To find new trading opportunities in Real estate names, we have to apply a new toolset. With that in mind, we have re-evaluated both AroundTown and Grand City Properties. To understand AroundTown as a standalone entity, we continue to deconsolidate Grand City Properties’ financial data from AroundTown's. We also model the impact of certain changes in management priorities and consider their effect on AroundTown's ultimate aim of a rating upgrade. Operationally, AroundTown remains stable, allowing easy extension of our model. Eventually, we conclude to maintain our current view across both names.

Should the asset transfer from Branicks to VIB alter our investment stance on Branicks? We evaluate how the company will deal with the SUN maturity, what liquidity levers it has. On that basis, we have updated our fair value for the bonds and identified what needs to happen for creditors to achieve the returns we expect. Our positioning remains unchanged.

In light of upcoming maturities, we have re-examined the Heimstaden structure to see if there was any trading opportunity for us. The potential new issue removes some of the uncertainty across the structure, but we have other concerns. We update our valuation metrics for Heimstaden’s main geographies on a spread basis and have made various technical upgrades to the model. Building on our previous analysis of Heimstaden’s operations, we forecast the important ratios that drive S&P ratings methodology and evaluate risk and return, also relative to other real estate names in the market.

We have updated our analysis post the Q2 numbers, which has raised some potential trading opportunities across the capital structure. We lean on our extensive analysis of Cerba to inform us on our market expectations for BioGroup. Acknowledging that BioGroup has a different leverage starting point, enabling management to have some flexibility to further improve shareholder value. As we explore these options and overall French tariff expectations, we form our ultimate investment decision.

We have evaluated the High Court-approved restructuring plan to determine if we should update our investment stance. Our valuation of the business has been reassessed, particularly in light of the equity distribution and our expectation as to whether the current plan goes far enough.

Following the publication of the restructuring plan, we have reviewed our position in the name and have decided on how to proceed with the choices before us. Our recap table represents something like a worst case scenario and we think we will be slightly better placed. There seems to be significant upside optionality in the documentation too and having tried to model the meltdown of H224 on the basis of the scant information provided, we have reached a high level of conviction to proceed with our decision.

Having done extensive numerical work on the business, including an integrated forecasting model, a DCF, a liquidity check, an estimation of debt carrying capacity and more, we come to a conclusion on the bond’s pricing. However, the main drivers for our high conviction positioning in the name are not primarily numerical, but draw from fundamental insights and investment principles.

Rekeep successfully refinanced its bonds earlier this year, and with some market dislocation in early April, we took the opportunity to reinvest in the name. Rekeep had to offer additional creditor protection and an OID to place the bonds, and these additional concessions mean bondholders benefit from some further upside from asset sales. Even at par, these bonds are worth a visit.

The uncertainty surrounding the value of the SBB assets is receding, although the bonds are trading at near-fair value. There is an upside if assets begin to trade near book valuations, but SBB is a long way from either that or a situation where it can rejoin the capital markets. The company will be able to continue kicking the can down the road for a while longer, but eventually, the gap between book and executable valuations is still too much.

We have focused our attention on the options available to the Company, the sponsors, Altor and bondholders regarding the refinancing of its December 2026 bonds. Our working thesis is that the Company could not do a straightforward refinancing, and either additional equity, partial debt write-off, or both, is required. We have modelled the refinancing maths for Transcom and expect that the Company and bondholders will soon get organised to negotiate a favourable refinancing for all parties.

Q125 was better than expected, but has the canary started singing already? We have changed our valuation of the company and have revised its debt carrying capacity and therefore recovery analysis. On that basis and taking into account a particular comment management made on the conference call, we are able to decide on our positioning strategy and how that changes with events later this year.

Liquidity is tight, and mortgage production is fizzling. Yet, the UK business is doing well, as is B2C. So how well is Emeria doing and will it be well enough? Preserving cash is one thing, refinancing is another and it’s only a year away. We have refined our model and gone deeper into valuation, by way of DCF and comparables. The result is a firm view, which backs our positioning in the name. interestingly, following Q1 results, it is now even firmer than it was before. This battle will be won on only two fields and those are central to our work.

We have taken a position in the capital structure of Consolidated Energy. Mindful of recent examples of how wrong things can go for the company, we have updated our model and expectations for 2025 and consider cashflows and liquidity over the coming years. We found our conviction when comparing these findings with its liabilities and asset coverage.

We are becoming more confident in our projections following a lacklustre performance in Q1. The PVC market is highly volatile, which influences our investment decision in Kem One. Q1 results have prompted modest adjustments to volume expectations and the corresponding impact on overall liquidity reaffirms our investment decision. We have incorporated Q1 results into our analysis, evaluating the liquidity needs of Kem One over the coming quarters.

Having stuck to this trade through the restructuring, we have simplified our model for the sale of Brack and extended our forecast to 2028. The significant movement of development assets between balance sheet positions allows for some further insights on valuation, which we compare with our estimates. We isolate the drivers for Adler’s success in the coming quarters and years and come to a conclusion on a positioning question we’ve been posed. Not as purely driven by Bund Yields as other REITs, Adler still has internal drivers that management can - and has to - control directly. Our work centres on yields, valuations and structure that justify (or don’t) each instrument’s trading price these days.

Now that all parties prepare for the CMA process beginning next month, we have based our model on the AMP8-10 projections underlying the latest discussed cases and have calibrated the CapEx demand to achieve the required long-term ratios for TW and thus define the goalposts for the negotiations. As neither DCF nor comps provide a useful valuation, we have a different metric guiding our recap model, which produces a useful base case, even if it should only marginally satisfy each of the four parties involved. Perhaps that’s the best it can do. In determining whether we feel the likely returns creditors can negotiate will be satisfactory to us, we find that the game theory of the RP2 process is perhaps the most telling and that some types of investors would be more suited than others.

Following our note earlier in the week, we have expanded our analysis to focus on how Apollo’s options affect bondholder recovery. Having updated for Q1 numbers (minor), we calculate through recapitalisation tables for a couple of scenarios, resulting in unsurprisingly similar consequences, but under different incentive packages. We interlink these scenarios with our assumptions on pellet price and volumes beyond FY27 to help us determine the relative negotiating positions, which confirms our positioning in the name.

The Q1 results do little to change our view on Cerba. Post the publication of our larger note earlier this month, several client discussions have ensued. Taking on board some of the comments from these discussions, we have further built on our previous work. Separately, we note a discrepancy between our volume assumptions and those shared by the Company. Implementing these new assumptions further cements our trading view on the credit. Our analysis expands on our previous liquidity scenarios, examining the options available to the Company over the coming quarters.

Following the release of Q4 numbers, we have revised our model and projections to gain a deeper understanding of Graanul’s business. We have changed our view on inventory movement and the interaction between sales volume and production levels across the year. Most of our focus remains on regulatory analysis of the wider industry. Some insight can be seen from the recent UK Government deliberations on the industry and the balance between the security of supply versus value for money in continuing biomass subsidies. These lessons can be extrapolated across Europe, which will impact the wider industry demand. The analysis of supply and demand extends to our recovery analysis. We have calculated the impact of a range of pricing and volume assumptions post FY26 and the likely financeability under these assumptions, which drives our recovery scenarios.

Looking ready for an A&E, the bonds are worth a thought beyond the transaction. Admittedly shooting cannons at mosquitos, we build a recap table to calculate through likely scenarios and extend our model to capture the underlying trends by country and brand. We are not confident the transaction will result in sufficient deleveraging, but just how much is needed and what level of debt can the new structure carry? We come to a conclusion on the bonds before and after the oncoming transaction.