The Local Shopping Reit Share Discussion Threads

[deepvalue2015] 29/11/2016 13:12

@SpectoAcc Agreed. I heard Damille also got knocked back when they tried to get a seat having owned a similar amount as THal. Would seem LSR Board have form in protecting their private fiefdom.

[spectoacc] 29/11/2016 13:04

Agree it's odd @dv2015; Thalassa's offer to withdraw the AGM resolutions and get a seat or two on the board isn't unreasonable considering the stake they've bought, but LSR board seem determined. It's one thing to block an activist, but another to block one who owns a decent chunk of the company (eg Thalassa own more of LSR than Elliot had of Alliance Trust).

[deepvalue2015] 29/11/2016 12:23

@spectoAcc I dont get it! Why is LSR Board so committed to managers that failed their 4 year mandate? Are they just lazy? Are they thinking 'its easier to give them another few years and pay them another couple of million quid? ' I wish I had a job were I fail and get more money to do more of the same! Whos really driving the LSR bus now?

[spectoacc] 29/11/2016 11:49

I do rather enjoy these shareholder spats. Each time I read a public response from one side or other, I can't help but think "Yes! You're entirely right". Let's see what LSR fire back - Thalassa's RNS earlier seems to read well:

Update on The Local Shopping REIT PLC ("LSR")
The Board of Thalassa reviewed the circular to shareholders published by LSR on 22 November 2016 ("Circular") indicating the LSR board's apparent volte-face in respect of the costs being incurred by the business and recognising that the Internos contract should be potentially renegotiated. In light of this fresh information, Thalassa wrote to the board of LSR on 25 November 2016 (a redacted version of the letter appears below) setting out the basis on which it would be prepared to withdraw its shareholder meeting requisition and work collaboratively with the board of LSR. On 28 November 2016 the board of LSR responded, flatly rejecting this offer and also sadly but somewhat predictably failing to address the question of excessive costs.
Accordingly, the Board of Thalassa will publish a full response to the letter from LSR's chairman contained in the Circular in order for those parties interested to form their own view of the management and performance of LSR.

[The rest is well worth a read too, but don't want to clog up the thread]

[skyship] 25/11/2016 12:40

DV - Nice idea, but totally different. IERE was laid low by massively excessive borrowing, not by Internos. I lost a residual play in the prefs - IERP. Happily sold most & a few ords much earlier.

Hope you didn't caught. If you were, you may well recover some of your losses here in LSR.

[deepvalue2015] 25/11/2016 11:04

@skyship I thought I would show you what could happen if you stick with the Board.
I will share a bit of my homework with you.
Dec 2011 Internos appointed to do an asset realisation program for Invistas Euro
- a similar deal to what they are doing for LSR but they are paid relative to NAV in that case . Here is the link

Oct 2015 Invista files for bannkruptcy:

Im not sure I would give them the chance to do this again! You do the math ;)

[tiltonboy] 24/11/2016 20:41

I'm not happy with the progress the current board have made, but I think they have now been shaken into action, and it doesn't appear that Soukup has got a credible plan. I fear that there won't be an exit if he gains control, so I will be siding with the current board.

[rcturner2] 24/11/2016 20:22

What is the shareholding of the board then, is it bigger than Soukup's?

[spectoacc] 24/11/2016 19:41

I've no shares to vote, but I'd be mighty wary of effectively handing control to a relatively small shareholder - hence if I had a vote, I'd be voting with the Board. (Actually, I have had a vote - with my feet!).

[ntv] 24/11/2016 18:51

Taking the @@l'' out DS and THAL shareholders maybe their way of defending themselves
note PCA has moved nett asset value to almost double in the same time frame that interos are talking about, so what is their excuse?

[ntv] 24/11/2016 18:21

sorry skyship, i am voting for change
performance is poor from this lot
property to be sold or grown
anyone can sell property (you must have met an estate agent!!)

a nice 20% return in 12 months would be worthwhile
as for DS he can't do any worse than this lot can he?

[orinocor] 24/11/2016 18:06

Well put skyship. However 10%-11% return each year for the next 3 years as you detailed previously may sound like a good return but I'm looking for 20%-40% over a year when I invest. So is there any reason they can't slash the prices and sell these properties quickly. Would anyone say no to a 34p return in 12 months? I doubt it but a 40p-41p return in 3 years just isn't good enough.

[skyship] 24/11/2016 17:34

....but sadly no buyers today!

Received a Corporate Action message from Sippdeal today. Surprised and disappointed that I have to cast my vote at the latest by/before 1st December - that means next Wednesday 30th November, over a week before the EGM on the 8th.

Seems as though I'll have to do so on the basis of the information we now have before us - no chance of hearing the Company's proposals for the further realisation of the assets, as promised to be shared with us in the December Finals.

As orinocor so politely pointed out, my decision with just 160,000 shares isn't worth much in any event; but reckon I'll be voting FOR the Board, ie AGAINST the Resolutions.

Soukup is unlikely to be able to match the property expertise of Internos; so doesn't really offer much other than what he has already accomplished - a good kick in the rear for the incumbents, who, behind the scenes, it appears have been doing rather more than we knew.

The way is now clear for them to acccelerate the disposal programme and beat convincingly that new 31st Dec'19 target.

[tiltonboy] 24/11/2016 15:44

Interesting to see that the 28p bid has not been hit today. Perhaps the seller is done!

[skyship] 24/11/2016 15:39

Sorry Tilts - someone did - will have to go search - c10-14days ago...

[ntv] 24/11/2016 13:11

bet if you stripped the layers of so called management/ advisors i bet this wouldn't be a bad company. reducing costs and borrowing costs
start to look for properties to buy instead of selling(or lack of it)
as i said they are just creaming it off.
couldn't run brewery but they still get paid
DTB

[tiltonboy] 24/11/2016 12:48

I didn't say that!

[skyship] 24/11/2016 11:44

Specto - there are a few posters on this thread who forget the portfolio yield of 9.6%; or as Tilts put it - 14.5% if you strip out the discount!

[spectoacc] 24/11/2016 11:04

@orinocor - what if "sell them all by next June" was nearer to @hillofwad's 20% discount than eg 7%? There is at least the property yield coming in whilst they're still owned.

[orinocor] 24/11/2016 10:18

Why don't they reduce the price of the properties and sell them the lot in 12 months instead of trying to get top dollar and stringing it out for years and pay massive costs into the bargain. Has anyone worked out the shareholder return if they drop the asking price of all properties by 7% and sell them all by June next year as opposed to taking 4-5 years and selling at the current asking price. All these different levels of costs are killing us.

[hillofwad] 24/11/2016 09:56

This is how it looks the 10 tiddlers under £1m managed to achieve a token 2% plus over book probably paid for less than a couple of weeks of Internos costs It sounds very much through lack of further sales that the others are unlikely to exceed book cost They have had plenty of time to look at all the angles and explore any hidden values/special purchasers Belive me if there was any value in any of these individual properties the door would have been knocked

There will also be properties in the portfolio which are only saleable for something cloes to forced sale valuations.In addition nobody is going to take a portfolio out unless they can see a clear 20% profit Whats the point? It seems to me as usual Grahame Wahteley has scooped the top prize 34p Thal seem to be the fall guys

[hillofwad] 23/11/2016 13:13

Yes they flagged up that considerable costs and fees ratchted up pursuing a policy of portfolios sales over the last 18 months which have proved fruitless They have served their purpose and been apid handsomely for it At least they have offered to leave should the new Directors come on board Unsure whether that is just adding further costs and disrupting the current policy I cant answer .Certainly rainly Allsopps could step in to the fray

[gfrae] 23/11/2016 12:21

hillofwad, I presume you read LSR's document outlining the costs etc. but think that they are not telling the truth ?