Some of you might be interested in a substack I have written about FPO. hxxps://substack.com/home/post/p-158906686 |
Listen to the AGM recording. Directors said Phoenix had negative value hence why FPO couldn't buy the shares. But companies house accounts show Phoenix (the parent) had positive equity as the debt was non recourse. |
Lifestyle. Nothing but. Me first, you second. |
If anyone has any information relating to the Fprop Phoenix Ltd related party transactions and share purchase can you please DM me. |
Nice trading update today.
"... the Group had a good first half of its current financial year. First Property has benefitted from a number of one-off events, including profits earned from the trading of properties by one of the funds which the Group manages and in which it holds an associated investment. In addition, the Group has benefited from the early receipt of fees in lieu of the remainder of the management agreement it has with one of the funds managed by the Group where the disposal of properties has been made ahead of schedule."
Not sure about the detail but it's nice to know. |
I have just now submitted to buy the new shares oferred to me,
at only 8p/share
Anyone with FPO shares don't forget or be to slow to decide....or you might miss the deadline at your broker. The deadline at your broker is surely X days "before" the deadline at FPO to give your broker time to do his job. |
Not really sure but I have opted to buy the shares offered to me; I ‘think/hope217; that the company is now on the road to recovery…..as always, only time will tell. |
..an interesting discussion
including the post from soundhound
"Despite the fact he is a material shareholder the Company cannot be allowed to remain Ben Habibs cash cow" |
The issue is that Ben Habib wants to be a politician and not a CEO. However, he owns too much of the shareholding and on too much money to make this investable for me (ex-holder) |
 Smithie,
“Blobby, do you agree with the points I have made?”
Not entirely, although it is an interesting discussion.
It would be nice to hear from Mr Gyllenhammer about his views for the company. I’m not sure that his involvement with the many companies that he has invested in has often benefited other shareholders. Consequently, I’m nervous about his increasing interest in the company.
In listening to the last FPO presentation I formed the impression that the directors were not particularly happy with Mr Gyllenhammer’s shareholder activism. However, there may be some positives to this as well as some negatives.
I am concerned that Directors have other interests which are taking time away from their job at FPO for the last year or so. In particular, I’m hoping that post the UK general election that Ben Habib can devote all his work time to the company.
I take this fundraising and the new lease at Blue Tower to be positives. Perhaps the corner has been turned and there are plenty of good opportunities for FPO to find if the company directors look for them as they have done in the past. |
I’m an infrequent visitor to this site and the recent posts have been an interesting discussion on the position in which FPO now finds itself. I have held shares almost since the listing at which time I much admired the manner in which Ben Habib was then able to read the property market and using his entrepreneurial skills to deal well for the shareholders and for himself.
Sadly for the shareholders those days are long gone. The market has changed dramatically and the sort of opportunities that Habib was able to spot are unlikely to return.
Given the position the company now finds itself in and the very reasonable offering shareholders are offered I propose to take up the shares I am offered but not without a deal of grinding of teeth. The offering by the directors and the director underwriters seems entirely reasonable as the interest of the shareholders and the directors seem to be aligned. Without this deal it is hard to see how that smoke and mirrors deal for the purchase/financing of the troublesome Polish office complex could be resolved. Without a deal that resolved that situation the company would, despite its asset valuation, be in a position close to technical insolvency, which would have been of benefit to none of the currently interested parties.
Assuming that the fundraising goes through as planned I sincerely hope that the non executives prevail upon Mr Habib to step aside to enable this company which has assuredly now had its day to be liquidated or otherwise dismantled so the shareholders can see a return which is somewhere near the net asset value. Despite the fact he is a material shareholder the Company cannot be allowed to remain Ben Habibs cash cow |
post 891 by Blobby
"Certainly better than giving directors discounted options which is that many companies do"
Gyllenhammer complained on this forum of yet another big chunk of share options for Habib.
I think we would all agree that Mr Habib works hard to give himself high bonuses & share options.
So, Blobby, your post is wide of the truth imo. |
my point about Mr Gyllenhammer was partly to highlight that some shareholders are being treated differently.
Mr Habib, director owns 14% of the shares
Mr Gyllenhammer owns 25 %
Can you justify why Mr Habib is allowing himself (because he wrote the rules for this share offer ) to take up unwanted new shares at a big discount (@8p/share)
when bigger shareholder number 2 (Mr G.) is not offerred that chance ?!!....just because he did not write the conditions for this cash raise !?...one has to agree with me that shareholders are not being equally treated.
I can see that allowing small shareholders to apply for excess shares at 8p might be prohibitively expensive, but there are solutions to that. The application for excess new shares could be for a minimum of £5k worth, then in £2.5k steps.
Few PIs would apply for £5k of excess shares, one assumes. but at 8p you never know.
But if Mr Gyllenhammer and other big shareholders were to apply for large amounts of excess new shares then I argue it would benefit all shareholders since it might well avoid the 2 directors obtaining too big a % in the co......& with the shareholdings of other directors & managers might put the company under the complete control of the dirs & managers
& that, at any property company, is never a good thing.
The property sector is full of corruption/fraud/immoral conduct....
ECDC, DCI, Probus, many more ...a never ending list
(together those companies have lost investors hundreds of millions of pounds !, yes, hundreds of millions !!!
always happened imo because the dirs or property managers have had too much power.
Hopefully FPO won't be just one more.
-----
that Mr Gyllenhammer has bought a big % (25%) gave hope of perhaps all PI stakeholders being able to keep/make the operation of the dirs & the co. correct & transparent etc.
If this cash raise puts a bigger % of the co. in the hands of 2 dirs, imo the opposite is the case.
Blobby, do you agree with the points I have made ? |
Blobby is rational and correct. Smithie6 is either irrational, conflicted or both. |
I think we agree that directors and shareholders are not equal. Your point was that shareholders were not being treated equally but at the same time you thought that Mr Gyllenhammer should be given preferential treatment because of the size of his shareholdings.
The directors are underwriting the share offer. If they weren't doing this then someone else would have to.
You point out the offer could have been made more complicated by giving existing shareholders the chance to subscribe for those shares not being take up. This does happen sometimes for very large companies but I suspect that for First Property the costs would have been prohibitive and hence it would not have been in our interests as shareholders.
If you want to benefit from the discounted share price caused by this fundraising then you could purchase more shares today at a value well below NAV and with added security of funding for the fit-out for a new tenant at Blue Tower. |
"You suggested above that all shareholders were not being treated equally which I pointed out is not correct"
A question.
Am I (a shareholder) allowed to take up unexercised new shares at 8p ?
yes or no ?
The answer is no.
For 2 dirctors the answer is yes.
=====
...you keep lying but no one believes you ! |
You suggested above that all shareholders were not being treated equally which I pointed out is not correct.
You seem to think that Mr Gyllenhammer should be given preferential treatment to other shareholders which seems strange given that you reference the Company Act 2006.
Directors are a different matter. |
Mr Gyllenhammer has the same rights as me (I'm also a shareholder). This seems very fair.
In addition the fundraise is not costing the company as much as other methods.
The two directors may pay for more shares at 8p but it's better than some broker having this benefit as the directors have a greater incentive to return shareholder value.
Certainly better than giving directors discounted options which is that many companies do.
It's a great signal that the shares are undervalued and hopefully everyone will want to take up their options including Mr Gyllenhammer. |
MR Gyllenhamer must be furious !
rightly so imo.
----
that only 2 directors are able to probably buy large amounts of new shares (with tax benefits I think) at 8p is of course distasteful conduct imo.
Let us remind ourselves what the Company Act 2006 says
'equal treatment of all shareholders"
that only 2 dirs get to buy shares at 8p that are not taken up in the cash raise is of course not equal treatment.
I dont understand how they can get away with it.
=======
Mr Gyllenhammer I think paid 18-20p/share to build up his large stake.
He would surely like to get the same rights as these 2 dirs and also buy rights shares that are not taken up at 8p/share. |
My thoughts as well. Except that the price drop was inevitable today as this always happens when a company raises money. I'm hoping that in a few months time, things will balance out and the next few days will seem like bargain prices. |
I see that the open offer is being underwritten by the CEO and another director, for no fee, and that there is no facility for shareholders to apply for more tan their 1 for 3 entitlement so that the underwriting directors will be taking up all shares not applied for. That suggests confidence on their part. Or at any rate confidence that the shares are worth at least 8P !! 8p is a very deep discount. Things are pretty dire if they are not worth that. So, 'moderated rapture' from me.
I shall take up my entitlement, but I shall not be rushing to buy mote shares in the market.
Full marks though for an open offer rather than a placement. Not only is a deeply discounted (no underwriting fees) open offer the cheapest way to raise a capital sum of this amount, but I like to decide for myself whether I am content to be diluted, or will put my hand in my pocket. |
I've purchased 50K (money where my mouth is). |
Perhaps, but is that unusual?
In this deal it looks like directors and shareholders interests are aligned and this is the least expensive way of raising a small amount of capital that I've seen in a long time. |
It's a fiefdom. |
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
Hot Features
Premium
