Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Mckay Securities Plc LSE:MCKS London Ordinary Share GB0005522007 ORD 20P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -20.00 -10.53% 170.00 167.00 170.00 183.00 171.00 182.50 63,819 16:35:18
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Real Estate Investment Trusts 25.3 13.2 14.0 12.1 159

Mckay Securities Share Discussion Threads

Showing 1301 to 1325 of 1475 messages
Chat Pages: 59  58  57  56  55  54  53  52  51  50  49  48  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
27/5/2013
08:55
Thanks Scburbs. Looks like I understood more than I thought. Thanks for the detail. it confirms my unease with this company. After a small purchase a while ago, I have held off making further purchases for these very reasons. Looks like I was correct !
housemartin2
22/5/2013
13:12
Jimbo3352, By doing nothing I mean they have done nothing to negotiate away the banks options to terminate or reach agreement on extension. This is ignoring the separate question as to why they entered into such long dated swaps with a break option for the bank - madness (nothing wrong with long dated swaps provided you hold to maturity, so the last thing you want is a break option for the bank). The longer they do nothing and the longer interest rates stay where they are the greater the prospects that the liability is a real liability that will be crystallised and the EPRA NAV should be ignored. If they can negotiate an extension or issue an explanation of any conditionality on the banks option to break then that would help get investors (or at least me) more comfortable. If they can hold the swaps to maturity then the liability is an illusion, it will tend to nil over many many years with the interest and swap payments funded out of future profits. However, if the bank exercises and they have to pay it then it is a real liability that will have to be funded with more borrowings and even if they new borrowings have a lower interest rate this will no where near compensate for paying such a huge liability. For me this issue is the difference between investable and uninvestable (at the current price). The company needs to be doing much more to deal with this. The very least they can do is provide clarity on the terms of the bank's break option.
scburbs
22/5/2013
12:36
jimbo3352. Ref your last sentence, its only a cash cost if some action is taken either perforce ( because the contract with the lender has provisions which crystalise ) or the borrower takes some action to eliminate the swap. Falling interest rates do not, in themselves, cause a cash cost - unless I have failed to understand even more than I thought ? Its the 'perforce' bits in the swaps contract that concern me as I do not really understand what they mean in the real world.( though all the above posts are helpful)
housemartin2
21/5/2013
17:32
It's a little unfair on the company to suggest they have done nothing regarding the interest rate swaps. I recollect that in 2011 they paid c£6m to bring the swaps into line with the actual level of indebtedness, reducing the total swaps from £155m to £105m and improving the weighted interest rate charge from 5.9% to 5.3%. One factor which would cause the bank counterparty to exercise the break clause would be if the company remained 50% over-hedged. An interest rate hedge could be compared to a fixed rate mortgage: in return for knowing what his outgoings will be the borrower incurs a potential liability for early termination charges, reflecting the cost to the lender (who may have a floating rate) of unwinding the transaction. If interest rates subsequently go down, the borrower suffers a cash cost and vice versa.
jimbo3352
20/5/2013
20:06
But.... a number of other prop coys have had swaps in place and they have been expensive to run and even more expensive to break as this capitalises a loss. They are perfectly horrid and were no doubt mis-sold by our usurious banks. Probably seemed like a good idea at the time.
lord gnome
20/5/2013
19:50
Hi guys The swaps are a non factor The swaps liability will reduce to zero either because rates rise or just thru the passage of time. Nav is 230 and I'm being paid to hold this as yield is around 7pct A no brainer for me..my average in price is 130p.
patviera
20/5/2013
19:25
Don't fully understand either. I assume that if rates stay low, there's an actual cash loss to face. But what if rates rise during 2015, would this reduce the liability ?
coolen
20/5/2013
18:55
scburbs - right, I thought it was a mutual decision. I can't find any clarification. Page 56 of the 2012 AR doesn't help.
jonwig
20/5/2013
18:40
Housemartin2, The banks have a January 2016 break on the swaps. Given the swaps are very long dated then if interest rates have not moved up the liability will be close to the current £42m (85p per share!). They really should be doing something about this - it is the single factor which stops me buying MCKS. The break is described as a counterpary bank credit break - I am not sure whether there are any conditions required for the bank to exercise the break (e.g. if there has to be an increase in credit risk for the bank to exercise) or if they are free to exercise as they see fit. If there are conditions they should say. Until it is resolved (or interest rates have normalised) the EPRA NAV should be taken with a pinch of salt. At the basic NAV of 150p they do not look like a compelling investment.
scburbs
20/5/2013
18:02
Can't immediatly find it but don't the swaps expire sometime ? The point being that it is not entirely in MCKS hands. I do not understand how swaps work in practice but I felt that the further away the swaps expire the better chance there was for interest rates to rise and the loss on the swaps therefore diminishing ? Am I on the right track here ?? The notes to the interim statement appeared to imply that any loss crystalised on the termination of the swap was 'covered' by other financial tools. Again ??
housemartin2
20/5/2013
12:15
FY results are on Wed 29th. pativ - what Col A means is that the 'real' NAV is about 150p, if the swap negative valuation is included in full. However, 230p is the 'income-generating NAV', if you like. I'd be surprised if they ever crystallise the swaps loss.
jonwig
20/5/2013
12:07
If you think 230 is a real NAV take a look at the likes of SREI & PCTN where they have recently sorted out their swaps. I hold MCKS but like many other propcos the discount has closed {or even reversed} recently. If it goes to 180 based on current assets I will be very happy but I will sell.
colonel a
20/5/2013
11:23
WOW just had a reread of some rns here...nav about 230p and a fantastic yield which will only improve with the recent disposals. This should get to 180p v soon...this is my top property pick
patviera
09/5/2013
14:59
Sorry confusing ! Better read as - The sale is only 11% of his fund's holding in MCKS. Retains over 2m shares in MCKS
housemartin2
09/5/2013
12:03
Only 11% of his fund's holding in MCKS. Retains over 2m shares
housemartin2
08/5/2013
14:21
coolen - it's 250,000 shares within his pension fund. I doubt it's a significant disposal, and surely not a transfer out. Relax!
jonwig
08/5/2013
13:17
On the surface, Perloff appears to have become less bullish since his recent purchase at around this price -if so, any reason do you think ? If not, is Perloff just punting in and out ?
coolen
08/5/2013
09:07
Perloff slightly reduces his holding: http://uk.advfn.com/news/UKREG/2013/article/57458361
skyship
01/5/2013
13:30
Er a bit over excited on 25th April clearly !
housemartin2
25/4/2013
12:56
Jonvig, yes I knew but could not get a decent picture off the site this morning so thanks for this. Well given its more than 1 floor then the footprint is less than 0.3 acres so I think that makes me even more excited about the potential value of the rest of the site. What do you think about Office to Residential for other McKay properties ? obviously only a minority of holdings could qualify but its all in London & SE where strong pressure for more housing and a real economy going on. Change use/ flog off / buy-develop more offices / faster rent growth / faster divi growth for us. yum-yum
housemartin2
25/4/2013
12:11
Housemartin - this is the old convent building they've just sold: ... and this shows the IBM offices:
jonwig
25/4/2013
11:59
Bodes well for the rest of Pinehurst Park if 13400 sq feet ( which I think was one storey, tell me if I am wrong) is enhanced by such an amount on getting residential permission. The whole site is 2.8 acres and 13400 sq ft is c0.3 acres. Looks like change of use was not too difficult to obtain with this Authority given the timing between acquisition and change. However its several years before the IBM lease expires and a lot can change by then (esp politicians) On a more general footing, office to residential is currently in favour. I wonder how much of McKay's Estate could lend itself to further enhancement
housemartin2
25/4/2013
08:15
You're right, Lord G. That's one thing about housebuilders' balance sheets: "strategic land holdings" tend to have no residential planning permission and are valued accordingly. When the permission (inevitably) comes, the values are raised a good whack.
jonwig
25/4/2013
07:51
I think that just shows the difference between residential land values and housing land values, jonwig. My district council has just purchased land adjacent to an industrial estate for £200,000 per acre. Last year, when the developer had ambitions to get planning permission for housing on the site, their price was £1,000,000 per acre.
lord gnome
25/4/2013
07:32
Value a building at £750,000 and sell it within a year for £1.2m. How come? Residential use. Housebuilding in the SE must be back in boom mode.
jonwig
Chat Pages: 59  58  57  56  55  54  53  52  51  50  49  48  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
MCKS
Mckay Secu..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

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

P: V: D:20200404 03:55:05