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.
"The Board notes the recent decline in the Company's share price, which it believes is associated with activity from an activist short seller as well as recent press coverage, the content of which it believes to be baseless, incorrect and/or misleading. The Company has spent the last week engaging with major shareholders to discuss the recent activity and remains available to shareholders that wish to engage further. The Board and Civitas Investment Management continue to have great confidence in the Company's assets, revenues, business model and strategy. Moreover, the Company continues to perform robustly. "
A nice rebuttal from CSH today and good to see it backed up by a share buy back.
Latest holding RNS shows that whilst BR had opened a short position, they also had a long position over 5% so they were still net long. On Friday they took this below 5%, but also took the short below 0.5%. What we haven't see yet is who bought the 20m shares at £1 at the close on Friday, unless it was placed with multiple investors. However, it seems unlikely that they would have been able to place it at a premium to the price at that time.
Great tactics - I can hear those shorts frying now, haha
Wow CH, you're now defending your position based on syntax? LOL.
And the funds they are using are based on properly contracted rental income for the provision of homes for the vulnerable. Or are you suggesting we shouldn't be using taxpayers money for this?
Haha, keep the pathetic deramps coming - the price continues to rise after every one of them :-)
'The Board and Civitas Investment Management continue to have great confidence in the Company's assets, revenues, business model and strategy. Moreover, the Company continues to perform robustly. " That will do for me, lol
Oh dear , someone with a personal vendetta against the company. There are always people not happy with every single company on the FTSE - its called capitalism. Companies generally make their money at someone's expense, be it supermarkets ripping off farmers, clothing companies exploiting cheap labour, tobacco companies killing people, miners poisoning people. The world turns a blind eye to all of this in the desire to grow and make money. Wake up old pal. Sit back and take the dividend. You'll come to realise that nobody cares about your gripe, haha
'but please don't do it under the guise of helping societies most vulnerable.' I don't - I'm here for the 5% dividend which is about 10 x higher than the banks.
Hi ConcernedHolder. Thanks for finally being upfront about your motives. I have no gripe with you stating the comments below but I feel some of them were very inaccurate and misleading and some are enlightening. In doing my extensive research since this has come up, there were historical issues with developers and I believe the issues are the level of rents and the suitability of the properties. This was a relatively new sector in its early stages and although I do not condone the practices, the funds have gotten smarter and more understanding and we should remember that these individuals would not all have homes if not for the private sector. Having read the Regulatory Notices from the Regulator of Social Housing, I believe that they do not like the lease model but again have acknowledged that many of these homes would not have existed without private sector funding. And it is not like a smaller housing associations can easily raise funding when you read the various articles and research reports.
Private sector needs to make money so that our economic growth continues - its one of the fundamental aspects of capitalism and free markets. I do not agree that conflicts of interest are all bad (and in many instances are good) but they just need to be managed. The housing benefit payments are for the tenants to cover their rents and if they moved to another home (not associated with Civitas or any other stakeholder), the rent still needs to be paid to a private landlord as there is a shortage.
The developer you mentioned, seems to have been part of the sector that caused issues but there are always bad apples. Its sad but the RP you mentioned still provides homes. You mentioned they are all shared homes - so? Those that are not fit for purpose should be renegotiated with the landlords like Civitas and others. It seems to me the RPs hold the strength in the relationship looking at it as an investor in Civitas. Like any portfolio, there will be defaults and not operating assets and if the RP just stops paying the rent, its not like Civitas can take them to court and destroy their trading partners.
If you want to fix the system - get your RP to try that approach and then let's see if Civitas make the announcement. then we will all know if there is a "cover up"?
Thank you ConcernedHolder.
I suggest you stop paying the lease payments, seriously, what are they going to do. That way, it will need to be disclosed and therefore they will need to deal with it. The Regulator of social housing will not like it but I can't see Civitas kicking people out of their homes or taking any RP to court (neither will TP). They will force a solution.
I am going to take this question to the company directly as they state, anyone can contact them.
My family is in the care sector and I know that shared are still used by local authorities as not all individuals can go directly into their own apartment (excuse me but I don't know all the details and that is just one point raised).
Interesting comment on Civitas trying to sell the Investment Manager
CH - I don't think you should be posting on these boards due to (a) being a potential insider and (b) having a huge axe to grind in this industry given your directorship of a failing (presumably) poorly managed RP. On this basis I will report your post and let LSE decide whether your continued contributions are appropriate.
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?
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 am looking forward to reading CSh's detailed response
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.
The difference with TP is they don't have Conflicts or the incentives points raised about CSH.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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.