Member Info for Oi_Oi_Savaloy

But the market doesn't trust the Board at Plus500 imo. There's something about the business too that they are wary of. Perhaps I'm wrong (I've got shares in Plus) however. Transparency? Visibility? Who knows - but the market doesn't like Plus.

It's felt like it's taken 3 years to get here (80p) but it feels like the share price has finally broken out of the 58-60p doldrums for good and is not well on the way to hurdling 80p. I have to say though - if Wicks and Malde leave then that's a massive x in the 'sell the shares' box (not that I've heard or read anything like that happening - just my opinion if they announced either or both were leaving).

Buying out their JV partner (and thus taking absolute control of the site) is excellent news. It means INL will also benefit from the re-valuation of the site following it's planning consent (which helps with the £19mill balance they have to find to pay off the JV partner. And the Wilton Park consent gets re-valued too (the planning adds the value of course). Should be a very encouraging update next week -

Oh so close but can't.quite.make.it!

Chumba

I think the IPO was in 2013 so they've been going for at least that long! :)

Sain

On my mobile so will keep it short - buying companies is a horribly expensive way to buy development land in my opinion. I know wick's son - well I've had dinner with him (and some others). He knows what he's about too imo. Chip off the old block. That's my opinion of course.

The problem right now is that valuation of land is incredibly difficult because we've no idea which way brexit is going. Land owners (individuals or companies) need visibility. Right now all we've got is gut feel (pessimistic from buyers, sellers are only reading the good news stories!). It creates a price imbalance that is v rarely bridged. Hence v little activity at the moment. Plus it's summer. It'll kick off in Sept again no doubt. I'm pessimistic about the short term (but v optimistic about London long term). Really, really pessimistic. Which is shared by my bosses tbh. That's why all our money is sat on the sidelines waiting for a crash. And if no crash - then if there's visibility we can at least buy with confidence.

Toad - Beaconsfield is good, I agree but it's the Tesco deal that, for me at least, is the transformational one. If that goes according to plan then I expect INL to be chosen to transform other Tesco assets. And if the model works for Tesco property there's absolutely no reason why it wont work for Sainsbury's or other retailers.

It's not just about knowing how to build a given project, how you design and sweat the scheme so it delivers the maximum number of units for the least amount of build cost; it's about how you structure the Legal contract/agreement too Just because you can say 'let's do a 50/50 deal on the air rights or car park rights on our site' - that's easy. It's how you write it down and agree the minutiae (especially the disagreement/exit/deal goes pear shaped elements!).

That deal structure is key - it's easily transposed onto other sites once you've got the fundamentals right.

Sorry if I'm teaching you to suck eggs.

And altho I rate Paul Brett, I think the key to Inland is Wicks. He knows what he's about. If he leaves or sells up - I'd be out (if I could sell!!) like a shot.

But they've not helped themselves at all with the KCR deal in my opinion. There's nothing technically wrong with the valuation/deal I guess but the whole things just smacks of something I'm not happy with.

(I buy development land in London for a living - INL are a rival on some sites we go for - the company I work for I mean - we've even looked at buying from them too - the Uxbridge Road deal for example). Not sure if that makes a difference but thought I'd best make that clear.

Sheltie - I think I'm right in saying that most shareholders would prefer the income than see a share buyback. I stand to be corrected but that's my gut feel.

If you look at the relationship between Inland Homes and KCR you'll notice that the chief executive of KCR is Dominic White. He also happens to be the chief executive of Energiser Investments PLC too. And if you look at Energiser's board (it's on their website) you'll see that it's actually a Stephen Wicks and Nish Malde investment vehicle.

So I'm not surprised that KCR got involved with Inland. It's all wheels within wheels. I've been in Inland for a v long time (over 4 years I think) but things seemed to have stalled the last 18 months despite the consistent deal making. I'd thought about swapping into fever tree around the same time......Back to Inland. Not sure what is going to move the share price if the deals announcement recently couldn't break the share price out of it's 70p ceiling (consistently I mean not just popping its head over the 70p parapet). Anyone got any thoughts as to where this share is going?

Just to add my two penneth on your excellent post Chequemate; the directors of Plus500 also sometimes make a big announcement right out of the blue (usually that they've sold umpteen million shares or something) too around the results announcement dates.

At £20 a share I wouldn't be surprised if they take some profit - and that might hurt the shares too. It's been a brilliant run over the last 8 weeks or so but perhaps the share price might drop a little/a lot or at least pause before going again post-promotion to the FTSE250. Maybe. I don't have access or the knowledge to the deep analysis of Plus500 share price.

How does Plus500's PE rating compare to it's rivals? I'm a big believer in this share but my understanding of their rivals isn't great if I'm honest (I'm not going to be investing in them so haven't done the research)

Honestly? No I don't - it's not a sector issue, just Plus500. Trouble is, as I say, despite my misgivings I'm staying in (it's part of my portfolio that I deem to be the riskier element and therefore am sanguine if it fails - it doesn't form the bulk of my investments - that are pretty boring/steady if I'm honest with you. Some may deem that to be folly (who's to say that the shares I've chosen are boring/steady - they might all crash and burn next month!). Either way - these are definitely at the risky end of my portfolio and I don't really want any more in the same sector - chose Plus for the dividend yield initially rather than the share price growth and actually it's the income I like now (more than the share price growth). Having said that - someone said that it might go to �20 a share? Perhaps it will, perhaps it wont but if it goes to �20 it'll go to �30+ and then......I'm quite sure others will think I'm a fool and that's fair enough. One of my other 'risky' shares is Inland Homes but as my job is in that sector I think I know enough about them to stay in. I've others but I don't want to talk about them as I've lost (on paper) absolutely bucket loads (for me anyway) - I've become a long term investor in many of my choices.......!!

Chequemate - totally agree - they are more than welcome to take profit and benefit but it's more than that. As I said before - can't put my finger on it but personally (with no proof whatsover/no facts etc) I think there's just something not right with plus. I first bought at �3.47 and last bought at �12.50 (about a month ago whereupon - as usual when I buy something, it immediately lost a �1 or so!) and my weighted average is �4.34 give or take. I like the share but my ultimate feeling is it will end in tears.....

f15jcm - i think it has something to do with the Board of Directors and their ethos. I can't put my finger on it but I don't like them (but I am an investor in this share but less than 4% of my SIPP). I think trust is an issue and despite the fact that it's hugely cash generative, excellent profits, dividend coverage there's a question mark about corporate governance perhaps? I personally don't trust the share one bit but again, have invested nevertheless. I'm just waiting for another RNS where it states that a) performance is amazing and b) Oh, and the Directors have just sold another 600 million shares or something....

I have to say that I feel that a share is worth 80p in this business (that's my two penneth!)

I'm almost certain they are going to give a robust and positive trading update, following the board meeting on Weds. I was with someone yesterday whom has knowledge of the situation. we met at a potential development site and it was mentioned in passing (we were thinking about whom we could offer the site to). BUT i wasn't at the board meeting so it's third hand. the chap i was speaking to didn't know I was a share holder.

Hi everyone Can anyone cast any light as to why it's risen in recent days? (I bought at 1.75p last year; I've been invested in Inland Homes for 3 years and I like the guys behind Inland, ergo decided to invest in ENGI). Not that you're that interested in why but thought I'd tell you!

I've no idea what the reason(s) are behind the rise recently but are we thinking that if it gets to 68p that it should go through the 70p mark and onwards? Interested to hear people's thoughts. is it a general rise in housebuilders or the momentum rns that's driving the rise? Thoughts too on that please!

I don't think there's going to be a takeover any time soon, imho. It's a very expensive way to buy land in all honesty.

Sain@vision - I think that was demonstrated recently with the sale of their site in Acton tbh. It was a good consent; good part of the world. Their 58 units in Uxbridge is another good site - can't see any problem selling that either (if they go down that route). On another note: don't forget they've had some problems with Vantage (main contractor that has since gone bust - that's a whole kettle of fish I wont go into on here) - that held back some completions in the first year. Their natural business methodology is to build some sites and sell others - which ones they build remains to be seen but I think they tend to build a large site (say 200 units, building 40 to 60 a year, whilst refining the planning permission on the remaining units to be built following their sales experiences on the first 40-60). In this way the built sites cover their overhead and provide a consistent cashflow whilst the land sales provide the lumpiness we're seeing. Good sites sell. They'll probably sell their Beaconsfield site but build the Tesco one (cheshunt) - afterall - it's a JV - you can't flip a JV without royally upsetting the partner - and in this case - why would you upset Tesco - when there are literally hundreds of other sites in their portfolio. Setting up a JV on paper is easy - putting it into a legally binding contract quite another - once you've got the contract sorted - should be relatively straightforward to contract on the same basis on other sites they own.