Raven Prop P Discussion Threads

[stemis] 27/1/2021 09:35

hxxps://www.theravenpropertygroup.com/media/1510/20200731-articles-of-incorporation.pdf

2.7 Redemption

2.7.1 In the event of a Potential Takeover:

2.7.1.1 the Company shall give the holders of Preference Shares a Takeover Notice no earlier than 40 business days before but not later than 20 business days before the expected date of it completing or becoming effective, which notice shall contain reasonable details of the Potential Takeover;

2.7.1.2 each holder of Preference Shares shall be entitled by no later than the 10th business day from the date the Takeover Notice is given to notify the Company that it requires all (but not part) of its Preference Shares to be redeemed on the Potential Takeover completing or becoming effective

No suggestion of a forced redemption that I can see.

[kenny] 27/1/2021 01:36

Meanwhile......the total volume of lease and purchase transactions for high-quality warehouse space in the Moscow region reached a record high in the second half of 2020.

Hopefully, this company got it's share of this increase in leasing activity albeit we will not get any indication of this until release of the annual results for 2020, now due to be published on 15 March.

[2akop] 26/1/2021 21:59

Yes, article 2.7. This still stands in the articles as published after the conversion of the RAVC convertibles into prefs and ords in July 2020, available on the company website.

[gary1966] 26/1/2021 20:35

I think it was changed after the Aviva pref fiasco. Company did it to reassure holders of the prefs.

[tradertrev] 26/1/2021 18:45

Think that redemption possibility was removed when the convertibles were re-designated?

[stemis] 26/1/2021 17:10

Are you talking about article 2.7?

[cc2014] 26/1/2021 16:36

Quilter were previously Old Mutual Wealth Management. Spun out of Old Mutual to create additional shareholder value.

[2akop] 26/1/2021 16:22

Worth noting that in the event the directors take the company private (and this looks like a possible first step) or any takeover, the articles allow a forced redemption of prefs at £1.

[igbertsponk] 26/1/2021 15:29

Invesco will be abel to spin it as a decent investment. Lots of years of 12% yield more than make up for 9.2p capital loss. They just want to move on from anything Woodford.

[spectoacc] 26/1/2021 15:19

Thinking about it - and accepting that Invesco give ineptness a bad name - who in their right mind would sell a 12% pref, par £1, at 90.8p? Have things got so bad? Even Barnett's replacement would surely just tuck it at the back of the portfolio, earning 13% pa.

[my retirement fund] 26/1/2021 15:15

Invesco seem to be the new Standard Life of the investment management world from what I've seen, not something to wish upon you worst enemies!. That Quilter seem to be new on the block, but I'm very sceptical.

[zangdook] 26/1/2021 14:45

to say nothing of their shareholders

[zangdook] 26/1/2021 14:42

The lowest buy quote I got was 101.6.

[cc2014] 26/1/2021 14:21

Indeed Monty. Although I'm not sure if you are aware but all those sells at 102p were buys.

I loaded up today and trust I can now spend less time at my screen and collect the dividends until I die.

Of course if the share price returns to 150p now the big seller is out the way I will have a different decision to make ;-)

[montyhedge] 26/1/2021 13:46

That was a gift from the stockmarket gods 103 to buy.

[gfrae] 26/1/2021 13:43

Almost certainly. There was also a large seller in the Ordinaries. Which was not Invesco, we now know.

[cc2014] 26/1/2021 13:24

It's a problem. But the biggest problem is Invesco who time and time again dump their entire holdings in one lump at 15% below the prevailing price, the prevailing price already having been bashed down due to leaks as Kenny points out.

I don't think there is any other fund who acts so often in this way and Invesco is on my list of funds not to invest in unless the discount to NAV is absolutely crazy low.

This is course is the fall-out of the Barnett/Woodford fiasco where they both had aligned holdings, both individually with percentage holdings way too high to make sense as any exit would have to be at a significant discount as shown here.

To the best of my knowledge this RAV transaction finishes off the Barnett mess and kind of cuts the ties with the old so they can move on. I suspect they care little about the price and just want to move on but my memory is long and as I said they are now on my list of fund managers to avoid.

I struggle to understand why they did not sell some in the market because it was clearly telegraphed they were a seller.


Without the Invesco/Woodford mess the share price would not of course have fallen to 115p, never mind 110p or today's 101p, so whether or not we are outraged we have all had the chance to buy at prices we would not otherwise have seen. Not the best price of course, regrettably.

The question is now what the share price will revert to and whether at 109p RAVP is still a screaming buy. Nothing much has changed from yesterday except Invesco are out the way. It's the same company with the same revenues etc.


You've got to hand it to the directors. As an investorI hope they are good at screwing over their customers and suppliers as they have been at screwing over Woodford and Invesco.

[flyfisher] 26/1/2021 13:22

I would guess that the recent persistent seller is on the placing list.

Quietly sell from 120p down to 107p, exerting downward pressure on the ultimate placing price, and pick up what you need in the placing.

Am i too cynical?

[spectoacc] 26/1/2021 13:05

Not quite. You own 100 of something, you've just been offered 50 at a big discount. You sell 50 of the original 100, still own 100, only now at a lower average and with the profit in the bank.

Of course, they might all be long term holders... but 90.8p suggests demand wasn't that massive.

[igbertsponk] 26/1/2021 13:01

Why? Becasue if you own 100 of something then selling 2 to make a small profit may hit the value of the other 98.

[spectoacc] 26/1/2021 12:59

Not wanting to put the cat amongst the pigeons, but it's likely the placees can't sell down their original holdings to tail-swallow until the deal is voted through. So the selling pressure on both Ords and Prefs is still to come (& why wouldn't you take an instant c.15p profit on the prefs if you could).

[kenny] 26/1/2021 12:50

I think that what the company is doing is legal because there is no obligation to offer placing shares to private shareholders. This is not to say that I don't like it.

What is illegal is that someone seems to have known about the discussions and was selling down RAVP at prices from 123p to 107p over the last few months. Such dealing on insider information is seldom investigated and is difficult to prove.

[yieldsearch] 26/1/2021 12:46

good point re legality of this. RAV is a guernsey company

also how can Quilter (as well as others shareholders representing 15.8%) be ok with this?Don't you just love all these institutional shareholders stating that they are responsible investors, ethical, etc etc but then more than happy to create an unlevelled playing field for shareholders.

hxxps://www.quilterinvestors.com/siteassets/documents/policies/18376-qi-uk-stewardship-code.pdf
Paragraph about Shareholders working collectively

hxxps://www.quilterinvestors.com/siteassets/documents/policies/quilter-responsible-investment.pdf

[igbertsponk] 26/1/2021 12:40

Good to see the Ords bounced too.