generate interest income for ECDC and reduces the interest costs for Cascade, making it more profitable....benefi but personally I think the Shelden loan should have been already paid off, it was only intended as an 18 month loan...and ECDC has spare cash and Sliven has spare cash and/or paying off any high interest rate loan will be included in the valuations done for the building by any prospective buyer...giving it a higher valuation than appears in the ECDC accounts for 2012 (which include interest costs for any high interest loan not yet paid off) ..increasing income for Cascade by 600-700K euros/year...if original Shelden loan is still in existance and is 3M Euros as you think. 600-700k euros higher income ...just due to possibly paying off 1 loan or 300-350k higher income if move the loan to ECDC at 13% instead of high % rate from Shelden is a high amount wrt the cap. value of ECDC. |
Posted at 07/2/2014 20:50 by smithie6 Hi I found the RNS that you referred to, thanks for pointing that out ---- "Further Investment in Cascade Eurotower Office Development European Convergence Development Company PLC ("ECDC" or the "Company") which is managed by Charlemagne Capital (IOM) Limited (the "Manager") announces that it has invested a further EUR317,647 in its Romanian joint venture associate company, Cascade Park Plaza S.R.L. ("CPP"). The investment is in the form of a new shareholder loan which will rank in priority to all pre-existing shareholder equity and shareholder loans. The investment forms part of a total of EUR2 million investment in CPP, made in conjunction with another company managed by the Manager which is investing the balance on the same terms as the Company. The investment was an integral part of the restructuring of the finances of CPP. At the same time as agreeing the capital restructuring, one of the lending banks has agreed the restructuring of its initial lease and signed for 3,250 sqm of office space and 231 sqm of retail space for a period of ten years. This means the Gross Lettable Area of c. 16,300 sqm is now 80% let and will generate sufficient rent to ensure that CPP is both cash flow positive and able to meet its financial covenants. As part of this additional financing, the principal terms of the original investment loan remain in place." Notes 1) cashflow positive at 80% occupancy... now at 98% so, 18% extra occupancy should be providing profit....and you can see it in the accounts...equity accounted investees....increas 2) ECDC is also the manager for the other lenders... so ECDC would not shoot itself in the foot by allowing the other lender to charge 27% since it would damage the 40% of Cascade held by ECDC. ..imo it would be gross misconduct..and illegal....and ECDC could have stepped in to take over that loan if it was at 27% clearly there was high risk seen at the time...since the lenders demanded, and got their 2M loan to be ranked higher than all other loans. and/or it should have previously been paid off Cascade has been paying down loans...and those 2 loans have preference over all others....so I assume they have been paid off in 2012 and 2013... |
Posted at 07/2/2014 20:07 by smithie6 HmmmI dont think the extra loans provided to Cascade are relevant as you think There was a arbitration hearing in Switzerland.....I think a case with a contractor...and the contractor won....ECDC paid 500k to Cascade to fund their part of the subject....and I assume that the other shareholders in Cascade paid their respective parts......I assume since Cascade did not have enough cash... ECDC has been receiving cash...including part re-payments of loans.... and Cascade is generating cash each year .is within all banking conditions..and is reducing its loans inferring that it is very happy that it does not need to hold that cash for a possible rainy day in future...(ref. the last annual accounts and interims....) ECDC is generating cash from operations.... just needs to minimise admin. costs...and see some revaluation happen (note that some revaluation of Cascade is happening because it is paying down a little of its loans....) so, in conclusion, I disagree with what you wrote about the loans to Cascade and note that Cascade is paying down its debts...so if there is a loan to NEF or whatever then perhaps it has already been paid off (ECDC has cash, so if any loan at 27% , ECDC would imo have taken over the loan to get 27% interest on its cash !) I agree about shaking things up, can you contact the shareholder that recently bt. 7-8M shares ? sure they would be keen to see any improvements you can suggest happen and see the share price go up ...now they own quite a chunk of ECDC... --- At Cascade the co. has been trying to maximise value.....which has worked...another 335m2 rented out I recall....perhaps 60kE/year.... and I think I recall that an extension or something was done. Sadly there is little info given to shareholders. The building is now abouit 98% rented I think the accounts say.... so the co. could consider to sell it but have to look at the pros and cons... ECDC gets a cut (40%) of the difference between sale price and loans if the bld value goes up 10% then the difference goes up much more than 10%.... so, might be best to wait one year....or keep waiting if keeps going up 10% per year... have to calculate nett gains versus cost of running the co. and inv. mgr. charging 2% of asset values every year and as you say, make sure that the co. operates for the shareholders and not Charlemagne. |
Posted at 07/2/2014 18:44 by greedfear Smithie-The NEF 3 (IOM 2) loan to Cascade is not as such mentioned in the ECDC accounts. It's true ECDC has 55% of the voting rights, but only have a 15% economical interest. In a press release of march 2011 ECDC made it clear that they provided Cascade with a 300,000 loan and that a partner (not specifically mentioned) provided 1,700,000 on the same conditions (what conditions were never disclosed). Later it became clear that ECDC had not provided that loan directly to Cascade, nor did the partner, but that they had used a special company for that NEF 3 (IOM 2). Furher investigating of who that partner might be led me to Shedlin Capital AG. Their documents -in German- concerning the NEF 3 (IOM 2) disclosed specifics about the loan to Cascade (first year 22% interest and 27.5% yearly afterwards). NOTHING about this loan agreement with Cascade will be found in the ECDC accounts, only following the trail of info that is available will lead to what I concluded. The danger lies exactly in that part. Because it can not be found in the accounts it can easily be overlooked (as I have done initially [I did not pay much attention to the asset NEF 3 (IOM 2)]) Priority 1: get the NEF 3 (IOM 2) loan refinanced as soon as possible! Regarding the loan to Sliven partner. They're not sitting on the Sliven money, but the money is parked on bank accounts, doing nothing (at a cost of 30,000 euro, heaven knows why). Yes, we should "force" a break up of Sliven! Thus far it has only been: thinking about it, seriously thinking about it. Meanwhile millions are in bank accounts doing nothing.... That's why I say: who is finally going to take up responsibility and get things moving (actively marketing Cascade, sell it, put an end to Plovdiv, break up the Sliven JV, bite Argo in the butt and make them pay what's owed to us, cut costs in subsidiaries and/or joint ventures, refinance the NEF 3 (IOM 2) loan, cut costs in ECDC etc.etc.! I see it all but can't do anything about it on my own, support is very much needed! Larger shareholders that have b#lls are needed to back it all up of initiate it. Otherwise it will be lamb to the slaughter....if the people in charge of ECDC should have bad plans with us. I would like to emphasize that in no way I have any indication that the people in charge of ECDC do not take our interests at heart, but I would like to make sure their interest are a 100% aligned with those of the share holders. |
Posted at 07/2/2014 13:19 by greedfear Correct that 20% loan from ECDC to Cascade will be repaid to ECDC.I'll simplify the current situation: 1. Cascade has an asset of 50 million. 2. Cascade has a bank loan on that property of something like 21 million currently. 3. Cascade loaned from ECDC+partner in Cascade (that one is doing 20% interest) 4. Cascade loaned from NEF 3 an amount that is currently (intrest included)something like 4 million. This loan is preferential and has an interest rate of 27.5% yearly. To keep things simple let's suppose the asset value remains 50 million and that the bank loan remains at 21 million. It's almost impossible to make up what exactly will be repaid to ECDC and their partner in Cascade, but given the current debt from Cascade to NEF 3 (being 4 million) it will be 25 million (50-21-4). Let's take a look at 6 years later. Cascade's debt to NEF3 will be 17 million (!) by then. If everything else remains the same there will only be left 12 million (50-21-17) for ECDC+partner. 8 years later nothing will be left for ECDC+partner because the loan from NEF3 will have accrued to almost 28 million!! Because the NEF loan is first in rank (after the bank loan) it doesn't matter what interest rate ECDC will be entitled to because there's nothing left to repay. In other words: the Cascade-NEF 3 loan is going to be killing for us because it accrues with 27.5% AND is first in rank!!! It's not a problem now, but it's going to be a huge problem as times go by. That's why something should be done about it. Not next year or the year thereafter but NOW! |
Posted at 06/2/2014 15:26 by greedfear Trading update out. Positives: Cascade still doing great, no more funding Plovdiv's and Mega Mall Rousse's operational losses. Negatives: not doing enough on getting ARGO to pay what they owe to ECDC, they've been in default since october and were given extra time till end december and now we're still in advanced negotiations and not amused about not mentioning initiatives (if) of Cascade trying to get the NEF loan refinanced. That loan is a real threat to ECDC shareholders value as it increases with 27% interest on a yearly basis. It's in no way a threat now, but as it's currently something like 4 million you can see where it's going if it's compounding at a 27% rate. The party benefiting the most from this loan arrangement is Shedlin. Shareholders really should put pressure on ECDC to get Cascade to sort this out. Am really starting to dsilike the connections between ECDC (Charlemagne)-Shedli Larger shareholders should really start pushing pressure on ECDC to sort the Argo and the Cascade -NEF3 loan out before the last mentioned loan is getting to 'eat up' net asset value of ECDC. Time is not our friend here.... Siesta ha terminado. |
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
