We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Punch Tvns | PUB | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 180.25 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 180.25 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 07/9/2012 16:18 by jeffian Investor room/Financial calendar Key dates are as follows: Key dates Date Interims April 2012 Q3 IMS June 2012 Prelims October 2012 |
Posted at 08/6/2011 10:34 by crosswire Punch Taverns jumps 6% on upbeat trading news and demerger plansShare Comments (0) Amid continuing weakness in the markets, Punch Taverns is standing out with a near 6% gain. In a trading update the company said managed pubs in its Spirit division had seen like for like sales growth of 7.3% in the third quarter, while its Punch tenanted business is down 3.3%. Its planned demerger into Spirit and Punch is on track to be completed by the end of the summer. Chief executive Ian Dyson said: Our operational initiatives continue to translate into improved performance for both Spirit and Punch. This has been achieved during a period of substantial change as we prepare for the proposed demerger of Spirit. Despite the challenging UK consumer environment we are on track to meet our full year expectations. One surprise was the news that Roddy Murray, announced on 10 May as the finance director designate for Spirit, had decided not to take up the post. But this did little to dampen investors' spirits and Punch shares are up 3.9p at 74.1p, the biggest riser in a FTSE 250 which is down nearly 1%. Analysts have been crunching the numbers on the valuations of the two separate businesses, with some suggesting Spirit as a possible takeover target for the likes of Mitchells & Butlers when the demerger is complete. Nigel Parson at Evolution Securities said: Trading at the more attractive Spirit business is improving strongly (helped by the fine weather) and trading is also improving at Punch. We think that Spirit could be vulnerable to a bid (from M&B?) once demerged, while there is sufficient asset value within Punch to give it a good chance to restructure and de-lever. Punch will be split into core (2,956 pubs) and turnaround (2,182 pubs) with these likely to be sold over the next five years. Our new 100p share price target is based on 80p for Spirit and 20p for Punch. At Panmure Gordon analyst Simon French said: Both [businesses have done] better than we expected and the group remains on track to meet its full year expectations. The only fly in the ointment is that Roddy Murray has decided not to take up the role of finance director designate at Spirit. Post the demerger we value Punch Taverns Plc at 20p per share and Spirit Plc at 65p per share based on peer group ... multiples. We don't expect the shares to outperform ahead of the demerger and as such we reiterate our hold recommendation and 85p price target. |
Posted at 21/2/2011 16:05 by jonc Debt-holders reportedly looking to rivals to run pubs in event Punch defaultsPunch Taverns' bondholders are reported to have held talks with rival operators with a view to them running those pubs currently covered by securitisations should the pubco default on the debt. The Financial Times said that representatives of bondholders exposed to Punch to the tune of £2.5bn had held what it called "initial discussions" with Enterprise Inns and Midlands brewer Marston's to ascertain whether they would be prepared to run the pubs on the bondholders' behalf, or buy them outright. Neither company would comment. Around 5,000 pubs are believed to be covered by the Punch 'A' and 'B' securitisations and if payments against these are not kept up the pubs could revert to the bondholders, leaving the pubco with around 1,500 pubs split evenly between managed and remaining leased sites. Since investors will not want to manage the pubs affected by the default they will look for others to do the job, hence the speculation they have approached other operators. City analysts have mixed views on whether a default is a good strategic route for Punch. Some point to the £40m-plus the pubco will save annually and which could, in theory, be fed through to equity shareholders, while others do not see such a move as a realistic option. Meanwhile sources close to Punch denied chief executive Ian Dyson had already completed his strategic and financial review of the business. Historically Punch has said it would report on its review by the end of March and this remained the case, the source said. |
Posted at 04/11/2010 06:50 by crosswire Investors were steering clear of Punch Taverns, which dropped 3½ to 65.55p, as Seymour Pierce kept its "sell" rating on the pub group on reports that Ambac, the US bond insurer could be facing bankruptcy. Hugh-Guy Lorriman, a leisure analyst at Seymour Pierce, said Ambac had insured a substantial proportion of the higher rated debt within Punch's securitisations. He said the implication of a potential bankruptcy of Ambac was unclear, but could be material for Punch stakeholders. If the insurance simply disappears and the immediate result is the downgrading of the underlying Punch debt by debt agencies, "this will precipitate the discussion between debt representatives and other (especially equity) representatives," he said. "What is the likely result of this? Either (1) debt holders demand additional equity injection to prevent longer term default probability or (2) debt holders agree on some form of 'haircut', or, as per 2009, sell out at a significant discount," he added. |
Posted at 30/6/2010 10:36 by jeffian It's a mixed bag, Nick. They started out following the Enterprise Inns 'model' (just collect rent and a wholesale margin on tied beer sales and machine income) but they've diversified to have a significant Managed House side (i.e. where they operate the pub directly and take a retail profit) and have a stake in Matthew Clark, the drinks wholesaler.The market fears a second banking crisis so any company with debt is being hammered. Actually, the irony is that PUB doesn't have any bank debt, having paid it off over the last few years via Rights Issue etc., and all its debt is in the form of securitised bonds which have a long-term fixed repayment profile, but when the amrket's in this mood it won't stop to think about the difference! Having said that, PUB is struggling at the trading level and investors buying for the "good value" need to understand that cash may be trapped within the securitised bonds for some time which will prevent payments of divis etc. |
Posted at 30/1/2010 13:23 by qs9 Interesting that I think another broker had pub sector down as oversold I am sure this week? Also ML was saying that investors are forgetting about the world cup and the amount of booze that is consumed in pubs during it! Reckon any decent news may IMO see PUB back through £1, let's see but last few weeks it has shown great strength when market is off 6%+.. |
Posted at 22/12/2009 11:49 by jeffian PUB and ETI are in the same boat. They may have convinced the market they are not going to go bust and be 'cheap' in relation to their underlying assets, but here's some reasons why people may not be buying them at the moment in preference to other companies -1) Both have seen profits falling, are predicting further falls and offer no clear vision of how they will return to growth 2) Neither pay a dividend. In PUB's case, covenants in their securitised bonds may 'trap' cash and prevent it being passed back to the parent for distribution in the future. 3) The banking crisis is forcing a policy of asset sales which creates a vicious cycle of earnings erosion (the assets being sold to repay debt lose them a higher return than the cost of interest) 4) There is still the threat of regulatory intervention in respect of the 'tie' (both companies make considerable wholesale profit from their tenants being forced ('tied') to buy drinks from them) 5) However cheap they get, their size and market share probably precludes any offer by competitors and any private equity bid is likely to be as a property company (i.e. discounting the wholesale drinks side) and, therefore, cheap. I'm not saying they can't or won't recover, but I am saying it will take some time and in the short term it is difficult to see why investors would buy into them, in the light of 1-5 above, when there are recovering companies producing profits and paying dividends. I hold both btw! 8-( |
Posted at 20/11/2009 12:02 by tricky1992000 NHgood analyst Mr Rollo BE yep NH he turned a seller of the Toxic Pub Company when he was still house broker NH not many people do that BE he did BE and that probably lost them the account NH so what's he saying about the travel twins BE well, he is concerned about a weaker operating environment NH what NH fewer people booking holidays BE yep BE and with the synergies from both companies recent mergers wearing off BE they won't be able to disguise any slowdown in trading BE oh and they still have a fair bit of debt BE We are downgrading our rating on TUI Travel from Overweight to Equal-weight and on Thomas Cook from Equal-weight to Underweight. We are reducing forecasts for both to reflect a weaker operating environment and more expensive debt refinancing. TCG appears to us to have the most forecast risk as it has above-average margins and, we believe, needs to refinance its debts quicker than the market believes, potentially including new equity. TT is our preferred tour operator owing to its potential for margin catch-up and specialist holiday expansion, though the upside from these has been pushed out somewhat further than we expected. BE Trading concerns. The mainstream tour operators have been aided by substantial merger synergies, which are now running out, and significant capacity cuts, which are getting harder to deliver, we think. Both TUI Travel and Thomas Cook Group have generated solid margin increases since their mergers, but 2010 looks like being a tougher year, with costs currently rising faster than sales, given that fuel was hedged at much higher prices. There are signs of unhelpful capacity additions from Rewe and Alltours in the more fragmented German market, and Kuoni recently made some worrying comments about Scandinavia, the highest-margin mainstream market. We show new analysis in this report of how low cost carriers are expanding into medium haul markets. External risks also seem to be growing: for example, swine 'flu, unemployment, currency, the UK general election and the 2010 World Cup. BE Debt concerns. We have been disappointed by the level of cash generation and growing debts, particularly at TCG, driven by weak working capital, adverse currency moves, higher than expected exceptional costs, and acquisitions. Coupled with lower interest income on customer deposits, net financial charges have been rising faster than we anticipated. This is likely to continue into 2010, we believe, with TT recently refinancing its loans early via a convertible and new RCF, and TCG needing to refinance its May 2011 facility soon given its covenant steps down from 3.75x to 3.25x adjusted debt/ EBITDAR, leaving only 10% headroom on our forecasts. Indeed, with TCG's balance sheet weaker than TT's, and with its majority shareholder Arcandor now having sold out, we would not rule out a small equity raising from TCG. BE New forecasts. We now assume a £50m underlying profit drop in 2010 for TT and a £30m drop for TCG, and a £20m step up in net financial costs. This leads to EPS cuts of around 15% for both companies, such that we are around 10% below consensus for TT and 15% below for TCG. NH hmmmm NH interesting stuff 11:15AM BE While on the subject of Toxic Taverns ...... BE this story in the People column caught my eye BE With Punch Tavern's shares trading at about 84p, investors who bought into its share placing of 100p a share this year may not want to look too closely at the group's 2009 annual report out this week. A total of £1.2m in payments were made to three directors - Andrew Knight , Deborah Kemp and Jonathan Paveley - who left the company over the past 12 months. Chief Giles Thorley pocketed £874,000 from selling his share options in 2008, which vested from 2004 incentive plans. Stripping out the option gains, Mr Thorley saw his total package increase 20 per cent to £681,000 in 2009. In spite of racking up £406m in annual losses, £172,000 of bonuses were paid out to executive management, with Mr Thorley - who received no bonus in 2008 but was given £336,000 in 2007 - netting £60,000. BE NH That's disgusting. NH A reward for failure. NH disgusting NH just NH disgusting BE Yeah. BE Apparently, Punch's flak was insisting it was in recognition of the amount of work that management has done to reduce debt NH and whose fault was that? shareholders NH I don't think so NH Getting rewarded for putting out fires that they lit in the first place. BE Not uncommon in the sector, it seems. BE Luminar, for example BE the owner of grim suburban nightclubs NH the UK's biggest nightclub operator you mean BE That's the one. Although, for the avoidance of doubt, not operator of its biggest nightclubs. BE Shares have halved this year. Company's worth just £71m or thereabouts. BE But Stephen Thomas, the chief executive, took home £694k in pay and bonuses BE Anyway, going back to Punch .... BE Pan Yuk, our leisure correspondent, highlighted to me the most curious bit of it BE We know that Thornley banked £774k from selling share options in 2008 NH Sure. BE But this wasn't mentioned in the 2008 annual report BE Then, skip forward a year, the share sale suddenly reappears in the 2009 one BE With the £874k gain backdated to the total remuneration package for 2008. NH So, basically NH anyone looking at the 2009 annual report would think Thorley has taken another pay cut this year BE Exactly BE On paper he took home "only" £681k, compared to £1.5m last year. BE But, between him and his bank manager, his salary rose 20% NH That's outrageous. Punch Taverns (PUB:LSE): Last: 83.00, down 0.6 (-0.72%), High: 85.00, Low: 83.00, Volume: 683.46k NH So investors buying into its rescue refinancing are sitting on a 15% loss NH And the chief executive gets a 20% pay hike. NH nice work if you can get it BE I know. BE It stinks. |
Posted at 02/7/2009 06:28 by timbo003 From yesterday's FT alphaville:NH: interesting story going around in Punch NH: seems some shareholders want to block the cash call NH: including Greenlight NH: which was selling shares before the cash call was announced NH: By Andrew Cleary June 30 (Bloomberg) - Punch Taverns Plc investors owning at least 13 percent of the stock will oppose the U.K. pub owner's plan to raise 375 million pounds ($617 million) in a share sale in protest at the potential dilution of their holdings, two people with knowledge of the investors said. Greenlight Capital Inc., the hedge fund that bet against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. four months before the firm collapsed, and QVT Financial LLP are among those who will vote against the stock sale, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the voting is confidential. Punch needs the approval of 75 percent of shareholders who vote to proceed with the stock sale, most of the proceeds of which will be used to cut borrowings. The pub owner, which had net debt of 4.35 billion pounds at the end of May, will announce the result at an extraordinary general meeting on July 3. Punch is aware of one shareholder that has indicated they will oppose the capital raising, spokesman John Kiely said. "In determining the size of the offer we had to balance the views of all our shareholders," Kiely said. "We've seen broad support from across our register." Spokesmen for Greenlight and QVT declined to comment. Greenlight reduced its stake in Punch to 8.98 percent from 13.3 percent this month. QVT has a 4.1 percent holding. One of the dissenting investors has told Punch that its strategy of selling pubs remains a viable way of reducing debt, the people said. Punch has sold 331 outlets this fiscal year and sees the share offering as an alternative to selling more pubs at prices that wouldn't be in shareholders' best interests. The opponents of the share sale may be supportive of a much smaller offering, the people said. The new shares to be issued are equal to about 140 percent of Punch's share capital. Punch Taverns (PUB:LSE): Last: 100.75, down 0.75 (-0.74%), High: 104.75, Low: 98.75, Volume: 945.55k PM: hmm NH: not sure what blocking it would do NH: tip it closer to the edge NH: anyway NH: that's it for today NH: thanks for joining us |
Posted at 11/12/2008 14:27 by spob from FT AlphavilleRegarding Punch - details info on updated note from Redburn Partners and they are not backing down on this Zombie company :) Value 0p NH: we are going to head to the pub first of all NH: to Punch Taverns NH: or the Toxic Pub Co as it sometimes know NH: and that's because it shares have taken another beating this morning NH: off 10% yesterday NH: and down a further 9.5p to 52p this morning NH: that's a record low NH: now NH: apart from the obvious NH: a massive pile of debt NH: and the inherent contradiction in its business model NH: ie NH: the company needs to squeeze tenants harder and harder to make ends meet NH: there is this note NH: from Redburn Partners NH: it was actually around yesterday NH: but it is really getting round the market today NH: and its says NH: sell Punch Taverns NH: fair value 0p NH: because NH: Self help through a rights issue looks to be near-impossible; company is heading for "Zombie" status NH: now, the note is actually very complex NH: it looks at Punch's various securitisations NH: and so NH: I will hand things over to our resident expert on such matters NH: Sam SJ: SJ: Hi SJ: I'll be brief SJ: But the redburn outlook for punch is grim SJ: The basic deal is that shareholders should get out of punch SJ: Overall, therefore, we now believe that equity investors will probably never see another penny out of PUB in the form of dividends, buy-backs, etc. While equity holders will "enjoy" the theoretical capital value uplift as the debt is amortised (equity becomes a larger part of the EV), even this is of questionable value. Equity holders only own the PUB TopCo and even after the convertible is refi-ed in 2010 the TopCo will be a near-empty shell through which a small amount of cash will be washed each year to pay taxes and and pension contributions. NH: (bohemia do you have the update note?) SJ: What value is a "zombie" shell company that is never able to receive and retain a penny in cash upflow from its SPV subsidiaries ? We would argue Nil, and thus we are today moving our fair value on PUB shares to Nil, and re-instigating our Sell recom NH: right, we should say here that Punch are disputing the note SJ: Bohemia - we're just getting snaps from PUB on that now NH: based on factual "inaccuracies" NH: and apparently there is an update version out there NH: which we are trying to get hold of NH: but as noted below it seems to say NH: Punch cannot redeem the A7s but they can bid for them in the market. Therefore rights issue not so large, but they still think it's a 0p zombie NH: so, they don't really appear to have backed down NH: but Punch will hate this NH: the CEO Giles Thorley will go on the attack SJ: Anyway - dispute about redburn note seems to be focussing on the points they made about the redemption priority of some of the securitisation bonds SJ: all of which doesn't necessarily change the broader outlook for the PUB securitisations SJ: particularly "Punch B" - which is in the worst state of the three SJ: Here's Redburn again SJ: We have set out several times in the past that we think that the risk of Punch triggering the default covenant on its B securitisation is very high. Our current model for the B securitisation (which has been amended to reflect to fact that the amortisation of these notes will be done on an accruals basis, as set out on the PUB website) has the 2Q rolling EBITDA DSCR on the B securitisation bottoming at 1.27x in both 3Q10 and 2Q11; the default covenant is at 1.25x on this measure. Clearly 1.27x is just on the right side of default, but our point is that the combination of the ever more dire news that we are getting out of the pub industry (comments about the trade "falling off a cliff" from the first quarter of calendar 2009 from the likes of GNK and similar comments from MAB) with the fact that we can already see a DSCR level getting very near default on our recessionary forecasts means that investors must now consider the risk that the B securitisation hits default as very real. Should this structure hit default the bond trustees have the right to crystallise their floating charge on all the pubs in the B securitisation into a fixed charge - ie: they can seize these assets similar to a domestic mortgage repossession. Why would they do this? Well, if a private equity company looking for a pre-leveraged entity came along and offered to buy a 100% equity holding in the B structure by injecting capital into it if the bondholders seized possession, the bond holders get a better capitalised business, the private equity holder buys a cheap pre-leveraged business (if they are still looking for these) with no bank debt at all and the only losers are PUB shareholders. SJ: The point being that there is a significant risk of the DSCR cov being tripped SJ: a risk they dont recommend is worth countenancing SJ: Ok have got the updated note NH: excellent NH: let's have a look SJ: Following the distribution of our e-mail about Punch Taverns yesterday (repeated below) the company contacted us to highlight an error in our understanding (set out below). Our error was material, but we do not believe that at this time our corrected understanding changes the substantive conclusions that we have drawn (ie: that Punch is likely to become a "zombie" company, effectively worthless to equity investors). NH: I love a good bust up between a PLC and an analyst NH: right, so they are no backing down NH: Punch is a zombie company SJ: Yup - they say that's based on two key arguments SJ: 1. That the risk of default in the B securitisation was higher than we had previously thought because we believed that Punch's ability to improve the DSCR in this structure through an early cancellation of the A7 tranche of notes was even harder than we thought. In turn this conclusion was based on our interpretation of a clause on page 180 of the B securitisation Offer document, which states that Punch cannot redeem the A7 notes until all of the outstanding A8 notes were redeemed. SJ: and SJ: 2. That in the longer term even if the B securitisation avoided default all three of the group's securitisations were very likely to be "cash trapped" for many years such that equity holders will essentially own stakes in a Punch TopCo that has almost no balance sheet and no access to any cash for years (which we deemed to be worthless to all intents and purposes). The Spirit securitisation is already in cash trap, we believe that the B securitisation will move into cash trap in 2010 and the A securitisation will enter cash trap in 2011. We pointed out that accelerating debt amortisation schedules on all three structures would probably keep the cash trapped in all three for many years after 2010/11. SJ: Now they say they now recognise the rationale behind the first of those was wrong SJ: But they;re sticking to their guns on the basis of point 2. NH: just flicking through the note. really detailed. these guys have done their homework NH: pity some of the big houses haven't SJ: Anyway, here;s the basic conclusion SJ: Even if Punch does manage to get a £250m rights issue away and successfully cancels the A7 notes before 2Q10 (thus avoiding B securitisation default at this time) our second point that all three of Punch's securitisations are likely to remain in cash trap for many years to come is, we believe, still valid (as we explain below). As such, our conclusion that all of Punch's resources will be directed towards its debt providers and for tax, leaving nothing for equity investors for years, still holds. In turn our conclusion that Punch equity is effectively worthless for investors also holds, we believe. NH: Fascinating stuff SJ: And given the macro outlook for the pub sector i dont think there's going to be much upside for a long time here.... so not even really worth a risky punt on the equity i dont think... not yet anyway. NH: and something has to give here NH: Punch can't keep losing 10p a day NH: because it won't see in the new year NH: anyway, there is another quick point to make on Punch NH: and it is on one of their biggest shareholders NH: Greenlight Capital NH: which is David Einhorn, a feared short seller NH: and the poor man has 9.7% stake in a zombie company |
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
