Home Reit Share Discussion Threads

[williamcooper104] 01/12/2022 11:54

PHP regularly has short interest >3 percent Converse is that any short cover rally may not be so huge Suspect the share price fall is more a long run rather than a short pile on

[williamcooper104] 01/12/2022 11:52

I wouldn't count on the yield long term - I do think rents will be reset by hook or crook - eg either gov intervention or administration of the SPV charities But as said, alternative use value given the need to house homeless should be a floor A change of management/big reset would help - best to fix the model and take the pain

[wallywoo] 01/12/2022 11:34

Couldn't agree more. The share price will recover at some point. Probably when the full year results come out.


I doubt very much that legal fraud case will come out of this. What will drive this is the yield, which at 5.5p minimum going forward means that the current share price is very cheap.


There's zero chance of financing issues, the company still has £30m left over from the last share placing at 115p in May 22.


If you can afford a slight risk of of fraud being proven, it's a no brainer at this share price, imo. Buyers of reits are usually a conservative bunch and don't like risk. That coupled with a reits general down turn has led to a perfect storm here.

Around 2.89% of the shares are short, which is not that high. It's a bear raid that's for sure, but not a long lasting one, imho. The large yield will be very expensive for any one short on XD.


Bgt more here today.

[williamcooper104] 01/12/2022 11:18

Normally when a REITs share price collapses it's got a knackered balance sheet

[williamcooper104] 01/12/2022 11:11

Clearly HOME is not worth it's historic NAV (though wouldn't be surprised if it's only marked down 5 or so percent on next balance sheet date) But unlike an Intu or a HMSO the balance sheet would appear to be in good shape; with an LTV stated as being 11 percent (I got to a lower number so perhaps the 11 is gross of cash on balance sheet which would of course be even better); so this is unlikely to go to zero/penny stock Any guesses on what a reasonable/conservative sp/valuation is Notable that VR equally haven't called it out as a zero (shorts aren't shy about doing that) and will cover at some pokbt

[dodddy] 01/12/2022 10:58

Pointless and rude. If I had the time or patience to pick your last few posts apart I would.

[wskill] 01/12/2022 10:54

Thanks Spec you have saved me a large loss took a little while to sink in what was up.

[tradez4dayz] 01/12/2022 10:43

And George Sto you should go in the rockinghorse category with Doddy.Pointless commentary.It's well known Lynne fennah actually was bought in as a turnaround cfo at Empiric and did just that. Do some research and stop posting stupid comments.

[george stobart] 01/12/2022 10:40

Lynne Fennah should be investigated by Met Policy for her failures in both Empiric and HOME REIT.

Why would anyone hire her with such a poor track record of value distruction

[hugepants] 01/12/2022 10:21

I like how these Peterlee properties have been spruced up for sale. In the first one they've even removed most of the paper strewn all over the floor. And there's only 1 lump of concrete on the kitchen work surface.

[tradez4dayz] 01/12/2022 10:20

Thanks Doddy for your ever insightful commentary. Brains of a rockinghorse comes to mind.Thanks Specto interesting analysis, will be interesting to see how it continues to unfold

[dodddy] 01/12/2022 10:00

You need to find a link from someone at Home to any of the vendors/developers. Will always be some kind of money trail

[williamcooper104] 01/12/2022 08:04

Note "potential rent" of £350 pcm That's £40 per bed per week

[spectoacc] 01/12/2022 07:39

@Retailgains12 re #394 - thanks for the detailed post, debate is more than welcome.

To be absolutely clear - Peterlee is not an area where house prices have boomed. Ever. This is the current state of the market in HOME's direct area:



You suggest having put the portfolio together for 326k (or 350k as per HOME), and having allegedly had 224k spent on them (bunkum, but we'll go with it), it has to be worth at least 570k.

It's true that we seemingly don't know what it's in the NAV at, and that's information that would definitely help, but here's an example of a nicely-renovated (rather than auction) property, very close to a HOME one:



The evidence from up there is that AHG1, by paying £326k for 10, actually bought good ones, not needing much refurb. I don't believe they spent much on them, but if they did, they wouldn't be worth much more than they paid - much less, if trashed by difficult tenants.

So why did HOME pay 850k? Obviously there's the large bung to the "charity" to cover 12 months of rent - that's the Ponzi allegation, the money in to HOME in rent is the same money that was paid out as capital to buy portfolios. Clearly there's also the huge profit for the co who put the portfolio together.

But ultimately, HOME's justification has to be "long term, inflation-linked rents to experienced operators". I'd say that's demonstrably false.

Was thinking in the night whether HOME's business model is remotely sustainable. If that model (& NAV) relies on the leases being long, I'd say it isn't. Can't get over how many characters and in some cases outright fraudsters are involved in the charity lessees. But is it the LA's they're doing over, rather than HOME itself? Do HOME get done over only at the sell-them-properties level? Will they keep getting their rent, at least for a time?

I wonder if there's even any fraud at HOME itself - just gross naivety?

And once again, back around to Knight Frank. Or is the Peterlee portfolio, the only one I know in depth, an isolated example? I fear it isn't.

Completely agree re VR btw. But I don't think they're wrong overall.


"Therefore i don't think its unfeasible that if you bought some development properties 2 years ago, benefited from the general market appreciation over the last two years plus added value above cost on a refurb then the margins you got if selling this year could be substantially higher than average, from good timing alone."

Pick a HOME Peterlee co (full list in the first VR report), go on Rightmove Sold prices, put in the postcode. This simply isn't the case up there. If AHG1 had bought 10 houses for £10k each (yes - they go for that), spent £200k on them to refurb, then sure - you'd end up with 10 houses of £30k each.

You need to know the area to know just how daft £848k is, even if a large chunk of that went to the lessee charity.

And yet the HOME response went on about alternative use/vacant value.

[williamcooper104] 30/11/2022 23:09

Sorry - can't buy until BDO sign of and accounts publicised

[74tom] 30/11/2022 22:50

@retailgains, I’m all for balance and objectivity but you’d have us believe that home have been behaving like Robin Hood!

As a chartered accountant how can you seriously claim it doesn’t matter how much you pay for an asset? How can you responsibly deploy shareholder capital if you don’t have any care or understanding for what something should be worth?

It’s a nonsensical argument in the context of this being a listed vehicle using someone else’s money to create value.

Sure, if an individual finds their dream home and wants to pay double the market value then that’s their decision, they aren’t interested in the financial return or impairment of their asset value. However, if a listed company pays way over the odds for a huge portfolio of properties then the shareholders will suffer sooner or later.

[williamcooper104] 30/11/2022 22:44

Prior to today management/BoD couldn't buy shares However now their response is out they ought to be able to buy If, the share price is as they say "exceptionally low" then surely they'll fill boots

[williamcooper104] 30/11/2022 22:32

And to extent that you have had historic asset appreciation, every reit is trading at a discount to historic NAV, anticipating falls

[williamcooper104] 30/11/2022 22:17

They don't have Final Certs - they haven't got the standard documention that you would expect to see Be careful on house price inflation - it's made up of transactions; it's a market of winners, so the perfect holiday homes in Cornwall have traded, whereas as the blight ridden blocks of flats haven't - property is up over 2 years, but the sort of HMO like properties HOME are targeting aren't The value uplift over what HOMEs vendors paid come mainly from the value of SPV like charities with zero covenant strength - this is very like council paid for nursing homes that went seriously bust both during and after the GFC

[williamcooper104] 30/11/2022 22:12

HOME said that all their properties would be a C

[retailgains12] 30/11/2022 22:06

You care that the building works have been completed yes, but you can see that when its viewed and through the survey information. However Its completely irrelevant what the seller themselves paid doing the building works.

E.g if the seller managed to find a cheap builder does that mean the final property is worth less than if a more expensive builder worked on it (assuming the same standard which is a different argument entirely)? I don't think so.

On what basis can you assume that the properties are worth half of what Home paid for it? I see no rational other than the fact that the property refurb companies have made a solid margin on it which given average house prices are up almost 30% in two years is hardly surprising.

[dodddy] 30/11/2022 22:01

A point with regards to the low EPC's,by the look of some of their properties it may well cost too much to get them to a C so they may go the exemption route instead. I have quite a few older rental properties that are the same. It simply isn't possible to get to a C