Chamoss: How Much of the Valuation Survives if Renewal Slips?
A delay in lease renewal does not wipe out Chamoss's portfolio value, because part of the reset is already embedded in both the valuation and the rating framework. But it does compress the refinancing cushion around 2028 very quickly, exactly where the future rent base is supposed to fall well below today's roughly £37 million level.
The main article already framed the core issue: 2028 is not waiting at the end of the lease, it is already sitting inside Chamoss's valuation today. This follow-up isolates a narrower and more useful question: if renewal talks keep slipping, how much value actually remains, and what gets hit first.
The short answer: more value survives than the headline risk suggests, but far less cushion survives around it. This is not a story of a portfolio collapsing to zero. It is a story of collateral that keeps leaning on a lower future rent base, a tighter calendar, and a refinancing event that arrives before the new lease period under discussion would even begin.
Part of the Reset Is Already in the Numbers
What matters here is that the company is not really disputing the direction of travel. In the valuation note, it says explicitly that the properties are currently leased above market rent and that the shortening remaining lease term hurt value in 2025. That means the post-2028 reset is already inside the accounts, just not as a single dramatic write-down.
The key number is not only the portfolio's gross fair value of £397.035 million, but also how that value is split in the accounts. The company separates £12.773 million as assets relating to guaranteed rent uplifts, £3.709 million short term and £9.064 million long term, leaving investment property at £384.262 million on the balance sheet. In other words, part of today's excess contractual rent is already no longer being shown as if it were clean real-estate value.
That does not remove the risk. It sharpens it. The real question is no longer whether there is a gap between current contractual rent and sustainable rent, but how much of that gap has already been recognized and how much will still land inside the refinancing window. As long as renewal remains unsigned, the asset value keeps sliding toward a world in which the current lease cannot carry the whole thesis on its own.
The Next Rent Base Already Looks Much Lower Than Today's
This is where the economics really reset. The remaining undiscounted lease receipts stand at £37.055 million in the first year, £37.610 million in the second year, and £31.812 million in the third year. That is the rent base carrying the next few years. Against that, the valuation assumes estimated net market rent of £22.82 million at the end of the current lease term.
The implication is straightforward: even without assuming failed negotiations, the valuation model is not capitalizing a permanent £37 million rent stream. It already moves to a materially lower world. The relevant question is not whether rent falls after 2028, but where the new floor really sits.
That is where the disclosed negotiation range becomes important. The company says it is negotiating lease extensions for about 68 properties at £17 million to £19 million per year, with no signed agreement yet. That does not prove that the entire portfolio will reset exactly to that range. It does show that the practical discussion around a large part of the portfolio is already happening on a rent base well below the one supporting 2026 and 2027.
That is the point. If today's contractual rent is running at roughly £37 million a year, the valuer's end-of-lease market-rent assumption is £22.82 million, and the live negotiation for 68 assets is taking place at £17 million to £19 million, then the risk is no longer abstract. It is already being translated into a lower post-2028 cash-flow base.
The Calendar Turns This Into a Financing Problem, Not Just a Valuation Question
The rent gap matters, but the calendar matters almost as much. The tenant's original option to extend the lease package expired on April 8, 2025. Series A's final maturity is July 10, 2028. The extension now being negotiated for 68 properties is meant to start only on October 29, 2028.
| Date | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| April 8, 2025 | The original renewal option expired without being exercised |
| July 10, 2028 | Final maturity of Series A |
| October 29, 2028 | Start date of the extension now under negotiation for 68 properties |
So the debt hits the wall before the new rent package under discussion would even begin. That is why delay hurts more than the valuation line alone suggests. The refinancing case needs signed and credible cash flow before the next lease period actually starts, not after.
Coverage is not giving the company much room to waste time either. In the annual report, Chamoss reports debt-service coverage of 1.24 as of December 31, 2025, against a contractual floor of 1.05. Midroog, using September 30, 2025 data, shows trailing twelve-month coverage of about 1.23 and a base case with average ADSCR of about 1.28 and a minimum of about 1.25 in 2026. Those are workable numbers. They are not generous numbers.
That is why Midroog keeps the rating at Aa3.il(sf), but also writes explicitly that a short-term intensification of refinancing risk, including from non-renewal of the VWUK lease, could hurt the rating. That is the most important line in the rating note. Not because it predicts default, but because it identifies exactly where the cushion becomes fragile.
So How Much Value Actually Survives
Midroog provides the most useful anchor in the entire evidence set. In its refinancing framework, residual debt at the refinancing date is expected to be about £144 million, and LTV is expected to range between 46% and 54%. That mechanically implies asset values of roughly £267 million to £313 million.
That is the number that puts the debate back in proportion. A renewal delay does not mean the collateral is worth zero. Even Midroog's framework still leaves substantial value above the debt. But it does mean that what gets hit first is not the existence of value itself. What gets hit first is the safety margin above the debt, above the rating, and above the ability to refinance on comfortable terms.
So the precise answer to the headline question is this: the value survives, the cushion shrinks. In rough terms, something like two-thirds to almost four-fifths of today's gross value still has to survive for Midroog's 2028 LTV band to work. That is far from a wipeout scenario, but it is also far from the calm that the current lease still projects in 2026.
Bottom Line
This continuation sharpens one point. Chamoss is not being tested on rent collection today. It is being tested on its ability to turn existing asset value into contract certainty that is good enough for the refinancing window. Part of the move to a lower future rent base has already been recognized in the accounts, and another part already sits inside the rating framework. That is why a renewal delay does not erase the portfolio's value.
But it is not something the company can comfortably leave unresolved. Series A matures on July 10, 2028, while the extension being negotiated for 68 properties is only meant to start on October 29, 2028. That gap turns the entire story into a question of timing and certainty, not just a question of appraised value. The longer the agreement stays open, the more of the value story remains theoretical exactly where refinancing becomes practical.
Disclosure: Deep TASE analyses are general informational, research, and commentary content only. They do not constitute investment advice, investment marketing, a recommendation, or an offer to buy, sell, or hold any security, and are not tailored to any reader's personal circumstances.
The author, site owner, or related parties may hold, buy, sell, or otherwise trade securities or financial instruments related to the companies discussed, before or after publication, without prior notice and without any obligation to update the analysis. Publication of an analysis should not be read as a statement that any position does or does not exist.
The analysis may contain errors, omissions, or information that changes after publication. Readers should review official filings and primary sources before making decisions.