Eddie Hobbs new Brendan Investments vehicle

Status
Not open for further replies.
Des, the strategy is primarily german commercial according to their briefing. According to the Directors they have options on hotels and offices in Dresden I think. One of the Directors, a chartered accountant, H. O'Neill is to be full time there. The german content is high at 65% or so. Most of the rest is in tourism projects in Portugal around a new 700 acre F1 sport and technology park.

The problem is the personalised focus on Hobbs IMHO. Two board directors appear to have a lot of development experience, the MD V. Regan and P. Owens with Gross development experience of 1.6bn. The chair is a SC I never heard of but he seems to specialise in infrastructure. Hobbs might seem glitzy as you say but this is a strong team. Owens and Regan are well regarded according to business circles in munster.
 
Refer said:
Des, the strategy is primarily german commercial according to their briefing. According to the Directors they have options on hotels and offices in Dresden I think.
Click to expand...

It is these glib bits of information that frighten me and also the word "I think" (I know you intention well but everybody should know where this thing is going - rather than them waiting to get the money before deciding on a definite plan of attack. Generalities for now is not good enough.

The prospectus should have given more insight and analysis into each of the markets such as Ireland, UK, Germany and Portugal. If they provided more background on each of them according to a background analysis of Warehouse, Retail, Office market A & B Cat, Logistics, Residential, Hotel etc etc and tried to develop area's of value within, backed by strong market analysis -then I would have more faith in a €1000m team. I'm sure they may be good as individuals but I have my doubts, especially given the documentation supplied to date by CBRE.
 
Refer said:
The problem is the personalised focus on Hobbs IMHO.
Click to expand...

If this is the case, it's a problem Brendan have brought on themselves.

All the extensive TV & radio ads are fronted by Eddie.

Go to the home page of the website and who do you see grinning at you?

[broken link removed]

Go to the "About Us" page of the website, and guess who is the only board member whose picture is reproduced?

[broken link removed]

The intro to the product brochure is written and signed by Eddie (with another photo of his cheesy grin.)

The whole thing is being sold on the basis of Eddie Hobbs's public profile & reputation with very scanty information on the specifics of the investments.
 

If any doubt remained about how ludicrous the above comparison of this fund with Brendan Investments is, it's demolished by this article in today's (Sep 30) Sunday Business Post:

[broken link removed]

Newgrange, the investment fund managed by Chris Reilly, is showing a 5 per cent gain after its launch last December, despite the turbulence in domestic and international stock markets, according to Bank of Ireland Private Banking.

Kevin Quinn, director of Bank of Ireland Private Banking, said the fund had raised about €400 million from approximately 200 high net worth customers, who each put up a minimum investment of €2 million in cash.

Mantus would have us believe an ungeared equity-based fund with a minimum investment amount of €2,000,000 is a valid comparison with a mass-market geared property investment product with an entry point of €5,000. I can do no better than to quote Mantus himself from the summary thread on this topic:

 
I see that Hibernian are now offering a geared version of their European Commercial Property fund with an annual charge of 1.2% of Gross Asset Value (GAV) for retail investors which equates to 2.4% of Net Asset Value (NAV), as target gearing is 50/50. NAV is lower for pension fund investors.

Which compares with BI's 1% GAV / 4% NAV with 25/75 gearing.
 
You'd have to ask the powers that be in Hibernian. I guess it might have something to do with longer anticipated duration of a pension investment, but I'm only speculating.

Of course, the Hibernian fund doesn't feature explicit bonuses for the fund manager at certain thresholds. Although I'm sure Mantus will argue that as this is a life fund there are hidden charges of all sorts lurking around every corner of it.
 
Per earlier thread, higher gearing sets higher risks to the provider to hedge with lesser to the investor. Also if capital appreciation happens it provides better returns . Given the straight choice between BI and Hib with same IRR and investment choices - I’d pick BI (Would not as be upset about 4% GAV on .75 gearing).

However, when is Brendan providing the promised update on property? Has it gone out yet? I'd need a hell of a convincing to alter my mind.
 
I think that on gearing and charges grounds, BI does look superior to HIB. But which team would you have more confidence in to pick the right investments?
 
MichaelDes said:
However, when is Brendan providing the promised update on property? Has it gone out yet? I'd need a hell of a convincing to alter my mind.
Click to expand...

It's been available on their website for a while now.

[broken link removed]

It takes the form of an update by CBRE of their original 2006 report for BI. It is a general commentary on the property market in Germany, Portugal, Ireland and the UK. It contains absolutely no specific information on the actual investments BI will undertake.
 
gonk said:
It contains absolutely no specific information on the actual investments BI will undertake.
Click to expand...

Gonk,

Never came across this before but didn’t miss much, as you said, it contains nothing of any real value and is a hotch potch of many things. Harchibald....in an even contest it would have to be Hib's hands down.
 
From what i've learned its the way the regulation process works may explian the information gap. The prospectus can't be altered without the regulators approval and, certainly based on my experience they are very slow on just about everything. The prospectus can't specify particular acquisitions because the acquisitions can't be made until the equity is collected - a catch 22 for BI it seems.

It is within the wit of BI to issue an updated prospectus though with the 07 research and separately to publish info on target properties which I suspect will happen.
 
Great fun from the Senator in today's Sindo. Sorry I can't do links, but the gist is as follows.

The Senator had a lash at Himself two weeks ago.

Himself lashed back next day on Marian Finucane show, accusing Senator of not reading the BI prospectus.

Senator lashes back today, admitting he did not read prospectus but has since corrected that.

7.5% set-up costs, 4% annual management charges and a complete blank cheque for the directors, including Himself, when it comes to expenses.

This last point is new (I think). Normally. in these situations there is some institution involved which is here to stay and wants to sell further schemes to its clients.

In the case of BI what is there to put manners on the directors? Who decides, for example, the terms of Himself's contract?
 
Like two kids in a school yard! Apart from the points we have mulled over here there isn't much new. Ross believes that deposit accounts trump european property over the next decade. Hobbs believes otherwise that that BI costs are reasonable. This is three weeks in a row in the punch and judy show. Love to hear them on a head to head but fear that the Senator would get chewed on the knowledge front!
 
Refer said:
Apart from the points we have mulled over here there isn't much new.
Click to expand...

I think his highlighting of the blank cheque the boys have is new. We have been agonising over whether 1% is 4% or what the impact of 750K might be, but understandably we have ignored all the various expenses which are not quantified. Where are the checks and balances. These guys can throw as much money as they want at advertising, for example, knowing that will be the first charge against the punters. They can agree whatever contracts they like between the company and the directors. There is a definite smell of hit and run about this.
 
Harchibald said:
understandably we have ignored all the various expenses which are not quantified.
Click to expand...

I didn't:

"in their prospectus Brendan themselves disclose the following similar categories of charges and costs which their fund will be subject to, in addition to their annual management fee and final performance fee:

1. Acquisition of properties
2. Development of real estate
3. Interest and admin costs
4. Development management expenses
5. Costs of external advisors
6. Costs of the offer itself, estimated as a one off of €750k

But because Brendan have no specific plans publicly disclosed at present, they are unable to quantify any of the above charges except the last - investors must buy a pig in a poke."

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=486099&postcount=102
 
Reference the FT article that the senator refers to, I wouldn't take the led as to what Goldman Sachs is doing as a benchmark for anyone elses investment decision. GS has made plently of gaffs of its own over time and it may be divesting certain portfolio's as a result of its own tightening liquidity. This has been ongoing for over 4 months. Many other private equity and hedge funds of similar size and stature have a different view. One article from a trawl of the internet is not enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register