Urban Exposure Share Discussion Threads

[jbarcroftr] 05/5/2020 15:38

Margin of safety as the saying goes
I doubt they will lose on their loan book - just roll it on- there will be great political pressure to get the house builders back on site and building
Their loans seemed to be last in first out

[stemis] 05/5/2020 13:42

I suppose on the flip side, it's less than 1% of assets, with little impact on results, there's no personal gain by the CEO, it's simply a badly executed charitable 'donation' (wrt the interest foregone) and there's an implication that the board were aware.

Clearly these guys haven't come to terms with UEX being a plc and not a private company and the level of governance is inadequate. The days of UEX being a listed company seem numbered.

I do kind of feel there is value to be had here (although I don't hold) as a wind up opportunity. Unaudited tNAV at 31.12.19 was 83.9p a share and the company pretty much broke even in 2019. It may make a loss in 2020 if they wind down the balance sheet without commensurate cost savings but gross costs in 2019 were only 5.5p a share so it shouldn't be material impact. There's a possibly of loan write downs but the difference between 83.9p and 40p gives a lot of headway...

[solarno lopez] 05/5/2020 13:20

Lets see what the FCA have to say about the loan

[cjohn] 05/5/2020 11:25

Nobody who's worked in business can believe this loan was justified.


" The Company is not currently expecting to take any immediate action to remedy this matter."

This line from the RNS is very disappointing. Sandhu and his wife have "informally agreed" to underwrite the loan. So they should get on with re-paying it.

And next time, a charity interests them, they should use their OWN money to make a donation.

[cjohn] 05/5/2020 10:13

Oh dear. This is not good news.

What the hell were the CEO and his wife thinking about!!?

Let's hope they get on with re-paying this loan ASAP.

[cjohn] 26/4/2020 19:40

I do take your point regarding knowing.

My own feeling is a much lesser degree of certainty should be enough to put off professionals from acting for a company. (And moreover to set off alarm bells?)

A lot of these companies purported to have huge amounts of net cash on the balance sheet. Yet subsequently raised more cash from unfortunate investors. A very clear red flag. No on-the-ball professional should have facilitated such brazen trickery.

A very good point about company registration/title deeds.

[stemis] 26/4/2020 16:41

I don't think any of those London based professionals (and I'd include their London based non executives) knew those companies were frauds.

I just don't think they knew whether they were or they weren't frauds and indeed had little way of really checking. Frankly that's just as bad.

I remember having a discussion about Naibu (regularly tipped by Simon Thompson in the IC), a sports retailer with 'supposedly' over 3,000 stores. I made the point that there was no way of even checking how many, if any, stores they had. There just isn't the same centralised system of recording keeping of company registration and title deeds that we have in the West.

[cjohn] 26/4/2020 15:49

((Stemis and others, please forgive me for going back to the subject of Chinese stocks on AIM.

What bothers me increasingly about this is that neither AIM nor any of the many usually London-based professionals - NOMADS, lawyers, accountants, bankers - did anything to impede these frauds. Took their fees and turned a blind eye.

I find it very hard to believe that none of them noticed that the said companies were fraudulent.

I've lived abroad for many years and now habitually invest in other countries, including Japan and Singapore. I believe there is less corruption in Tokyo than in London. Much less in Singapore. I'm talking about financial corruption, not political.

It really saddens me.))

[cjohn] 25/4/2020 12:11

stuffee "Settling the acquisition in zero coupon irredeemable bonds would not appeal to me."

It wouldn't appeal to anybody! So not very likely to happen!

[foreverfalling] 25/4/2020 09:22

Thanks for your message. It's most helpful. The only thing I'd add is that the offer was made to the company - not just shareholders. They state "a proposal that has been made both to the Company and directly to a number of the Company's shareholders"

[stuffee] 24/4/2020 18:04

I admire your enthusiasm posters but I'm pretty doubtful anything will materialise.

Has W, itself made any announcement and if so, could someone please direct us to it. Approaching shareholders rather than the Board in current circumstances all looks pretty amateurish to me and is NOT the way to agree any transaction. Did W receive the required consent to approach shareholders without any announcement and if not a pending mega knuckle wrap due. Does W have any recognised advisor? If so, why have they let the share price rip away by 50% without a proper announcement? Oh and does W have the dough? Settling the acquisition in zero coupon irredeemable bonds would not appeal to me.


I've been in UEX since virtually the start and I fear it's not the stock anyone should hold in current markets. I'd certainly grab 73 or whatever with both hands but I doubt I will ever see it.

Would welcome any further info from other posters and maybe I've missed something.

[mcrudden] 24/4/2020 13:58

Yes and they are holding 10% on the share register so if another bid does come in then they could start a buying spree. Good luck

[cjohn] 24/4/2020 13:37

Mcrudden

Exactly right similar to Bry which is why I took some this morning . Delisting cancelled and bid in. Patience it will unfold



I'd have thought so too, even if this approach is smoke and mirrors.

[mcrudden] 24/4/2020 12:49

Exactly right similar to Bry which is why I took some this morning . Delisting cancelled and bid in. Patience it will unfold

[yieldsearch] 24/4/2020 12:47

It was an undated speculative unsolicited approach (not even bid) without proof of fund, and the notice clearly state no definitive timeline on execution.The real purpose of this notice is to disclose this approach to the wider public, allowing the shareholders disclosed in paragraph 2 to trade.

The timing of the 76.9 is not disclosed (17april? January? March? pre covid? post covid?)

The notice is self explanatory. 4th, 5th and 7th paragraph

[jbarcroftr] 24/4/2020 12:46

One way or another it is going to be bought
As Wellesley already own 10% they can’t be dismissed

[intheknow69] 24/4/2020 12:33

Possible 77p bid? Very quiet here considering.

[cjohn] 24/4/2020 12:28

Well, an interesting development today, which I think gives some support to the idea that the current share price is a bargain.

[paul_butcher1999] 09/4/2020 18:04

i topped up couple of days back.

[paul_butcher1999] 09/4/2020 18:04

"...may terminate the agreement if between exchange and completion of the Lendco SPA there is or is likely to be a material adverse change in the financial condition of Lendco (defined for these purposes as a reduction in the net asset value of Lendco as at 18 February 2020 in excess of £10 million) which results from a breach or default by a borrower under any of the loans in Lendco’s loan portfolio, or if there is a material breach of the Lendco SPA.

Clearly there wont have been during those few days. They cannot get out of it.

[jbarcroftr] 08/4/2020 17:00

Bought a few this morning - seems good value at these levels

[stemis] 07/4/2020 09:01

UEX planning to sue for damages.