The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen 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.
Some of those who are negative about ANGS are also those who speak of an eventual delisting.
But ANGS's assets are ANGS's assets and remain the same whether the stock is publicly-quoted or delisted.
So what is it about the company's assets that makes them sufficiently attractive for insiders allegedly to envisage taking the company private?
Let's see how our BOD answer the delisting question?
If they do take Anguish private it will not be in PI's benefit that's for sure!
If they do take Anguish private it will not be in PI's benefit that's for sure!
----------------------------------------------------
That's exactly the point I'm making, YL!
If you believe the board will take ANGS private and that it will not be to the benefit of PIs, then you believe the company's assets are worth more than implied by the share price.
... which, of course, is what GL himself says, with his valuation of ANGS in the 4-7p range.
Postalot
You never fail to show naïveté, false or not.
I encourage anyone looking at this BB for the first time to look at your repetitive posts. Touting a 4-7p price based on nothing.
Shareholders benefit from a well run company with assets that return cash above costs.
You keep touting these numbers but you don’t understand NPV, which you say implies that share price range.
Now you will react your oft repeated refrain, I’m just quoting LL. No you are not , your are hustling rubbish.
Saltfleeby is an asset worth 1 quid , literally.
The paperwork that forms ANGs is the only thing of value today and in the future. And btw it does produce cash today for JTP and LL!
4p was GL's NPV "right now" for Saltfleetby.
His 4-7p range was for ANGS as a whole.
As you know they paid 1 quid for Saltfleeby, that is what it is worth.
ANGS costs are higher than any known revenue and they’re lending money to themselves.
You proved my case.
They paid £1, agreed, and they received £2.5m.
But the NPV "right now" of 4p is based on neither what they paid nor what they received.
It is looking into the future and based on discounted forecast net cash flows.
Sorry, but I don't believe that judging a company's Net Present Value can reasonably be done solely on the basis of...
"But Georgie said so... so it MUST be true!"
He's from a City background, so he should know what he's talking about, but, of course, nobody is obliged to take his word for gospel.
By providing his NPV figure for Saltfleetby, he is treating PIs as if they are relatively sophisticated investors.
Postalot
As I have told you x times, NPV is not how you evaluate an equity price. This is simply fuzzy math at best. I refuse to inform you further because it is pointless as you will only repeat your Lucanista mantras. Further, Lord Lucan is simply guessing when he arrives at his "NPV" (imaginary cash flows in the future and no known time frame) as they have no real life basis nor does he have O&G experience.
Sigh.
(P)Oc(t)elot: "If you believe the board will take ANGS private and that it will not be to the benefit of PIs, then you believe the company's assets are worth more than implied by the share price."
The assets are only worth more than the share price if they can be proved... and if this duplicitous BOD plan on taking Anguish private... they may be purposefully delaying in order to downgrade the asset value. As I have said many... MANY... times: they are either willfully inept... or they have a sneaky plan...
Which is it?
Let's see if they are able and willing to answer the "de-listing" question openly and honestly. Maybe then we'll know? If there are caveats built into their response... then we will also know the truth!
Should be interesting ;-)
Ocelot, you state:-
"By providing his NPV figure for Saltfleetby, he is treating PIs as if they are relatively sophisticated investors.".
That's one take. Another could equally be:-
"By providing his NPV figure on Saltfleetby, he is treating PIs as if they are naive mug punters who are a) pacifiable and b) he no doubt hopes quite possibly fleeceable again with any load of mythical old "jam tomorrow" flannel."
Looking at hard evidence like MCap degradation since GL took the helm at ANGS, one simply has to wonder which interpretation seems more credible?
Thank you for your comments, gentlemen.
Wishing all posters a good weekend.
Ocelot...
What does a city boy ... know about mining!
Involves a hard days work for a star!!!
Not fat bonuses and lunches for seating on a board.
This is has one move one way, it’s unbelievable.
They need to pull their finger out and deliver some production ...which will deliver an income above running costs and their wages!!!
Only then will investors see a return.
Sorry about the typo...
This has only ...been a long week
PiranhaPires,
Given the importance of the mining sector to the FTSE100, I think you're being a bit harsh to suggest that the City doesn't know anything about what it's investing in.
Given your Lucanista mantras, quoting Lord Lucan and cut+ pasting, as I said. you clearly may not either.
Have a good weekend.
GL is Angus's MD.
This board is for discussion of Angus.
If you look at other boards, you'll find it is not unusual for the company's CEO to be quoted.
You'll also find it not AT ALL unusual for company CEOs to be - shall we say - "unfortunately lacking in the accuracy department"? "Only acquainted with the truth in passing"? Or perhaps "significantly overoptimistic in their predictions"?
What would be unusual would be for any PI with even the smallest experience of the markets to set any store whatsoever by what a CEO may opine - especially in some puff piece interview - or rather adverview.
FFS this is AIM. More than half the time you can't even trust the information that companies release via RNS.
It doesn't sound as if ANGS or, indeed, AIM is for you, HeadinTheSand.
I agree. ANGS is not for realists.
Best wishes, wherever your "realism" takes you next.
Gee, Postalot
It does not seem like AIM is for you as well. You deny giving advise or beii ok no an advocate for ANGS. Yet if authorities found out you are working ANGS , I suspect you would be in a bit of trouble. Continue to pretend to play the middle and only quoteLord Lucan. I suspect a deep imvestigation will find you working for ANGS and crossing a red line. Carry on touting the lie, IMHO , it is a kid and will catch up with you. Ironically, the lackey Lucan will hang you out to dry. As I said, I hope ANGS is paying you by the word for your rubbish.
I also suspect that thsy are asking you to bait investors to keep conversation on this BB.
Therefore, I suggest we all ignore Postalot. And despite his legitimate points
JA 51. as they serve opposite POV but benefit fro the same dither.
GlA and pls DYOR
Apologies. :
t does not seem like AIM is for you as well. You deny giving advise or beii ok no an advocate for ANGS
Correction : you deny giving advice or being an advocate for ANGS.