Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Lxb Retail LSE:LXB London Ordinary Share JE00B4MFKH73 ORD NPV
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -1.125p -3.93% 27.50p 27.50p 29.75p 27.50p 27.50p 27.50p 4,816 08:49:57
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Real Estate Investment & Services 85.2 -15.1 -8.9 - 47.40

Lxb Retail Share Discussion Threads

Showing 1551 to 1570 of 1575 messages
Chat Pages: 63  62  61  60  59  58  57  56  55  54  53  52  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
22/9/2017
12:16
My preference would be that few as possible assets are transferred to Newco. A release of cash to shareholders before 28 February is not excluded by voting for the extension. The Fund Manager has been clear that cash will be distributed when available, irrespective of when the vote happens. Remember, the fund manager will have a new fund management agreement in place in Newco which could be more beneficial to them. That is why I feel that Stafford Riverside, Rushden and hopefully Sutton will be sold before the commencement of Newco. That will only leave the Stafford Cinema + restaurants and a few small residual assets to be transferred to Newco. Trust me on this one, an extension is best for shareholders.
npt
22/9/2017
12:06
I don't see how voting against the extension automatically triggers a fire-sale of assets. All the proposal says is that whatever cash and cash equivalents are available are released to shareholders, while any illiquid assets (Stafford leisure and Rushden Lakes phases 2+3 namely) are pushed into NewCo, where they can be liquidated as the investment manager sees fit. There is no reason why the majority of the £15m of cash on the balance sheet and the further £15m in the form of the Rushden Lakes phase 1 performance bond shouldn't be released to shareholders ASAP.
tabhair
22/9/2017
11:20
Voting against extending the period will not help shareholders at all. Please explain what will be achieved by voting against the proposed extension. No one wants a fire sale and the additional period will help getting more tenants lined up and hopefully also enable the fund manager to achieve higher prices for the remaining assets. Again, what will be achieved by voting against the extension? I'm extremely critical of the Board and the Fund Manager, but in this instance it is best for shareholders to vote for the extension. I'm open to you trying to convince me otherwise.
npt
22/9/2017
11:16
tabhair ,why? genuine question...
maiken
22/9/2017
10:22
How are people intending to vote in the forthcoming EGM? My thoughts are to vote against the proposal.
tabhair
14/9/2017
09:21
"He sounds like chairman Wrigley rebuking investment manager over excessive fees. Silent." Are you talking to me?
tabhair
13/9/2017
04:19
The investment manager excesses are only water under the bridge if they desist in future. But that would assume a strong BoD and chairman not in cahoots..... Place your bets
shaker44
12/9/2017
20:20
I actually see the deferral of the vote until the end of Feb. 2018 as a positive. It gives the fund manager additional time to get more tenants signed up (Sutton, Stafford, Rushden) and the delay will hopefully also avoid them having to accept low offers for units and ultimately the sale of the remaining assets. It think it is bs that the fund manager is going to require more resources as a result of the delay. Nothing really changed. the Board is aware that shareholders are livid because they agreed to an increase in fund management fees and then the NAV and share price tanked shortly after. They need shareholders to vote for the extension, so they're saying that the fund manager is giving us something without charging for it. The only rational decision is to vote for the extension. The increase in fund management fees is now water under the bridge. If the planning permission is not opposed during the next 6 weeks today's share price will prove to be cheap. My only concern now is that funds will be held back for the Living Villages concept, which could have been used to buy back shares or returned to shareholders. I think shareholders need greater transparency regarding Living Villages and the funding of it going forward.
npt
12/9/2017
19:48
He sounds like chairman Wrigley rebuking investment manager over excessive fees. Silent.
shaker44
12/9/2017
18:29
He makes a good point
jlo10
12/9/2017
18:23
How could we possibly disagree, npt?
asmodeus
06/9/2017
13:39
Subject to the usual exorbitant fees from the investment manager
shaker44
06/9/2017
12:11
Planning for phases 2 and 3 of Rushden Lakes was approved on August 11th. It will take six weeks for this planning to become unconditional. When that happens (combined with the necessary pre-letting which is already in the bag), then the cash payment from the Crown Estates should trigger and NAV should increase to reflect the value of the further phases of the Rushden Lakes development. Personally, I am expecting a statement from the company shortly after September 22nd which should disclose the above. My conservative estimate of full year NAV is 41p, although I wouldn't be surprised if it was higher.
tabhair
01/9/2017
10:16
Assuming all phases of Rushden Lakes go through probably looking at final NAV of mid to high 40s. Not a disaster and probably worth averaging down at these prices.
loglorry1
01/9/2017
10:08
Anyone have an idea on value and timetable left here?
deanowls
29/7/2017
09:22
Rushden Lakes open for business.http://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-first-as-rushden-lakes-opens-to-the-public-1-8078507
ianbrewster
14/7/2017
13:41
So do you email him back with those questions?I assume you still have some skin in the game?
badtime
14/7/2017
11:05
Managers income in the years ending 31st March: 2016 £4,630k 2017 £4,300k 2018 £1,700 (increased by 700k)* 2019 £1,100 (increased by 100k)* * increased from the previously indicated amounts as a direct consequence of the greater workload and resources needed to drive shareholder value over a longer period of time. The above was taken from an email to me by Phil Wrigley. The management fees is £1,7m for 2018 and £1,1m for 2018. This is high because the Directors increased the fund management fees to the fund manager above what the fund management agreement specified. I have a question that has been on my mind. Remaining assets will be transferred to a UK listed company later this/beginning of next. Do the management fees for 2018 & 2019 cover the management of the existing fund to termination and the new company or just the run-off of the existing fund? Or will the fund manager be allowed to charge an additional management fee for the management of the new company on top of the existing fees for 2018 and 2019? The fund management fees were originally based on the NAV of the fund, so it will be utterly wrong if they get management fees for the old fund and also fees for the new company. It is tantamount to charging management fees twice on the same asset. I also would like to know if a new performance incentive for the fund manager will be attached to managing the new company. The fund manager did not achieve the performance targets in the existing fund, so it will be very interesting to see if the fund manager will use the creation of the new company as an opportunity to put a new performance target in place (as well as increased management fees). I mentioned in previous posts that the Newham Farm asset will not be marketed or sold because the fund manager wants it as a seed asset for the Living Villages concept. It has been communicated by LXB that this asset will be transferred to the new company. What are the plans with this asset? I thought assets were supposed to be sold and funds returned to shareholders. When was it agreed by shareholders to keep the asset and use it as a seed asset for the Living Villages concept. This is again an example of the fund manager's interests trumping that of other shareholders.
npt
13/7/2017
09:54
Rushden Lakes (I presume it's the one) appeared on Countryfile last Sunday.
badtime
07/7/2017
10:39
A lot of money and time have been invested into the Living Villages idea and brand. I wonder if current shareholders will ever receive any benefit from it or if the asset will eventually be sold on the cheap as the first asset for the fund manager's next venture. I would be very interested to know how much was spent to date on the Living Villages concept. Keep an eye on what the fund manager does with the Newham Farm asset, as well as the ownership of the Living Villages intellectual property rights. This could be worth a lot if a future business is going to be built around it. The ip rights should not be transferred/sold for next to nothing, especially to a investment manager or an associated fund. I would suggest writing to the Chairman and asking him what the plan is with the asset and IP rights.
npt
Chat Pages: 63  62  61  60  59  58  57  56  55  54  53  52  Older
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:41 V: D:20170925 09:57:56