Ryan Mee, CEO of Fulcrum Metals, reviews FY23 and progress on the Gold Tailings Hub in Canada. Watch the video here.
Barons yesterday suggested that Shell may now follow a variable dividend policy, as BHP does...
What is BHP's dividend policy? The BHP dividend policy provides a minimum 50% payout of Underlying attributable profit at every reporting period. The Board will assess, every reporting period, the ability to pay amounts additional to the minimum payment, in accordance with the capital allocation framework.
Sorry...but I think this is a very poor show and has destroyed a very very proud record. They got through WW 2 and all the subsequent crises and now cant stand their ground? They could have muddled through, we all know it...
Well they may have saved some $$$ but they have destroyed a ton of investor goodwill...
A sad sad day indeed ...
Shame on you Buerdon!
<
How about 50 years?
Actually I believe the chance of them NOT getting a debt extension is ZERO. And what's more even when they do, it will probably have no impact on the stock price whatsoever. All the market is interested in is LTV...
I'm trying to digest the full implications of the latest Property Valuation. Firstly, the portfolio is now 60% European, and 40% UK. Secondly the UK properties are increasing in value at about 1.3% per quarter, based on the latest figures, ie 5% pa The European properties are struggling and there appears to no turnaround in sight. It looks to me this is still 2-3 years away, if that. There may be even more big shocks ahead, it the market is so weak, especially in Paris My patience is about exhausted, but I would like to consider other points of view here Anyone?.
Looks like I was right first time: Here is an explanation from IPI: "Europe: the big falls are in France. • There is one warehouse which has been a bottling/distribution hub for Coca-Cola. The tenant lost the Coca-Cola contract so gave notice to vacate but there was an expectation that Coca-Cola would invite/require the winner of the contract to use this warehouse because it works so well for them. Coca-Cola have now changed their mind about the site so it will become vacant. The building is only licenced for handling beverages at the moment (so is difficult to let) and €7m expenditure required to achieve full operating licence. €7.1 million deducted from valuation. • Tenants in two French multi-let office buildings are expected to vacate at next opportunity, leading to write-downs through expected vacancies and refurbishment costs. Demand for office space in Paris is very slow. On the very good UK sale, the buildings at Gerrard’s Cross are (empty) office buildings and so have been valued as such. We obtained planning permission in 2010 for conversion to residential use but conditions relating to parking spaces made it uncommercial (we or the buyer would have had to put in underground parking). Local authorities have now changed policy on parking spaces and are being encouraged to facilitate conversion of commercial property to residential and this has changed the dynamic but IPIT doesn’t have the resources to pursue a renewed planning application. It’s being bought by a developer for conversion to residential. He’s had to pay up to get it as we had competing interest. With both the French warehouse and Gerrard’s X a change of circumstances with tenant and/or usage has triggered a big revaluation, but you can’t revalue until they’ve actually happened. If the warehouse had not fallen out of favour with Coca-Cola and developers had not offered >£3m for Gerrard’s Cross they would probably have been valued at much the same levels as in September." That's a high quality response, which I appreciate. Hope this helps all you long suffering shareholders!! Or maybe not!
Yes, I think you are right. The average remaining lease term on the European properties is not much more than 18 months. Maybe if we go another quarter and there are no further lease signings, we can expect a further drop of 10% or so, and so on until new leases reverse the trend. So turbulence now seems the order of the day.. I notice one UK property was sold at almost TWICE the valuation!! How is that possible unless there is gross undervaluation going on?? None of this seems to add up...
it must surely relate to the loss of a major tenant what else could it be? then we may see the drop reverse itself just as suddenly when they re-let but what do i know?
LTV SLUMPS by 5%!! They've never had this kind of extreme fluctuation before. As I said, IPI has an endless capacity to disappoint.... Yet sales are taking place well in excess of valuations, and IRC is steady. What to make of this? Maybe someone smarter than me can explain...
Any guesses for the next valuation due out in a few days? As you know IPi has excelled itself in not offering shareholders the slightest scrap of hope for 5 years. That's a long time folks. And the directors seem to take a particular delight in painting as gloomy a picture as possible, probably to cover their backsides. I sometimes wonder if buying the European portfolio before shareholder funds were to hand, as appears to be the case, could be classified as reckless trading. Here's my guess: LTV 104.30 IRC: 135.00 You can be 100% sure IPI will take as long as possible to restore any semblance of value...
Yes, that is a real whack above valuation. I've long felt the valuations doled out are on the pessimistic side. Let's hope IPI continues to prove its assets are undervalued. I've run this increase through my own model which is updated to March 2013 and I come up with an Adjusted NAV of 6.6p if all the properties were undervalued to that extent which isn't likely of course. This takes account of the fact that RBS get 20% of any upside in valuations as previously agreed between the parties.
Keep on ticking!!
Some observations: March 2009 ========== Vacancy rate 5.5% Average gross yield 9.5% Weighted average lease term 4.5 yrs LTV 91.8 IRC 151.4 October 2014 ============ Vacancy rate 11.0% Average gross yield 8.9% Weighted average lease term 2.9 yrs LTV 104.9 IRC 145.7 IPI have advised me that "Valuation is, in part, a discounted cashflow exercise based on rent receivable. Each quarter gets you a bit closer to the lease expiry so it’s ‘natural’ to have reducing valuations if everything else is constant. What we really need is the ‘everything else’ to change for the better: sentiment, economic growth, supply and demand, rental growth etc etc. " Looking at the numbers above its clear that to restore LTV the overall vacancy rate still has to improve drastically ( like to half of what it is now) and the average lease term needs to almost double from what what it is now. And these parameters are basically tied to the health of the relevant economies...
Well, not much change in LTV but at least stable. The bird may be ready for turning in the next few quarters, as I read it, despite Margaret Thatcher' s avering to the contrary... What is encouraging is the sharp improvement in the European vacancy rate from 18.9% to 12.5% resulting in an overall reduction in the vacancy rate of 30%. This is first quarter since Q1 2012 that the LTV hasn' t declined. A touch of green maybe...
Hi Rendj May I ask your background? Are you an Accountant, or do you have expertise in the commercial property sector? Enjoy your posts, and clearly you are knowledgeable. A relief from typical posts like "why did I buy this POS" etc etc.
Sorry, those were numbers I had extrapolated previously. Lets hope they prove much better than that. Us shareholders are surely due for a break..after 4 years of never ending gloom....
Well, I'm not brave enough to make a forecast, but sure hope you're right. Here' s what IPI has been doing for the past 3 years: LTV IRC 2010 Q1 95.30 158.80 Q2 97.40 151.50 Q3 97.90 139.20 Q4 97.80 132.30 2011 Q1 97.80 132.80 Q2 97.60 135.10 Q3 99.10 146.70 Q4 100.20 142.80 2012 Q1 101.00 176.00 Q2 102.20 175.80 Q3 103.10 160.40 Q4 103.80 159.70 2013 Q1 104.60 149.20 Q2 105.00 160.50 Q3 105.20 155.50 Q4 ? ? Also of interest is that IPI has been in breach of LTV for 12 successive quarter ends and in breach of ICR for four successive quarter ends, each to June 2011 and the bank took no action.
<<A lot depends on the Paris properties which make up a massive part of the portfolio.>> I rather like it that a major part of the portfolio is in or around Paris. That's a pretty cool place and its only a matter of time before it plays catch up.
One thing to consider is that there is now a certain amount of drag on rising NAV. This is because in terms of the restructuring agreed with RBS firstly a penalty amount of 9.2 million has to be paid to RBS then they further get a 20% quasi equity on any growth in NAV calculated from 30 June 2011. I calculate the portfolio has to rise 17.5% before Adjusted NAV returns to zero. If one completely assigns the current net annual revenue profit for 2 years to defray the 9.2 million owed, the Adjusted NAV needs to rise by 11.6% to return an Adjusted NAV of 0. Averaging the 2, based on my calcs, it looks like a rise of around 15% is needed to get back to ground zero. Any further ideas/input on this appreciated. .