Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Peel Hotels LSE:PHO London Ordinary Share GB0002583606 ORD 10P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 73.50p 69.00p 78.00p 73.50p 73.50p 73.50p 4,773 07:45:15
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Travel & Leisure 16.1 -0.7 -6.0 - 10.38

Peel Hotels Share Discussion Threads

Showing 426 to 449 of 450 messages
Chat Pages: 18  17  16  15  14  13  12  11  10  9  8  7  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
29/7/2018
21:12
http://www.knightfrank.co.uk/hotels-for-sale
skyship
29/7/2018
16:50
The hotel market is still pretty buoyant according to the latest Christie report.
battlebus2
29/7/2018
16:47
I did stay at the Roal Norfolk a few years back with my family, using the shareholder discount. It was OK, but quite run down. We usually stay at Marriott’s or nice hotels and this was second or third tier, so it was a bit of a shock! Anyway, they have probably spent £10m + on it. I can’t believe that it’s worth anything like that. Might be worth £5m or so, because it’s in Bournemouth. There are some lovely country hotels like Brockencote Hall and The Elms near us. Top tier hotels that have been bought by multi millionaires. They only sell for c£2m each which is amazing. The fact though is that each of the hotels need a staff of 70 or so to deliver a premium service, but don’t turn a profit. That’s the hotel industry for you- difficult!
topvest
29/7/2018
16:38
TV - agreed, paying £8.5m in Jun'09 for the Royal Norfolk in Bournemouth may have been unwise; though I have to admit I have no idea what its value today might be! Will Google for other country hotel deals...
skyship
29/7/2018
15:53
You have a point Skyship but I fear if the owners weren’t as straight as the Peels shareholders would’ve been shafted long ago. Not currently a holder but originally bought my first stock at around 40p a few years back and added several times as the price recovered so did very well. I’m not sure what’s behind the recent slowdown but don’t believe it’s anything the Peels could have easily fixed. A sale of one or two hotels could’ve made a big difference to trading and debt levels. There’s still value here but that’s something may have to wait until they retire.
battlebus2
29/7/2018
15:10
OK fair point. The mistake they probably made was reinvesting some of the boom proceeds into the run down Bournemouth hotel. The smart money would have sold out completely, but I think they loved running hotels.
topvest
29/7/2018
14:36
TV - as I said above - "No, the Peel brothers have kept this alive; but clearly are NOT excellent stewards." Doesn't seem as though you "can make a case to the contrary". Perhaps Battlebus will give it a go...
skyship
29/7/2018
12:48
You haven’t mentioned that the company would have gone bust a few years back if the Peels hadn’t loaned large amounts to the Company. They were also virtually unpaid for a few years. If they were poor stewards they could have taken private and left shareholders with nothing. As it was I was able to get out at a profit when the going had improved. The Peels are very good. Unfortunately the UK hotel industry is not the best way to make money.
topvest
29/7/2018
10:12
"If there were more stewards like the Peel's on the stock market, then it would be a better place by far!" !!!!! 2010/11/12/13/14/17 - NO DIVIDENDS 2015/16 - WOW – total dividends of 3.5p…. Over the 9yrs of 2010-2017 t/o has averaged £15.7m from a range of £14.2m - £17.1m. Pre-tax profits in that time have averaged £255k; ie a return of just 1.6%. NB – this is over a 9yr period of manjana, manjana – just read through the statements. No, the Peel brothers have kept this alive; but clearly are NOT excellent stewards. More companies like this on the stock-market wouldn't be of much use to shareholders. I repeat, the best thing to happen would be for the Peel brothers to do the right thing, make an offer to outside shareholders and put this public listed company out of its misery. If you two can make a case to the contrary – let’s hear it please. I would seriously like to read and learn.
skyship
28/7/2018
20:44
Indeed Topvest 👍
battlebus2
28/7/2018
20:20
I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be listed. If there were more stewards like the Peel's on the stock market, then it would be a better place by far!
topvest
28/7/2018
19:10
However you look at it, PHO shouldn't be a listed company. Best and easiest solution would be for the Peels to make an offer for the balance of the stock they don't own. A 90p offer would surely succeed. A massive asset discount; but a 30% premium would be difficult to ignore!
skyship
28/7/2018
17:58
The covenant breach is a red flag, but the Peels have saved the company once already and will probably do so again.
topvest
28/7/2018
13:47
The second half was weaker than the first half, but they still made an operating profit (discounting the write down in asset value of the two leasehold hotels) and a profit after tax. But that level of profit wouldn't cover interest payments. Operational cash-flow was stronger, as they reduced working capital (Obviously, they can't go on doing that for more than a repoting period or two.) and so were able to reduce debt much mroe than expected. Hi Topvest, I agree with your remarks re the breach post-year end.
cjohn
27/7/2018
20:30
I think the covenant breach is now a red flag. It looks like it will be a struggle!
topvest
27/7/2018
20:27
Most useful comments from CJohn & topvest - Gents - I think it would be prudent for me to continue to sit on the side.
pugugly
27/7/2018
20:20
I suspect they have missed on an interest cover ratio. Implies Q1 post year-end deteriorated further.
topvest
27/7/2018
19:51
My feeling is that the large discount to asset value and the very conservative balance sheet valuations provide a healthy margin-of-safety for asset-based investors. Would the breach of the banking covenant relate to the ratio of operating profit to interest payments?
cjohn
27/7/2018
19:36
Well its surprising that they have breached their banking covenants despite debt levels continuing to be reduced. Surely this should have been announced as there was a false market in the shares, as its clear from the share price that some people knew things had deteriorated. I think the problem here is that the asset values probably don't represent lots of value. Who wants one of their fairly run-down hotels, as they are very difficult to keep profitable? I think they will survive, but only because of the Peel directors who will find a way forward and are excellent at running hotels. Trouble is they are getting quite old (as are the hotels!) and so are probably acutely aware of the need to try and get this onto a firmer footing / exit.
topvest
27/7/2018
16:30
Hi Skyship, As a matter of fact, discounting the write down of asset value of the leashold hotels of £1,161,241, they made a profit after tax of £327k and paid tax for the year of £109k.
cjohn
27/7/2018
14:20
CJohn - Very many thanks for those costs - £27.2M -v- current market cap of approx £9.6M - assuming ADVFN figures correct - then something very much adrift - time to dig deeper bu Mr Market usually right - If not possibly a wonderful break-up opportunity.
pugugly
27/7/2018
14:05
Nice assets, but they lose money! I wonder whether 10% shareholder David Barry might be able to move things along here; as the controlling brothers don't seem to be in any haste to do so...
skyship
27/7/2018
11:53
Hi Pugugly, A few months ago, Des Walker researched the valuation of the hotels. The freeholds were valued at cost and most were bought many years ago; so we might expect current market values to be considerably higher. This is what he found out: Anyway here is the list and purchase dates of the freehold properties ... Bradford £4m - 1998 Leeds £4.75 - 1999 Newcastle £4m - 1999 Wallingford £?? - 2002 Peterborough £6.2m - 2007 (Lease was bought in 1998 for £3.85m, Freehold bought in 2007 for £2.35m so makes sense to value this as though it was bought entirely in 2007) Bournemouth £8.25m - 2009 Ignoring Wallingford where I don't have a purchase price the other five cost prices together add up to £27.2m. Thanks once again, Des, for you research
cjohn
27/7/2018
11:31
"The Board is considering its options in regard to the properties within the two Subsidiaries, including change of use, it is therefore possible that the impairment could be reversed if a more profitable future for the properties could be found." I presume they must have something in mind, if they float the idea. Overall, the results were better than I'd expected. Operational cash flow was strong. I'd expected debt to increase; instead a £1.1m decerease. Having said that, about £800k of cash was generated from better collection of receivables and later payment of payables, which might reverse in the next period. Though they do say they are focused on reducing debt and the cost base.
cjohn
Chat Pages: 18  17  16  15  14  13  12  11  10  9  8  7  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:31 V: D:20180815 03:15:13