London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
ConcernedHolder. Thank you for your message directed at myself. I am a little "concerned" about your behaviour and so this will be the last response I make to yourself as I honestly believe you are acting dishonourably and possibly illegally with your comments (however, I am not familiar with the rules of posting on these sites).
I am a semi-retired executive who sits on private company boards as an independent director and I have been investing a long time. I have colleagues who sit on boards of RPs and I have asked them for some insight. I research fully investments I make and I do believe there is an opportunity here (I am only a small holder for now).
In summary: large RPs, which were established by receiving property portfolios from local authorities or government institutions, do not need to sign leases as they have the capital to develop properties and most find it difficult to manage supported living as its a intensive property management requirement. Smaller RPs (as you have alluded to in your message that there are 1,800) are the majority and most of these are run as income generating for families (as you stated). They don't take dividends, as they are not for profit, but take salaries and often provide the maintenance and management through related party companies. The Regulator of Social Housing does not have the capacity to monitor all these RPs so takes the soft approach. I am not familiar enough to comment further on the specifics but as someone that has been in business a long-time, I suspect these smaller RPs were not suitable to take leases for an institutional investor (like Civitas and TP). Therefore, again only speculation, that these RPs you referred to were built up to meet these requirements. This is similar to many other industries I have seen in developing sectors. Supported living rental properties are not new and what Civitas and TP have done is institutionalise what was normally funded private property owners and developers. I am told by my associates that in most cases the higher rents are justified but not always.
My concern is the personal gain that the directors seem to have created for themselves without informing the market. Civitas needs to address this quickly.
If you are a director of an RP (and excuse me but I do have my doubts), then you should inform your other directors of your actions / activities as in any other sector, you would be fired or suspended subject to a review. I also question why you are working so hard on this and not helping fix the situation. If you are part of Shadowfall or related, please tell the truth or stop posting inaccurate information.
My other concern is the lease incentives but that relates to share price and impairment. No asset/property portfolio is without its "dogs". If you have 30% voids, then focus and fix it and the market will correct itself and these firms will eventually suffer. Write an open letter to Civitas (if allowed) and stop paying the ren
Oh dear, the paid deramper is trawling back to 2017 now - getting more and more desperate by the day. Haven't Shadowfall sacked you yet Walter Mitty? AS soon as you started posting again yesterday the share price went up!!!
Question for the group: Why does Civitas keep buying shell companies from related parties?
Agree with both responses to my original feed and only passing on what Paul Bridge at CIM said to me when I contacted him. Suspect they want to respond to each SF point unequivocally and are working with their advisors on this. Also noted the re-purchase activity announced on RNS. In addition, I too bought a few more for yield purposes when the price dropped yesterday but still only hold a very small amount as part of my overall PF. Let's see when the response comes through which I am guessing will be sometime early next week.
CH, I still can't really understand why you'd be so concerned about alerting CSH shareholders (retail) to all this rather than, for example, your MP or various regulators. Although you call yourself Concerned Holder, surely you weren't actually a holder of stock at the time you signed up?
Talk about a bloke thinking badly on his feet after being rumbled! A rushed reply which only served to did a deeper hole for himself, haha
CH - sorry that is a complete lie that this format and text was copied amongst CEOs of Registered Provider and Care Providers for years. One RP, Inclusion Housing Association, who publishes detailed accounts and information, work with all the same funders and care providers that I could see on the Civitas and TP information has nothing close to what you are stating. And to state that two care providers can bring the NAV down is highlighting your frustration if you are really in the sector but your statements are very inaccurate.
to be clear, I am not asking you to stop writing or expressing your opinion but please stop exaggerating. If you are on the board of an RP, this is concerning if that is the way you operate. I sit on a few boards (unrelated to the sector and business here) and I would never accept a board member making such statements and the fact that you have vulnerable adults in your properties is concerning you would do so inaccurately.
'The Shadow Fall report format has simply taken information and formats of text that have been circling amongst CEO’s of Registered Providers and Care Providers since 2018.' hahhahaha That is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time - thank you Walter!
Concernedholder (aka Walter Mitty), I look forward to you addressing the points AdamAnt raised in his earlier post!
Agreed. I can understand that they want to examine things in detail and to provide a full response but they shouldn't take too long before publishing it. I'm looking forward to reading it. I already have a sizeable chunk of these shares and if I am happy with the response I will buy more. This is now paying over a 6% dividend so could be a great opportunity.
Dripfeeder. I appreciate the message you conveyed from the CIM Board. I’d just add the following thought, if I may. As someone who has had some previous involvement in PR (at a government level, not corporate) I know that it’s much more difficult to regain the initiative once it has been ceded to the other side. Since late August, all the running has been made by Shadowfall. CSH/CIM have been on the defensive. Judging from a number of comments from genuine shareholders on this site and the other one, CSH may be losing the argument (and potentially the battle) because they are keeping their powder dry. They should engage and provide a full and detailed rebuttal as soon as possible. Since almost a month has elapsed since these issues began to emerge, I don’t think anyone could accuse them now of rushing their response.
Good post Adam. What sort of 'shareholder' deramps his share unless he has a short going? Comical stuff.
Concerned Holder: Personally, I don’t believe that you are a board member of a Registered Provider who currently pays rent to Civitas under legacy arrangements. You are most likely the author, or one of the authors, of the Shadowfall report.
One of your contacts / informants is perhaps / perhaps a board member of a Registered Provider.
The reasons are (1) your first post on 26-Aug was clearly intended to highlight Shadowfall’s net short and for some reason you mentioned SF’s Boohoo report and provided a link, because at that stage the report on CSH was not ready but you wanted to advertise the “quality” of SF’s research. Perhaps you were also involved in that report and were active on the BOO chat room, though under a different pseudonym.
Reason (2) is that in your post of 13-Sep you listed the 8 TLC properties, owned by Civitas SPV 131, in exactly the same format as appears in the Shadowfall report. Yet you claim on 22-Sep that you have “ZERO involvement with Shadowfall and had never heard of them since this position appeared.” Yet by sheer coincidence part of post appears to have been copied and pasted into the SF report (or vice versa from an earlier draft of the report).
Obviously it’s important for you to appear to distance yourself from SF and pretend to connected with a Registered Provider because of SF’s unpopularity with many of CSH’s shareholders . To begin with, you posed as a “concerned holder” – ie a shareholder. But as it became clear that you were unusually well informed about CSH’s comings and goings, you needed to take on the identity of a board member of a Registered Provider in order to try give credibility the myth that you are not connected with SF.
punter987 - spot on. It is blindingly obvious that this goon is a paid deramper. He just happens to become a 'new' poster on here just as the showdowfall stuff was published and shorts were taken out. If I was Shadowfall I would sack him, because he is not very good and only has a very narrow view of the 'facts'. I had better let LLoyds know that their plan to buy housing to rent is crazy because they will all remain empty after being built, hahahaha ROFL
CH, that does now seem to be personal. It cannot be that 2 care providers are responsible for all void costs of the RPs and Civitas. The two care providers you mention are not big enough if you look at their balance sheets to cater for all of Civitas's stock. Does your RP have properties with both of these care providers? It seems you are an insider but only highlighting one side of the truth. I'm not defending the claim or the stock but two care providers bringing down the stock to 35% seems very unlikely. Please also remember these same RPs are also with TP and are you saying that TP is complicit as well or that they did not do their diligence on the RPs. I am starting to have concerns you are related to short sellers in some way and to be fair the is wrong - don't you think so yourself?
Do you want to have another go at that post? For someone who imagines he is bright you have written something that is unintelligible . Or perhaps the the fact that many of your posts are unintelligible show that in fact you are just another Walter Mitty?
What a goon. In a time of property shortage what sort of idiot bases his claim around the belief that CSH's properties will be empty and bases his NAV on that assumption?! Hahaha Still here being paid to post this garbage.
I'm no fan at all of short sellers. to take serious someone with less than 1% doesn't generallyu suggest to me conviction. And ordinarily i would dismiss the noise, the ebb and flow, and carry on.
Hiowever, i've held this share for about 2 years, beieving in its modus operandi, not only for my pension, but for society, and having read 'the letter', i have to say they have a point.
I was already aware of the housing regulators dissent that CSH 'rebuffed' on the technicality that the housing association wasn't big enough to come under formal action, a rebuff in which CSH didn't mention thier ownership of said dissenter.
The issue that rents aren't 100% covered is bull****, they are; they suggestion they are vulnerable to govt policy is fluff (policy will only change to support). The issue on deals outwith CSH that benefitted the bods privately isn't fluff.
It DOES raise questions over compliance with regulation both housing association and REIT rules wise, that i believe are both valid, and worrying. worrying in that in the lack of transparency, what else hasn't been disclosed, what else is being siphoned away from shareholders.
Personally, as someone who was homeless, i invested because i know the value of secure 'social' housing, and thought i saw a company that was profiting from providing better quality secure tenure homes, rather than just profiting from selling them. I can't tell you my disappointment that rather than being a company setup to make a profit by doing good (or at least not bad) for society, that is set up as a laundering operation for a few, that would never need, or appreciate their stated purpose of operation and profit. The idea was great for investors, great for society - a win win for all. They had to taint it with greed.
Just spoke to Paul Bridge at CIM and he and the management team are fully aware of the various posts on BB sites and the sources of posts. Said they will be putting out an RNS but not rushing to do it as they want to provide a strong and clearly positioned rebuttal statement in response to to the issues raised. For transparency, I have a very small shareholding in CSH so no gain from ramping / de-ramping SP but will be interested to see how this plays out and how MMs manage market pricing.
Good point Matt. However, the conflicts don't worry me as much but the incentives do. I await CSH's comments but if this is correct, we could see asset impairment. In my mind, any property will have "dogs" in its portfolio and Civitas (and TP for that matter) are likely doing what most property companies do - trying to find a solution and when there is no solution, impairment. The interesting part will be to understand the significance to the portfolio. What worries me is that they are always too positive and not balanced in their reports (again, neither is TP).
The difference with TP is they don't have Conflicts or the incentives points raised about CSH.
Definitely looking forward to CSH's response.
Looking at TPs housing association exposure - its mainly the same names as Civitas, with a difference in weighting however.
Except for Inclusion, the balance sheets of remaining RPs are all the same. Interested to see if this spills over.
I am looking forward to reading CSh's detailed response
So, the letter finally clarifies the details of their negative rationale and provides the evidence and backing for it. Quite worrying reading and certainly poses a number of questions for management to respond to. I'm sure much of this will be addressed by CIV when they respond, but I'm also sure that some of the issues raised will have some validity, and there's plenty to worry the market prior to CIV's response. I've switched half my holding into SOHO here to diversify and will await CIV's formal response.
I never said you spoke the truth - quite the opposite. Your position means that you will only consider this issue from one angle. I like to hear all views providing these are from a position of impartial rational thinking. That is not what you were doing IMV. I'd be interested to know what your employers think of you anonymously posting on boards like this - have you told them?