STR - Stride Property [ex DNZ Property]

[Balance]

maybe's he realised theirs more money to be made being a director than a shareholder ?

And now he is on the Securities Commission as well!

[Jessie]

It's not even clear why they need to reduce debt. It's not a problem if they're not seeking listing. They should trade on as is, reduce dividends and/or some sales to buy out mngmnt contract. Then put some effort into promoting the unlisted secondary mkt, rather than the half-arsed attempt previously, and as started again. The main threat to investors is this capital raising at a fraction of asset backing. That's the killer for existing investors.

Fungus. If they take your advice they will be broke in a couple of years as anyone who has spent 5 minutes looking at their accounts can see.

[fungus pudding]

Fungus. If they take your advice they will be broke in a couple of years as anyone who has spent 5 minutes looking at their accounts can see.

Their debt is around 47% of the top of my head. High for a listed trust, but not for this structure. Even buying the management contract out would be possible with a mix of limited asset sales and a reduced dividend. Anything is better than printing off millions of shares at a fraction of the nta.
It was less than 6 months ago they were crowing about the dividend being sustainable at 5c per share. Nothing has changed.
And that is what I said - the dilution of stock by cranking up the printing press is not necessary. Or even flogging off approx half the buildings to entirely eliminate debt is better than giving a large proportion away. The buildings will sell at approx valn. The shares will not and even less so if if they issue a squiilion more.

[fungus pudding]

Their debt is around 47% of the top of my head. High for a listed trust, but not for this structure. Even buying the management contract out would be possible with a mix of limited asset sales and a reduced dividend. Anything is better than printing off millions of shares at a fraction of the nta.
It was less than 6 months ago they were crowing about the dividend being sustainable at 5c per share. Nothing has changed.
And that is what I said - the dilution of stock by cranking up the printing press is not necessary. Or even flogging off approx half the buildings to entirely eliminate debt is better than giving a large proportion away. The buildings will sell at approx valn. The shares will not and even less so if if they issue a squiilion more.

Well how about that Jessie. Article in Sunday Times today parrots my last post - so they must be wrong too! Pity there's no link.

[Omega]

I'm with you on this Fungus, as Jessie's opinions appear to exceed her knowledge. ING have sold $100m of property in each of the last 2 years and this year's sales have achieved an average of 102% of the March 2009 valautions. DNZ should have adopted the same strategy instead of burying their heads in the sand and then shafting the existing shareholders at the 11th hour. Why one would sell shares at a huge discount when one can sell properties at near valaution defies logic, even after spending more than 5 minutes reviewing their accounts!

[Jessie]

I'm with you on this Fungus, as Jessie's opinions appear to exceed her knowledge. ING have sold $100m of property in each of the last 2 years and this year's sales have achieved an average of 102% of the March 2009 valautions. DNZ should have adopted the same strategy instead of burying their heads in the sand and then shafting the existing shareholders at the 11th hour. Why one would sell shares at a huge discount when one can sell properties at near valaution defies logic, even after spending more than 5 minutes reviewing their accounts!

The 82 cents offer in the IPO was at least gave an opportunity for investors to escape from this appalling investment at a reasonable price. Now the shareholders are left helplessly waiting for some other offer. The prices on the unlisted market suggest investors have little confidence anything better is likely.

DNZ's shareholders are in a real hole as they have no control over their investment. The managers have a long history of only acting in their own interest regardless of the cost to shareholders. Money Managers have an even worse record of acting in their own interests and will try to string things out as long as possible so that they can retain some influence over their remaining clients.

Really the shareholders need to be proactive. Can't some of the larger shareholders band together and get independent legal advice on the best course of action? Incidently, does anyone have a copy of the current constitution of this company? Can someone post it on this web site.

[Steve]

Incidently, does anyone have a copy of the current constitution of this company? Can someone post it on this web site.

Try doing a search at the Companies Office as it will be there if they have one

[Jessie]

I'm with you on this Fungus, as Jessie's opinions appear to exceed her knowledge. ING have sold $100m of property in each of the last 2 years and this year's sales have achieved an average of 102% of the March 2009 valautions. DNZ should have adopted the same strategy instead of burying their heads in the sand and then shafting the existing shareholders at the 11th hour. Why one would sell shares at a huge discount when one can sell properties at near valaution defies logic, even after spending more than 5 minutes reviewing their accounts!

5 minutes analysis of the accounts reveals that annual profit is currently about $18m. Interest cost is $23m. However, the interest rate is a very low 6.5% and this will rise considerably when it has to be renewed within the next year or so. This will eat up most of the profit margin. If vacancies also increase as some predict, the company could be in serious trouble. So doing nothing isn't an option for this dog. The IPO scrapped due to MMG's interference wasn't great but at least it was a solution. Hopefully a better one will emerge but don't hold your breath.

[Year of the Tiger]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...0625630&pnum=0

Property fund's decisions disappointing: investor

By Anne Gibson

4:00 AM Friday Feb 12, 2010



Simon Botherway's resignation has upset institutional investors.



An institutional investor is disappointed at moves by $730 million property fund DNZ.
The fund yesterday announced the resignation of director Simon Botherway and plans to delay dividends and sell property.
Craig Tyson, ING investment manager, said the news was all bad for DNZ.
The company last year shelved a plan to internalise its management and list on the NZX. It continues to trade on Unlisted.
Tyson said DNZ had missed an opportunity to raise the bar for the rest of the sector to align investor and management interests and improve governance.
"It also would have provided liquidity and transparency to existing investors but at some cost in terms of dilution. We hope that DNZ comes back to the market later in the year but these proposed tax changes have certainly created a lot of uncertainty and ultimately returns could be lower if depreciation is denied.
"We're also disappointed that Botherway has resigned. He has always been a shareholder advocate and we took some comfort from the fact that with him on the board, there would be a clear focus on decisions that created shareholder value," Tyson said.

Tim Storey, DNZ chairman, yesterday announced the board's loss of crusading investment advocate Botherway and lawyer Mark Hopkinson.Storey refused to say who the board would nominate to replace them, or if outspoken critics Derek Young and David van Schaardenburg were likely candidates.
But he did say a special general meeting was planned in Auckland for DNZ investors next month.
The quarterly dividend payment was deferred until February 25.
Assets would be sold to cut debt but Storey could not say what buildings would go on the market, the value of intended sales, the geographic location or which agents, if any, had been engaged.
DNZ investor Derek Button expressed concern about boardroom resignations and moves to sell property.
The real estate would hit the market in a difficult climate just as the Government had announced a big shakeup for tax treatment of this sector, Button said.
"It's a terrible time to sell. If they were going to sell, they should have waited until the market picked up again. There's a lot of 'iffi-ness' with the Government changes."
Institutional investors were yesterday privately smarting about Botherway's departure, saying it sent out bad signals.
Botherway, a former part-owner of institutional investor Brook Asset Management, had criticised the old structure of the business but his arrival was seen as heralding big changes. He went on the DNZ board at the request of major institutional investors.
He has refused to comment on his exit.
The outcome of protracted negotiations between DNZ, Young and van Schaardenburg are yet to be announced and van Schaardenburg was yesterday reserved in his reaction to DNZ's moves.
"Our focus is trying to get the best possible outcome for existing shareholders."
Asked for his view of Botherway, van Schaardenburg said the resignation was purely that director's choice and he understood the reasons. "He wants to be involved as a director of a listed company."
Button said he was concerned about lack of information for shareholders, who got letters this week about the changes.
"DNZ say they are going to be transparent and all they do is issue this statement ... It doesn't give you anything to gain your confidence."
DNZ was yesterday trading at 68c.
_____________________

YOTT

[Snapper]

I'm not bothered about Botherway taking a hike. A 'shareholder advocate', give me a break! He was going to get 3 million shares at 82 cents . As far as being an advocate goes, I never felt he did anything for existing shareholders other than try to dilute their shares for the benefit of institutional investors.

Continuing to sell down property is the right thing to do; if they have to defer distributions to get their debt down, that's OK too.