The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
I'm still hanging in here. They've written off millions in value of the PUMA holdings and shafted us good and proper, but the shares are worth nowt a yard so I might as well keep them.
I've made more money a lot quicker than with this share and I'm blaming most of my grey hair on its ups and downs. But it;s like a drug. I can't give it up LOL
I'm not too worried about missing a spike. At least I don't have to wade through all those juvenile posts by the yapping dog bus chasers who's only form of research seems to be the highest risers chart ;)
I've missed all the action today having been out all day. Seems like something is stirring at HCP at long last. Get your Sell orders ready.
Seems like Shore have dropped out of the significant owners listand roughly the amount of shares they owned are now controlled by Pershing Keen Nominees. Anybody know why?
There is something strangely addictive about this share. In the three years that I have been in I've seen all sorts of strange practices. Its as though someone is trying to shake off all the little guys and corner the company for themselves. Wonder who that can be? Well, given that Shore own half of PUMA and a lot of HCP who own the other half of PUMA...................... The only thing I can't understand is why they don't just go in and buy the lot at the pittance it is? Five years ago the SP was almost 10X what it is today and nothing much has changed as far as I can see. I'm in to the end; win or lose it has been an interesting ride.
I'm still hanging on in here for my sins. I still think this is an 8p share, but while ever the BOD are valuing PUMA at zero it may never materialise.
If you read the relevant annual report Puma was written down to zero purely because of the collapse of the Barc contract and the uncertainty that caused. Since then subsequent annual reports have indicated that they have overcome the loss of this customer and were doing well. Yet, Puma have remained valued at zero on HCP books. Initially I believed that Puma were being deliberately undervalued to try and hide the true value from any takeover merchants. Given the relatively low value of HCP even I could almost have mounted a takeover, well you get what I mean? As time has gone on and remember the Hendersons buying / selling cycle to try and create volume, then Shore's adding a lot more shares to their portfolio, and allowing for the fact that Shore already own the other half of Puma, I am now of the opinion that Shore want our share for as little as they can possibly pay, and not the true value of HCP. Be very wary of this one as it is a complicated situation. Mark Jackson is a director of both the companies listed in the RNS and these companies list their activities as: "Management consultancy activities other than financial management." Who better to hold shares on behalf of someone wanting to build their stake without triggering RNS frenzy?
IMO Shore will now buy enough cheap shares to force a takeover or will wait for administration and make a silly offer. Bear in mind that HCP have only one investment stream - 50% of Puma, the other 50% being owned by Shore. Either way. We are going to get shafted I reckon.
Sooner or later. Preferably sooner, HCP will have to value their stake in Puma at its true worth.
The biggest issue is when are HCP going to properly declare the value of their investment and how much? They can't keep it at zero for ever.
The 2012 figures included a heft £20m severance payout from Barc. IMO there are some back room dealings going on here and whilst I still believe it is right to hold for a good future profit I am always wary of engineered bankruptcies on AIM companies. And there have been several unexplained crashes of SP historically. 50% drop in an hour a year or so back right out of the blue.
Another ramping troll to add to the Filter
Shore own 50% of Puma hotels PHP as part of their investment portfolio. The other 50% is owned by HCP and is their only investment. After the Barca contract collapse PHP reported a profit of £20m and this was used to reduce the debt. This remaining debt is now owned by Lone Star. The PHP holdings are 20 top flight hotels. Shore increased their share of HCP last year to 21.99%. Their business is financing other businesses. So my original question remains unanswered; ie. How can a takeover other than Shore be possible?
Just realised that there is a flaw in my maths. 50% of 100% and 21.99% of the remaining 50% works out at around 61% overall. And so on................. Sorry. But the question remains.
Could someone please explain to me how possibly there could be a buy out? As I see it HCP own 50% of Puma Hotels, the other 50% being owned by Shore Capital. Shore also own 21.99% of HCP meaning that Shore actually own 71.99% of Puma. If the 'mistake' in the annual report was a true representation on what Shore have agreed with another party or parties then Shore would own 81.18% of Puma which is close to the 90% needed to force us little guys to give up our shares for peanuts. Incidentally; if Shore had agreed to buy the shares from the third biggest shareholder Nortrust then the combined amount would be 31.66% or 81.66% adding their 50% stake which isn't too far off the possible 'Freudian slip' that was corrected by the RNS. So, theories please?
I understand your concern. However, if you read the annual reports of 2010 and 2011 you will see that before the Barca contract cancellation the investments were valued at over £400 million. Other than Barca cancelling their contract nothing has changed. And post Barca the hotels are doing good business. What you are right about (IMO) is that someone is trying to get these assets cheaply. And again (IMO) the board are part of this strategy.
Around four years ago the HCP hotels were valued at over £400 million. Then there was a problem with a company called Barca who were putting most of the business through HCP books. Barca had to pay a severance payment and while the negotiations were going on the HCP board re-valued the hotels at zero on the annual report. They explained that this figure represented the uncertainty of the future. A couple of years later the annual reports suggest that the company has managed to turn the corner and are doing OK. Yet the hotels are still valued at zero and any operating profit has been ploughed back into the accounts to read also as zero. If those hotels are still worth the same as in 2010 the assets are worth 80p per share and then there is the business to add to that. The hotels operated by this company are not tuppence ha'penny boarding houses. Check their portfolio. While all this was going on Hendersons were selling and re-buying huge blocks of shares probably in an attempt to stimulate some buying. Look back at the previous RNS and you will see they go above and below the 6% trigger point several times. Also, Shore who own Puma, aka PHP have been buying stock in what seems like private agreements with other major shareholders. They have increased their share considerably. Do your own research in the last three or four annual reports and the RNS notices over the last two years.There is something going on and I intend to be part of it.
Operating profit zero again. Puma valued at zero again. As i said earlier on; the board are deliberately undermining the SP. Why I don't know but I wish I had followed my hunch and sold on Friday to re-buy today.
This has happened several times over the last couple of years. You only have to get one private investor buying or selling a few hundred £'s and the SP goes up or down by 10% or more. When it goes up you get all those who cannot research past the Top Risers list or Walts who just follow the busiest bulletin boards. You get the same clueless sheep jumping in whenever a stock makes the fastest movers list. About a year ago there was one major player buying several K's of shares one week then selling them the next causing a see-saw of the SP. It would appear that the plan didn't work as we are still where we were then. My only concern about this share is that all it would take is for the top two shareholders to come to a private agreement and us little guys would be squeezed out in typical AIM fashion. As for who might be masquerading as who; I use the Filter option very liberally ;)