We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Petershill Partners Plc | PHLL | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15.50 | 8.33% | 201.50 | 10:31:57 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 192.80 | 192.80 | 202.50 | 186.00 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| GENERAL FINANCIAL |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 08/9/2023 12:07 by johnwig jonwig, spectoacc, topvest! What a bunch of losers. Between them they've got about 20 totally farty shares. That still doesn't stop them from pontificating pompously and telling other more intelligent investors what to do. Their aggregated losses come to £764.23 and they're almost totally wiped out. They have to wait for next week's pensions in order to eat, LOL. |
Posted at 11/4/2023 07:13 by jonwig topvest - thank you for #89, very thought-provoking!But I think the current annual report (published only recently) makes a big, and largely successful effort to explain the strategy. Take an equity stake in a PE investor which owns companies directly and also within funds which it hawks to investors. Then you get income and growth from the investees plus fees (and performance) from the funds. So you have, in a best case, three sources of income. And, fro PHLL's point of view, get well-diversified (25 "partners), add some GS expertise and cut risk. (VC is only 9% of their portfolio.) What this seems to have produced a dividend yield of over 7%, 1.7x covered by adjusted net earnings (ie. essentially cash flow). And a progressive dividend policy - so they can probably maintain it in 2023. (I'd actually expect considerably lower earnings this year.) They play down NAV (for obvious reasons), but it's about 330p and is, of course, the ultimate generator of the income - I'd expect it to be more prominent as markets recover. The low rating is, I suppose, the present curse of private equity, which says "we don't believe your stuff is worth what you say it is", but it's hard to argue with cash flows. I agree we ought to be given more numbers on the individual asset managers. They do have websites, of course, but I have the impression that private equity discloses as little as possible anyway, so thay won't want PHLL lifting the lid.! The notion that GS will pull a fast one at some point (they do have form!) has one objection: they clearly haven't told the Chairman, Naguib Kheraj, who has been buying all the way down (he recently bought 300,000) and holds I think 850,000 shares. I see they've taken on $500m of unsecured debt which has an A credit rating. I assume it's cov-lite, but haven't checked anywhere to find out. Anyway, I'm not of course trying to persuade you to anything - you've simply encouraged me to investigate further. The headline financial statements look very straightforward, though Ihaven't reached the notes yet. (I'm not an accountant by any stretch!) |
Posted at 07/4/2023 15:20 by topvest I'm quite interested in this vehicle and the underlying assets. Despite being an FCA with a big-4 background, I am still struggling to understand their accounts without pulling out a calculator and really concentrating. They are a bit misleading in my view, which is always the danger when you have the clever boys and girls from GS running the show.They have US$283bn of AUM of which US$194bn is fee paying. It looks like Petershill then only owns 13.5% of these or US$38bn or US$26bn of fee paying AUM. Lets say US$30bn of AUM then to simplify and a cUS$5bn valuation. That's a whopping 17% of AUM on valuation or comparing like for like about 50% of book value using market cap - say 8% rounded down. That is versus GHE and FSG currently valued at below 4% of AUM. So twice the AUM valuation which immediately makes me wary! Well, its not quite that straightfoward as the net management fee rate is higher at c1.4% versus c1% for GHE, so that presumably accounts for the much higher valuation. They really should disclose more clearly that this is a cUS30bn AUM group and not the nearly US$300bn. If you look at the individual managers they all seem to have US$10-20bn of AUM.....Petershill only own 13.5% of this...it's not very clearly disclosed which makes valuation very difficult as they continually peddle the gross numbers which they only own a minority interest. Anyway, its on a P/E of 8 and a Dividend Yield of 7% so worth watching. Lesson for Goldman Sachs here is that they are turning-off investors with too much technical mumbo jumbo. They need to explain better what this highly technical vehicle does otherwise they will continue to put people off investing in it. The discount rates applied are quite high but even these are unclearly disclosed, and I think they are taking into account performance fees at a c25% discount rate. Is this opaque disclosure intentional? Was it GSs original intention to float 25% or so at a toppy valuation and then wait for the inevitable fall off in price given the odd structure of this vehicle. Then two year's down the track they can buy it back at less than half the price and take it private again benefiting their own clients. I'm not entirely convinced on the ethics...what do others think? Overall, the asset managers look like they are extremely profitable....... but are valued accordingly and we are now in an asset bubble burst phase. A discount is warranted given its only a small minority interest that is being held. Petershill does not control any of the asset managers. Probably the safest way to value this is just to look at the P/E multiple and Dividend Yield. Given performance fees are a good 30-40% of income, a much lower P/E is warranted versus other listed asset managers as performance fees by their very nature are one-off and not always recurring. There is also the obvious risk of Goldman Sachs clients holding 76% of a minority interest listed vehicle and so this could quite quickly get snapped-up in a go-private transaction. Why was it listed in London, when all the holdings are US asset managers? Aren't the GS clients going to be rather upset at the performance of their assets that are now marked to market and on a c50% discount? The accounts also give very little detail on the 25 asset managers. You would expect % holding, opening and closing AUM and net flows for each asset manager as a minimum, but nothing! Anyway, still waiting and watching...not sure its anywhere near as cheap as it looks as a 50% discount on a very high valuation is still on the high side! I've concluded that I much prefer Gresham House, Foresight and MAN Group. Any thoughts on my analysis as I'd like to be proved wrong? I'd like to invest in this, but my rational analysis says stay well clear unless its really really cheap and the chart bottoms out. |
Posted at 13/2/2022 21:40 by tania67 Odd that the IPO appears to have been at such a large premium to NAV. This suggests that initial investors either regarded NAV as conservative, or considered NAV less important than prospective cashflows.Consistent with the latter, last week’s presentation tried to stress that PHLL’s earnings should be less volatile than other similar funds, but should grow. The prospectus spoke of a “progressive&# Thoughts? |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
