It says it's for "NBR PRINT" today. I see no other locked online article mentioning it.
Printable View
A few lemon squeezing negative snippets from NBR which i nipped down and got just now for you (plus latte:)
"Stride forgets its history with flawed offer"
MER for Stride re 7.5%
Investore re 9% plus performance fees ( if quarterly returns are above 2.5%)and operating and admin expenses.
EXTERNAL manager more expensive than Strides INTERNAL manager.
Termination rights. only the manager has the right to exit th deal and manager has right to appoint half of the directors, NZXwaiver because chairman is independant.Investore is contractually tied to stride , shareholders CAN"T seek another manager if things go bad.
.
The history of Stride paying huge fees to extract itself ($32 mill !) from external managers should be ironically noted
Some positivity re the rest of the deal.
Going from the title its negative for the reasons i outlined.and
"If stride had confidence in its management skill, this restriction would not be necessary and Investore would be a better offer.Instead greed got in the way"
From what i read,Its done the split so that if it wanted to it could increase management fees without endangering its PIE status
I think that fees based on REV is better than NTA
If they increase management fees that will benefit stride shareholders to the detriment of investore, so should only affect investore share holders who are not str shareholders. What I can't understand is why they are doing anything at all? Surely everything could remain under str ownership - PIE status would not be effected.
I think they can extract more fees this way .Im also looking at it as a new investor in Investore i don't hold Stride.
lot of reasons.
my guess:
1: they want to buy more countdowns so they need money. STR had just capital raised once already so it's hard to capital raised again within such short amount of time
2: Investore alone might have better valuation due to it's super long lease contracts.