MAYS - J.W. Mays

[SugarRE]

Did anyone go to the AM?  I sold, but am curious if they addressed the lease.

[Grahamfan2]

more than likely a good thing:

 

 

J.W. Mays, Inc. (NASDAQ:MAYS) Files An 8-K Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers

Item 5.02. Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers.

 

At its special meeting on March 29, 2017, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of J.W. Mays, Inc. (the “Company”), upon recommendation of its Governance and Nominating Committee, elected Steven Gurney-Goldman to the Board.

 

The Board increased its size from six to seven members and elected Mr. Gurney-Goldman to fill the vacancy for an initial term expiring at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held in November 2017.

 

The Board has determined that Mr. Gurney-Goldman satisfies the definitions of “independent director” under SEC rules and regulations and NASDAQ listing standards. Mr. Gurney-Goldman has been appointed to the Investment Advisory Committee of the Board.

 

Mr. Gurney-Goldman has been working at Solil Management, LLC since 2013. Solil Management was founded by Mr. Gurney-Goldman’s grandfather, Sol Goldman. Mr. Gurney-Goldman has been working in the following areas at Solil Management: property management, retail leasing, real estate finance and acquisitions, and project development.

 

 

 

[iambagman]

Unfortunately the CEO and management team are the problem.  They lack the ability and desire to develop their properties.  Look at all of the actions a real team like Howard Hughes takes in an area like South Street Seaport - and then compare that to JW Mays. The only similarity is that they both own NY real estate. 

 

Goldman's minority stake and one board seat are not likely to change that.  The Cookies lease is also 20+ years long - feels like the cow has left the barn.  There  is a price for everything but there are also good management teams and bad management teams.

 

Sincerely,

Lost Faith

[glorysk87]

Unfortunately the CEO and management team are the problem.  They lack the ability and desire to develop their properties.  Look at all of the actions a real team like Howard Hughes takes in an area like South Street Seaport - and then compare that to JW Mays. The only similarity is that they both own NY real estate. 

 

Goldman's minority stake and one board seat are not likely to change that.  The Cookies lease is also 20+ years long - feels like the cow has left the barn.  There  is a price for everything but there are also good management teams and bad management teams.

 

Sincerely,

Lost Faith

 

The Goldmans own 23% of the company and they have a very long history with NYC real estate - I understand the pessimism, but in my mind this is an unambiguously positive development.

[iambagman]

The CEO keeps leasing out the assets.  The Cookies retail lease does not even start for 4 years and then has a decade + duration.  Other tenants include government agencies - how do you think the buyout of those tenants will go?  Go negotiate with a bureaucrat who has no incentive to move his department and try to convince them.  It is not even clear that money will motivate them.

 

Then your entire team has no options, no equity, just salaries - they are not equipped or incented to develop properties

 

Is it a positive development that the Goldman's are paying attention - yes, does it reduce the likelihood of the company going private under poor terms - sure.  Just feels like there are better options out there.

 

You could own Howard Hughes where the CEO paid $17M out of his own pocket to buy warrants - they have a long track record of developing and improving assets.  Look at South Street Seaport.

 

Or you could back a guy inherited his ownership in the company from his grandfather, has disdain for his share holders, and has no desire to develop/add value - just wants to lease up, collect some rent and a salary with a vague home that the minority Goldman's do something?

 

Shulman = Problem - and the problem is the long term leases they are signing mean that this will stay C office space in a gentrifying neighborhood for decades.  The assets are at a discount, but they are locked up and the D team is at the helm with perverse incentives.

 

I used to own it.  I get the allure. Discounted assets and gentrification tailwind, no analyst coverage, hidden gem.  The CEO has shown no interest in developing anything - management is almost impossible to get access to (see previous point about share holder disdain) but my experience was one of great disappointment when I actually saw Shulman in action at the annual meeting.  The combination of bad CEO and bad Cookies lease on most valuable asset - was too much for me. 

 

Best of luck.

 

[Gregmal]

The CEO keeps leasing out the assets.  The Cookies retail lease does not even start for 4 years and then has a decade + duration.  Other tenants include government agencies - how do you think the buyout of those tenants will go?  Go negotiate with a bureaucrat who has no incentive to move his department and try to convince them.  It is not even clear that money will motivate them.

 

Then your entire team has no options, no equity, just salaries - they are not equipped or incented to develop properties

 

Is it a positive development that the Goldman's are paying attention - yes, does it reduce the likelihood of the company going private under poor terms - sure.  Just feels like there are better options out there.

 

You could own Howard Hughes where the CEO paid $17M out of his own pocket to buy warrants - they have a long track record of developing and improving assets.  Look at South Street Seaport.

 

Or you could back a guy inherited his ownership in the company from his grandfather, has disdain for his share holders, and has no desire to develop/add value - just wants to lease up, collect some rent and a salary with a vague home that the minority Goldman's do something?

 

Shulman = Problem - and the problem is the long term leases they are signing mean that this will stay C office space in a gentrifying neighborhood for decades.  The assets are at a discount, but they are locked up and the D team is at the helm with perverse incentives.

 

I used to own it.  I get the allure. Discounted assets and gentrification tailwind, no analyst coverage, hidden gem.  The CEO has shown no interest in developing anything - management is almost impossible to get access to (see previous point about share holder disdain) but my experience was one of great disappointment when I actually saw Shulman in action at the annual meeting.  The combination of bad CEO and bad Cookies lease on most valuable asset - was too much for me. 

 

Best of luck.

 

JW MAYS in a nutshell. Well said. I used to view this as an asset I could buy with the outlook that hey, I've got 20+ years to wait and a small allocation will benefit simply from outlasting the short term nonsense. I'm begin to think 20+ years isnt long term enough for these guys.

[glorysk87]

The CEO keeps leasing out the assets.  The Cookies retail lease does not even start for 4 years and then has a decade + duration.  Other tenants include government agencies - how do you think the buyout of those tenants will go?  Go negotiate with a bureaucrat who has no incentive to move his department and try to convince them.  It is not even clear that money will motivate them.

 

Then your entire team has no options, no equity, just salaries - they are not equipped or incented to develop properties

 

Is it a positive development that the Goldman's are paying attention - yes, does it reduce the likelihood of the company going private under poor terms - sure.  Just feels like there are better options out there.

 

You could own Howard Hughes where the CEO paid $17M out of his own pocket to buy warrants - they have a long track record of developing and improving assets.  Look at South Street Seaport.

 

Or you could back a guy inherited his ownership in the company from his grandfather, has disdain for his share holders, and has no desire to develop/add value - just wants to lease up, collect some rent and a salary with a vague home that the minority Goldman's do something?

 

Shulman = Problem - and the problem is the long term leases they are signing mean that this will stay C office space in a gentrifying neighborhood for decades.  The assets are at a discount, but they are locked up and the D team is at the helm with perverse incentives.

 

I used to own it.  I get the allure. Discounted assets and gentrification tailwind, no analyst coverage, hidden gem.  The CEO has shown no interest in developing anything - management is almost impossible to get access to (see previous point about share holder disdain) but my experience was one of great disappointment when I actually saw Shulman in action at the annual meeting.  The combination of bad CEO and bad Cookies lease on most valuable asset - was too much for me. 

 

Best of luck.

 

Like I said - I get the pessimism. My only point was that the active involvement of the Goldman's is an incremental positive.

[SugarRE]

I put in a google reminder for the new expiry of the cookies lease.....see you then!

[Gregmal]

Anyone still follow this? I know it was a favorite for a while here.

 

Been rounding out my annual base touching for the random no purpose investment pile and just got to this one. Still have a few shares tucked away here but my goodness what a joke this company has become. The latest annual report is nothing short of a slap in the face to shareholders. Shareholders, whom by the way, must think we are in the middle of a Great Depression given the performance of this thing. Yet the folks writing their reports seem to believe the company is on strong footing and creating shareholder value!

 

Executive compensation is disgraceful for a firm of this size, let alone based on its performance.

 

The board is a complete embarrassment. Literally a bunch of old quacks, some nearing 100 years old! and, get this, a 28 year old kid who's only work experience period(forget relevant) is working for gran pa pa's investment firm!

 

Good golly.

[SugarRE]

See my last comment.  Maybe one generation will have rolled by then and they won't do a sweetheart deal with a friend to destroy shareholder value.

[BG2008]

Despite a very good financial outcome where all the asset valuation was correct, this investment taught not to invest with bad actors.  I don't want to suffer as Lloyd pillages more money from me. 

[BG2008]

The development site across the street from JW Mays has defaulted.  What a whirlwind of events!

 

https://therealdeal.com/2020/03/26/brooklyn-developments-150m-loan-falls-into-default/