Invista Share Discussion Threads

[tullynessle] 17/9/2010 14:41

I suspect that news may be imminent - if the share price activity / volume is a reasonable guide.

Is it possible that IFD will derive value from Plantation Place at some time in the near future?

Speculation only - does anyone have updated knowledge of the Property market in that area of London?

[tullynessle] 17/9/2010 14:33

Perhaps they have concluded a deal according to the intention indicated in their fund raising (Placing) in July this year.




"The successful equity raising of GBP12.3 million provides us with the financial firepower to take advantage of income enhancing opportunities and accretive acquisitions, which are intended to support the growth of the Company's income and dividend cover."

[envirovision] 17/9/2010 12:42

Excellent volume this morning, has it been tipped somewhere?

[envirovision] 06/9/2010 11:55

Interesting mention in the FT via Charles Stanley liking Invista Foundation Property:

Value in commercial property
By Alice Ross Published: August 6 2010 19:01 Last updated: August 6 2010 19:01

Commercial property prices in the UK are continuing to rise, but analysts believe long-term investors can still find undervalued assets by buying into the sector through investment trusts

[envirovision] 13/8/2010 11:37

Rensburg Sheppards Investment Management now over 10% also, a new holder taking up 4.4% is Witan Investment Trust.

[envirovision] 26/7/2010 17:44

A 40.75 uncrossing in auction trade appear to indicate the likes of nickduck and other stalebull sellers have all but left the building. Ex divi is on the 6th Aug. 125K of shares paying .8p per qtr. is quite some loss of income to suffer imo. arivaderchi !

[lord gnome] 22/7/2010 19:16

In case you're wondering what IFD are going to do with the cash they've just raised, click the link!

[nickcduk] 21/7/2010 20:38

Sold circa 125k at 39.5. Takes 2 to make a market!

[envirovision] 21/7/2010 19:58

Bought 52,626 at 39.35p today for my ISA.

[envirovision] 20/7/2010 15:50

Well if your in the nick camp you will be buying the likes of MAX and TRV, enjoy.

[alanji] 16/7/2010 16:42

Circular now available on co website. A pretty pathetic document and it looks like the "significant income enhancing opportunities which have already been identified" are asset management already mentioned in the accounts and in the analyst presentation. Looks like I am joining the Nick camp!!

[envirovision] 16/7/2010 07:58

Dividend declared and NAV is 51.2p

[alanji] 14/7/2010 12:09

Nick - while I agree with much of what you post, you are wrong on the management fee. The accounts state that £434k was saved in the year - a figure checked by the auditors, no doubt. Based on the 31 March figures the 'old' fee for the current year would have been £3,678k and £3,340k on the new basis. The fund-raising increases these figures to £3,795 and £3,555 respectively. The new fee structure will become advantageous once net assets exceed approx £220m by my reckoning.

Enviro & Skyship - could not agree more. At least IFD is not as bad as some - this was the reply from FPO when I queried how bonuses were calculated:-

"With regards our policy of how director's bonuses are calculated: these are discretionary but the Board assesses the Company's profitability when exercising this discretion."

[skyship] 14/7/2010 10:45

Enviro - Re yr post No.50 above - "I share your worries with larger shareholders as well, this is where we need a change in law imo to somehow force them to correctly over see executive appointments, proper and fair control of regulation and structure, things like fees and wages etc and is an industry wide problem. Maybe somehow giving smaller shareholders a greater power could also help."

This is the problem with fat-cat UK Plc as a whole. Over the past 10-15yrs directors salaries and perks have escalated to an obscene level and it is the shareholders who pay. Regretably PIs now represesent less than 10% of UK Plc whilst the investing institutions are in the same gravytrain so won't upset the status quo. Hopefully the coalition government will seek to tackle the worst excess at least, ie stock options.

As to IFD, currently not a holder, but side with Nickcduk's opinions on this one - sorry Alan!

[nickcduk] 14/7/2010 10:40

LXB raised cash at roughly around NAV. The reason why the placing is lower than the original issue price is because they incurred around 4p or so in issue costs. The key here is that they were able to get existing shareholders to stump up cash at a premium to the share price.

Winding up the company in 2014 or so is what should be happening. They have incredibly cheap funding at present. The margin is something like 50bp above Libor. Closer to that time they won't be able to refinance on such tight margins any more. Income cover will get hit again.

They didn't re-negotiate the lower fees when the market was at its nadir. They decided to do that because they were charging 0.95% on the 90m so so they held in cash. Paying back 40m in debt would have deprived them of 380k in fees. The concession they made to switch it so it was based on NAV has led to them now earning more under the new fee structure than they would have got previously. Shareholders are now worse off under the new fee structure especially since they are now raising more money.

They also have plenty of headroom with which to increase the LTV ratio should they wish so. There was no need to raise new equity.

[alanji] 14/7/2010 10:04

Interesting, opposing, points of view.

As I said in post 49:

"this Placing will enable the Company to make further accretive acquisitions and invest in the significant income enhancing opportunities which have already been identified, to grow income and dividend cover, further enhancing NAV total return"

Note the - "have already been identified"

So, there may be something on the table – let us hope so. They still have to get shareholder approval – if they have no case for the fund-raising surely they risk it being voted down. Maybe something will be announced on Friday with the valuation? Or perhaps they dare not complete any acquisition until after shareholder approval is obtained? Do they really need that much cushon on LTV? And why did they not use the cash they already have, announce the acquisition and then raise capital at a higher price (if they need the cushion). Lot of questions but I will hold for the present.

Regarding dividend cover, I think it is better than page 20 of the presentation shows. See page 24 – re-stating the following from the accounts:

"Following the transactions completed since the year end, the portfolio generates annual rental income of £21.96 million equating to a net initial income yield of 6.6% based on the independent valuation as at 31 March 2010. Rent free periods expiring by the end of December 2010 increase the rent by £0.42 million per annum up to a net initial income yield of 6.72%. The independent valuation estimates the annual rental value of the portfolio to be £26.4 million equating to a net income yield of 7.94%.

Transactions and asset management activity over the period will generate additional rental income of approximately £3 million per annum between now and the end of 2012."

It would be interesting to know how the figure of £20.8m on page 20 is calculated – I can find no explanation of the asterisk !!

[sleepy] 14/7/2010 09:41

Is the placing not subject to shareholder approval at a general meeting?

[lord gnome] 14/7/2010 08:56

Interesting take on things nick - and a view that I hadn't considered. Even so, I would have been very impressed if they had managed to sell new shares for more than the market price.
I am more concerned about the company paying off debt last year and raising new capital this year - at what total cost? I still suspect that they have a cunning plan to buy distressed assets off the banks in a deal that wasn't around last year.

[nickcduk] 14/7/2010 08:30

The bookbuild was a disaster. 38p is a huge discount to NAV. Have a look at LXB today. They just managed to raise a fresh batch of equity at NAV and 9% above where their shares were trading. IFD should have been in the market buying back shares instead of issuing new ones. The fee structure should have been set up to incentivise them to increase NAV per share rather than NAV in absolute terms. That has instead given them the green light to put their interests ahead of shareholders again. Don't understand why the larger holders let them get away with it. Perhaps its because its not their money at stake.

[lord gnome] 13/7/2010 22:07

My thinking exactly envirovision. The placees must have been made aware of whatever is going on - at least in general terms - in order for them to be so keen to part with their cash at such a good price (38p).
I dare say that they were in the know well before the official announcement - which is why the share price has been so weak recently.

[envirovision] 13/7/2010 21:27

Lord Gnome, accelerated book building is a fund raising technique used generally in cases when cash has to be raised fast, therefore I suspect theres something on the table already we don't know about.

[envirovision] 13/7/2010 20:07

To raise in excess of 12 Million by accelerated 1 days book building is, well put it this way I've not seen it done in the last 3 years, I doubt there is that many funds that could pull it off to be honest.