Inland Zdp Discussion Threads

[cerrito] 19/7/2023 19:33

To try to get some information as to who the other shareholders in INLZ are, I went to the Companies House website. There I found the AR of INLZ for y/e September 22 but that had no information of the shareholder base.No other information available.
Could find nothing on the LSE site. I note they are quoted on the main market.
Does anyone have any info on the shareholder base?
Need to see me and arts as well.
Ps
I see there have been trades every day this week, unusual level of activity.
Pps
In googling I found that the Labour Peer Lord Goldsmith, I guess the Solicitor General under Blair, sold his holding on May 23 this year.

[cerrito] 03/7/2023 16:10

Thanks for that okosling.
I am going on the basis that INL will only be able to repay 25?pc in cash and the rest will be refinanced.
Raises the question of who the other holders in the zeros are? Need to try and ferret that info out as we zero holders will not be in a good position if majority held by people close to INL.

[cc2014] 03/7/2023 12:48

When it takes a shareholder to point out several errors in the half year report all of which appear to have been taken on board looking at the RNS out an hour ago, it suggests that internally no-one is paying enough attention to the detail when it comes to finance.

Another red flag for me.

[okosling] 30/6/2023 21:27

INLZ published their half year report today (6 months to 31 March 2023). Strangely, ADVFN carries only the Alliance News report on it, but not the actual published report, so you'll have to look at the London Stock Exchange website if you want to read it.

The quality of the report itself is surprisingly poor for a listed PLC. In particular, the Accrued Capital Entitlement per ZDP Share is partly incorrect. That states figures of 176.0p at 30 Sep 2022 and 190.6p at 31 Mar 2023 (and 201.4p at redemption on 10 Apr 2024). Well, just doing a quick calculation in your head, there's obviously something wrong there. The entitlement grows at a constant rate, so it can't go up by 14.6p in 26 weeks and then by a further 10.8p in the final 54 weeks. When I checked, I found the right numbers: 176.0p was in fact the value at 30 Sep 2021, and at 30 Sep 2022 it was 185.6p. Very careless of their finance team and auditors. A couple of paragraphs above this, there is a figure of 904 crossed out with 882 beside it. It's normal to see things written like that in a draft, so all changes are transparent for other reviewers, but they should be removed before finalising the document for publication. In the next paragraph, they twice refer to a "loan from Inland Ltd" but in the next sentence, they refer to "Inland's loan to CLDL". At the top of the document, they say that Inland Homes PLC will be referred to using the shortened form "Inland". So every time they write "Inland", that means the parent company, not Inland Ltd, the subsidiary. Is the loan from the subsidiary Inland Ltd or the parent company Inland Homes PLC? It doesn't matter hugely whether it's from the parent or from the subsidiary, but they must write it clearly. It's all very sloppy and unprofessional, and does not inspire us with confidence in the finance team. But of course, this is a finance team which has messed up before, being unable to publish results on time. Well, apparently, they aren't getting better. I hope the operational guys are more competent.

More importantly, what do we think about the value of the ZDP shares? I think they are excellent value. Even if we don't get the full 201.4p in April 2024 (just over 9 months to go now), they will most probably be significantly higher than today's market price. I added to my holding a couple of months ago, but I feel I have enough now - it is, after all, a high-risk small company. The capital injections a couple of months ago did de-risk this a bit for the ZDP holders, and the fact that large investors subscribed to new Ordinary shares at a premium to the market price a couple of months ago is encouraging. If there's a default on the ZDPs next year, the Ordinary shares will be near-worthless. Those subscribers clearly don't think that's going to happen, and they are in a better position to know than us small investors.

[grahamg8] 20/5/2023 09:07

Ditto Cerrito. Had to pay 110p mind.

The case to buy (with a potential 58% upside) rests on the quality of the security offered as detailed in the RNS of 24/3/23. If you want more information visit www.Cheshuntlakeside.co.uk

INL may be a basket case but IMO the Zeros have been trashed without too much thought to their potential bounce back. A ‘fair’ risk based return is likely to be 15-20% which would put the price at 145 to 150. DYOR

[pjrh] 19/4/2023 22:00

The 77k were sold and 77k bought back on Monday. It will have been moved from 1 account to another for tax purposes

[cerrito] 19/4/2023 17:30

I dipped my toes in yesterday but would have bought more than the 2.5k I did if the dealing spread was tighter than the current 87/107.
I see that 165k were sold on Monday for 87p.

[raptor_fund] 17/4/2023 11:09

Well I'm in with a small % of my funds today.

Caveat Emptor I suppose. I've previously bought into other distressed ZDPs and so far the money has come back.

[my retirement fund] 06/4/2023 07:22

The zeros would need to appoint an administrator to verify and manage the sale of any assets. Who knows what will be left once that's done.

[grahamg8] 06/4/2023 06:23

I think we have to consider two different futures, one with INL and one without. If INL manage to stay in business then, yes, I think there is a good chance the Zeros will be rescheduled and repriced. Or at least they will attempt to do so. Will the shareholders accept? INL presumably yes, Zeros I’m not so sure.

The other future is the one I was suggesting the Cheshunt Lakes pledge was important. Once in administration INL assets including Cheshunt Lakes get sold. I can see the big house builders would be quite interested, and many of them have deep pockets. IMO the pledge would stay in place and the Zeros get repaid on time and in full.

[stemis] 05/4/2023 21:49

The pledge on Chestnut Lakes may provide the security for the liability to the ZDPs but it's unlikely to provide the funds in the next 12 months when the ZDPs are due to be settled. Haven't INL already rescheduled the ZDPs once (from 2019?) with agreement from the holders and an increase in the redemption value? Presumably that's likely again...

[2wild] 05/4/2023 20:53

Except of course preference shares are still shares. Entitlements can be suspended and definitely

[grahamg8] 05/4/2023 18:35

If a company cannot pay its debts it is insolvent and goes out of business. Which is why the pledges on Cheshunt Lakes are important.

[stemis] 04/4/2023 18:01

The ZDP's are due in about a years time - £36.5m. Regardless of the continuation of INL, how likely is it that INL will be able to find the cash to pay them, either by repayment of the loan by CLDL or from other sources (bearing in mind INL has bank debt of ~£100m)? If it cannot, what happens?

[grahamg8] 04/4/2023 16:35

okosling your logic makes sense if INL survives. If it does not I am comforted by the asset explanation given on 24 March. Cheshunt Lakes can be run as a stand alone development (and overall planning approval has already been granted). Construction is in progress and sales are taking place. This is far better than just having rights over part of the un-approved land bank with an unreliable valuation.

The bad news is that I have more money tied up in INL than in INLZ.

[okosling] 29/3/2023 20:39

andy246 wrote:
I struggle to see why people would commit to purchase new shares at 10p, when the shares are trading at 5p.

It's probably because any attempted big purchase in the market would move the price, probably move it by a lot. So if the founder's knowledge of the company tells him that the shares are absurdly cheap, so that he wants to buy an additional 25 million shares, he has probably figured that he would only get a tiny fraction of that at 6p per share, and in total may well have to pay £3 million to get 25 million shares. It makes sense for him to pay 10p per share, but it wouldn't make sense for you or me to buy at 10p, because you or me could have bought as many as we might want at 6p, because we would be buying (say) 0.1 million shares. It's entirely different.

It's great news for holders of the ZDPs, as it will make a noticeable improvement in the cover ratio, and as the ordinary shares should be worthless unless the ZDPs can be paid in full, this surely says that the founder (who knows the company well) is confident that the ZDPs will indeed be paid in full. Putting in an extra £2.5 million is a big thing, it's not like buying a few to try to create a positive image.

[greedfear] 24/3/2023 17:24

Hahaha! Just I was trying to slowly accumulate while the share price went down. Bummer.

[greedfear] 24/3/2023 10:35

The parent company is in some trouble but they have no problem paying their bills (their own and INLZ’s).

[my retirement fund] 24/3/2023 09:11

The it may be a separate company but the parent company is responsible for the administration fees, how they going to pay them ?

Does not matter how separate it is on theory, At some point the INLZ shareholders are going to have to appoint an administrator when the working capital has gone, who is even going to pay the stock exchange fees, let along tax filing fees, no one is going to do anything for free !

[greedfear] 23/3/2023 15:59

I don’t think INLZ will be suspended. They’ve published their annual results timely.

[andy246] 23/3/2023 15:06

redhill, I agree it would potentially makes sense if your current holding is saved.
But the £5m capital raise will not be enough for a turnaround of the company.
Net debt has already increased by £15m since Dec-2022, as per the company's recent statements.

On the other hand, a sale of a large land plot, or payment on the finalization of some of the 3rd party land plots, could be material and would reduce debt and buy time for the company until the land market recovers.