Member Info for Kjn2

all of us could have spent 10m or so and let the stock crash. maximizing shareholder value doesn’t mean sell the company at any price. but it doesn’t mean ******* away the company’s cash either?

He is chairing the board whose job it has been to conduct a strategic review to max shareholder value I guess. And the stock is back at covid lows so I think everyone’s granny may say he may have made a hash of it.

His track record at spire based on the share price looks like a disaster, doesn’t it?

https://www.ft.com/content/4a164304-ebdd-4584-87a3-f4a5becca596?syn-25a6b1a6=1

Not at all, can easily buy £20-30k pieces atm.

US fund increased its stake further.

Publicly releasing that they are still talking to interested parties after half a year either means they are close to selling the company or the panel may check what the h@@ is going on. Can’t just claim the process is ongoing if it actually isn’t.

Half year for any M&A before any antitrust is a long time.

Anyone aware of precedent offer periods that sort of ran too long so that the panel intervened? Can the panel actually force a Pusu on remaining parties in the process?

Seems a bit of a leeway from Panel’s perspective. Just thinking being in an offer period for too long seems the defeat the purpose of the same.

No, spire ran a massive capex program in the last 2-3 years. Maintenance capex isn’t that high.

Why don’t you speak to some analysts from Deutsche Bank or other brokers if you are unwilling to learn here and comprehends takeover metrics/maths. Sell side is even more bullish than I am.

Maintaining 2.5x rental cov, positive fcf and 6% yields enables any PE firm to offer 265ish. Period. That implies an slb of around 650m which by now is more than the MC.

You also mix apples with oranges. You have to compare levered FCF with the market cap, not EV…

Kendall - your numbers are riddled with gross mistakes. Read sell side reports if you can’t follow our maths:

1. Slb is based on rental coverage. Latter is based on ebitdar, you have to add back rental expenses. Your calcs are wrong.

2. After an Slb you have to add back the capex, you failed to do that again.

3. The yield is wrong as well, should be 6%.

4. You wouldn’t SLB the entire freehold, only 600-700m given the rental coverage.

Hence, PE can max pay 265ish for min rental coverage an maintain a positive FCF to spend on maintenance capex.

So management receives an ltip, Rothschild £10m or so in fees, the chairman seemingly seeking an additional role and the only ones paying the price are Spire shareholders.

Who knows maybe the top holders will kick him out after this share price fiasco?

https://www.ft.com/content/bdcccae0-5a99-4642-b920-b29d5d6a1068?syn-25a6b1a6=1

Kendall - it’s ok, you don’t know what sell side means. Funny that you think irr is the same as wacc.

Straight - exactly, check sell side reports. They ran the numbers as well. Spire underwent large capex cycle, reducing that leaves enough fcf to cover higher rent. I get to 600-650 that can easily be taken out which means a buyer doesn’t pay for the market cap to become the new owner.

And Kendall, yet another mistake: you double count rental leases in your post. SLB removes most of the capex, hence the 20%+ IRR for any investor. Why are you invested if you can’t do the basic maths? It’s like driving a car without any training/license.

Oh gosh Kendall, please Google how to run an SLB model. And IRR isn’t discount rate nor is the MC the purchase px. Lastly, literally all the input numbers are out there. Get a couple sell side reports and plug in their numbers to follow the maths steps.

Kendall - Darron’s one post is better than all your posts combined. I concur with most of what he says apart the SLB mechanism. It’s the only and only bull thesis on Spire. If one doesn’t follow the SLB maths and rationale Spire is the wrong long.

Dartron you clearly haven’t modeled an SLB on spire. Any buyer of the company can pay 250-260 and still generate 20%+ irr with a conservative slb and rental coverage (fcf much higher post obviously). That’s the whole investment case in summary.

Mediclinic is so far out of the money, they bought at 350-360 ages ago.

Even Tosca could block a deal depending on attendance.

Dartron - you are spot on. Finally some fact based post. Spreads have widened, asset backed valuations have come down and so have PE financing affordabilities. Having said that if the Board stopped the sale process without a sale, they would lose credibility. 6+ months without any (even alternative) outcome harms their reputation and deal-making feasibility. M&A would be dead for imo at least another 4-5 years.

Kendall you are just a random motormouth and clueless retail punter. Zero value add in your rumbling. Zero facts, zero numbers, just barroom cliche.