Raven Prop P Discussion Threads

[kenny] 01/5/2020 01:30

The currently proposed conversion of the convertibles may not be a done deal. The special resolution needs at least 75% of the issued RAVC class to vote for it and the company has announced it has 71.9% on board - importantly, not just 75% of those voting on the conversion resolution.

No advice intended but if I held the convertibles, I would take the offer. If the company does not succeed first time around, they might well talk to other holders to get them on board and come back again. In these circumstances, even if they survive the current vote, the convertibles are probably 'dead in the water' e.g. no one is likely to buy them in the market above, say, 84p (or less!) even if they survive the current proposals: because of the danger of a further attempt.

As I say, no advice intended, not least because I believe the conversion is great for us RAVP holders.

[gfrae] 30/4/2020 18:39

It is the conversion terms that are annoying. I do not want to swap paper yielding 15/% for paper yielding 11% even if it is only until 2026, in fact even that suits me because I believe I will get paid then and not have to give 5p to a market maker to get my cash in. In addition I get a call option, and if all goes bad we get paid first!
I am not complaining too much because I also own the ords, but I would if I only owned the convertibles.

[kenny] 30/4/2020 15:41

Bear in mind that the current conversion offer for the convertibles does not involve any cash outlay by the company.

It is just not feasible for the company to find more than £214m in cash to repay the irredeemable class – which in any event requires a 75% class vote to be approved – and this after the possibility that the company re-mortgages some property to lay out £51m to buy in Invesco’s current ordinary holding. I believe that RAVP is permanent capital whereas, as we all know, RAVC is a redeemable that has a fixed redemption date of 7 July 2026.

[rayg5] 29/4/2020 19:33

Welcome back Kenny. Great news that you are fit and well. I agree with MH that it is most unlikely that the RAVP Prefs would be called. Directors live off them ffs.

[kenny] 29/4/2020 16:04

Indeed, I have made a full recovery and thank you all for your good wishes.

[cwa1] 29/4/2020 15:31

Hello Kenny. How are you getting on? Improving or better, I hope. Anyone in touch with him that can keep us posted?

Regards from all I'm sure.

[montyhedge] 29/4/2020 14:08

No chance directors own a big chunk.

[davebowler] 28/4/2020 14:53

One down one to go! I wonder if the company will now bully the irredeemable share holders into redeeming????

[ceaserxzy] 24/4/2020 20:05

I will vote against the proposal with my holdings, but it may not make any difference.

[bench2] 24/4/2020 15:08

I am not sure re company law in Guernsey re the level of votes before the company can force conversion of the CV Prefs into Ords and 12% Prefs . It used to be 90% in the UK, they may end up with small PC holders sitting with the Cv Pref until redemption .

[ceaserxzy] 23/4/2020 19:11

Is there anything that small PIs can do to stop this? Such as if all small PIs vote against this. It seems they already have over 70% of all the votes.

[igbertsponk] 23/4/2020 17:17

Annoying how quickly it bounced when I wanted to add oodles more.

[eeza] 23/4/2020 17:12

there are lots of FI investors who like the certainty of a call date, and don't like Irredeemables.

[gary1966] 23/4/2020 16:50

With regards to why RAVC holders would accept this then maybe it is because they want to secure a long term, cumulative and irredeemable high yield rather than one that expires in 6 years.

[otemple3] 23/4/2020 16:21

Yep, sorry I misread the bit about IAML as meaning the whole purchase agreement was off meaning an overhang of RAVP but having reread it it is clearly just RAVC which is off (due to the announcement)

[eeza] 23/4/2020 15:54

Little brown envelope?

[gfrae] 23/4/2020 15:39

I agree hindsight,I cannot understand why RAVC holders agreed. Unfortunately yet again,RAVC seem to have been well offered at 90p for some time, I assume by someone who had some inside information. There has frequently been an offer of 27,500 RAVC's at 90p,it seemed to me there was an almost unlimited supply at that price.
Why would you swap 6.5p p.a plus 45p over the next 6 years equating to a yield of over 15%, and priority in the event of a wind up for the Prefs yielding less than 11% ?
Nor do I see a problem with liquidity as at worst you know what you will get in July 2026. Further I would also say that they are better value,particularly at the moment, than the ordinaries (which I also hold).
I assume that Quilters have a particular reason for accepting this valuation ?

[cc2014] 23/4/2020 14:49

Think it's about liquidity. RAVC holders prepared to give something up to gain benefit of more liquidity in RAV and RAVP?

[hindsight] 23/4/2020 13:40

As a holder of both, think this is clearly better for RAVP than RAVC and wonder why holders agreed. Slightly odd/concerning they say redemption removal one reason

[eeza] 23/4/2020 13:28

Don't see why new holders would dump the Prefs. Dump the Ords surely.

[gary1966] 23/4/2020 13:26

RAVC being converted partly into RAVP and so more holders and more potential sellers I guess.

RAVP back up to first ranking with the removal of RAVC which must be good for RAVP? From memory this was a gripe at the time of issue of RAVC that our security had been diluted.

[rik shaw] 23/4/2020 13:24

Announcement regarding proposed re-designation of convertibles

[eeza] 23/4/2020 13:20

RAVC surely, not RAVP.

[otemple3] 23/4/2020 12:49

Not keen on that announcement - we now have a rather large seller in the wings.......