Discussion
Anyone currently invested in them?
They've cratered 90 odd percent from peak and have had a rocky few weeks, but seem to have put most of their financing issues behind them (for now).
There is an outstanding issue with their accounts/auditors which was announced on Friday (and which could potentially lead to the shares being suspended from the market temporarily) - but everything I've read about them including all announcements to the market indicates a company which is still viable, has a load of valuable land and which still has a future. Their share price now reflects all the bad news of late but still seems extremely cheap to me.
I guess like anything else it's a punt but interested if they've come onto anyone else's radar?
They've cratered 90 odd percent from peak and have had a rocky few weeks, but seem to have put most of their financing issues behind them (for now).
There is an outstanding issue with their accounts/auditors which was announced on Friday (and which could potentially lead to the shares being suspended from the market temporarily) - but everything I've read about them including all announcements to the market indicates a company which is still viable, has a load of valuable land and which still has a future. Their share price now reflects all the bad news of late but still seems extremely cheap to me.
I guess like anything else it's a punt but interested if they've come onto anyone else's radar?
Edited by princeperch on Saturday 25th March 22:25
You can normally ignore company announcements as they will be a reflection of the Boards desire to keep taking salaries as opposed to much else.
'Issues with auditors' is generally the third and final stage ahead of winding up with the first two typically profit warnings so that should be a warning.
If a company has high debt and assets of value then the entity that owns that debt will be seeking to take those assets for themselves and wiping the shareholders out. That's human nature.
I know nothing of the company but am just responding to the points that you wrote using 30 years of experience of watching clients experience these things.
'Issues with auditors' is generally the third and final stage ahead of winding up with the first two typically profit warnings so that should be a warning.
If a company has high debt and assets of value then the entity that owns that debt will be seeking to take those assets for themselves and wiping the shareholders out. That's human nature.
I know nothing of the company but am just responding to the points that you wrote using 30 years of experience of watching clients experience these things.
Cheers DA. I guess this one is as high risk a punt as it gets really.
Here is what the market knows about the auditor issue so far so hard to say if it's terminal or not.
https://www.dhakatribune.com/financial-markets/202...
Here is what the market knows about the auditor issue so far so hard to say if it's terminal or not.
https://www.dhakatribune.com/financial-markets/202...
IMHO don't read financial press. On the many transactions where I was an insider, the press was broadly correct maybe 50% of the time and materially wrong the rest of it. Go straight to the source. In this case the RNS announcements.
Announcement of the delay in results - with no explanation.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/I...
Here's the explanation. Chairman and two non-execs resigned over unnotified related party transactions. Note NOT an audit issue as such but a mass resignation of the Board is a nuclear event.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/I...
More details on the issue, with an independent third party to report on it. I'd be worried the company also announced a £5m capital raise in the same announcement at nominal value, with no rationale. That's 100% of the market cap today. Shares will be suspended on 3 April because of the delay in accounts, and there is no clue how many years' worth of accounts will need to be restated.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/I...
I don't have a barge pole handy but this one is unmeasurably risky.
Announcement of the delay in results - with no explanation.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/I...
Here's the explanation. Chairman and two non-execs resigned over unnotified related party transactions. Note NOT an audit issue as such but a mass resignation of the Board is a nuclear event.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/I...
More details on the issue, with an independent third party to report on it. I'd be worried the company also announced a £5m capital raise in the same announcement at nominal value, with no rationale. That's 100% of the market cap today. Shares will be suspended on 3 April because of the delay in accounts, and there is no clue how many years' worth of accounts will need to be restated.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/I...
I don't have a barge pole handy but this one is unmeasurably risky.
princeperch said:
Cheers DA. I guess this one is as high risk a punt as it gets really.
Here is what the market knows about the auditor issue so far so hard to say if it's terminal or not.
https://www.dhakatribune.com/financial-markets/202...
If you start that webpage from the bottom up which is always the best way to read financial information you can see instantly from the 'most popular links' bit that the website is a nutter publication for nutters. It doesn't mean that this particular article doesn't have merit but that that would be accidental not by design. The website is there to sell nutter products and services to nutters using nutter content. Here is what the market knows about the auditor issue so far so hard to say if it's terminal or not.
https://www.dhakatribune.com/financial-markets/202...
What you can glean is that this is an AIM stock that's been doing what AIM stocks tend to do and are incentivised to do via lax governance.
If the Board members that did the deals with themselves are no longer on the board then they will be working with the lender(s) to get the assets off the shareholders if there are any actual assets.
It's going to delist in April so that pretty much sets in stone that the shareholders are to be wiped out. The only thing as of yet unsettled is whether the new board members suck out any remaining value as salaries or the old directors help a debtor get that money.
If a shareholder who has no seat at that table then logic would tend to dictate that one should have left the room a long time ago and that the opportunity for leaving a room full of stinky farts with at least a free biscuit is coming to an end.
It may come back and the old shareholders may have some shares in the new entity but the odds are simply so terrible that one would have to be clinically insane to consider them. It's road kill with the scavengers already tucking in, the days of it possibly being a Sunday roast are long gone.
DonkeyApple said:
If you start that webpage from the bottom up which is always the best way to read financial information you can see instantly from the 'most popular links' bit that the website is a nutter publication for nutters. It doesn't mean that this particular article doesn't have merit but that that would be accidental not by design. The website is there to sell nutter products and services to nutters using nutter content.
What you can glean is that this is an AIM stock that's been doing what AIM stocks tend to do and are incentivised to do via lax governance.
If the Board members that did the deals with themselves are no longer on the board then they will be working with the lender(s) to get the assets off the shareholders if there are any actual assets.
It's going to delist in April so that pretty much sets in stone that the shareholders are to be wiped out. The only thing as of yet unsettled is whether the new board members suck out any remaining value as salaries or the old directors help a debtor get that money.
If a shareholder who has no seat at that table then logic would tend to dictate that one should have left the room a long time ago and that the opportunity for leaving a room full of stinky farts with at least a free biscuit is coming to an end.
It may come back and the old shareholders may have some shares in the new entity but the odds are simply so terrible that one would have to be clinically insane to consider them. It's road kill with the scavengers already tucking in, the days of it possibly being a Sunday roast are long gone.
I still might pop in £500 to see what happens. If it does manage to come back from the dead and it bounces in a similar way as it did when it managed to obtain forgiveness from it's lenders a few weeks ago, I might make a grand or so on it.What you can glean is that this is an AIM stock that's been doing what AIM stocks tend to do and are incentivised to do via lax governance.
If the Board members that did the deals with themselves are no longer on the board then they will be working with the lender(s) to get the assets off the shareholders if there are any actual assets.
It's going to delist in April so that pretty much sets in stone that the shareholders are to be wiped out. The only thing as of yet unsettled is whether the new board members suck out any remaining value as salaries or the old directors help a debtor get that money.
If a shareholder who has no seat at that table then logic would tend to dictate that one should have left the room a long time ago and that the opportunity for leaving a room full of stinky farts with at least a free biscuit is coming to an end.
It may come back and the old shareholders may have some shares in the new entity but the odds are simply so terrible that one would have to be clinically insane to consider them. It's road kill with the scavengers already tucking in, the days of it possibly being a Sunday roast are long gone.
Could also obviously lose my monkey within a few days.
princeperch said:
I still might pop in £500 to see what happens. If it does manage to come back from the dead and it bounces in a similar way as it did when it managed to obtain forgiveness from it's lenders a few weeks ago, I might make a grand or so on it.
Could also obviously lose my monkey within a few days.
But why? A drunk tramp with some free coins staggering into Ladbrokes would take a bet like that?Could also obviously lose my monkey within a few days.
You're talking about even odds on a horse that isn't even at the races.
This is what I don't get about retail investors. They are making a bet but refuse to look at the odds.
You're looking to bet £500 to make £1000 but via million to one odds. Why? Why would anyone want even odds on a million to one long shot? It just doesn't make sense.
You'd chuck in £500 if there was a chance of making £500,000 given the odds but no sane person would take short odds.
princeperch said:
I still might pop in £500 to see what happens. If it does manage to come back from the dead and it bounces in a similar way as it did when it managed to obtain forgiveness from it's lenders a few weeks ago, I might make a grand or so on it.
Could also obviously lose my monkey within a few days.
Could also obviously lose my monkey within a few days.
There are more red flags here than in China.
Unless I'm reading it wrong, the only "forgiveness" they obtained from the lenders was for previous breaches of their covenants (of which they are still in breach). The company only exists for as long as the lenders allow it, and I would suggest that would be for as long as they think there is a possibility of getting cash back towards the loans - as soon as they see no prospect of that it will be lights out and asset sale.
Edited to add: The new CEO appointed in December lasting only 6 weeks tells you all you need to know.
Edited by egomeister on Sunday 26th March 10:26
DonkeyApple said:
But why? A drunk tramp with some free coins staggering into Ladbrokes would take a bet like that?
You're talking about even odds on a horse that isn't even at the races.
This is what I don't get about retail investors. They are making a bet but refuse to look at the odds.
You're looking to bet £500 to make £1000 but via million to one odds. Why? Why would anyone want even odds on a million to one long shot? It just doesn't make sense.
You'd chuck in £500 if there was a chance of making £500,000 given the odds but no sane person would take short odds.
I was going to suggest sticking the £500 on the football tonight. Doesn't matter if you go England, Ukraine or Draw because the odds will be better.You're talking about even odds on a horse that isn't even at the races.
This is what I don't get about retail investors. They are making a bet but refuse to look at the odds.
You're looking to bet £500 to make £1000 but via million to one odds. Why? Why would anyone want even odds on a million to one long shot? It just doesn't make sense.
You'd chuck in £500 if there was a chance of making £500,000 given the odds but no sane person would take short odds.
How bad can this issue with the now departed board members be? I mean the directors were still hoovering up shares a few weeks ago at 0.2xp and the company was still announcing future developments that are in the pipeline.
My thinking was someone has been either a bit naughty and done something they shouldn't have, which is a regulatory issue, but there hasn't been a fraud or anything which is going to breach their lenders covenants or make the company insolvent.
The FD is still there and has been at all times.
My thinking was someone has been either a bit naughty and done something they shouldn't have, which is a regulatory issue, but there hasn't been a fraud or anything which is going to breach their lenders covenants or make the company insolvent.
The FD is still there and has been at all times.
princeperch said:
How bad can this issue with the now departed board members be? I mean the directors were still hoovering up shares a few weeks ago at 0.2xp and the company was still announcing future developments that are in the pipeline.
My thinking was someone has been either a bit naughty and done something they shouldn't have, which is a regulatory issue, but there hasn't been a fraud or anything which is going to breach their lenders covenants or make the company insolvent.
The FD is still there and has been at all times.
The FD who has overseen the accounting issues? Bullish.My thinking was someone has been either a bit naughty and done something they shouldn't have, which is a regulatory issue, but there hasn't been a fraud or anything which is going to breach their lenders covenants or make the company insolvent.
The FD is still there and has been at all times.
I see they have just signed the DLUHC cladding remediation contract, which means they will self fund all the buildings over 18mtrs tall that they built with dangerous cladding? Do you know how many buildings that is? I am heavily involved with getting the cladding on our home building remediated, and I understand that the typical costs of fixing a building with say 100 homes is anywhere from £5M-£20M.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/I...
That's a huge outlay just to fix one, and if they have a decent portfolio it could run an insane figure. I have no specific knowledge of this company, other than if they are in the first 100 being targeted to sign, then they are one of the largest companies with a bigger portfolio for sure. Nevertheless I assume they have calculated they can afford it, otherwise I guess they wouldn't have signed - seems none of the builders are fixing buildings purely through their own goodwill, it's Gove's threat to put them out of business if they don't sign that finally making them do what is right.
If you knew the pain and suffering that hundreds of thousands of homeowners are going through with regard to post Grenfell remediation issues I'm not sure anyone would rush to put money into one of these companies...
What's next, putting money into the shares of the airline who have the contract to deport refugees to Rwanda?
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/I...
That's a huge outlay just to fix one, and if they have a decent portfolio it could run an insane figure. I have no specific knowledge of this company, other than if they are in the first 100 being targeted to sign, then they are one of the largest companies with a bigger portfolio for sure. Nevertheless I assume they have calculated they can afford it, otherwise I guess they wouldn't have signed - seems none of the builders are fixing buildings purely through their own goodwill, it's Gove's threat to put them out of business if they don't sign that finally making them do what is right.
If you knew the pain and suffering that hundreds of thousands of homeowners are going through with regard to post Grenfell remediation issues I'm not sure anyone would rush to put money into one of these companies...
What's next, putting money into the shares of the airline who have the contract to deport refugees to Rwanda?
princeperch said:
How bad can this issue with the now departed board members be? I mean the directors were still hoovering up shares a few weeks ago at 0.2xp and the company was still announcing future developments that are in the pipeline.
My thinking was someone has been either a bit naughty and done something they shouldn't have, which is a regulatory issue, but there hasn't been a fraud or anything which is going to breach their lenders covenants or make the company insolvent.
It's bad. Very bad. Mass board resignations on the spot are really, really uncommon. It strongly suggests a total failure of corporate governance and there are lots of unknowns still to be revealed. Which is not what you want in a company you're invested in.My thinking was someone has been either a bit naughty and done something they shouldn't have, which is a regulatory issue, but there hasn't been a fraud or anything which is going to breach their lenders covenants or make the company insolvent.
princeperch said:
I still might pop in £500 to see what happens. If it does manage to come back from the dead and it bounces in a similar way as it did when it managed to obtain forgiveness from it's lenders a few weeks ago, I might make a grand or so on it.
Could also obviously lose my monkey within a few days.
So you can easily afford to lose £500 (the most likely outcome) but would only make a grand or so... If you can afford to lose £500, then a grand isn't going to make any difference to your finances, so why bother ? Could also obviously lose my monkey within a few days.
It doesn't make any sense, but it sounds like you've made up your mind to chuck your money away anyway.
AdamV12V said:
I see they have just signed the DLUHC cladding remediation contract, which means they will self fund all the buildings over 18mtrs tall that they built with dangerous cladding? Do you know how many buildings that is? I am heavily involved with getting the cladding on our home building remediated, and I understand that the typical costs of fixing a building with say 100 homes is anywhere from £5M-£20M.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/I...
That's a huge outlay just to fix one, and if they have a decent portfolio it could run an insane figure. I have no specific knowledge of this company, other than if they are in the first 100 being targeted to sign, then they are one of the largest companies with a bigger portfolio for sure. Nevertheless I assume they have calculated they can afford it, otherwise I guess they wouldn't have signed - seems none of the builders are fixing buildings purely through their own goodwill, it's Gove's threat to put them out of business if they don't sign that finally making them do what is right.
If you knew the pain and suffering that hundreds of thousands of homeowners are going through with regard to post Grenfell remediation issues I'm not sure anyone would rush to put money into one of these companies...
What's next, putting money into the shares of the airline who have the contract to deport refugees to Rwanda?
Very true. Or perhaps they have agreed to sign it due to the fact they intend to phoenix it all in a few months and the agreement can then be used a toilet paper in their swanky new offices of the second iteration? https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/I...
That's a huge outlay just to fix one, and if they have a decent portfolio it could run an insane figure. I have no specific knowledge of this company, other than if they are in the first 100 being targeted to sign, then they are one of the largest companies with a bigger portfolio for sure. Nevertheless I assume they have calculated they can afford it, otherwise I guess they wouldn't have signed - seems none of the builders are fixing buildings purely through their own goodwill, it's Gove's threat to put them out of business if they don't sign that finally making them do what is right.
If you knew the pain and suffering that hundreds of thousands of homeowners are going through with regard to post Grenfell remediation issues I'm not sure anyone would rush to put money into one of these companies...
What's next, putting money into the shares of the airline who have the contract to deport refugees to Rwanda?
princeperch said:
AdamV12V said:
I see they have just signed the DLUHC cladding remediation contract, which means they will self fund all the buildings over 18mtrs tall that they built with dangerous cladding? Do you know how many buildings that is? I am heavily involved with getting the cladding on our home building remediated, and I understand that the typical costs of fixing a building with say 100 homes is anywhere from £5M-£20M.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/I...
That's a huge outlay just to fix one, and if they have a decent portfolio it could run an insane figure. I have no specific knowledge of this company, other than if they are in the first 100 being targeted to sign, then they are one of the largest companies with a bigger portfolio for sure. Nevertheless I assume they have calculated they can afford it, otherwise I guess they wouldn't have signed - seems none of the builders are fixing buildings purely through their own goodwill, it's Gove's threat to put them out of business if they don't sign that finally making them do what is right.
If you knew the pain and suffering that hundreds of thousands of homeowners are going through with regard to post Grenfell remediation issues I'm not sure anyone would rush to put money into one of these companies...
What's next, putting money into the shares of the airline who have the contract to deport refugees to Rwanda?
Very true. Or perhaps they have agreed to sign it due to the fact they intend to phoenix it all in a few months and the agreement can then be used a toilet paper in their swanky new offices of the second iteration? https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/I...
That's a huge outlay just to fix one, and if they have a decent portfolio it could run an insane figure. I have no specific knowledge of this company, other than if they are in the first 100 being targeted to sign, then they are one of the largest companies with a bigger portfolio for sure. Nevertheless I assume they have calculated they can afford it, otherwise I guess they wouldn't have signed - seems none of the builders are fixing buildings purely through their own goodwill, it's Gove's threat to put them out of business if they don't sign that finally making them do what is right.
If you knew the pain and suffering that hundreds of thousands of homeowners are going through with regard to post Grenfell remediation issues I'm not sure anyone would rush to put money into one of these companies...
What's next, putting money into the shares of the airline who have the contract to deport refugees to Rwanda?
egomeister said:
princeperch said:
Very true. Or perhaps they have agreed to sign it due to the fact they intend to phoenix it all in a few months and the agreement can then be used a toilet paper in their swanky new offices of the second iteration?
Beat me to it! A company could sign any agreement it likes if it knows it suspects it isn't going to be around to make good on that promiseOne of those US ‘meme stocks’ would be more fun, surely?
Before the phrase was a thing I had a spare $800 in my Charles Schwab account and saw a company mentioned on bulletin boards that was 80c. Based on nothing more than a perfect price match I bought 1000. A couple of weeks later they were $5 so sold them. Next time I looked the company had disappeared.
At the time that money paid for everything except the flights for a US Disney holiday!
Before the phrase was a thing I had a spare $800 in my Charles Schwab account and saw a company mentioned on bulletin boards that was 80c. Based on nothing more than a perfect price match I bought 1000. A couple of weeks later they were $5 so sold them. Next time I looked the company had disappeared.
At the time that money paid for everything except the flights for a US Disney holiday!
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff