RE: Pretty Strong rebuttal from management27 Sep 2021 10:07
ConcernedHolder. Thank you for your message directed at myself. I am a little "concerned" about your behaviour and so this will be the last response I make to yourself as I honestly believe you are acting dishonourably and possibly illegally with your comments (however, I am not familiar with the rules of posting on these sites).
I am a semi-retired executive who sits on private company boards as an independent director and I have been investing a long time. I have colleagues who sit on boards of RPs and I have asked them for some insight. I research fully investments I make and I do believe there is an opportunity here (I am only a small holder for now).
In summary: large RPs, which were established by receiving property portfolios from local authorities or government institutions, do not need to sign leases as they have the capital to develop properties and most find it difficult to manage supported living as its a intensive property management requirement. Smaller RPs (as you have alluded to in your message that there are 1,800) are the majority and most of these are run as income generating for families (as you stated). They don't take dividends, as they are not for profit, but take salaries and often provide the maintenance and management through related party companies. The Regulator of Social Housing does not have the capacity to monitor all these RPs so takes the soft approach. I am not familiar enough to comment further on the specifics but as someone that has been in business a long-time, I suspect these smaller RPs were not suitable to take leases for an institutional investor (like Civitas and TP). Therefore, again only speculation, that these RPs you referred to were built up to meet these requirements. This is similar to many other industries I have seen in developing sectors. Supported living rental properties are not new and what Civitas and TP have done is institutionalise what was normally funded private property owners and developers. I am told by my associates that in most cases the higher rents are justified but not always.
My concern is the personal gain that the directors seem to have created for themselves without informing the market. Civitas needs to address this quickly.
If you are a director of an RP (and excuse me but I do have my doubts), then you should inform your other directors of your actions / activities as in any other sector, you would be fired or suspended subject to a review. I also question why you are working so hard on this and not helping fix the situation. If you are part of Shadowfall or related, please tell the truth or stop posting inaccurate information.
My other concern is the lease incentives but that relates to share price and impairment. No asset/property portfolio is without its "dogs". If you have 30% voids, then focus and fix it and the market will correct itself and these firms will eventually suffer. Write an open letter to Civitas (if allowed) and stop paying the ren