What’s happening?

At Nova? – who knows. They don’t communicate – unless they want something from the investors

Their next communication – in the absence of any major developments in the interim – will only be in December when they issue their annual ( and not very informative) Communiqué that they publish in the web site along with the Annual Financial Statements

On the CIPC investigation front, the report has still not been released. It’s very frustrating especially as indications are that it’s going to be good news for the investors

But it cannot be rushed. Every aspect must be thoroughly finalized and every participating authority must be in full agreement with it. The last thing that must happen is that a slip up occurs and the door is opened to challenges, litigation and court delays. That would add years to a possible finalisation and could result in a reduced beneficial outcome
So, sit tight, be positive and remain patient

Is daar enigiets aan de gang?

By Nova? – wie weet. Hulle kommunikeer nie – tensy hulle iets van die beleggers wil hê

Hul volgende kommunikasie – in die afwesigheid van enige groot verwikkelinge in die tussentyd – sal eers in Desember wees wanneer hulle hul jaarlikse (en nie baie insiggewende) Communiqué uitreik wat hulle saam met die finansiële jaarstate op die webwerf publiseer

Op die CIPC-ondersoekfront is die verslag steeds nie vrygestel nie. Dit is baie frustrerend, veral aangesien aanduidings is dat dit goeie nuus vir die beleggers sal bring

Maar dit kan nie gehaas word nie. Elke aspek moet deeglik gefinaliseer word en elke deelnemende owerheid moet ten volle daarmee saamstem. Die laaste ding wat moet gebeur, is dat ‘n glips plaasvind wat die deur kan oopmaak vir uitdagings, litigasie en hofvertragings. Dié sal jare by ‘n moontlike finalisering voeg en kan lei tot ‘n verminderde voordelige uitkoms

So, sit styf, bly positief en bly geduldig

Is Nova werklik solvent?

Hier is ‘n nuwe artikel vanuit Moneyweb oor Nova se huidige stand van solvensie en kanse op insolvensie

Dit skets ‘n somber prentjie in vergelyking met wat Nova handhaaf (sien hul Desember ’23 Communiqué gepubliseer op hul webwerf by novapropertygroup.co.za/index.php/communiques/ en sigbaar onder Latest News>Communiques). Hoeveel lede en Followers het werklik die “positiewe” stellings wat in hierdie kommuniké gemaak is, geglo?

Alles is egter nie heeltemal ondergang en wanhoop vir ons lede en die Skuldbriefhouers as geheel nie

Die meer as ‘n dekade lange aktivisme oor al die kwessies met die oorspronklike SA Reserwebank-sluiting van die PSPC (Property Syndications Promotion Companies) – wat Sharemax insluit – en ander verwante kwessies beweeg nou regtig vorentoe

Die pogings van die betrokke aktiviste werp vrugte af en ‘n verslag oor die interregulatoriese ondersoek gedryf deur CIPC, kan binnekort verwag word

Lees hier:
www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/nova-predicts-a-bright-fi nancial-future-but-a-ratio-analysis-suggests-otherwise/# <www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/nova-predicts-a-bright-f inancial-future-but-a-ratio-analysis-suggests-otherwise/>

of hier:
<www.ndcag.co.za/go/30012024> www.ndcag.co.za/go/30012024

Slegs in Engels beskikbaar

Is the company really solvent?

Here is a new article from Moneyweb on Nova’s current state of solvency and chances of insolvency

It paints a bleak picture compared to what Nova maintain (see their December ’23 Communiqué published in their web site at novapropertygroup.co.za/index.php/communiques/ and visible under Latest News>Communiques). How many members & Followers actually believed the “positive” statements made in this communiqué?

However, all is not totally doom and despair for our members and the Debenture Holders as a whole

The more than a decade long activism over all the issues with the original SA Reserve Bank shut-down of the PSPC (Property Syndications Promotion Companies) – which includes Sharemax – and other related issues is really moving forward now

The efforts of the activists involved are paying off and a report on the inter-regulatory investigation driven by CIPC, can be expected soon

Read here:
www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/nova-predicts-a-bright-fi nancial-future-but-a-ratio-analysis-suggests-otherwise/# <www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/nova-predicts-a-bright-f inancial-future-but-a-ratio-analysis-suggests-otherwise/>

or here:
<www.ndcag.co.za/go/30012024> www.ndcag.co.za/go/30012024

Moneyweb toegang tot onlangse Nova AJV vir ’23 geweier

<www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/moneyweb-editor-denied-e ntry-to-nova-agm-again/?mc_cid=123fdbadf9&mc_eid=8c2e642ad4> www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/moneyweb-editor-denied-en try-to-nova-agm-again/?mc_cid=123fdbadf9&mc_eid=8c2e642ad4

of

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20231204> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20231204

Hoe reageer ‘n mens op die gebeure wat aangemeld is? Dit is nie ‘n verrassing dat Moneyweb-redakteur Ryk van Niekerk, toegang verbied is nie. Nova hou nie van opposisie nie, veral voorsitter Connie Myburgh. Trouens, Nova funksioneer op tipiese outoritêre wyse: sluit enige opposisie uit – die beste vorm van verdediging is aanval

Natuurlik is me Haese se stellings alles net “spin” in ‘n poging om kritiek af te weer. En, haar moralisering (weereens!) oor die geld wat hulle aan Beneficio verskuldig is as “die skuldbriefhouer se geld”! Die skuldbriefhouer se geld was die opbrengs van die na 2013-eiendomverkoop wat in bedryfskapitaal geneem is en wat in die drein gegaan het met nog nooit ‘n sent wat vir terugbetaling gebruik is nie

Verder is dit “ons geld”, maar ons het geen sê oor die bestuur daarvan nie. Daardie verantwoordelikheid lê by jou en die res van die Raad. Jy maak skaars goeie werk daarvan, Me Haese, ongeag jou protes en versekerings

Waarvoor moes Nova in elk geval twee en dertig miljoen leen? Wat was so dringend dat hulle bereid was om teen daardie buitensporige rentekoers te leen? Wat hulle nou ‘n gebruikskoers noem, is nie betwis toe hulle vir die lening gekontrakteer het nie, ja? Maar, nou huil hulle vies! Hindsight is 20-20 vision soos die spreekwoord gaan. Maar, in hierdie saak, waar was die vooruitskouing (foresight) wat uitgeoefen moes gewees het? Kwalifiseer hierdie lening dus nie as roekelose handel nie?

Nova het skuldbriewe laas in 2013 terugbetaal. Daar was glad geen goeie nuus in die daaropvolgende tien jaar nie en hulle verwag dat die voormalige Sharemax-beleggers (hetsy Nova-aandeelhouers of Skuldbriewehouers nou) en die wêreld in die algemeen hul versekering sonder twyfel sal sluk?

Moneyweb denied access to recent Nova AGM for ’23

<www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/moneyweb-editor-denied-e ntry-to-nova-agm-again/?mc_cid=123fdbadf9&mc_eid=8c2e642ad4> www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/moneyweb-editor-denied-en try-to-nova-agm-again/?mc_cid=123fdbadf9&mc_eid=8c2e642ad4

or

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20231204> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20231204

How does one react to the events reported? It’s not a surprise that Moneyweb editor Ryk van Niekerk editor was barred from entry. Nova does not like opposition, especially Chairman Connie Myburgh. In fact, Nova operates in typical authoritarian manner: shut any opposition out – the best form of defence is attack

Of course, Ms Haese’s statements are all just spin in an attempt to deflect criticism. And, moralising (again!) regarding the money that they owe to Beneficio being “the debenture holder’s money”! The debenture holder’s money was the post-2013 property sale proceeds taken into working capital and which has gone down the drain with never a cent used for repayment

Further, it’s our money but we have no say in managing it. That responsibility lies with you and the rest of the Board. You’re hardly making a good job of it, CEO Haese, whatever your protestations and assurances

What did Nova have to borrow thirty two million for anyway? What was so urgent that they were willing to borrow at that exorbitant interest rate? What they now call a usuary rate was not challenged when they contracted for the borrowing, yes? But, now, they cry foul! Hindsight is 20-20 vision as the saying goes . But, in this matter, where was the foresight that should have been exercised? Does this borrowing therefore, not qualify as reckless trading?

Nova last repaid debentures in 2013. There has been no good news at all in the ensuing ten years and they expect the former Sharemax investors (whether Nova shareholders or Debenture Holders now) and the world at large to swallow their assurances without question?

An interesting (but inappropriate) occurrence

Here’s an interesting (but inappropriate) occurrence. In fact, it would be funny if it were not so ironic given the whole Sharemax/Nova situation across the last thirteen years

A while ago Nova introduced a “Latest Property News” feature in its web site (bottom of the Home Page

This could possibly have been done with the aim of improving its (generally negative) image as a commercial property operator, although we believe it is simply a form of “window dressing” by them in an attempt to counter the negativity stemming from the fact that the company is being investigated by the CIPC

In this regard, the latest post in the Nova web site is titled: “Post Office financial crisis”
Firstly, this topic is hardly “Property News” and we suggest, hardly relevant to the commercial property world

Secondly, and here’s the irony: Here we have one entity, which: …

* is considered to be insolvent and has been accused by CIPC of reckless trading, * has sold off more than half of the original property portfolio and taken the sales proceeds into working capital instead of using same to repay debentures and all without informing the Debenture Holders of this departure from its mandate let alone asking for their approval * couldn’t pay its municipal services bills for two of its properties in Nelspruit, * was taken to court for failure to pay for cleaning services provided for a number of malls/centres (resulting in a court order attaching two properties. This has since been resolved between the parties), * failed to repay short term borrowings of thirty two million at punitive interest rates (also resulting in a court judgement against them), * across the life of the business rescue process – put in place precisely to ensure that the original Sharemax investors got their money back – has, largely, failed to do so within the time frame stipulated in the Schemes of Arrangement (Nova disputes this but this only begs the question: Why then, were they in such a hurry to have the new Debenture Trustee appointed and, as his first and immediate, function in the role, approve an extension of the time frame for debenture repayment?) * has, no doubt, expended huge amounts on legal fees to defend the above described and other legal actions brought against it. In this regard, there is an element of hypocrisy present here. Deon Pienaar, a long time activist regarding the illegality of the Sarb’s 2010 action in closing down the property syndication industry, was present at the Debenture Trustee meetings in 2021/22 under proxies given by Debenture Holders. He took the opportunity to address Chairman Myburgh to which Myburgh responded by publicly trashing him, specifically as regards a court judgment in favour of Nova and against him. Under same, Pienaar has to pay Nova court costs of some one point three million (still under appeal as far as we are aware). Myburgh made a point of telling the meeting attendees that the money that Pienaar owes the company under the judgement is “your money” (meaning money that belongs to the Sharemax investors and/or could, perhaps, have been used to repay debentures), Therefore, the money spent on any defending legal actions is also “our money”? And so, by extension, the some forty million that must have been paid to RMB (?) to rescue Myburgh as regards his Cold Creek property personal debt to that bank must also have been “our money”. Had this not taken place, it might have been possible to effect some debenture repayments with the funds used to acquire the asset (which is how Cold Creek appears in the Nova financial statements)? Myburgh did not respond when he was challenged regarding his Cold Creek rescue

.. but sees fit to publish in its web site a story on the failures of another entity

Thirdly, and perhaps an even greater irony, is the fact that the article on the Post Office was originated by Moneyweb.

* Nova and Moneyweb have been at loggerheads for years, * There is no love lost between them because Moneyweb tells it like it is. So much so that, when Moneyweb asks for Nova input ahead of an article publication, Nova do not respond or, seldom does (makes you think?), * Nova chair Connie Myburgh, during one of the 2021/22 Debenture Trustee meetings, referred to the media (specifically inferring Moneyweb) as “gutter press”, * Moneyweb’s Ryk van Niekerk has, at least three times now, been prevented from attending Nova meetings – specifically AGMs where he was present under proxy from a shareholder

And, yet, Nova sees fit to on-publish an article written by a “gutter press” journalist on another distressed entity as part of what appears to be its image building as a responsible commercial property operator?

Is the pot calling the kettle black, or what?

Perhaps the Chairman and the Board are not aware of this Latest News item. Perhaps these posts are not selected and published by Nova themselves but rather outsourced to another entity. But is that an acceptable excuse?

Whatever, we suggest that Nova would do far better as regards improving their image if it were to focus on their mandate which is proper management of the company and repayment of the Debentures