Lxb Retail Properties Share Discussion Threads

[soundbuy] 10/2/2016 10:43

Seconded re updates, holder and lurker here...........

[mad foetus] 10/2/2016 09:24

npt, tilts, you have mail

[wirralowl] 09/2/2016 20:32

Here, here.

I've only a small holding of LXB in my SIPP (plus a spreadbet), but appreciate those with greater interests and knowledge of the company openly sharing it with others.

If only all BB's were like this...

[bamboo2] 09/2/2016 19:54

npt, mf and others, thanks for sharing the recent discussion. Excellent.

[flyfisher] 09/2/2016 18:12

npt, Totally agree with your comments, if the board say they have set a stretching target then it should be so, not a target that seems in line to be achieved by normal events.

[nitramyrref] 09/2/2016 16:25

A stab @ Ayr/Truro potential asset value increase.

Supermarkets totalling 176k sq.ft.pre-let @ £15 per sq. ft. producing rental income of £2.64m sold to institution @ 6.25% yield for £42.2m producing a development profit of £10.55m less estimate of valuation already in accounts of say £2.55m produces an uplift of £8m.

60 bed hotel ignored but site value could be £2m.

Housing

Ayr 750 plots sold for £50k each producing £37.5m
Truro(1) 261 plots sold (435 gross less 40% affordable @ nil value) for £70k each producing £18.3m
Truro (2) 150 plots sold for £85k each producing £12.7m
Deduct estimate of £4.5m for valuation already in accounts produces an uplift of £64m

Cookery schools etc @ Truro(2)ignored, probably used to oil the wheels of commerce

TOTAL UPLIFT £72m or 42.8p per share after share purchases to date. Say 36p.

Please insert your own figures as I am not a property expert!

[papy02] 09/2/2016 16:02

Npt. Thanks for the mail. I will also write in support.

[badtime] 09/2/2016 15:04

NPT..thnx for the mail..not had a chance to read as yet

[tiltonboy] 09/2/2016 13:28

npt,

Thanks for the mail. I will happily add my shareholding in support. This stands at around 1.25m across my client base.

Interesting to note how selectively he answered your points.

[mad foetus] 09/2/2016 13:15

thanks npt, and I have responded

[loobrush] 09/2/2016 12:59

NPT Thanks for message.

[mad foetus] 09/2/2016 11:56

I wonder if the share price will continue to rise: after all, it is now very close to what the board claim is NAV so presumably they cannot justify buying back any more if the price beings to rise. I will write to Mr Wrigley and encourage others to do so. I also intend to attend the AGM and ask some awkward questions.

I have no objection to the proposed arrangements if they started from a base assumption of NAV being 115-120p on 1 January 2016.

[badtime] 08/2/2016 13:06

In the meantime the share price is nudging up

[mad foetus] 08/2/2016 11:28

Done a little digging. here is a post from tilts:

"Re: Rushden Lakes - this is expected to complete by 31st March, at which stage they will be due £70m, and will provide a £20m uplift to NAV. Projected NAV at this stage is 121p per share."

In December we were told Brocklebank would add an extra 2p to NAV when it completed.

I believe material increases to NAV, like this, which are expected, have been announced, but have not yet occurred, have not been included in the NAV calculation for 1 January, from which the IM remuneration is to be rebased.

NAV last May was 139.87p. With the 45p distribution, if there had been no progress, NAV would be 94.87p. So effectively the board are saying that there has been 6% growth in NAV between the finals and 1 January. Given that the market rose by 3% in Q3 alone, this is equivalent to saying no value was added during that period.

Also, the share buybacks were announced on 30 December and have added 1-2% to NAV: again, that doesn't seem to have been taken into account. If I have time I may drop Stifel a line. I don't mind the IM being given an incentive bonus, but it should be based on their performance from now, not on things that have already occurred but not been accounted for.

[loglorry1] 08/2/2016 11:26

If management increase the market cap of ~£166m by 20% then I don't mind if they take the performance fee. Not a lot of point bleating about what is fair and what is not. Equity investors should know that they effectively hold all the cards anyway so we'll have to take it on the chin and pay them off. There is no doubt they'll have set themselves easily achievable goals as there is no point moving the goal posts to a point where you still think you'll miss :-)

Log

[mad foetus] 08/2/2016 11:08

Sorry all, I have just read the Chairman's letter and the NAV at 1 January has already been determined at £1.01. I am surprised that there is no uplift for the planning permission at Living Villages in Truro/ I may need to look into this in more detail before the AGM, but it looks to me as if developments which are very near fruition are still being value at cost, thus making the target not that "stretching" at all.

[redhill9] 08/2/2016 10:51

I think it is only fair for a full valuation to be published and for the IM uplift to be rebased from that: any reward has to be linked to the value that they add to the assets from the time of the new scheme.

Absolutely right, mf

And we also need assurances that assets will not be transferred to the new LXB fund at cost: that would be a transaction at undervalue and potentially a breach of Jersey law, something I will remind the directors of at the AGM.

One would hope/expect the BoD wouldn't be so foolish/irresponsible as to allow this to happen but reminding them formally can't be a bad suggestion.

[horndean eagle] 08/2/2016 10:50

FWIW I think NPT is closer to the mark re hurdle required for incentive fee. I would have it pencilled in at circa 109p or so through to April 17. I think 120p or so would be a good result as a total return (pre incentive fee). That means the IM might walk away with about £4m in incentive payments and so a net return to holders of circa 118p.

I have some sympathy with the IM re backdrop they have been facing but what has really hurt them is planning delays and issues with supermarkets. Without those they would have been on course for performance fees as per original terms.

It does grate a little that its taken longer to wind up and that the process should have started last year instead of this. We are where we are though. I think the incentive fee isn't too objectionable. At least this way they are incentivised to get on with returning the cash asap.

[papy02] 07/2/2016 21:13

Many thanks both ..a lot there to digest. .. Will do some more reading of the company documents!

[loobrush] 07/2/2016 18:43

I would also comment that a couple of RNS's since that date have hinted that further gains on top of this have been achieved.

Quote from 14th Sept RNS

"Taken together, the transactions involving the IKEA and the former Sainsbury's store will, net of the legal costs and SDLT associated with the B&Q purchase, generate surplus Net Asset Value of £5.7m (3.1p per share) and cash of £6m for the Group.These transactions deliver exceptional value for investors."

Did this increase the expected final asset values-- who knows-LXB need to give us an update.