Raven Prop P Discussion Threads

[kenny] 27/1/2021 18:14

Just to expand on the answer above.

On a takeover, a preference holder is entitled to ask the company to redeem their preference shares (Article 2.7). The company cannot force a holder to tender his shares for redemption and the wording makes that clear. It is clear from the fact the Articles state that a holder can only tender all of their holding and not part. Therefore, if a holder has to make a choice, it is clearly a right which is the holder’s option.

There are also other indications of this. A holder has to, on a takeover, give notice of redemption within 14 days - there are no provisions to force a redemption for those who give no notice. This Article 2.7 has been in existence since the first issue of RAVP.

Note that the par value of the preference shares is 1p. The above Article states that the redemption is to made at the “Fixed Amount” per share, which is defined as 100p.

In 2020, Article 2.6.11 was added. This article basically states that the consent of preference holders is required to remove the preference shares from being listed on a recognised stock exchange. The effect is, that even if the company is taken private, or otherwise acquired, the company must maintain the stock exchange listing for RAVP. This was introduced at the request of RAVC holders who were being converted, mostly, into RAVP. I imagine this was because they were being switched from a preference share with a fixed redemption date, to one with no redemption date.

At the time of the Aviva preference share debacle in 2018, the company introduced what is now Article 2.6.10. This basically states that any “capital reduction” scheme, as Aviva proposed, or any variation of rights of the preference shares requires a special resolution, importantly, passed by RAVP holders alone, voting as a separate class.
==================================================================================

Because of the terms attaching, I believe RAVP can be regarded as a permanent preference issue and I hope the above information assists in reassuring other holders that the facts support that view.

[gary1966] 27/1/2021 16:40

No the holder has to agree to selling, they cannot be forced. See the other thread for the actual wording of the articles.

[flyfisher] 27/1/2021 16:35

Is it the case that if this company were subject to a successful takeover, then the prefs could be redeemed at par?

Thanks.

[tyranosaurus] 27/1/2021 14:15

This stinks.
Will be voting against if I still own any at that time.
No chance of getting any at these placing prices.
Seriously considering dumping the rest of my holding.

[kenny] 27/1/2021 11:48

The common view seems to be that all this spending/support by governments around the world will create inflation, which in turn will increase interest rates.

The less common view is that inflation will not be created, a view I subscribe to. This article gives a good explanation of why inflation will not result – open the article – “Quarterly Review and Outlook - Fourth Quarter 2020” at:

I think the example quoted, from economic literature, of the brick thrown through the bakery window, precisely explains why no inflation is likely to arise from this particular governments expenditure.

[igbertsponk] 27/1/2021 09:45

No bad forcing - on a takeover the holder, not the company, has the right to their £1 back. Plus any outstanding divis.

[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?