In short: Last year's third pro pick, down 12%, and the only one that did not work — and he has been buying it back. On the break-up (GO Residential takes the residential portfolio, Blackstone the industrial, founder Tom Hofstedter's family vehicle some non-core assets) his word is precise: "you said takeover. It's really a take under… in Canada. It seems to happen a few times once in a while and it's a little annoying." He also discloses selling into last year's strength on someone else's advice — "you had real estate gurus on and they said at $12 they didn't think there was a lot of upside. So I sold — not all, but I did reduce my position." The stock announced around 11 and is "9.75 I think, at least as of yesterday. And yeah, people are not happy. I talked to a bunch of other people, every single person I talked to, not happy." He names the issues — possible tax issues and "at least a perceived conflict of interest from the management of the company buying a significant part of the assets at what some people looks like cheap" — and points readers at TD's report. Position: "before reading the circular, as it stands we're probably going to vote against the deal." But the trade is separate from the protest: "we didn't own that many shares when they announced and the stock went down. So actually we started to buy more… If the deal goes through at the current price, you probably make some money. If the deal doesn't go through, we'll see what people vote for. I think the stock still recovers… So either way, I'm comfortable either scenario in terms of the current price."
H&R is a Canadian property trust being broken up: GO Residential buys the apartment portfolio, Blackstone buys the industrial portfolio, and a company controlled by the founder's family takes some of the leftovers. Tardif calls it not a takeover but a "take under" — a deal done below what he thinks the assets are worth. The stock has drifted from around $11 at announcement to about $9.75.
He is unusually direct about the governance objection. Management is buying a meaningful slice of the assets from the company it runs, at a price "some people looks like cheap" — a conflict of interest whether or not anything improper occurred — and there may be tax complications for unitholders. He plans to vote against, though he is realistic that heavy retail ownership may push it through anyway.
The part worth learning from is that his vote and his trade point in opposite directions, deliberately. He owned few units when the deal was announced, watched the price fall, and started buying. If the deal completes at today's price you make money on the spread and you receive units in GO Residential, which he separately thinks is cheap — so you acquire a cheap asset at a discount to an already discounted price. If the deal fails, he believes the stock recovers on its own merits. "Either way, I'm comfortable either scenario in terms of the current price." He also notes what he thinks should have happened instead: H&R once spun out its mall business as Primaris with a new young CEO and it worked well, so spinning out divisions was an alternative to selling cheap.
18:42So actually we started to buy more. So we bought more. So if the deal goes through, because you're getting GO shares and GO itself looks pretty cheap here. — I know. I own GO. Do you like GO? — Yeah. I mean here it looks cheap. They have issues but — I own it back. — Yeah. — I don't own it here.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.