EHS Opposes Helios’s $1.15-a-Share Offer, Says It Undervalues CAB Payments
Key Facts
EHS Investments said on 29 October that it opposed Helios’s potential offer for CAB Payments, saying the proposed price significantly undervalues the company. EHS said it owns just under 1.0% of CAB Payments’ shares as a beneficial owner. That places its objection in the context of a small shareholder’s position, rather than one issued by the company’s board. EHS estimated that the offer values the company at 5 times forecast 2028 earnings, excluding surplus capital that it says the company holds. In its statement, it said the offer “significantly undervalues the company,” renewing the debate over price after StoneX withdrew from the process for a potential higher offer.
The offer opposed by EHS is a cash offer of $1.15 a share, according to the terms Helios announced on 2 March 2026. EHS maintains that this price does not reflect what CAB Payments could achieve if it meets its medium-term targets. Based on its analysis of those targets, EHS said it expects adjusted earnings per share to reach at least 15 pence by 2028. It estimated that this would represent compound annual growth of about 30% from 2025 levels. These are figures and analyses presented by EHS to explain its objection to the valuation, not guidance issued by the company.
EHS also cited a valuation comparison it prepared on 26 October. It said Corpay was trading at 11 times forecast 2028 earnings per share, while StoneX’s multiple was 12 times, according to the same comparison. It added that CAB Payments’ average historical price-to-earnings multiple was 10 times next 12 months’ earnings since its 2023 listing. The comparison sets Helios’s valuation of 5 times 2028 earnings against the multiples EHS cited for two peers and CAB’s historical average. It reflects the shareholder’s argument about a valuation gap, while the figures remain attributed to its analysis and reference period.
On cash returns, EHS said CAB Payments’ capital management framework could allow the company to return more than 25% of its current market value to shareholders over the next three years. It presented the figure as an estimate of potential returns, not as a company commitment to specific distributions or as part of Helios’s offer terms. EHS thus linked its objection to the offer with what it sees as potential earnings growth and capital returns. The argument adds another dimension to the dispute over price: the shareholder sees the company’s value as extending beyond the earnings reflected in the offer valuation to include what it could return to shareholders. The available facts contained no separate position from the company’s board on EHS’s estimate of potential returns.
The offer process dates back to March, when StoneX made an initial, non-binding proposal of 95 pence a share in cash, according to CAB Payments’ announcement. In April, StoneX raised its potential proposal to 110 pence a share, but it remained non-binding and subject to preconditions. The company then announced on 5 May that StoneX did not intend to make an offer. The 110 pence price therefore did not become a formal offer available to shareholders, although EHS criticized Helios for not backing StoneX’s potential higher offer. Helios’s announced offer is worth $1.15 a share in cash; its pricing currency differs from that of the proposals cited by StoneX.
CAB Payments’ independent board said on 13 August that Helios’s offer had not changed and described it as “highly opportunistic,” saying it materially undervalued the company and its future prospects. The board recommended that shareholders take no action at the time. That was the board’s position announced in August, while the 29 October statement set out EHS’s objection and its arguments on valuation, growth and returns. The current dispute therefore brings together two positions on the same offer, each with its own source and timing: the company board’s rejection announced in August and the shareholder’s objection, stake disclosure and valuation in October. The available facts did not include a later date for action or any change to Helios’s offer terms.