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 | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Home Reit Plc | LSE:HOME | London | Ordinary Share | GB00BJP5HK17 | ORD GBP0.01 |
| Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 38.05 | 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 | 38.05 | GBX |
| Date | Time | Source | Headline |
|---|---|---|---|
| 27/1/2025 | 16:00 | UK RNS | Home REIT PLC Notice of AGM |
| 14/1/2025 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Home REIT PLC Annual Financial Report Director Change |
| 24/12/2024 | 10:59 | ALNC |  Troubled Home REIT updates on overdue results and wind-down process |
| 24/12/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Home REIT PLC Debt Repayment, Tenant and Accounts update |
| 05/12/2024 | 12:11 | UK RNS | Home REIT PLC Result of General Meeting |
| 04/12/2024 | 12:01 | UK RNS | Home REIT PLC Response to announcement from Southey Capital Ltd |
| 28/11/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Home REIT PLC Repayment of Debt |
| 18/11/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Home REIT PLC Change of Registered Office |
| 08/11/2024 | 12:37 | UK RNS | Home REIT PLC Posting of Notice of General Meeting |
| 23/10/2024 | 09:31 | ALNC | IN BRIEF: Home REIT to repay Scottish Widows loan after property sales |
Home Reit (HOME) Share Charts1 Year Home Reit Chart |
|
1 Month Home Reit Chart |
Intraday Home Reit Chart |
| Date | Time | Title | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16/1/2025 | 19:19 | ::::: HOME REIT ::::: | 1,541 |
| 12/11/2021 | 15:36 | Good news...second home owners to pay 90% council tax on 2nd homes.... | 10 |
| 12/1/2018 | 12:51 | ***** Homebuilders Charts ***** | 5 |
| 02/9/2016 | 12:32 | Home Retail Group | 3,809 |
| 12/6/2016 | 13:25 | The new UK Housing and politics thread (moderated and idiot-free) | 103 |
| Trade Time | Trade Price | Trade Size | Trade Value | Trade Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-01-29 16:50:52 | 10.00 | 5,228,544 | 522,854.40 | O |
| 2025-01-29 16:29:42 | 10.00 | 5,216,106 | 521,610.60 | O |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 15/1/2025 17:39 by eekhoorn Well we'll have to see about that, you've been right about most HOME REIT affairs in the past so you could well be right again. The possibility of FCA fines is on the risk register on page 41 so they're not denying that it's a distinct possibility. Punishing defrauded investors isn't exactly encouraging growth in the UK economy though is it?AlTI Global that brought Alvarium isn't quite as blasé as you are about the possibility of FCA fines. From their latest AlTI Global SEC fillings:'....it is possible that the UK FCA may determine that certain breaches have occurred, and it may seek to impose financial penalties or other outcomes on one or more group entities, that may potentially be material.'The fun never ends here. |
Posted at 15/1/2025 16:56 by spectoacc What will actually happen is the FCA will fine HOME (ie its shareholders). Alvarium - who've already had a reorganisation and hived off the HOME part - will turn out not to have the funds for any redress (IMO).Look how eg Simon Lee has sailed merrily on, nearly got his new fund away (bought API's assets instead). What would be interesting is if those in on selling HOME the properties at 50%-100% mark-ups were pursued - but by whom? And didn't both original guys quit years ago, in their 30's, with alleged ill health? I might have mis-remembered that part but a lot of time has now passed for assets to shift ownership and jurisdiction (Venice, anyone?). What should irk shareholders is some of the original sellers - who sold to the Venice crook who flipped on to HOME with the allegedly fake-o CIC tenants and allegedly no CapEx - were able to buy back their best properties at a fraction of the price at Allsops over the past year. HOME, like Woodford, has been one for the ages. |
Posted at 15/1/2025 16:24 by eekhoorn Well 10p (which is what I've marked HOME down to) would be a nice return of capital for the time being whilst we wait for the FCA to do its job and enforce Alvarium to implement a redress scheme. The much delayed annual report reads like an extended charge sheet of Alvarium maladministration, the new directors and AEW have virtually done the FCA's job for them. The FCA got there in the end for Woodford and they'll get there in the end here. Ultimately it's very simple what needs to be delivered- resolution and justice, then everyone can move on from this. That's what regulators are there for. |
Posted at 02/12/2024 19:26 by eekhoorn It's worse than that, some of the rent was paid by funds that were earmarked for refurbishment. Additionally vendors were settling charities debts with money that Home spent on acquisitions. The presentation for the recent webinar gives more detail about the deceptions that were going on behind the scenes. The Unusual Transactions and Lease Inducements slides are particularly damming for Alvarium. https://www.homereit |
Posted at 28/11/2024 13:02 by spectoacc FCA always been a farce - the money will be spent by the culprits before they ever get after the HOME boys.But it's always the co gets fined for its own failings - the directors are ultimately employed by the shareholders after all. Former Alvarium action could go on years of course, but will HOME? |
Posted at 28/11/2024 12:39 by eekhoorn I'd be very surprised if the FCA allowed the company to relist given the huge dependency of the share price on the outcome of its own investigation. The FCA itself is under increased parliamentary scrutiny so I would hope that they'd be aware that 'bayoneting the casualties' after what could be viewed as a £500 million regulatory failure is unlikely to go down well in Westminster.https:// |
Posted at 25/10/2024 13:24 by eekhoorn The costs that Home is incurring are indeed truly horrendous. In their recent wind down vote circular they quoted corporate costs (excluding the Investment Manager fee)paid in the period from 1 September 2023 to 16 August 2024 as approximately £17.1 million. 'These fees included approximately £5.0 million of legal fees, asignificant proportion of which has been incurred to defend threatened litigation from current and pastshareholders'So even without including possible FCA fines you could probably knock another £40m off the valuation taking it to £80 or 10p per share. Given the extreme discount that it would be priced at on relisting, it would maybe make better sense to just return any available capital ASAP rather than relisting.The problem with that is that they'd need to retain these funds to pay off the Harkus Parker clients in the event of the HP litigation being successful. If only there was a better target for Harkus Parkers self righteous sword of justice. One with bigger pockets than shareholders that will have already seen the value of their holdings value decimated.https://gr |
Posted at 16/9/2024 05:45 by spectoacc They put them on v cheap, it attracts bidders, sunk costs seem to do the rest. Seen few go genuinely cheap.Still at prices of less than half what HOME shareholders paid tho :) My experience is you sometimes get lucky (particularly if same AST tenants as prior to HOME's ownership), sometimes you get a trashed disaster, and even the ones HOME claim are tenanted often aren't. Have only to look at HOME's rent collection stats, albeit that's via the fake-eo CICs. Good luck - also know that many of the original sellers buy back the properties they know to be decent. Overall, I've been surprised how successful the auctions have been - you'd think there'd be a limit to how many cash buyers there are. |
Posted at 23/8/2024 08:20 by spectoacc Now having a read, and it's grim. The likes of @wallywoo should hang their heads in shame."The Company was set up to contribute to the alleviation of homelessness in the UK, whilst targeting inflation-protected income and capital returns, by funding the acquisition and creation of a diversified portfolio of high-quality accommodation assets across the UK dedicated to providing accommodation to homeless people." but "The Company has experienced very significant challenges as a result of the failings of its former advisers, including: poor condition of properties, a larger than expected proportion of the portfolio let as private rented sector (PRS) rather than supported housing, weak tenant covenant strength, significant mismanagement of properties by non-performing tenants, tenants failing to pay rent and disputing rent payments, connections between tenants (and connections between tenants and vendors) that were not disclosed to the Board, tenants entering liquidation and limited evidence of the Company's former advisers undertaking any detailed ongoing monitoring of tenants and properties." ie very much what Viceroy Research said, some of which was provable with no more than 10 minutes on Google. Yet the Board repeatedly issued RNS's denying the allegations. This is old ground, but well worth repeating. How many bought on the Board's refutations? Or due to the rampers on here? SW: "The Board and AEW have continued to engage with Scottish Widows, which has advised that its objective is for repayment of the loan balance in the short term and by no later than 31 December 2024. In addition, and as announced on 3 July 2024, Scottish Widows has revised the terms of the additional fee payable by the Company charged on the outstanding loan amounts, such that this will increase from 5.0 per cent. to 7.0 per cent. per annum until repayment of the loans. As of 31 July 2024, the Company had accrued £7.3 million for the additional unpaid fees being charged since August 2023." So not only is the accrued fee already £7.3m, but "..By no later than.." implies SW is serious. The circular goes on to talk about block sales, portfolio sales etc, not just the auctions. Suspect that's why Allsop is a lot quieter for next week - HOME are going to block dump some of what's left. The Mears portfolio seems an obvious place to start. The great unknown is the legal actions against HOME, and any they eventually instigate against the likes of Alvarium. We could be no more than halfway through the HOME saga. |
Posted at 06/6/2024 06:14 by spectoacc Guessing the big drop in rent % is due to previous numbers being bolstered by arrears. Presumably the longer the arrears last, the lower the recovery. Probably as shown by how long it's taking to get some of the CIC's into administration.I can only talk about the NE property I've bought from HOME (they do seem to have a lot of it), where I'd say the average rent is c.400 pcm. That would be to the CIC, who'd pay less up to HOME (often none!). Lowest was 320 pcm for a 2-bed. Management cost - say 15%? ie once HOME take it in-house. That's pre-CapEx. CapEx - it's finger-in-the-air, one property needed zero, one running at 30% (so far). Whether AST tenanted with a non-social tenant, or completely wrecked/former "grow", makes all the difference. But HOME will surely offload the wrecked ones. They also have eg some giant HMOs where the monthly rent must be huge (just not to HOME!). Mears portfolio probably the only way to come up with a finger-in-air calculation - legitimately run, rent going up to HOME. Nothing I've seen yet makes me change my original 10p-20p estimate, if/when they relist after 18 months. Top end of that if they can deal with the remaining debt. The NAV's seemingly there, even written down, but sales seem to be slowing. Edit - 15 Peterlees in the next Allsop: Allegedly all vacant (they often change this), with no internal pictures. Lots 91 & 150A are worth a look for some of the sh*te they have. There's a suggestion the numbered streets in Peterlee may be set for demolition. Edit #2 to Lot 91. 146 also amusing. How has it taken this long to get those up for sale? I don't own any in Peterlee - wouldn't want to own there - but HOME's original purchase/Knight Frank's valuation of the Peterlee portfolio is what started me off here. Isn't nearly enough opprobrium heaped on Knight Frank, who valued without looking at the properties. Even now, HOME haven't been inside all they own. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
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
