iStar started the bid with an offer of $10,000, but no one joined it. See APP story online.
Note: the dateline on the Press' story was Asbury Park. Apparently the Press did not send a reporter to cover the auction yesterday. The only sources quoted were City Manager Terry Reidy and Council member James Bruno. Brian Grant, the City's engineer, and Don Sammet, the City's redevelopment director were present, but no legal counsel for the city. City officials said today that Amsel Fusco was there from Madison Marquette; two people represented iStar Financial, Samantha Garvus and Zeke Faham. It was all over in ten minutes, an official said.
No one from iStar was quoted in the Press report.
Today, the City met in private / executive session to discuss iStar.
The City held the meeting under the Sunshine Law's provision for "Contract Negotiations", an exemption mostly intended to cover deliberations by governing bodies prior to union negotiations. The reason the law exempts under this category is so that the government's opposing party won't know what strategy it intends to use. Or, for example, so arbitration principals won't know what level pay rise, let's say, the government would find acceptable.
Also in private, the City was scheduled to discuss Madison Marquette, also under "contract negotiations". It is unclear whether the City has a contract with Madison Marquette, which has an LLC with Asbury Partners.
See tonight's (December 16) city council meeting notes on this site.
- The Voice of Asbury Park ~ matters vital to justice, environment, equality, culture and pursuit of happiness.
Showing posts with label SFI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SFI. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
iStar on Independent Researcher's "Most Dangerous" List
MarketWatch's Chuck Jaffe included iStar, trading as SFI, in his worst stock picks of 2008 list, in December of last year. It's not any better now, closing Wednesday at $2.41/share (with a high for the day of $2.55) down 70% from its 52-week high.
New Constructs, an independent research firm, had SFI on its "Most Dangerous Stock" list before moving it up to just "Dangerous".
Jaffe also quoted Investor's Business Daily, which attributed the plunge to a pull out by institutional investors. That's your pension funds and other large investors. "There's a thin line between a stock that's beaten down into a bargain and one that has been knocked out," concluded Jaffe in March, 08. "While iStar Financial will live to fight another day, it's not getting up off the canvas right now, not without some more heartbreak first."
iStar rallied after the column until late June, 08.
Why should we in Asbury Park care? Well let's look at how much SFI has loaned its partners on the waterfront here (see last post) as a portion of their own market cap. The loan money it's looking to get back is $70 million. SFI's current market cap is only $234.86M. So compared to the value of the REIT's total shares, the $70M is a huge chunk. And its trading volume, at a little more than a million shares a day on average, is very shallow. Generally, large investors shy away from stocks that trade at such low volumes, because they worry about not being able to sell the shares quickly in a down market.
No wonder SRI is in a hurry to liquidate our waterfront. There should be Danger Use Caution Ahead signs all over City Hall. Contrary to the APP's report today (Thanksgiving) -- that SFI's appearance just means a shift from one master developer to the other -- we're dealing with a desperate investor who wants out in a hurry. And this City shouldn't be the one left holding the short end again.
What are our lawyers telling our leaders -- and why weren't they quoted in the APP report, instead of some uninvolved commercial property lawyer from Freehold? Why wasn't Metro Homes -- remember Esperanza, "Hope" in Spanish -- mentioned in the story, as was North Beach? What is the status of that failed development?
This is when the transparency that City Manager Terry Reidy vowed to engage, two meetings ago, should be visibly shining through, all the way through this process. Residents have complained for years that they weren't being informed, as promised, whenever the make up of the Partners changed. In fact, the City was supposed to vet all new investors, because this is a public/private partnership. If we had been vetting, we would have known of SFI's involvement, and maybe someone would have been following the news on SFI more than a year ago and been able to send up the alarm. Seeking knowledge isn't picky, it's the path to power. Instead we're all sitting on the edge of our seats again, powerless.
New Constructs, an independent research firm, had SFI on its "Most Dangerous Stock" list before moving it up to just "Dangerous".
Jaffe also quoted Investor's Business Daily, which attributed the plunge to a pull out by institutional investors. That's your pension funds and other large investors. "There's a thin line between a stock that's beaten down into a bargain and one that has been knocked out," concluded Jaffe in March, 08. "While iStar Financial will live to fight another day, it's not getting up off the canvas right now, not without some more heartbreak first."
iStar rallied after the column until late June, 08.
Why should we in Asbury Park care? Well let's look at how much SFI has loaned its partners on the waterfront here (see last post) as a portion of their own market cap. The loan money it's looking to get back is $70 million. SFI's current market cap is only $234.86M. So compared to the value of the REIT's total shares, the $70M is a huge chunk. And its trading volume, at a little more than a million shares a day on average, is very shallow. Generally, large investors shy away from stocks that trade at such low volumes, because they worry about not being able to sell the shares quickly in a down market.
No wonder SRI is in a hurry to liquidate our waterfront. There should be Danger Use Caution Ahead signs all over City Hall. Contrary to the APP's report today (Thanksgiving) -- that SFI's appearance just means a shift from one master developer to the other -- we're dealing with a desperate investor who wants out in a hurry. And this City shouldn't be the one left holding the short end again.
What are our lawyers telling our leaders -- and why weren't they quoted in the APP report, instead of some uninvolved commercial property lawyer from Freehold? Why wasn't Metro Homes -- remember Esperanza, "Hope" in Spanish -- mentioned in the story, as was North Beach? What is the status of that failed development?
This is when the transparency that City Manager Terry Reidy vowed to engage, two meetings ago, should be visibly shining through, all the way through this process. Residents have complained for years that they weren't being informed, as promised, whenever the make up of the Partners changed. In fact, the City was supposed to vet all new investors, because this is a public/private partnership. If we had been vetting, we would have known of SFI's involvement, and maybe someone would have been following the news on SFI more than a year ago and been able to send up the alarm. Seeking knowledge isn't picky, it's the path to power. Instead we're all sitting on the edge of our seats again, powerless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)