We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I thinks that olds man Noah cloth tolded haha!
If you owe creditors £14k, it's your problem.
If you owe the crditors £1.4bn, it's their problem.
AM are rasiing cash to AVOID BANKRUPTCY, which CINE are now applying for.
AML shares in circulation will more or less double, current holders will be diluted by the same amount, and the cash raised will only see the company through the next 12 months.
You refuse to guess the RI price for 2 very good reasosns: You're incapable, nor do you want to admit the huge dilution, we can all see right through you Noah.
18.49 C26.
Agreed this one….. Cine owe 5billions and still far too slow (fewer films, rights via stream etc etc etc…..) like if someone come along to say the car can fly now…. All car got 4 wheels and stuck on tarmac…..
AM not owe 5 billions.
Stille, I respect your view. There is leases (properties) cine… so there is some value but ….. don’t distract from AM to CINE ( I think CINE) is lots worse than AM (for potential to turnaround).
Of course that is completely true C26
But surely you recognise there’s a bit of magic around aml?
I stand ready to invest here when am convinced.
Watching DC drive round CasinoSquare in that beach buggy thing….not good. Just opinion!
The businesses are different but the end game for companies unable to finance their debt is the same.
There is big difference. Not an expert on cinemas BUT anyone can buy up leases at massive discount and re-start operations. Cine is not an exclusive brand.
Not saying AML is solvent…just saying it has value…not sure if value is best served with Stroll at helm. Just my 2p. Not interested in fight.
You KNEW it different since PIF joined….. now get the facts.
You pathetic…..
….. now RI is coming soon and please rely on YOUR MATE OR COLLEAGUES- they are much better than your math. -61% doh!
Wait and see in 12-18mths. It turnaround……..
There is NO DIFFERENCE.
When a company can't sustain it's debt, the creditors call in the loans.
AML is LOSING money every year, c.£300m and paying interest of £290m per year on it's debt.
Completely unsustainable, and the recession aint even started.
AML have burned through £700m since Stroll took over, and he is siphoning off £21m a year for his private company?
Stroll wants to fundraise £575m, which is not enough.
Interest will still be £260m after rights issue and climbing with interest rates.
Equity holders will be drowned in dilution.
Don't listen ot the naive gamblers who tell you there is a diffence between all the debt ridden companies.
There is NO DIFFERENCE, they make no profits and the debt rises into a recession.
And then you get the idiots who think if they post something positive on top of what I say, everything is cool again.
Plenty of spaces in betwen, or copy paste when the link is already in the post. Juvenile.
Equity holders are last in line, the creditors own AML now.
Lol…. Completely different!!
Good trying!
We got RI via PIF…..
You are full pathetic! Even I have post over there TODAY to stop the new buying (inexperience) …… the shorters decide it buy! For today They was trying to BUY TO CLOSE THEIR shorter…. I am fully support CINE is not good business (NOTHING DO WITH AM) ….. again you trying nonsense but leave out CINE….. there is potential loss jobs it not nice.
You can earn more than your 50p posts.
And if you find yourself doubting anything I say, just look at Cineworld today.
Lenders calling the shots, owners and shareholders are completely powerless.
All the rampers have gone quiet.
This is what happens when one's ego creates unsustainable debt.
Debt will accelerate in 2023 with interest rate rises.
Income will slow because of recession and no new models until 2024.
Expenses will rise with infaltion.
Profit warning in 2022 and 2023 for sure.
As well as 2 dilutions for shareholders.
Lovely.
"We don’t need any more money at all. Let me be crystal clear, black and white: we do not need money, and car sales are on track"
Stroll, Feb 2022, 5 months before a rights issue RNS to save AML from bankruptcy, and car sales lower than projections.
Believe him at your peril.
So having said that, we did not require cash to see our business plan through. What we did require cash for was threefold. One, to give comfort to the investment world that the company was never going to run out of money. And this extra money that we're putting on the balance sheet of approximately half of the capital raise will go into the company, will always give the company a cushion and be in a position that will always have between £400 million and £500 million on the balance sheet, point one.
The second thing it does, which was also an overhang on the share price was the debt level. Clearly, we inherited this debt from the previous shareholders. And I think we've done a pretty good job in trying to deal with it in the two-and-a-half years and realise it's time to raise equity to repay, hopefully, more of the expensive than less expensive debt, but regardless of whatever piece it is, significantly reduce interest rates by £30 million, £40 million a year. So it gave the money that the company required and it gives – takes away the overhang and hopefully gives the confidence in the investment community, analyst community should have of what I said on the cushion that it puts on the balance sheet.
As far as the other offer, the Board and its bankers studied it and unanimously completely rejected it. It was a camouflaged backdoor offer disguised as a rights issue. It was really a disguised takeover offer, heavily diluting all shareholders massively for no reason and no need, in order to buy the company very cheaply rather than coming in the front door and making a proper takeover offer, which, of course, would require a premium to the share price.
So the banks actually laughed. They thought it was quite astonishing. One said, I'd never seen anything like this my whole banking life. So the Board and the banks unanimously rejected it on the grounds of what I just described.
And I want to answer your third question. Comparing to the other, whether it's Ferrari or the other British brands, let's be very clear. We've been at this for two-and-a-half years. The others have been at it for five, 10, 15, 20. We've been at this for two-and-a-half years. I took over a company that was a wholesale manufacture-driven company, that made cars without orders or less than 10% had orders. We transformed this business and in two-and-a- half years from the day I took over, I said we will not make a car without an order. And since I took over two-and-a-half years ago, we haven't. That's why you see the retails outpacing the wholesales.
In addition, we've gone to almost 60% of our order book is what's called retail tagged. 65% of our customers go in and spec their car. That was less than 10% when we took over. That's an incredible statistic.
And thirdly, most importantly, in duration, I think you must know a lot about the automotive business, this business moves, it's like watching paint dry. To bring a new model to life, takes two, in most cases, three years.
https://docs.publicnow.com/viewDoc?hash_primary=484CFFFD9C9CF16D91B10F93CEE702ABFBF39D49
Thomas Besson (Kepler Cheuvreux): Thank you very much. It’s Thomas. I have two kind of helicopter questions, and I apologise in advance if this is not necessarily a topic you want to cover.
First, I'd like to come back to questions that have been made earlier on the competition. So I think when we look at the profitability of some of the luxury companies that have reported earnings for H1, and we anticipate what Ferrari will show. We've seen very, very, very substantial progress, whether it's [inaudible] luxury within the Volkswagen Group, Italian luxury or we are going to see probably record earnings from Ferrari. Can you just come back to explaining the magnitude of the gap in terms of returns between Aston with the progress that have been achieved in these companies? And given the challenges ahead from a macro and electrification perspective, explain how you intend to close the gap. I know it's a very wide question, but it's still – I’m still a bit puzzled by the gap.
The second question is also, and I apologise, not necessarily one that you would expect on this call, but I still ask it. Could you explain what fundamentally for Aston was negative in the alternative solution to the one you choose with the proposed rights issue, namely the project that was supposedly bringing the net debt of Aston close to zero for the first time because basically, for me, the main issue Aston has been facing for a very, very long time, is an excessive level of debt, which is not solved by the proposed rights issue. Thank you.
Lawrence Stroll: Let me start with the second question first. The proposed rights issue completely addresses Aston Martin's current financial needs. As I have said previously, and I continue to say, Aston Martin did not need money to see our business plan through of getting to 10,000 cars. Let me reconfirm that.
The purpose that we did this capital raise was threefold. One, me and my Board getting very frustrated with the share price and the share price is clearly where it is, not because of the fundamentals of business, because fundamentals of the business have never been stronger. We went from 3,000 cars to 4,000 cars to 5,000 cars. This year we'll do close to 7,000 cars. So the fundamentals on the consumer demand, most importantly, most important of any fact at all, is that we are retailing more cars than we're wholesaling. That really shows the power of the brand Aston Martin today. That is the first sign of a luxury company when you retail more than you wholesale.
So having said that, we did not require cash to see our business plan through. What we did require cash for was threefold. One, to give comfort to the investment world that the company was never going to run out of money. And this extra money that we're putting on the balance sheet of approximately half of the capital raise will go into the company, will always give the company
I bet Stroll is rethinking the fundraising, he knows £575m aint anywhere close to enough and AML is in deep do do.
New cars cost £200m each!
Current cash is £156m, add half the funds raised in forthcoming rights issue, that becomes £450m ish.
Interest payments at £260m per annum and rising (inflation) a lot faster than everyone (except me) thought.
UK short-term borrowing costs are on track to post the biggest rise this week in more than a decade as investors braced themselves for the Bank of England to take more aggressive action to cool inflation.
AML had burned through £700m in 2 years, so another £350m for the next year and they are toast.
Hence why most analysts are saying this fund raise will not be the last.
Dilution in September, and then some more in 12-18 months.... this will be the last one though, promise!
Stroll has been disastrous. Terrible decisions will ruin this compoany, and he will walk away without losing much at all, and gaining a free F1 career for his son.
Shameful.
That does not surprise me. Like I stated before they already pushed back the introduction, they tried not to give it much attention but at Q1 Stroll said current cars were in their last year, now you can order them well into 2023. So introduction for new cars spring 2023, delivery a year later. Something like that.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=70&t=1719281&i=3760
Richard, where you at?
No new cars until 2024.... If that's true, wow!
C26 - was something not supposed to be “said” mid August? Any idea?
Hah, not a single mention of the forthcoming rights issue, raising more than the current market cap and creating masive dilution.
Another charlatan.
https://www.fool.co.uk/2022/08/17/at-513p-could-i-make-big-bucks-with-aston-martin-shares/
https://twitter.com/SupercarOwner/status/1559241468832792578
Great, thank you. So informative and insightful. Please drop by any time.
Mates so bought a Mclaren 4 weeks ago. It broke down twice.
AML in good shape.