Industr. Multi Share Discussion Threads

[eezymunny] 14/6/2016 15:30

Each to his own asmodeus. If you think the directors plan (refinance, or failing that wind-up) is credible then maybe vote with directors. If you think related parties to the directors have been/are/will milk the income against best interests of shareholders and the company then vote against them. I've always been torn with perhaps a slight bias to the latter FWIW.

[asmodeus] 14/6/2016 15:17

So do we vote against payment of the the Directors' fees, as recommended? And will this help?

[eezymunny] 14/6/2016 11:58

The directors decide but they must do what is best for the company and not related parties. This statement says to me perhaps they won't be directors much longer if they don't get on and try to maximise value from the estate!

[red army] 14/6/2016 09:25

Alpha do not own 50% of the company so where is the power to decide?
K

[eezymunny] 14/6/2016 07:56

FYI

Pretty much confirming a few things said on here. Gawd knows what the outcome will be.

[red army] 02/6/2016 23:51

These guys have more than enough ammunition to take this lot over.

[cerrito] 02/6/2016 22:57

Thanks EezyMunny for sending the link for James Stocks which had escaped me.
I have never heard of them and went on their website and from the rather scant evidence did ask myself if a purchase of IMPT would be too much of a strech for them.
Has anyone any experience of dealing with them?

[red army] 02/6/2016 11:14

As a value seeking shareholder I would recommend taking the knock and re-scheduling debt and bring the debt ratio down and then move on.

[eezymunny] 02/6/2016 09:02

I've always thought a danger here was that ARTL would not try very hard to refinance and continue to drain cash flow with debt they hold themselves for years to come. That looks less likely now with bidders circling. Oh and the directors role is to benefit the company itself, not outside debt holders, property managers etc, so I guess they'd be breaking the law if those conflicts affected their decisions :)

[scburbs] 02/6/2016 08:54

I reckon the early repayment penalty would be around £1.6m or up to c.20p per share at 30 June.

I am a ARTL shareholder and it would be in ARTL's interest for the deal to happen IMV.

However, ARTL and IMPT both have the same external manager who is taking fees from both and, therefore, yet another potential conflict of interest to be aware of as they may be keen to retain their fees.

[eezymunny] 02/6/2016 08:51

Ah tx for that scburbs. Don't forget that ARTL own some of the debt, so those early repayment penalties would be good for them. There's possibly some conflict of interest between ARTL and other shareholders ;)

Just for fun, if bidder could replace existing debt and borrow at 3% they'd be getting a yield of c. 11% even if they pay full current NAV of 260p. Very attractive.

[red army] 02/6/2016 08:46

As a matter of interest what is the cost in £ for exiting ie what is 6 months interest??

[scburbs] 02/6/2016 08:41

The properties are likely to be worth more to buyer than IMPT.

If the buyer can access much cheaper debt they will be able to get a better net yield than IMPT could. Whilst IMPT could refinance at year end they are still highly geared so whilst massively cheaper than now the debt could still be much more expensive than for a better funded owner.

The debt exit costs are shown at note 23 to the accounts. Basically the penalty for an exit on 30 June would be 6 months interest costs.

IMPT has been limping on for years with net income losses at a time when a properly funded owner would probably have a net income yield over 10%.

Realistically they should accept the offer and try and push completion to as close to 31 December as they can get (to reduce exit penalties) without losing the deal.

[eezymunny] 02/6/2016 08:27

It makes total sense to turn it down if there are massive exit clauses on the debt (we just don't know what they are), or if you think the properties are worth more than in the stated NAV. Don't forget in the finals "Two light Industrial and four office buildings were sold above valuation - Six buildings were sold at £3.3 million before sales costs; 49% above the most recent valuation".

One wonders/suspects that the bidder can see value in the portfolio well above current NAV. The portfolio valuation is c. £82 and rent is £7.5m so yield c 9%.

As I've always thought IMPT may be worth anything from zero to 400p depending on demand, interest rates etc. It's a heavily geared gamble!

[red army] 02/6/2016 08:17

It does not make any sense to turn it down.

[red army] 02/6/2016 08:14

It does not make any sense to turn it down.

[eezymunny] 01/6/2016 21:28

In case you missed it...



Say they are prepared to pay the full NAV of 263p but dismissed by the board.

Will be interesting to see if this develops...

[red army] 01/6/2016 13:10

Getting more favourable terms on borrowings and reducing gearing is a no brainer

[eezymunny] 01/6/2016 11:10

Tricky one isn't it? If IMPT could refinance all the debt at 5% there would be enough cash flow after debt service costs to pay a divi close to 9% yield at today's price (by my sums, DYOR!). There's tremendous gearing to the upside and downside from there. Much nicer if a proper offer comes along. I think I'll stick with it as a pretty small holding.

[asmodeus] 01/6/2016 11:07

The share price is said to be up 12.6 % as I write, at 176.5 mid.

[ironstorm] 01/6/2016 08:55

Interesting. You do have to wonder why we don't here about this straight from the company first.

It still looks good value but following that statement I would add a further risk of all these inter-related companies managing the situation for there own benefit. The positive is of course that others see value in the portfolio.

Having said that I would have been very happy with 220p per share having invested at c50p per share.

Anyway I will continue to watch with interest. Good luck Cerrito.

[cerrito] 01/6/2016 00:19

I did not see the press speculation and it seems many others did not as-per the LSE website-there was just one trade of 5k shares today.
Rather confusing wording as to the price offered; it seems to imply that it was at 261p as at 31.12.15 which as the statement says is lower than the last published NAV of 263 at 31.3.16
Given the shareholding structure seems v unlikely that there will be any pressure on the Board to revisit this-ARTL are the largest at 18.7% and the third largest-Antler- has 6.3% and seems to be ARTL related.
The second largest shareholder is Armstrong Investment Ltd at 6.7%. They are not the only company of that name registered at Companies House and no doubt are an IOM company linked to ARTL in some way.
I can understand why you sold IronStorm; I did lighten up some months ago-far too early- and am staying with what I have for now.

[ironstorm] 24/5/2016 14:10

Nothing to get too excited about on the Quarterly Update.

Though reassuringly pleasing on the Utilisation. Valuation seems to have stalled for now.

I don't see much more progress on the property valuation until the second half and even then maybe not so much. So we are dependent on utilisation increasing further and the refinancing - on which not a word.

I am still mildly positive on these - in that I think they are cheap - however I think there are risks to the economy and therefor the valuation and re-financing which make it less of a one-way bet.

I have therefore sold and taken some money off the table - as much re. the macro as the micro view. GLA

[davebowler] 04/3/2016 10:11

Extract-
If, for example the per sq ft rate rose to £55, which would approximately
be equivalent to the valuation of portfolio in 2003-2004, we could see c.250% upside to the
current share price, if the share price were to converge to the NAV. Our base case scenario is
that the industrial property sector should continue to experience strong demand and thus we
expect a continued recovery in the NAV of the fund.

[ironstorm] 04/3/2016 09:40

Expect more of the same going forward and as the debt is re-financed. News on this early is a must I think.