Disappointing news from Emerald. An increase from 185p to 200p is not that great, especially as it would have paid for itself if beaten later. Emerald should not have gone into this if they were unwilling to offer at least one increase. Whoever got cold feet in the Emerald group should be ashamed of their limitations. They will have to live with the fact that they let PUB get away without a fight.
As it is, this is a great deal for the purchasers. Congratulations and well done to them. Enjoy your great buy!
"""""Following Emerald's indicative proposal to acquire the entire issued and to be issued share capital of Punch, in accordance with Section 4 of Appendix 7 of the Code the Panel has confirmed that Emerald is required, by not later than 5.00 p.m. on the date falling seven days prior to the date of the Meetings, either to announce a firm intention to make an offer for Punch in accordance with Rule 2.7 of the Code or announce that it does not intend to make an offer, in which case the announcement will be treated as a statement to which Rule 2.8 of the Code applies. Based on a date of the Meetings of 10 February 2017 as set out in the Scheme Document, Emerald would need to make such an announcement by not later than 5.00 p.m. on 3 February 2017. There can be no certainty that any firm offer will be made by Emerald."""
Overnight I have come to think that Emerald/McIntosh will make a bid at 200p or more. Why?
McIntosh wants PUB. He was the founder and knows/understands PUB. His bid of 185p is already above the Heineken 180p. O.K. it is subject to... but this is normal. He simply cannot walk away at this stage without giving it a go. He might think that he does not want to take on Heineken but I don't think so. Moreover, in making the initial bid he would have made an allowance to have to increase it. Finally, McIntosh & Co already own over 2% of PUB and every 10p increase in the price means an extra £500k in the kitty if ultimately unsuccessful. If he bids at 200p, a price he is probably still content with, and Heineken increase theirs, i.e. he loses - he has at least covered a substantial amount of costs. If they don't he has what he wants for 15p ps more than his opening 185p. Hope this makes sense - well it does to me so I have bought a few more PUB this morning hoping to make 10p ps on them. Fingers crossed. d
.. a quick read of the Vine bid document requires any competing bid to be above 200p for the irrevocable undertakings given by some shareholders to fall away. I'm watching happenings. We can but hope. d
"Shares in LSE:PUB:Punch Taverns have rocketed as the second largest pub group in the UK confirmed it's at the centre of two takeover bids. Valuing the company at around Â£400 million, rival offers from brewing giant AMS:HEIA:Heineken and Punch's ..."
Two years ago if you asked me if thought investing in pubs was a good idea I would have said you were off your rocker.
Pubs were closing at an alarming rate and I saw no growth in the sector.
fast forward to now I have looked at the charts on each of these companies and the respective low forward P/E (as per digitallook). The trend over the last year has been up which is a result of culling unprofitable pubs and write downs finally shining through.
It appears that the estates now contain pubs which offer good food and an atmosphere for a wide demographic of people. Growth will pick up in line with the economy but given the valuations both these look attractive.
I hold both on a watch list and am ready to buy - (I'm a sucker for trying to market time!)
I prefer these stocks to most of the retail / supermarket plays which have gone the other way, there are too many supermarkets! Good luck to all holders.
"PUNCH TAVERNS (LSE:PUB) managed a fairly traumatic drop on the 27th which results in the situation where continued weakness below 10p calculates with a bottom potential of 9.15p. What's interesting about this is BLUE on the chart below. During ..."
"LSE:PUB:Punch Tavern's share price fell by over 30% after the pub company said "significant" equity dilution could be on the cards due to a proposed restructuring of its securities to avoid defaulting on its bond repayments.Punch Tavern's present ..."
It is estimated that over 90% of AIM stocks are INFECTED by short-sellers !
# IF you were a short-seller, BLUFFING, (basically manipulating a shares' price) about a company's overvalued share price, you might not want to *draw attention to yourself since you could get accused of stock manipulation. So you would hope (OR PLAN FOR) others to get involved and to present SEEMINGLY GOOD REASONS to short the stock.
You would want to put AS MUCH FEAR INTO 'LONGS' as possible and would use high volume short trading as well as buying to drive the share price down as low as you can and as long as you can. You really want the longs to fold and to get out of the game. If you are consistently seeing sellers overwhelming buyers driving a share price down as a stock seems to be going up, I can assure you it's probably shorts' selling, since longs are totally motivated to sell their shares at the highest possible selling price. #
IT is easier to tank a share price, rather than make it go UP, by short-selling.
RUINOUS to genuine investors.
They may be able to buy in cheap BUT what's the good, if the stock never really recovers?
AND when they have got you all hooked on the 'lovely' new all-time LOW.....They'll SHORT IT AGAIN !
# ChalieHarper - posted on iii
IF a fund owns a large share holding in a firm and is long.... whilst waiting for its end game to materialise, it loans out any number of its shares to a shorter...the shorter then manipulate the share price down making £X amount when short ended.... the shorter then gives the loaned shares back and splits the proceeds 50/50.
They both make cash, probably during a time when not much is happening with the sp. IT's a WIN-WIN for them but BAD news for the pi's who as usual may have sold at a loss because the cash has to come from somewhere. #
# Axo posted on iii...
These are the kind of people that Winnifreth & Co like to associate with. They aren't helping anyone, and they're a part of a growing awful trend where large short positions open a number of weeks BEFORE a DAMNING REPORT is revealed that completely tanks an SP well before the article could even be reasonably digested.
I would posit that Gotham City research hold even less credibility than Edelman, and yet their research note was apparently convincing enough to knock 50% off the QPP SP in under one hour.
No-one of any note would have stumbled across their 74 page smear. Why would they? It was Gotham's 6th piece of research (term used very loosely) and absolutely no-one I have spoken to had ever heard of them. As such, they held zero credibility and had no natural exposure. It was disseminated beforehand with exacting purpose. #
Momentum is gathering pace and this campaign is moving faster than was ever anticipated !
Thanks to all of you that voted and POSTED over the link/s.
# The fact that these e-petitions require 100,000 signatures is not so important. THAT figure is required in order to get the GOVERNMENT to take ACTION!
Our aim is for the FCA to ACT and we believe THEY WILL do so, on LESS votes required by GOVT. We can expect votes only from the financial fraternity. Other e-petition campaigns DRAW votes from the WHOLE population !
12,000 votes is possible and that is our TARGET !
MP and adviser to the GOVT on banking, Davide Serra is lobbying Parliament to ACT ! http://goo.gl/5ZvXAU
HE wants ACTION by the FCA to do SOMETHING !
This campaign could be a useful lever for him to put pressure on the Govt to intervene and either make a ruling themselves, or put pressure on the FCA.
IF the FCA does nothing at all, then in time AIM could be affected
Holding a couple of Punch leases, we have started experiencing problems with Punch suppliers. They are obviously very worried about there credit terms with Punch as they feel the company is likely to default on payments to them. Looks like time is has caught up with them and they are going down the tubes. Get out while you can!
"Equity investors in Punch Taverns now have their backs against the wall. The company's current quandary is such that it must either restructure its debt or face the risk of default. "These circumstances represent a material uncertainty that casts significant doubt on the ability of a significant part or substantially all of the group to continue as a going concern," Punch directors said yesterday. Should the firm default the lenders could then request early repayment of all the outstanding debt, amounting to roughly 2.4bn pounds. Putting that in perspective, it is more than seven times the shareholder's equity of 296m pounds, and almost 25 times the current market capitalisation. As well, profitability has taken a turn for the worst.
Despite the stock's strong performance year-to-date the statement from Punch management should send a chill down the spine of any investor thinking of making a quick gain from a recovery. The fate of Punch is now largely in the hands of the lenders. That makes any investment in Punch Taverns equity an extremely high-risk option. The lenders could decide on extremely harsh terms in any restructuring, wiping out any value currently left in the equity. The Daily Telegraph's Questor team thinks investors should call time on any investment and take what they can. Sell, says Questor."
largely agree with you
in addition ETI has gone further in debt reductions and the debt structure is less complex and controversial at the moment
notwithstanding this they are trading at similar ratios which appears to make ETI the better buy
however i have bought a few in here on the basis it will get better, lets see
Apologies for the delay. As far as I can see Punch is only about a fifth of the size of Enterprise, has proportionately more debt, and still has a long way to go in getting rid of the less attractive and profitable pubs in its portfolio. There is possibly also a higher turnover in tenancies. Most of these points are negative I am afraid. Not my cup of tea at all.
I see the Telegraph reported doubts about a deal on Punch debt, with the latest talks apparently being `stalled` by major investors wanting better terms.
Warnings that a failure to agree a deal could lead to default and Administration...the usual stuff.
I guess the sell off of Pubs tghat were past there sell by date is still in progress, and they probably need to `lose` about 25% of remaining sites, unless the drinking community has a change in habit...
I am not a holder, nor would I ever be. The Punch and Spirit estates were created from brewery cast-offs using borrowed money. Many houses are in less salubrious areas where pub-going has become a real luxury. Domestic consumption of alcohol is now the norm. The estates are getting smaller, with most houses being sold not for licensed use, and therefore at a loss in these days of reduced property prices. The whole pub market is massively in decline. A long-term recovery may just never happen. There are, in my uninformed opinion, many better long-term punts about, many of which pay a dividend. I hope you prosper, whatever your decision. Please let us know how you do.
I was hoping to get some info from holders/watchers on Punch.. I was consider giving this a punt. Does anyone think it's worth it?
I understand that it's trying to deleverage, and that the pub sector isn't great. However is it just me but I can kind of see the long-term potential for punch (5 years+), it does have strong cash generation just most of it is sucked on the debt. Or have people switched to spirit?
a month on and this stock is still bouncing between 10 and 11 pee. Unfortunately the 10% spread is largely swallowed by the bid offer price but if ithe channel opens up a bit wider to say 10- 11.5 p, then time for a spot of day trading
Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.
The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.
The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.