The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma 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.
For those that wonder what I am up to, patience is key, but I have posted a couple of things this morning.
Cenkos has published a new research note.
BlairPeach are you invested or sold out its hard to keep track of your bipolar personality, what it comes down to is do you trust JW or some person on a forum trying to persuade people for there own agenda ?
Lots of to-ing and fro-ing here, much of it less than polite; credit to those posters who have remained civil (the minority).
Ultimately, it comes down to this: do you trust a word that comes out of the mouth of JW, after almost 3 years at the helm?
JW has greatly increased the business scope/Footprint without improving credibility so anything of value will have to be self insured until we gain a track record/Credibility.
Performance bonds are insurance, If you are 17 and just passed your driving test and try to get insurance for a Bugatti I think you know the answer from the insurer.
JW states performance bonds are normal, And he is correct but only for risky contractors and any contract of significant value will require a performance bond, they can be underwritten for less risky companies but companies like INFA with there current balance sheet they have to foot the bill themselves.
TBH, Jabido, if they weren't prepared to mention it in the initial contract RNS then I wouldn't hold your breath.
IMO, if they had, then it may have had the effect of a bitter pill but with a lump of sugar. And maybe at a better price.
Why wait two over weeks?
GL with finding an answer, though.
There is lots of JW said this said that, And I have heard and read all of the promises, I am now at the point where he needs to show us not tell us of the promising future ( I have had that for three years). There is talk of financing capitalising so far we have raised £26m for a £26m con tract that we stand to get max £5M. empty docks don't pay wages and neither does empty fabrication buildings. The raise has secured another 3 months, Major uplift in EBITDAR REQUIRED before July or rinse and repeat.
Cheers razor, hoping the circular might provide some detail... should be on the website from today
Somebody likes it:
Date Time Trade Prc Volume Buy/Sell Value
06-May-21 17:07:28 30.50 244,617 Buy* 74.61k O
Hi Jabido, off the top of my head not sure - re-read the few most recent RNS, it's all laid out in there.
Yes- currently trading 30 but havn’t tested in size!
Sanderling
I see your point.. but more often that not the share price declines to any RI price anyway for one reason or another
...although it could have been worse...they could have directed private investor holders to Primary Bid and made them buy there...ugh !
Pokerchips, the dilution itself is not so much the issue- many retail shareholders may not have the resources to put more cash in. The issue for me is the forced dilution- ie disapplying pre-emption rights in Resolution 1
I am personally convinced that the money will be used productively and feel that I should have the right to buy enough shares to maintain my % at the placing price rather than have some existing non- holders come in and take that upside away from me.
In relation to Islandmagee he mentioned in his last interview with LSE in December that,
"there's a lot lot more funding opportunities available for that project than was say 12 months ago. Whilst we've had an issue with the marine licence, it might be instead of selling the project equity at project level it maybe that there's opportunities for us to keep more equity in that project...."
All will be dependent on the FID of course
Lottie, Yes a rights issue would be a bit messy but could be underwritten with institutions taking a fee and picking up any residual from existing s/h demand
There is clearly some debate on this and am personally not fully convinced about management—but my view is that INFA has exciting potential However, if we continue down this cycle of dilutive placings, the benefits will fall to management, institutions and favoured shareholders with medium/ long term retail shareholders getting continually left out .
Plus was interesting to see the sp dip in the run up to May 4– feels like insider selling
The only way to break this is to vote against— There is clearly demand so the funding will get done either way despite the company warning.
JW stated at one point FID was not dependent on the ML, potentially phased .. and then as I recall suggested they were hanging on for government grants.
Thanks for your reply razor...
"Maybe if there is some significantly prestigious contracts we need further money to prepare us to bid for - but it's all in support of the company's growth"
And it is this which I want clarification on. We are supposedly after multiple prestigious contracts, so what will be the premium amounts needed for these and how will they be funded?
Perhaps I won't receive the answer from the company. I don't want to invite more replies of, well why don't you just sell up then and stop moaning! Lol. It is a genuine concern from a lth and I feel the company at least should give me the courtesy of an answer so I can see if yet more of my money invested will become diluted.
Thanks and all the best
Once we are not only cash break-even, but eventually profitable, I presume the company will want to fund its own further expansion. Maybe if there is some significantly prestigious contracts we need further money to prepare us to bid for - but it's all in support of the company's growth. At least this company does not offer the placing solely to IIs who will sell out over months suppressing the SP constantly, which is currently happening with another company I'm invested in.
P.p.s...can we assume or discount the fact that a premium (and therefore potential placing) will be needed for every single "major" contract?
Avyererdowt
ML news would be positive as it would take away any certainty on that issue of course...SP reaction depends on whether any FID is announced with it....that point is the detail
Of course ...there is the the grant of the Marine Licence itself
..but... then there is the Financial Investment Decision with equity partners ...
but "On award of the Marine Licence the Project will be construction-ready"
I would imagine there would be 1 RNS detailing the licence ..and a further one detailing the completion of the FID with equity partners once confirmed ..a lot has been said over different time lines
" potential new funding opportunities available for the Project that could have significant long term upside gains for the Company, amongst which is the potential to retain a much larger project equity stake than originally envisaged. "
I have to admit I am a little nervous as to what "exactly" that FID is going to be and how it would effect "equity" ...but ..at the end of the day..it is another investment in a project to bring future value .....
I think there was some discussion on that issue of the FID detail 2-3 weeks ago
Interesting debates going on today by all. Some new and informative posters joining in too. Amongst all the debate I don't seem to see much being addressed in terms of any future placings. Can anybody in the know advise whether or not further placings will be needed in order to win higher value contracts? If that's the case, is the premium a proportionate amount of the contract won? E.g. if, a big if, we get the 350 mill vessel contract, what size of placing for the premium will we need for that?? I have asked the company but as yet have not received a reply. In my view, this is the crux of the matter right now for all shareholder's. Depending on the answer we either sit, wait and be happy....or, we get diluted into oblivion forever and a day. So, does anybody know the answer? Speedy, if you are still reading, my continued involvement depends on this issue alone. P.S. I will be completely miffed if JW and Arun don't put any of the bonus money into share purchases asap!
How is maiden revenues insignificant? Did you read the part of the RNS where they expect cash break-even this year????? If you don't trust the company sell up and move on. But I'm not selling just when it's getting good, that's for certain.
Razorshultz.
Maiden revenues have been insignificant which is why we find ourselves, yet again, cap in hand. As for billions in potential orders, please, that is just business speak. Anyone can look at demand pipelines and state they are in the running. Getting ships which mostly operate out of your home port to agree to service contracts is not earth shattering. We need a major contract.
You think that the competitors ability to under cut is of no importance because we have a big yard. That is exactly why INFA bought these assets out of liquidation in the first place. The EU may well help the large shipbuilding sector, that will not help.
The BOD stated back in September, half way into Covid that the ML was only weeks away so they had every knowledge of the situation.
I am a realist. The cash burn was high when I bought into INFA. Since then, they have continued to spend shareholders money without a solid contract. Yes, covid has not helped but I can assure you other European and Asian yards have announced billions of dollars of new build contracts.