As Ive stressed out in my previous posts, CNP going into...

As Ive stressed out in my previous posts, CNP going into official receivership changes nothing for CER.

CNP has been in a quasi receivership since late 2008. CNP since this time has been operating in the same manner as a receivership with the only difference being a receiver is not being paid to deal with the assets of CNP.

As long as the company, in this case being CNP has the support from lenders, it is technically not trading whilst insolvent.

However, the same principles as a receivership have applied since 2008 with CNP’s primary mission to deleverage and achieve as high a return as possible for its secured lenders.

I find it alarming that the directors of CER have failed to provide shareholders with an alternative to the proposal. It is unacceptable that the best contingency from a board of a listed company is “uncertainty”.

Even the independent expert highlighted in the report, that at this stage no alternative proposal has been recommended.

SO does this mean the directors are putting all their eggs in the one basket and hoping they achieve the outcome they desire??

Havent the directors of both CNP/CER learnt from their mistakes from pre 2008 and realised that the outcome hoped for is not the outcome realised.

I am referring to the companies buying New Plan, merging with CSF and assuming that commercial property would keep going up and up, which would allow them to continue paying excessive dividends to shareholders.

CER has faced much greater “uncertainty” since 2007. It had to deal with such things such as SuperLLC refinancing, interest rate swaps with CNP, equity hedges with CNP and a gearing of 75% plus.

The board should be telling us, even if we vote “no”, we will still refinance the upcoming debt maturities as we have low gearing and a number of unencumbered assets, we will need to gradually sell a few properties but with the decreased leverage, we will look to purchase a few assets of the same value that we have a half interest in with CNP/CAWF etc. As Ive said, the sale of Galleria alone would decrease gearing to around 30% and increase net profit by about $9m or so as our current cost of debt is around 9% vs a cap rate on Galleria of 6%.

Where the direction, the vision from the board?

This company has so much potential. We have great assets, great tenants but the leadership is poor.

I am still sticking to my 72 FONT NO.