Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eur.Conv.Dev | LSE:ECDC | London | Ordinary Share | GB00B1BJRB27 | ORD EUR0.80 |
| Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.07 | 0.00 | 00:00:00 |
| Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - |
| Last Trade Time | Trade Type | Trade Size | Trade Price | Currency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | O | 0 | 0.07 | EUR |
Eur.Conv.Dev (ECDC) Share Charts1 Year Eur.Conv.Dev Chart |
|
1 Month Eur.Conv.Dev Chart |
Intraday Eur.Conv.Dev Chart |
| Date | Time | Title | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22/3/2021 | 14:48 | ECDC Real estate Bulgaria/Romania discount 90% on NAV 50% on cash | 221 |
| Trade Time | Trade Price | Trade Size | Trade Value | Trade Type |
|---|
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 23/6/2014 08:59 by greedfear No real surprises in final results, but: DELISTING ???!!!I really hate delistings. Must say, I'm surprised the share price is where it is. I've been in delisting scenarios before and it has always been a total fiasco for the share price. Maybe this time it will be different.... |
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 11/2/2014 11:13 by smithie6 yepnice to see the rise today and over last 2 months but only needs a few buys or some news release and the share price could really move imo like the mkt being told that Laisi occupancy has gone from around 70% to over 90% or that Cascade is now producing cash each year.....an amount which is significant wrt the mkt cap. of ECDC ---- I think you're hoping for a sale of Cascade maybe also worth considering whether better to just hold it... and if can make loans to be interest only then the cash surplus could be paid out as a divi...(if we get dirs. etc to minimise costs)....or spit Cascade out via a bonus issue to be a separate unlisted company (Like Creston did back in 2000 with Ind. Commerc. Holdings) and it pays us a divi.....and in 20 years time the building value should be much higher...and 20 years of divis would also add up.... and perhaps divi increasing 3% each year as increase office rental prices and possible benefit from Rumania/Bulgaria finally 'converging' with EUrope for wages etc...original plan of ECDC or pay down the Cascade loans by 1/2ME or something every year....and then after X years we own 40% of building value and in X years lets say its 100M due to inflation etc....then ECDC part is 40ME with no debt...and share price would be the same... a) or b) might be better than a one off gain due to selling the bld .. |
Posted at 10/2/2014 15:31 by smithie6 The 1.7M2 2010 loan you think it is/was from NEF or from Shelden ? your 2010 paper seemed to show it was from Shelden (the NEF 3 loan of 300kE from 2010...is immaterial imo wrt to ECDC share price that was from NEF or from ECDC to Cascade ??) ---- whether the Shelden loan to ECDC exists now...I dont know....the accounts dont tell us....which is not good imo.... accounts do say they have been paying down loans....so the situation now may be different than it was for 2012 accounts. ---- the opacity of the accounts is something that needs to change.... something I am trying to trigger ;-) |
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 09/2/2014 15:02 by smithie6 someone just bt. 300-350k worth of shares...so I assume they had a trained accountant pore through the accounts and subsidiary accounts...and they were happy.... and we havent looked at the subsidiary accounts....whereas they will have ..and they then bought... so, imo I see their purchase at 5.3p as underpinning the share price ---- and I agree with you that the cash in Silven is not in ECDC accounts, since accounted for via equity accounting..... so cash 'owned' by ECDC is similar to the share price imo while it is possible that one of the investments will end up being worth much more...so, imo the risk/reward is quite good. (a lot of the mall investments are not worth much or anything...but hopefully cascade is...and Sliven has 1M of land) One could have invested in Rumania/Bulgaria in 2006/7 in the stampede and paid high prices....or now and pay very low prices. Much better risk/reward to do so now imo. |
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 26/1/2014 09:58 by greedfear I'm starting to feel like a lone ranger here although there must some people reading this BB.Now Charlemagne does not longer have control over ECDC through their share holding it might be the perfect time to change thoughts about ECDC between us small share holders. Because of the change of ownership there is no longer a line between C. as shareholder and C. as director of ECDC. In other words factually only non C. related shareholders are in control. Surely some of you must be interested in or having ideas about how to close the gap between net asset value and share price. If you are please e-mail me at ecdcecdc@hotmail.com |
Posted at 16/1/2014 13:48 by greedfear So now we know for sure who has sold.More interesting is the answer to the question who has bought? As you may or may not recall there was a (group of) shareholder(s) that voted NO to all resolutions at the latest AGM indeed causing all resolutions not to pass. I'm speculating a 100% here but I do think it possible those were shareholders from the start (having paid 80p or 95p or so). They sure as hell could not have been happy puppies and may have been a little bit p#ssed (pardon my French) that despite the disastrous performance of ECDC share price C. still got paid running it. C. allready felt the increasing pressure from these investors (as proved by the no votes). Well, in short, I think that what we're looking at is some kind of deal/arrangement that has been made between C and those early day investors that became more and more active. Just my two pennies and if so I think we're going to see these active investors shaking up ECDC (forcing ECDC to stop supporting Plovdiv, dividing the assets of Sliven (land and cash) between partners (one of them being C), marketing Cascade etc.etc.) If my story proves to be utter BS, well I've got others ! lol |
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
