Member Info for Kendall12

The short answer to your question is that they have absolutely zero industry expertise on board - at least since you were sacked. Sadly your views have all been justified.

May I take the liberty to ask for your view on Evotec SE?

Greetings to all and good luck as always.

Before you throw all your toys out of the pram might I suggest that you wait until the stategic review is completed.

As far as I am aware Spi could choose from any number of parties able to conduct the strategic review and furthermore there was no guarantee that the review would secure a bid acceptable to the major shareholders.

It also appears that the review was initiated at the request of the major shareholders led by the clown at Harwood.

You really are a condescending being. I am fully aware of the role of shareholders v Board. Isnt there a re-election/othewise at the AGM each year.

Chris Mills is on recored 5th March that SPI now had a mangement team in place that knows what it is doing, unlike the previous management! He is old school City Boy clown, probably born into wealth.

I think we get it by now that you feel the Board should be sacked so no need to keep repeating.

Sacking the Board at this point in time would serve no purpose whatsover, indeed it would most likely hit the SP very hard as it would signal a very distressed company which is not the reality.

It seems that the probaility of a takeover bid, at least from PE is now very low. Four firms have cast their eye over SPI and no firm bids delivered. Other interested parties have been mentioned but that is a very loose term so again my take is that probability of a bid from elsewhere is very low, all not helped by current world uncertainty.

So that leaves other ways to unlock value ( I am not clear what they might be and forget a sale/leaseback) and given the lenght of time that this strategic review has already been underway, its about time that management set out publicly how they intend to do this.

I doubt major shareholders are overly concerned about the SP, they are big boys and have plenty of other matters/investments to occupy themselves and they can play a waiting game for the SP to recover which it will over the next few years.

I think the strategice review, pushed by Harwood was a poor decision. Be careful to get what you wish for. It wasn't needed to attract potential buyers and should have been conducted in the background whilst management got on with running the company.

It will be interesting to see what Harwood have to say for themselves now, they have moved from saying shareholders having to lower their sights from £3.25 to £3 to becoming part of a consortium bid. SPI also remains in their view as being stuffed with real estate, but they to fail to understand the implications of that real estate being very specifically purposed for running hospitals.

I think Harwood have a lot to answer for.

Exactly Badgernator - thecommenst on here become ver more bizarre

They need to find a trade buyer that wants to expand into or expand operations (forgive the pun) UK - then replacement cost becomes a critical consideration

Sovereign wealth funds tend to like value underpinned by bricks and mortar and they have very long time horizons.

More self serving nonsense to suit your own agenda. Consistently traded over £2 for the last five years and been above £2.50 on several occasions.

Bids are based on value, not premium to a all time low share price. People are spouting absolute nonsense here.

Management should get on with running the company, instead of accomodating the likes of Harwood and wasting everyone's time.

Absolute nonsense from start to finish - the major shareholders who own 88% of this company do not adjust their value calculations based upon 8% of retail investors exploits in the CFD and spread bet markets.

Kln 2-There you go again spreading mis-information. What evidence do you have to support the view that the Board did not try to extend the PUSU. It wouyld not have been sanctioned anyway. The clue is in the term PUSU Put Up or Shut UP - the whole purpose of the legislation is to prevent companies being put into extended periods of limbo and uncertainty whilst a named bidder circles. Any price negogiation takes before a firm intention to bid is made under the Code. An indicative offer can be declined by the Board / Rothschild without referral to shareholders and that was teh case as teh BOard is operating under clear instruction from the major shareholders as to what would be an acceptable bid.

If Bridgepoint wanted to make a higher bid they could perfectly well of done so prior to the expiration of the PUSU period. They choose to walk, having run the clock down and leaked their bid for tactical reasons unknown to me. Now then can return immediately if another comes in and they have avoide all teh costs associated with lodging an intention to bid under the Code and which would have been declined anyway.

Whatever your agenda might be it is not aligned with that of the major shareholders - they will not give away SPI just to expedite a sale at any price. Chris Mills who is thoroughly unimpressive character refers to SPI being stuffed full of property..

Whilst 'PE for Dummies' its clearly already in your book collection, its not in mine. Quickest way to lose money is to apply leverage to an inherently flawed transaction.

Why are your comments always so self -serving and always resulting in personal abuse - I did not say 'leverage counts for nothing' - I said leverage counts for nothing without operational improvement or growth.

Perhaps its your own leverage that has put you in such a hole in Spire, hence your hositility to any challanges to your hair brain schemes.

Did you figure what the M stands for in MBO - further clue and as Carol Vordaman used to say, second letter is an A.

Coming from someone that once championed an MBO with current shareholders providing the funding - Clue is in the M, I am not sure anyone takes you seriously.

Given your claims of a 20% IRR easily attainable why have 4 PE firms run the numbers and walked. Perhaps you should explain the deal structure to them.

You are of course yet again completely wrong about leverage being PE 's number one source of return. Without operational improvement and underlying growth, leverage counts for nothing, indeed only expands poor performance. Leverage is not a 'source of return' - its is a magnifier or amplifier of return.

Hailesinvestor - what you have described is precisely what a growth PE firm like Bridgepoint would attempt to do. Albeit they would have target time horizon over which they would seek to grow the operating busines - Revenue Enhancement / Costs cutting largely driven by AI and political change. They would also seek to benefit from the attendant increase in value of the property - Increased EBITDA + property price inflation.

The problem at the moment as I see it, is that the value of the property is so intrinsically linked to it being used as a healthcare facility - it would be near impossible to re-purpose. So if you are correct on your property valuation and lets take the mid-point for arguments sake of £1.5b. Lets assume a healthcare infrasrtucture property fund is prepared to buy it. It will require at circa 8% yield ( I am guessing that is will classified moderate risk) then that adds anothercirca £120 million of operating lease annual rentals (maybe more) so EBITDA is only £130 m and there may well be negative cash flow generation. That would probably rule out Spire reamining as a tenant on this Estate. A much larger, more financially robust healthcare player wishing to aggressively expand into UK would seem to fit the bill much better. They could replicate and more all that PE would seek to do.

A trade buyer or even a sovereign welath fund that may wish for a little shall we say a little UK Govt influence maybe interested. So far 4 PE firms have looked at this and none of them have tabled a bid that would be accepted by shareholders although Bridgepoint may well return but I doubt that.

This is a comlex situation to resolve but if you are correct we should see multiple bidders eventually emerge but that is not the message that we are currently getting.

I agree with you, this is a great long term value play based upon fundamentals with a taeover option priced in for free right now.

The purpose of an MBO is to provide an exit for exsiting shareholders/debt providers - why would existing shareholders roll their equity into a new vehicle controlled by the same management. Not sure that this is something Rothchild (without the s) will devoting much time to.

I am not sure you are reading your text books correctly .

I think you are flogging a dead horse with this MBO angle, Firstly under an MBO the company management raise external funding to buyout shareholders and there is not a cat in hells chance of this happening.

As for the major shareholders, they want to exit, realise their holdings at the best price acheivable. They do want to wait another 5 -7 years with the attendant uncertainties vis-a-vis turning the company around and /or beaking up the property portfolio. Thats not what they do.

As for buying in the market there is probably only 12% held outside of institutions so buidling a meaniungfull stake is not viable. It would be nice as teh SP woyuld of course spike sharply if any such buying was attempted.

Keep buying at these levels is my view, takeover or no takeover its a great value play right now - check the share chart this trades consistently over £2 for last five years and has topped out higher than that.

That is factually incorrect -the 6 month rule only applies if they had make a firm offer and it was rejected. As no offer was made by eiether of them there are certain special circumstances whereby the 6 month rule is waived and one of those is the emergence of a new bidder or target Board agrees to a new approach.

The 12 month rule as you incorrectly site, refers to a situation where a bidder makes a firm offer and then pulls it, or it lapses. Again there are certain circumstances where the Panel can waive this requirement.

Thats why the press leak of £2.30 which maynot be Bridgepoints best offer or indeed accurate was likely leaked for tactical reasons that I do not profess to understand.

Not sure you have suddenly become overly exercised by legal & professional fees. Any fees incurred on this strategic review are now sunk and irrelevant to future decisions. Basis economic theory.

Shut it down, and if a buyer approaches and is serious there are many ways address the issue of legal & professional fees.

This share has traded above £2 consistently over the last five years. This process has achieved nothing to date except to trash the share price.

For retail investors, I would suggest buying whatever you can at these levels and enjoy 30% + gain in two years or so but thats probably too difficult a task for most who post here as they want 30% gain in 2 weeks.

If a bid comes then all the better for the big boys.

Hailesinvestor is 100% right - just get on, run the company and if someone wants to buy it, they will make an apporach in the normal way. It has a big for sale sign board in the window and has done for some time. There are no fees attached to that.

This beauty parade approach with a tiny free float is no good for retail investors. Large shareholders do not adjust their perceived value of a company (which in this case is pretty easy because it substantially real estate) to the prevailing share price.

£2.30 was a complete waste of time, Bridgepoint new that and just run the clock down before withdrawing as did Triton. Both can re-enter with an immediate counter bid should another bidder emerge. It might be tactical or they may just have got cold feet - who knows.

Only Spi could request a further extension on their behalf and I can see no reason why the Panel would sanction that.

Probably better to contact Harwood as will be water of a ducks back for the Board and one imagines that the heat on the Board will come from major shareholders.

Harwood and Chril Mills in particular is a bit worrying - at the recent presentation he got the company name wrong and referred to new management that knew what it was doing unlike previous management. Ash has been CEO for over eight years.

No chance of a consortium bid - why on earth would they put in more funds to add to their already underwater equity positions ? They want to exit this business but at a reasonable price. I think eventually a deal will be struck and in the meantime there is a very signifcant disconnect between value and current share price. Its a great opprtunity to buy, with or without a future bid.

I agree, the uplift between the sale price and the balance sheet carrying value. There are offsets- higher lease commitments and loss of control over buildings. To really work the cash realised must be put to good work to generate return in excess of higher lease commitments. - a special dividend would probably be matched by a comensurate drop in value and that would be reflected in the share price.

Its more attractive to PE because they realise any uplift in value whilst also divesting the operating business to a trade buyer.

A revaluation of the property estate might be a good start.

Bridgepoint likely made an 'indicative offer' of £2.30, which the the Board is at liberty to decline without presenting it to shareholders.

Bridgepoint had the option to give notice of an intention to bid which would have resulted in the Board having a duty to present the £2.30 to all shareholders.

Given the options and the attendant costs of submitting a firm intention to bid under the Code, Bridgepoint claerly took the view that their offer would not suceed, so they have protected their position to counter any bid from new bidders, without falling foul of the 6 month rule. Alternatively £2.30 is Bridgepoints maximum number, although I supect that unlikely given the Estate Value alone.

Its not really the Board running this beauty parade, its Rothschild so they better be all over it.

The offer period will remain in force for the unnamed parties as long as there is a real possibilty of a bid emrging. It will end when discussions end or an offer is made.

Can we cut the Laura bashing, its boring, repititive and is not the purpose of these boards

My sympathy to those trading on margin, no way to protect yourself from a gap down of that magnitude but as Boris says thems are the breaks.

I have both shares and CFD's so sucked up some pain this am, but I have also been adding at these levels. Its a crazy situation bricks and mortar worth at least 2x mkt cap, £250m EBITDA, significant moat and a new nanagement team - sector with good prospects.

I also wonder if Bridgepoint pulled out to avoid the 6 month rule so that they can now counter any new bid that might emerge. Putting their bid in the press might be seen as a way of encouraging a new bidder not to go too high. For me this is beginning to look like a tactical auction situation arising.

Rothschild and the Board are acting appropriately by seeking to extract maximum value for all shareholders. That is not aligned with short term retail punters looking to make a quick buck.