Who want to own some dirt cheap lands in the sunshine State calls California?
If you didn’t have the mojo to buy them cheap during the 2008-2011 periods, here is a chance to pick some up thru $UCP.
$UCP was recently IPOed a week or so ago and the market cap is only $110 millions at current price of $14.20. This is what I believe to be below the book value of the lands they own.
Let’s just say that if the book value is based on purchase price of the land in 2008-2011, what do you think these lands is worth right now?
Edit: I’ve forgotten to mention that $UCP received $116.25 million in cash (7.75million x $15) before subtracting IPO cost. Therefore, basically, current market cap for $UCP is eerily closed to their cash value right now WITHOUT their land values being factored in. Can you spell U N D E R V A L U E?
Since $UCP has only been trading for less than ten days, I can’t present a technical chart to show trend; therefore, I’ve bought this one based on what I believe to be the most undervalued land grab in California.
Below is the daily chart for $UCP:
Btw, $UCP has an outstanding share of 7.75 million shares; how much of that do you think goes to the float? This is the stock to buy when no one is aware of it yet…
My 2 cents.
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
Check out Tejon Ranch. TRC.
TRC has a market cap that is already doubled that of their book value in total asset. On the other hand, UCP has a market cap equal to their cash balance before even counting their book value of their land holdings. Therefore, I see UCP a better play in term of risk/reward calculation.
Thanks for sharing!
They sold 42.3% of their stock, with an extra million+ shares for the underwriters.
Yeah, I found that out later after my post that $PICO Holdings “spin-off” 42.3% pf their stock to the $UCP IPO. Even with the new fact, I still believe we are sitting in an under-priced asset simply because market cap of UCP is almost equal to their cash balance. In time, the market will adjust the pricing to take into account the 42.3% shares of the California lands and properties.
Thanks for bringing the new information to light.
Yes, all true. But TRC has great long-term potential. They’re sitting on some of the best, least developable land 60 miles from LA, and they’re building a city that will become important. I don’t care about the businesses on their land… their future real-estate value is not recognized, imho…and you get to hold it as a stock.
…a town, not a city, I should say…
Nor am I saying this is a better play than yours. Just sharing.
Thanks for the add’l information on $TRC. If they are building a city, that will be something. I’ll keep this on my watchlist.
And thanks for sharing!