We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ucp | UCP | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 2.60 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.60 | 2.60 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 27/2/2013 22:22 by sailing john WhibbledThanks for posting and keeping the thread alive I have to confess to being a sleeping investor Just waiting for a take out! SJ |
Posted at 23/5/2012 17:15 by scburbs Unitech, India's No. 3 property developer, on Wednesday denied a newspaper report that it was in talks to sell three of its assets for about 30 billion rupees ($541 million) to US private-equity firm Blackstone."Unitech said the report was "factually incorrect" and that the company was not in discussions with either Blackstone or any other investor to sell the assets. A newspaper report said Unitech was in talks to sell three of its assets two special economic zones (SEZs) in the northern Indian cities of Gurgaon and Noida, and a technology park in Kolkata to Blackstone. The assets are owned by Unitech Corporate Parks, in which Unitech has a 45 per cent stake, the report said, adding that the assets sale was part of Unitech's plan to reduce its debt of about 53 billion rupees ($956 million). "Unitech is focused on developing and leasing these SEZs," the company said in a statement." |
Posted at 20/2/2012 11:05 by scburbs Brookfield are a very substantial real estate investor. This is good news IMV (who was the seller still to be annouced). Letting update showing steady progress with the G2 asset moving into the 60%+ let stage (up c.3% over the last few months)."Unitech Corporate Parks Plc ("UCP" or "the Company") has received notification that on 15 February 2012 Trilon International Inc. ("Trilon") acquired 25,055,483 ordinary shares of 1p each in UCP ("Ordinary Shares") representing 6.96% of the Company's issued share capital. Trilon is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management Inc. Following this transaction, Trilon holds a total of 34,805,483 Ordinary Shares, representing 9.67% of the issued share capital." |
Posted at 04/1/2012 11:03 by whibbled Investors Chronical"Stars of India" article.... |
Posted at 26/10/2011 15:47 by whibbled RNS - SC Fund ManagementSC Fund Management Shareholders Statement Following UCP EGM RNS Number : 8980Q SC Fund Management LLC 26 October 2011 Statement of Certain Unitech Corporate Parks Requisitioning Shareholders Following Recent Extraordinary General Meeting While we are disappointed that Sanjay Pandit was not elected to the Unitech Corporate Parks Board of Directors, we are gratified that his candidacy received nearly 40% of the votes cast, along with the support of respected proxy advisory services. We plan to remain committed and vigilant UCP shareholders and, among other things, to maintain the website established in connection with the meeting ( where we will be periodically posting observations and questions. Note that some of the material on the website is intended for, and should be considered by, only investors meeting certain qualifications. In the aftermath of the EGM and the release of the FY 2011 financial statements, we have a number of questions: 1. At the AGM, Mr. Adams implied disfavour for the strategy of selling certain company assets at NAV and using the proceeds to repurchase shares at significant discounts to NAV because such a strategy would conflict with the company's "purpose" which is to develop property. Are we to understand then, that the company ascribes a higher value to pursuing its "purpose" than it does to maximizing NAV per share? Put another way, given that the company's shares trade at around 50% of reported NAV, and that UCP employs low double-digit discount rates in arriving at that NAV, what does the company's Board of Directors estimate UCP's cost of capital to be? Does the Board acknowledge that investments whose return is lower than the cost of capital are destructive of shareholder value? Is the Board prepared to destroy shareholder value in pursuit of the company's "purpose"? 2. Mr. Adams also implied that funds may have been transferred between SPVs. Has this in fact happened? If so, in what magnitude and to and from which SPVs? To the extent that different parties have different economic interests in the various SPVs, how were the relative interests of the parties adjusted to accommodate these flows of funds? Why did the company recently cease providing individual SPV NAVs? Will it provide such information in the future, disaggregated into cash, debt and property? 3. Does the company intend to make public the presentation which we understand it shared with certain shareholders prior to the EGM? 4. In FY 2011, the company reported £4.4 million in "share of joint venture and other expenses", up from £2.6 million in 2010. What accounts for this increase? What is the breakdown of this expense? In particular, what portion of this expense would likely be borne by buyers of the SPVs, and what portion is in the nature of "other expenses"? 5. In light of the company's proposed automatic winding up date of December 2014, and of Unitech's stated intention of monetizing its investment in the SPVs well before then, what is the company's plan for realizing the value of its assets? 6. We note that the company has not scheduled a conference call in conjunction with the release of its year-end results. Will such a call be held? If not, why not? Contact: Peter M. Collery + 1 (212) 813-3410 |
Posted at 17/10/2011 15:59 by scburbs I am not convinced with this proxy firm stuff. Levels of independence and who is paying their fees spring to mind. It looks a bit like banks paying credit rating agencies to rate their bonds for sale! At least the practice is less widespread (HRCO used them as well). However, I would have thought a joint engagement where both sides could put their cases and agreed to respect the findings of ISS/Glass Lewis would be the only valid way to go. If only one side is paying/instrucing them then I would take their thoughts with a pinch of salt (regardless of the merits of the case). At a minimum their should be a clear disclosure of who has instructed them, who is paying their fees and whether the other side has been asked for their views. This way investors can take a view on their independence. At the moment I am assuming that SC Fund Management have engaged, instructed and paid them with no input from UCP. Why do ISS recommend a vote against the re-election of all incumbent board members! In what way does that represent best practice corporate governance? Surely this would destabilise the board to lose all that history. What we need is some freshening to increase independence not a wholesale replacement of the board (unless their is evidence why they all need to be replaced). "Leading Proxy Firms ISS and Glass Lewis Back Shareholder Candidate, Other Changes October 14th, 2011 - London - The shareholders who requisitioned an upcoming Extraordinary General Meeting of Unitech Corporate Parks PLC have been informed that both ISS and Glass Lewis have recommended votes FOR Board Candidate Sanjay Pandit, and FOR a resolution removing incumbent director Mohammad Khan. Additionally, ISS recommends AGAINST re-election of all of the incumbent directors except one who was appointed earlier this year, while Glass Lewis endorsed a shareholder-sponsore |
Posted at 17/9/2011 11:53 by scburbs HE,If there was that much liquidity sloshing around for speculative land purchases then I suspect residential property sales (another likely target for that type of investor) would be tracking higher than they are. If UCP tried to sell via piecemeal disposals I doubt they would achieve book value. The main area I would differ is that your conclusions look at what is probably peak interest rates and ignores inflation. I suspect 6% interest rate would be a more normalised sort of level. In addition, interest rates are high to fight inflation so rental values would be increasing. You look at a point of time fixing rents and interest rate and saying the company won't make money, but interest rates are only high to fight inflation. If there is inflation then rents should increase, if there isn't then interest rates will fall. You shouldn't have both fixed rents and very high interest rates. |
Posted at 07/9/2011 15:06 by kenny Up again today. The market makers are marknig up on every buy, which may suggest they know what is going on. We private investors are the people who only learn about what is going on after all the insiders have bought. |
Posted at 21/7/2011 18:14 by whibbled Unitech REIT - The ORIGINAL 2008/2010 plot/plan.....A useful refresher read........ Unitech to raise $2-3 bn overseas to fund projects, expansion Article bу Property Vertical Unitech Ltd, tһе second Ɩаrɡ Unitech аחԁ Tһіn Tһе Reit wіƖƖ bе listed іח tһе later half οf 2008, аftеr a рοrto Reits, common іח several developed countries, υѕе money frοm investors tο рυrс Unitech's Reit wіƖƖ асqυ Tһе projects include four information technology special economic zones (SEZ) іח tһе National Capital Region (NCR), one IT Park іח Noida аחԁ Tһе six properties аrе expected tο һаν Unitech, һοwе "Once tһе construction work gets completed, wе wіƖƖ float a Reit wһіl WһіƖ "Wе wіƖƖ ѕtаrt selling tһе stake аѕ аחԁ Tһе management οf tһе projects аחԁ |
Posted at 07/7/2011 19:47 by horndean eagle I think Darlcost may be a little optimistic on the numbers and agree that $400-$600m would be for the entire operations. Last reported NAV was 50p. The valuation methodology used was:-The valuation methodology used is the same as for the 31 July 2010 valuation. A discounted cash flow (DCF) basis has been used for actual income and anticipated income from agreed lettings and from ongoing development activity; land value reflecting the effect on value of any construction to date is used elsewhere. Directors believe that this is the most appropriate methodology given the uncertainties in the IT office market and extended development horizons for the projects. Its fair to say that NAV will have risen since then due to leasing progress. Those properties being valued based on land values and work completed will have risen sharply. The NAV calculation was based on the properties yielding between 11.5%-12%. That is a pretty generous yield on offer and I would guess these may have tightened since. If they manage to get the float away it will confirm the NAV valuation and also remove the bad smell that Unitech are currently responsible for. Its worth standing back and taking stock of what has happened since last year at UCP. Unitech were ready to offer 31p a share for UCP. At the time they had 2.4m of space either leased or signed agreements to lease. Fast forward a year on and they have now leased or signed agreements to lease 5.1m feet of space. That is an increase of 112.5% over the period. Outlook looks far more bullish as well and yet the shares are markedly lower than they were trading even before the bid last year. A Singapore listing would be a more immediate catalyst to re-rate the shares and I could see the shares easily doubling over the next year. If it doesn't happen I still believe the shares could double over the next 12 months as investors finally cotton on to the fact that a couple of years down the line UCP will be reporting very substantial profits. |
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
