|15:42 02/11/2011||Re: yuk|
| Don't worry, the institutions didnt loose any of their own money..
Would be good to see some improvement on these "late cycle" shares someday. I worry the management overhead will wear the company down before there is a decent recovery.... By Captiva2
| Getting a 5,6,7,8% yield is childs play at the moment so no surprise this propco without dividend yield should be plummeting. Big mistake getting involved when i did By averageup
|21:34 11/09/2011||no subject|
| this going to be a really long haul - a property company at a huge discount to apparent NAV but unable to pay a dividend. Its a complete shower. Feel sorry for the dumb institutions duped into supporting IPO at 60p. By averageup
|16:02 06/06/2011||Re: directors remuneration|
| re: comment on DTZ. Maybe the FT Supplement on the Super Yachting/Marina market last week should have talked to DTZ rather than Nick Maris? ... Is worrying if they are just adding to costs.
Article reasonably positive on recovery from decline in demand. Did hope for some visible demand for the shares after the free advertising. By Captiva2
|13:32 28/05/2011||directors remuneration|
| its worth pointing out that Nick Maris has waived £75k of his £170k salary according to accounts to Dec 2010 - presumably due to the under-performance against the original business plan. Whilst this should happen more often its very unusual and he is to be congratulated for putting the interest of shareholders ahead of his own.
Maybe the aged Chairman would like to follow his good example or step aside to let someone else do the role who is unconnected with the dismal trading record.
Still don't understand and am concerned about why essentially a property company should be making so little profit and why third party marina management should be loss making unless the business model itself isn't viable. What is also odd is why they are paying DTZ to undertake a strategic review when Nick Maris and the exec team are meant to be leading experts in this field. Maybe its the institutions wanting a 3rd party to kick the tyres either way what does DTZ know about marinas? By averageup
|12:41 02/04/2011||Re: bgt in|
| ....hadn't understood the larger berths may be unlet at GH so depressing earnings. I know there have been sales in Port Louis but rather like the bond issue in reverse my worry is they are selling a perpetual rental income stream to fund the central overhead and loss making contracts. It will get ruinous if the subdued market means to keep it all afloat they have to start flogging the berths off cheap which they are now hinting at in the year end statement. I am assuming the institutions must fully understand this dynamic of sustainability. There is a small risk these institutions are actually asleep or cannot organise themselves to change strategy or as is very typical just express their view by selling. I do agree with you though at the moment it does feel there is a decent margin of error. By averageup
|22:25 30/03/2011||Re: bgt in|
| Ah ha,
On the face of it your scepticism is hard to fault. Its not often a 50k net yield justifies a 20m valuation. Normally one smells a rat at this point. Especially as GHM shares are about as liquid as granite.
As I understand it, more than half of GH is unlet effectively as they are holding berths for sale to super yacht owners rather than racking up more pontoons and letting them out for smaller boats. Admittedly they appear to be rubbish at that having not sold any super yacht berths for yonks (but always claiming they are about to). So i think that the full earning capacity of the marina is not exactly being exploited. I think they have 20 odd of these for sale and they sell for a lot. They sold 3 in 2007 for 10m. Anyway, who knows. Suspect if they don't flog some soon they will need a new plan.
The assets are valuable because of their scarcity/trophy etc. What they are really worth you won't know til you flog them. That being said i agree with you they should be careful not to keep burning through their cash til there is none left as you can guarantee at that point they wont go for much because it will be a fire sale. i agree its pretty boring watching the nav getting gnawed away at by a massive head office trying to grow the business with limited results. Whiffs of vanity.
They seem to be signing up all these contracts and getting no value for them. Contracts are great but if there is no associated revenue they are not really that great.
You are right, the GH structure is brilliant and fills one with confidence as to the robustness and transparency of the whole thing. Not. You need a white board to work it through.
Lets hope sense prevails and they batten down the hatches soon and run it as if they dont have a sugar daddy called gullible investor.
Anyway, i think we are getting compensated for the risk.
With a bit of luck Gadaffi will move there, i bet he's got a few yachts (with gun turrets)
By Jam Role
|0:39 30/03/2011||Re: bgt in|
| ahh Jammy Role i've been expecting you....definitely not one for the missus who wants a new kitchen.
Don't have the numbers in front of me but the GH valuation does look too rich based on EBITDA of euro 0.5m i think - plus there is presumably some maintenance capex to come off this. Then there's the bond cash earning diddly and effectively funding its own 8% interest payments plus a dividend into the centre/black hole - you really couldn't make it up !
Understand they've used part of it to fund Cesme acq which makes some sense but it gives more funding for the failing board and loss-making consultancy. As you say hopefully the old and new institutional investors will get active and set some strict time limits before our attractive discount disappears up its own backside. An asset rich business such as this should really be a yield play.
My other concern is whether the cruise missiles flying around the med is impacting Malta but must say Port Louis looks like a very cool setting.
|16:19 29/03/2011||Re: bgt in|
| You big Jessie.
Tut tut, don't tell the missus that there might be no turkey for Tiny Tim this xmas because you spanked it all on some shonky Marina company.
Someone like you should know better. But now you've gone and done it havn't you.
Grand Harbour Marina, the one in Malta, is independently listed on the Maltese Stock Market (for what's that worth) with a market cap of 20m. CNMI owns 79% of the stock. So its not liquid and I suppose could be manipulated / bought on emotion. In any event its valued at 22m by CBRE, again not sure what that's worth, but they did get an oversubscribed bond away off the back of it. So on face value the whole of CNMI (market cap £12.5m) is worth less than its 80% stake in GHM £14m (80%*20m/1.15 to convert to £).
So you are getting Cesme and Port Louis for zip - and they are both belters, especially the latter.
You are also getting the brand which is pretty valuable.
If you believe the CBRE valuations then it is trading at 50% of NAV excluding any brand value. Seems like a pretty fat margin of error.
Unfortunately what you also get is a massive overhead associated with growing the business.
I suspect if they don't start showing some serious rubber on the road related to these third party contracts etc and stop racking up big losses unrelated to the three marina's they will be ordering a job lot of p45's quite soon.
The only other really big consideration is a bid offer spread as wide as the M25 and you are on AIM. This basically means that the directors can buy the business for 5p and explain that it was in the best interests of the company to do so, they are terribly sorry but they didn't have time to ask shareholders if they approved and so they consulted their teddy bears and Mr Snookums and friends agreed too.
By Jam Role
|20:27 19/02/2011||bgt in|
| can hardly believe i did this but i have bought into this. Goes against all my better judgment and desire for income producing stocks. Regretting it already. Can anyone re-assure me that the asset value backing is real and that i don't need to worry about the paltry income/ profits coming off the Malta marina. Have hopes for Cesme revenues flowing in but does this make up for the decidedly low rental income on the other balance sheet values.
What have i done ? By averageup
|12:09 12/11/2010||Re: RNS: Holdings In Company|
| I almost fell off my chair just now on seeing that C&N was heading up. My best performer today, whereas so far this year it has usually been the worst! By Moving Toyshop
|7:17 11/11/2010||RNS: Holdings In Company|
Camper & Nicholsons
Holding(s) in Company
RNS Number : 9956V
Camper & Nicholsons Marina Inv Ltd
11 November 2010
CAMPER & NICHOLSONS MARINA INVESTMENTS LIMITED (the "Company")
HOLDINGS IN COMPANY
The Company received notification on 9 November that Deutsche Bank AG, and its subsidiary companies, have a notifiable interest in 7,921,721 ordinary shares of Camper & Nicholsons Marina Inv Ltd, amounting to 13.16% of the Company's total issued share capital.
For further information contact:
Camper & Nicholsons Marinas International Limited
Tel: +44 (0) 208 334 8046
Collins Stewart Europe Limited
Bruce Garrow / Adam Miller
Tel: +44 (0) 207 523 8350
This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange
http://investegate.co.uk/Article.aspx?id=201011110700119956V By Valuta
|22:42 05/11/2010||Re: RNS: Issue of Equity|
| Thanks, guys. Right now I'm fully invested, and there's nothing else I have that I want to sell; but I remain broadly positive on this one, and might put a bit of divi money its way. By Moving Toyshop
|18:37 05/11/2010||Re: RNS: Issue of Equity|
| Bit of a gamble - it may quadruple, or it may go bust. My gut instinct is that the very rich will start coming slowly out of their shells, so in theory its not a bad business in which to be.
I did get out a while ago, but I keep an eye on the company.
You may have seen the further RNS today about directors' holdings:-
The stock does have asset backing, so I'd be astonished if it went bust, unless perhaps we were to have another prolonged financial maelstrom.
There is I believe still a fair chance that this will be a multi-bagger.
I agree your point about the very rich.
As you say, this is one for the patient investor.
|16:52 05/11/2010||Re: RNS: Issue of Equity|
| I hope you are correct MT the share issue should tide the company over the next year and perhaps I am being too negative;after all a lot of major investors paid much more than you did.Good luck. By TX2