AML - Stock Market Listing
Discussion
DickyC said:
Jon39 said:
balise said:
... It listed in 2018 at £19 a share and a £4.3bn valuation.
Two ways of looking at that.
1. The lunacy of that valuation and Andy Palmer's dream of almost being eligible to join the FTSE 100, was discussed towards the start of this topic.
2. The skill of Andy Palmer and also the significant private equity owner, who was selling, achieved an excellent price. I think they might be the only owner who has ever walked away with a profit, from Bamford Martin and Aston Martin.
Ford profited, I think you'll find, Jon.
I would be interested to know in what way, Richard.
My understanding is that Ford were encouraged initially to purchase a stake, later the entire business, by Walter Hayes.
He had been successful in creating an exciting association, between Ford and motor racing and rallying.
Ford provided huge unspecified sums of money to Aston Martin.
Initially they agreed to pay all the costs in connection with development and production of the DB7.
On the back of good DB7 sales, they then paid for construction of the Gaydon factory.
Followed by development costs for the Vanquish, DB9 and V8 Vantage.
Accounts for that period can be seen on Companies House website. Some modest pre-tax profits were reported, but it is stated that no development expenses were included, because they were being paid by Ford.
Ford did great things to enable Aston Martin to continue, including production engineering guidance, but mainly in saying goodbye to their money.
I have never discovered how Ford actually benefited, from their sojourn amongst premium sports cars.
However, I think their ownership period is considered by many, to be one of the two best eras for Aston Martin. The other being David Brown's tenure.
Edited by Jon39 on Wednesday 22 April 21:58
Jon39 said:
DickyC said:
Jon39 said:
balise said:
... It listed in 2018 at £19 a share and a £4.3bn valuation.
Two ways of looking at that.
1. The lunacy of that valuation and Andy Palmer's dream of almost being eligible to join the FTSE 100, was discussed towards the start of this topic.
2. The skill of Andy Palmer and also the significant private equity owner, who was selling, achieved an excellent price. I think they might be the only owner who has ever walked away with a profit, from Bamford Martin and Aston Martin.
Ford profited, I think you'll find, Jon.
I would be interested to know in what way, Richard.
My understanding is that Ford were encouraged initially to purchase a stake, later the entire business, by Walter Hayes.
He had been successful in creating an exciting association, between Ford and motor racing and rallying.
Ford provided huge unspecified sums of money to Aston Martin.
Initially they agreed to pay all the costs in connection with development and production of the DB7.
On the back of good DB7 sales, they then paid for construction of the Gaydon factory.
Followed by development costs for the Vanquish, DB9 and V8 Vantage.
Accounts for that period can be seen on Companies House website. Some modest pre-tax profits were reported, but it is stated that no development expenses were included, because they were being paid by Ford.
Ford did great things to enable Aston Martin to continue, including production engineering guidance, but mainly in saying goodbye to their money.
I have never discovered how Ford actually benefited, from their sojourn amongst premium sports cars.
However, I think their ownership period is considered by many, to be one of the two best eras for Aston Martin. The other being David Brown's tenure.
They had all sorts of nice phrases during their ownership. 'Car for Life' was one; probably harking back to a time when a man bought an Aston and that was that, he had his Aston and would never need another. One I particularly liked came from Walter Hayes, 'It is the duty of the big manufacturers to own a boutique of famous names, to keep them alive.' At the time they owned Aston Martin, Jaguar and AC. But when the time was right, they sold them.
DickyC said:
The DB7 was the key. Ford sold AML while it was profitable for £925 million. They only sold IIRC because they needed cash to restructure other parts of the business which were heavily in debt.
They had all sorts of nice phrases during their ownership. 'Car for Life' was one; probably harking back to a time when a man bought an Aston and that was that, he had his Aston and would never need another. One I particularly liked came from Walter Hayes, 'It is the duty of the big manufacturers to own a boutique of famous names, to keep them alive.' At the time they owned Aston Martin, Jaguar and AC. But when the time was right, they sold them.
I think you’ll find the sale price was actually $925 Mio or possibly $858 Mio, depending on which report you read. Considering the exchange rate at the time it is a very different number as it equated to roughly £480 Mio. It was part of Fords PAG and was the first marque they disposed of. I guess you could argue that Ford may have profited on a simple buy/sell price difference but their investment during their tenure is highly likely to have eradicated any gains made from the sale. BRM.They had all sorts of nice phrases during their ownership. 'Car for Life' was one; probably harking back to a time when a man bought an Aston and that was that, he had his Aston and would never need another. One I particularly liked came from Walter Hayes, 'It is the duty of the big manufacturers to own a boutique of famous names, to keep them alive.' At the time they owned Aston Martin, Jaguar and AC. But when the time was right, they sold them.
An interesting FT article.
https://archive.ph/XtBfB
I noticed the reduced price AML bonds, now provide about a 20% interest return !
That high rate suggests (is it) twice each year, you receive your 20% interest payment, but the uncertainty of course is whether you get back your capital back.
Jon39 said:
An interesting FT article.
https://archive.ph/XtBfB
I noticed the reduced price AML bonds, now provide about a 20% interest return !
That high rate suggests (is it) twice each year, you receive your 20% interest payment, but the uncertainty of course is whether you get back your capital back.
Minglar said:
... It will be interesting to see what the Q1 2026 results look like next Wednesday. We shall see. BRM.
Worldwide sales are difficult to know until AML announce, but the UK sales for the first 3 months have held up fairly well, compared to the same 3 months in 2025.
New UK registrations;
310 (315 in 2025)
Jon39 said:
An interesting FT article.
https://archive.ph/XtBfB
I noticed the reduced price AML bonds, now provide about a 20% interest return !
That high rate suggests (is it) twice each year, you receive your 20% interest payment, but the uncertainty of course is whether you get back your capital back.
Minglar said:
DickyC said:
The DB7 was the key. Ford sold AML while it was profitable for £925 million. They only sold IIRC because they needed cash to restructure other parts of the business which were heavily in debt.
They had all sorts of nice phrases during their ownership. 'Car for Life' was one; probably harking back to a time when a man bought an Aston and that was that, he had his Aston and would never need another. One I particularly liked came from Walter Hayes, 'It is the duty of the big manufacturers to own a boutique of famous names, to keep them alive.' At the time they owned Aston Martin, Jaguar and AC. But when the time was right, they sold them.
I think you ll find the sale price was actually $925 Mio or possibly $858 Mio, depending on which report you read. Considering the exchange rate at the time it is a very different number as it equated to roughly £480 Mio. It was part of Fords PAG and was the first marque they disposed of. I guess you could argue that Ford may have profited on a simple buy/sell price difference but their investment during their tenure is highly likely to have eradicated any gains made from the sale. BRM.They had all sorts of nice phrases during their ownership. 'Car for Life' was one; probably harking back to a time when a man bought an Aston and that was that, he had his Aston and would never need another. One I particularly liked came from Walter Hayes, 'It is the duty of the big manufacturers to own a boutique of famous names, to keep them alive.' At the time they owned Aston Martin, Jaguar and AC. But when the time was right, they sold them.
The career Ford man who took over AML's PR - and whose name I've forgotten - told me of a benefit Aston Martin brought to the corporate table. When Ford wanted to try something new, they tried it out on Aston Martin. Built-in satnav may have been the example he chose. If it was a disaster, they had to deal with ten, twenty or thirty irate Aston customers. If the new gadget was tried and failed in the Scorpio, they would have had tens of thousands of irate customers.
Difficult to give a value to that, but he told me that's what they were doing.
DickyC said:
Confused my pounds and dollars? It should have been in guineas.
The career Ford man who took over AML's PR - and whose name I've forgotten - told me of a benefit Aston Martin brought to the corporate table. When Ford wanted to try something new, they tried it out on Aston Martin. Built-in satnav may have been the example he chose. If it was a disaster, they had to deal with ten, twenty or thirty irate Aston customers. If the new gadget was tried and failed in the Scorpio, they would have had tens of thousands of irate customers.
Difficult to give a value to that, but he told me that's what they were doing.
In my experience mixing up currencies can be a very expensive mistake. The difference in this case is £445 Mio…pretty much the Market Cap of AML as of today. The career Ford man who took over AML's PR - and whose name I've forgotten - told me of a benefit Aston Martin brought to the corporate table. When Ford wanted to try something new, they tried it out on Aston Martin. Built-in satnav may have been the example he chose. If it was a disaster, they had to deal with ten, twenty or thirty irate Aston customers. If the new gadget was tried and failed in the Scorpio, they would have had tens of thousands of irate customers.
Difficult to give a value to that, but he told me that's what they were doing.
BRM.
If you would like to follow the live Q1 Presentation on Wednesday, you just need to register in advance.
Event
Wednesday, 29 April 2026 at 08:30 BST
Details
Q1 2026 Results
Register
https://www.astonmartin.com/en/corporate/investors...
...........................................
I spotted a recent Forbes article;
https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2026/03/03...
Edited by Jon39 on Monday 27th April 09:03
Simpo Two said:
DickyC said:
I bought my shares when they bottomed out.
Or so I thought.
I like that. It reminds me of the sign that said 'This company is a non-profit-making organisation. Or so I thought.
It wasn't supposed to be, but that's the way it turned out'.
Is that the sign Bamford Martin displayed in 1920 and now hangs on the wall at Gaydon alongside, 'By appointment to His Royal Highness King Charles lll, purveyor of ultra luxury motor carriages, fuelled by Dutchy wine' ?
..............................
I nominate Richard for a medal, in respect of his kind financial support of Aston Martin Lagonda Global Holdings plc.
A true selfless act of generosity by a gentleman, who did not expect to ever see that money again.
EDIT
You have given me an idea.
Could AML be registered as a worthy charity?
There might be some tax benefits.
Edited by Jon39 on Monday 27th April 11:37
Simpo Two said:
DickyC said:
I bought my shares when they bottomed out.
Or so I thought.
I like that. It reminds me of the sign that said 'This company is a non-profit-making organisation. It wasn't supposed to be but that's the way it turned out'.Or so I thought.
AstonZagato said:
I remember when, as a young stockbroker, I was considering buying a stock that was 80% off its high. I asked a more experienced colleague if he thought I could lose money on the trade. He said, "Do you know what a stock that has lost 90% is? It's a stock that has lost 80% and then halved."
During your career, I expect you have seen 80% down stocks, continue to lose another 100%.
The arithmetic of percentages can sometimes be confusing.
Jon39 said:
You have given me an idea.
Could AML be registered as a worthy charity?
There might be some tax benefits.
What would be better, the possible tax benefits of donating to a charity vs good old fashioned capital loss?Could AML be registered as a worthy charity?
There might be some tax benefits.
AstonZagato said:
I remember when, as a young stockbroker, I was considering buying a stock that was 80% off its high
One F makes all the difference - '80% off its high' vs '80% of its high'...!Absolutely. I was looking forward to a decent bonus in 1990. The investment bank at which I worked bought a huge block of stock from one of our best clients. The trader said the fateful words, "To lose money on this trade, the company would have to go bust."
That company was Polly Peck (which did indeed go bust days later).
My bonus wasn't as good as I'd expected (to be clear, I was nothing to do with that trade but the loss blew a whole in the entire bonus pool).
That company was Polly Peck (which did indeed go bust days later).
My bonus wasn't as good as I'd expected (to be clear, I was nothing to do with that trade but the loss blew a whole in the entire bonus pool).
AstonZagato said:
Absolutely. I was looking forward to a decent bonus in 1990. The investment bank at which I worked bought a huge block of stock from one of our best clients. The trader said the fateful words, "To lose money on this trade, the company would have to go bust."
That company was Polly Peck (which did indeed go bust days later).
My bonus wasn't as good as I'd expected (to be clear, I was nothing to do with that trade but the loss blew a whole in the entire bonus pool).
That company was Polly Peck (which did indeed go bust days later).
My bonus wasn't as good as I'd expected (to be clear, I was nothing to do with that trade but the loss blew a whole in the entire bonus pool).
I seem to remember that the Polly Peck shares did perform well for quite a while. The buyers clearly continued to 'bibite' for some time.
It never attracted my interest. The business itself seemed unusual. Was it something to do with fruit packing in Cyprus?
Jon39 said:
AstonZagato said:
Absolutely. I was looking forward to a decent bonus in 1990. The investment bank at which I worked bought a huge block of stock from one of our best clients. The trader said the fateful words, "To lose money on this trade, the company would have to go bust."
That company was Polly Peck (which did indeed go bust days later).
My bonus wasn't as good as I'd expected (to be clear, I was nothing to do with that trade but the loss blew a whole in the entire bonus pool).
That company was Polly Peck (which did indeed go bust days later).
My bonus wasn't as good as I'd expected (to be clear, I was nothing to do with that trade but the loss blew a whole in the entire bonus pool).
I seem to remember that the Polly Peck shares did perform well for quite a while. The buyers clearly continued to 'bibite' for some time.
It never attracted my interest. The business itself seemed unusual. Was it something to do with fruit packing in Cyprus?
F1NDW said:
Sounds like no-one was reading Private Eye at the time. They were all over Asil Nadir.
I read that his plan to eventually hand himself in, worked quite well.
'He was found guilty of 10 counts of theft totalling £29 million and on 23 August 2012 was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
In 2016, Nadir was transferred to serve the rest of his sentence in Turkey, but was released one day later.'
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff