Buy
Sell
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Urban Exposure Plc LSE:UEX London Ordinary Share GB00BFNSQ303 ORD GBP0.01
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  2.00 2.88% 71.50 69.00 74.00 72.50 69.50 69.50 119,545 14:03:54
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Real Estate 11.1 0.2 0.1 794.4 118

Urban Exposure Share Discussion Threads

Showing 26 to 49 of 200 messages
Chat Pages: 8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
07/8/2019
05:16
Yesterday afternoon: Further to the announcements dated 15 July 2019 and 30 July 2019 on the proposed issue by Urban Exposure Finance Plc (the "Company") of the 6.5% secured sterling bonds due 2026 (the "Proposed Issue"), the Company and Urban Exposure Plc ("Urban Exposure") have decided not to proceed with the Proposed Issue due to adverse market conditions during the offer period. Urban Exposure will continue to pursue other asset management strategies in line with its stated business plan and will continue to assess market conditions with a view to issuing debt securities under the euro medium term note programme established on 15 July 2019 at an appropriate time.
jonwig
05/8/2019
00:00
The share price is crashing, The company loses money. Fixed costs are too high. The Bond issuance will fail, what's next?
amarka
30/7/2019
11:53
"Extension of Offer period." (To 06/08.) Interpretation: it's flopped but we're pretending it hasn't - for a while.
jonwig
30/7/2019
11:32
This bond is the wrong price for the risks it represents. It should be over 10% before anyone even considers looking at it. The protections afforded to it will be worth zero in a downside scenario. Compare the pricing to an established propco and you will see the increase in yield is not enough to compensate the bondholder if there is an event of default. Buyer beware!
hawkipa
27/7/2019
07:33
Sorry I'm in France so can't easily access all the background data but I don't think the company has been in business for 17 years (the mgt maybe). As a result it's taking time to deploy it's capital. Don't think the business is hard to understand - it's a mix of direct property investment and investment manager. Short term they've prioritised the latter but warehouse the loans (I.e. provide the funding themselves temporarily) till they've got the third party investors in place.
stemis
26/7/2019
18:12
There were positive comments about the CEO etc. It is very simple. If a company cannot generate a 6.5% return for equity holders then why would it be issuing debt at that cost. Sellers all the way down. Buyers on the other side of course but when you have lost half your money in the space of a couple of years then your generally not going to be very happy. Especially when the likes of SWEF can generate 6-7% returns lending money to property companies on a similar basis.
horndean eagle
26/7/2019
15:58
@ Horndean - who's trying to justify? Critical evaluation tries to see all sides. I have done that and have posted how, and decided it doesn't stack up. The insti shareholdings (c. 70%) haven't yet announced any change of interest, though I know they may not have passed a threshold. Saying "obviously this/that" isn't quite rigorous analysis.
jonwig
26/7/2019
15:14
Can't believe any of you are trying to justify the companies performance. CEO talks a very good game but look at results and look at what the shares have done. He had a very good shareholder list. Obviously jumping ship because they don't want to deal with him any more. That usually comes about because they have been misled or lied to. Cost base here is huge and the returns dire. I reckon the fundraising fails. They won't get it away.
horndean eagle
26/7/2019
13:41
tournesol - yes, agreed. (Any other dragons?)
jonwig
26/7/2019
12:08
I've just had a look at the latest report and accounts and feel deflated and disappointed. It's completely unclear to me how/why revenue and profit were so low - just does not square with the write up of their achievements in the period.I appreciate they are scaling the business up following the IPO, so I can appreciate that profits are taking a back seat to growth, but they have been in business for 17 years - how can their t/o be a mere 3 million? What is more problematic for me is the lack of clarity around their business model/process. To be fair they do try to explain it more than once. Sadly, as far as I am concerned, they completely failed in their efforts. I just do not understand what they are doing with their warehousing and their transfer of loans into separate entities and their complex and convoluted (in my eyes) recognition of revenue. I like the CEO. I like the social conscience revealed by charitable giving. But I am not pursuing an investment in either the retail bonds or the equity. In my portfolio bonds are used for ballast and diversification. The underlying business needs to be comprehensible and low risk. Given my inability to understand key aspects of this business, the risk for me is unquantifiable. I'm out.
tournesol
26/7/2019
12:01
I must admit it does seem a large issue relative to the size of the company. I'm certainly interested. A very large discount to NAV for essentially a property company with a fund management business thrown in for 'free'. But the weakness of the shares is disconcerting.
stemis
26/7/2019
06:06
I commented on the FIX board where a poster said the ords were being sold as a hedge to buy the bonds. My response: It's true there has been some very large selling of the ords since the bond issue announcement - maybe over two million shares. Over 70% of the ords are held by institutions, so the market is thin (or they are the sellers). Whether it's hedging or not isn't clear to me - will be interesting to see if the issue succeeds (closes on 30th). The bond issue is part of a £500m programme, and that really does smack of over-ambition given the MCap is only £81m! Even just a first tranche of £50m would make the gearing too high for comfort. So I actually think the selling of the ords is down to fear in the face of loan-to-value. Would you buy into the £81m-worth of ords in the face of a potential £500m prior charge?
jonwig
25/7/2019
17:35
Thanks tournesol. Here's the video: https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/stocktube/14174/urban-exposure-looks-to-boost-retail-awareness-with-new-bond-14174.html
jonwig
25/7/2019
17:10
Very nearly a 10% dividend
jbarcroftr
25/7/2019
16:51
Just watched the Proactive Investor interview with the CEO. I've no delusions of competence in this arena but he came across to me very well indeed. Very low key but very competent - and thinking strategically. Said that the co has been trading for 17 years. For first 8 was a hands on developer and for the past 9 has morphed into a provider of finance to developers. Said they've never experienced a loss on a transaction. Said that loans are secured 2 different ways 1) a first charge against the property being developed 2) a guarantee provided by the borrower or its parent co. Said that they wait for pre-sales of 20% to be clocked up before they provide any finance. All sounds pretty interesting to me.
tournesol
23/7/2019
09:41
Not surprised shares falling away. Just has that horrible smell about it
horndean eagle
20/7/2019
11:44
The FT has an article today about the collapse of Lendy. I made a comment about UEX and another reader pulled me up. He said the ORB prospectus was much more complete, and implied that I was being too negative. Anyway, here it is: https://urbanexposureplc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Stamped-base-prospectus.pdf
jonwig
19/7/2019
20:20
Imagine they would be like a bank with tier 1 capital being the 150m they say is nav, plus the bonds as subordinated debt, then senior debt such as they have with UBS and Aviva and finally some nearer base rate borrowing. Not sure what the blended rate would be, but less than 6.5%. Issue for me is too much cheap money has been about and 50/50 chance of a brexit storm hitting soon makes the bond a non starter on risk/reward for me
hindsight
19/7/2019
19:40
Something very fishy is going on. Why wouldn't shareholders be pushing the company to wind up and return cash. Its clearly not generating an adequate return on capital and definitely not higher than the 6.5% coupon. If it were then earnings would be around 6p a share. They had a failed fund raising and came back a second time for ipo. Since then its been dire when the market for mezz loans has been very strong. I would avoid like the plague. Horrible smell.
horndean eagle
19/7/2019
13:06
I'd be surprised if this is a scam. It's not some mickey mouse operation preying on PIs.
stemis
19/7/2019
13:02
This looks like a scam of some sorts. The company can barely generate a positive return and yet are contemplating issuing debt at these levels. How are they going to generate excess return over the cost of this funding. Has a horrible stink about it.
horndean eagle
19/7/2019
12:45
AJ Bell offering subscription to bonds. At the moment, ahead of 31 October, I'm keeping my powder dry in putting new money into the market. I'm guessing weakness here is sectoral
stemis
17/7/2019
07:03
Could be interesting. At the placing price, the expected yield was 5%, which didn't look attractive enough, but at 8% and an asset discount it might. The kinds of security and covenants they will employ look pretty tight, and they say they've never suffered a loss. So that might make them look attractive. When I reached p38, though, I was rather put off by the figures comparing 2016 and 2017. Presumably the much lower activity in 2017 was caused by the referendum result? But their costs seem to have a high fixed element so there's a lot of operational gearing, maybe? Also on p38 they have a "gain on loan redemption" which looks exceptionally large. I'd like to know how this arose, what it consists of, etc. but we aren't told. A last thing, they need to get co-investors to build up their loan portfolio, since their own resources with gearing will amount to only about £200m. Will that be easy in a recession? (I'm guessing the UK could well go into recession soon.) As they say on Dragon's Den, "I'm out." EDIT: "gain on loan redemption" is probably an early redemption penalty on one or more loans, in which case it's an income substitute, except that they can redeploy the capital. If so, it would have been to their advantage to tell us!
jonwig
16/7/2019
10:18
Depends on ones view of uk property outlook. At least prospectus has sensible LTV, presuming its followed and values real LTV (loan to value) The Issuer will not make any loans on the basis of an LTV ratio of more than 75% (including for the purposes of calculating the value of the loan, inte rest and fees due, as well as the principal amount lent). The Guarantor believes that this is a prudent basis on which to lend, given historical movements in re al estate values, and provides adequate protection aga inst any defaults by Borrowers under Eligible Loans .
hindsight
Chat Pages: 8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
UEX
Urban Expo..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20201125 00:16:24