-
Originally Posted by fungus pudding
Restructure a rip-off?
Article in NBR today calls Stride's latest a flawed scheme . It's a paywalled aticle so will try and buy a copy later. Anyone got access?
http://www.nbr.co.nz/
Stride [NZX: STR], formerly DNZ Property Fund, arrived on the NZX in 2010 after a remarkable rescue effort that praised it from the grasp of a parasitical management contract. Six years later, the property company is again trying to imprison shareholders in a lemon-squeezing scheme, writes Tim Hunter.
It says it's for "NBR PRINT" today. I see no other locked online article mentioning it.
-
Originally Posted by RGR367
It says it's for "NBR PRINT" today. I see no other locked online article mentioning it.
You require paid access or a print copy to read full write up.
What's in your National Business Review print edition this week.
Staff Reporter
NZ share prices give analysts the jitters, Watson company plans $US10m IPO, Stride’s flawed offer
Fri 17 Jun
-
Originally Posted by fungus pudding
Restructure a rip-off?
Article in NBR today calls Stride's latest a flawed scheme . It's a paywalled aticle so will try and buy a copy later. Anyone got access?
http://www.nbr.co.nz/
Stride [NZX: STR], formerly DNZ Property Fund, arrived on the NZX in 2010 after a remarkable rescue effort that praised it from the grasp of a parasitical management contract. Six years later, the property company is again trying to imprison shareholders in a lemon-squeezing scheme, writes Tim Hunter.
Sounds like another RJI ?
-
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.
Last edited by Joshuatree; 17-06-2016 at 12:41 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Joshuatree
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.
Thanks for that. Don't want to purchase investore shares in addition to the stapled issue, but overall do they see it as good or bad for Stride shareholders? Str shares have lifted against the tide since announcement of this.
-
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
-
Originally Posted by Joshuatree
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.
Last edited by Joshuatree; 17-06-2016 at 01:55 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Joshuatree
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.
If stride retained all buildings there would be no fees. Investors will pay stride to manage investor properties. Doesn't explain the logic of the split.
-
Member
Originally Posted by fungus pudding
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks