IBJNews

Simon’s options for Capital Shopping takeover dwindling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Simon Property Group Inc. may be running out of options in its quest to take over Capital Shopping Centres Group Plc and become the largest mall owner in the United Kingdom.

“It’s either Simon goes hostile with an aggressive bid or drops it completely,” Craig Guttenplan, an analyst at CreditSights in London. “This chipping-away strategy doesn’t seem to be working.”

Capital Shopping on Sunday rejected a financing plan from Indianapolis-based Simon for the U.K. landlord’s $2.5 billion (1.6 billion pound) proposed purchase of the Trafford Centre mall in northwest England. The investment would have boosted the biggest U.S. mall owner’s stake in its British counterpart.

Simon said last month it was considering an unspecified cash bid for Capital Shopping and asked the London-based company to delay a shareholder vote on the mall purchase, a request that was turned down. The U.S. landlord said last week it would end its quest for Capital Shopping if the company doesn’t provide information needed to evaluate a bid.

Simon said Sunday it would be prepared to subscribe to a sale of 205.5 million Capital Shopping shares at 400 pence ($6.30) each. The proposal, which Simon said was “more attractive” to the U.K. company’s shareholders than the current financing plan, would include a sale of 209 million pounds ($329 million) of convertible bonds by Capital Shopping.

The financing proposal by Simon, which has owned at least 3 percent of Capital Shopping since August 2008, would give Simon a holding of 18.4 percent to 26.9 percent in the British mall owner and a seat on its board, according to Capital Shopping.

The plan was rejected because Capital Shopping can’t unilaterally change a binding agreement to buy Trafford Centre, the company said. Simon has said Capital Shopping is paying Peel Group too much for the mall in Manchester, England.

Peel has no intention of selling the mall for cash, even if it resulted in a higher price, the company said in a separate statement Monday. Peel wants a stake in Capital Shopping to diversify its U.K. shopping-mall holdings.

Should Simon not buy Capital Shopping, it would be the second time in a year the mall owner failed at an attempted takeover. Earlier this year, Simon dropped a bid for U.S. rival General Growth Properties Inc., which filed for the largest-ever U.S. real estate bankruptcy in April 2009. General Growth emerged from Chapter 11 a month ago.

Simon is a smart buyer that doesn’t overpay for acquisitions, said both Guttenplan of CreditSights and Alexander Goldfarb, an analyst at Sandler O’Neill & Partners LP in New York.

“We continue to believe that SPG will maintain its investment discipline and only do a deal that is accretive essentially from day one rather than accretive on a longer term basis,” Goldfarb wrote in a report Monday.

The mall owner expects to keep increasing its income even if its effort to buy Capital Shopping fails. David Simon, the company’s chairman and CEO, said last month, before disclosing his interest in Capital Shopping, that Simon may post record earnings per share next year.

The company may boost profits by increasing occupancies at its malls and redeveloping properties, said Keith Bokota, an analyst at Principal Global Investors. Its parent company, Des Moines, Iowa-based Principal Financial Group Inc., owned 3.8 million shares of Simon at the end of September, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Simon is likely to spend $1.5 billion on the redevelopment of 16 properties, with work beginning on two to four projects in 2011, David Simon said last month.

“They have not stagnated,” Goldfarb said in a telephone interview last week. “They’re growing every day.”

Simon shares rose 44 cents, to $99.39 each, in Monday afternoon trading. They have gained 25 percent this year.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT