Tom Reynolds, CEO at Scirocco Energy presented at London South East's September Webinar. Watch the full presentation 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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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 cannot believe that 'after only 6-months', that I'm actually in profit with MANO! I've taken a screenshot to paste on the wall just in case it's short-lived...
More seriously, sentiment appears as though it might have finally improved here, with small, but consistent moves up.
Nice and steadily too, nice consistent climb
Momentum definitely starting to improve here.
The target that I see (Stockopedia/Refinitiv/2 brokers) is 355p, 34% higher than spot.
Momentum seems to be continuing. Morning star have this as 334p Fair value so currently a 20% discount. Hoping we'll hit 300p soon.
Starting to build some momentum here; hopefully it continues!
Yeah, The force has a strong regulations but I think. I don't have any questions to MANO, butI think It's normal reason to change something in their job. Can it be influence in online gambling in US/Canada? I just found the list of tips about deposits - https://www.thesportsbank.net/business/how-to-choose-minimum-au-online-casino-deposit-size/. But a cant's see any info about updated regulations
Yuri.F: re: "The agreement should see a new independent new body - the Enforcement Conduct Authority (ECA) - set up to ensure unfair treatment is stamped out..."
Do you consider that MANO are unfairly treating people/companies? I don't. MANO regularly work *for* HMRC, legally recovering money from dodgy directors and dodgy companies... At some stage, the temporary restrictions will be lifted and they will resume normal operations; profitability will then recover and punters will flock into this stock.
I know what it's slightly beyond the scope of MANO' operations but there's evidence of raising preemptive pressure as indirect indicator what's coming
"...A plan has been brokered to cut down on aggressive debt collection by bailiffs as warnings of a post-pandemic surge in debt problems intensify.
The agreement should see a new independent new body - the Enforcement Conduct Authority (ECA) - set up to ensure unfair treatment is stamped out..."
Ok, ok, not a big fan of centralization myself because of obvious disadvantages but in my limited experience as stakeholder it's normally not a best practice to grant excessive powers from a higher level (below that is fine to provide flexibility/independence) without real need for those (and without a control, e.g. first question would be why do you need it) as it sometimes backfires right in your face, that's why if might be wiser to put some caps on this instead of granting those in such an unlimited/unconditional way.
Generally I hear what' you're saying and agree in a way - but let's park it there for now.
My post below is a detailed explanation of the procedural side of what's going on here, for others who might read your posts and panic at comments like " dark, eyebrow-raising, alarming red flag," when that isn't the case.
Those resolutions are, fundamentally, procedural, and in fact very boring.
Whatever your broader, normative fears are in relation to equity raises, the AGM resolutions here are routine.
Nothing to go all war and peace on.
Yuri I really struggle to understand where you are going with this:
- There's no talk of an equity raise, they've explained in detail why not, several times;
- Your concern is basically the risk of equity raises and dilution for any company, a concern which would follow you in to all of your investments;
- Re the "approach" with other companies that you describe, I've had this with some I'm invested in and some that I sold when it became clear they were just trying to print cash via the market. This isn't the case here. You concede as much stating "not like with MANO," so we are singing from the same hymn sheet, there's not a problem here?;
- You don't seem to be separating out the normal-course-of-business resolutions from your broader concerns about equity raises?
- There's no fairness conflict - what they are doing is a routine/ standard corporate governance move that we see the vast majority of AGM resolutions?
BigBoo2, that's a lengthy text about processual side behind it, I've thought about it in a very different context actually but here comes my bit in a same manner..
under normal circumstances ideally equity raise (as they've put it without setting any limit on it, because sometimes it is inevitable part of a deal: e.g. with employee relations - bonuses, long-term incentive/pension plans, etc., but those a generally capped in low numbers) would've been result of a long-term planning and keeping this option open all the time giving BoD flexibility for a broad move opens a Pandora box, this thing is a danger zone. Not like I'm distrusting current BoD on this but rather because broad investment approach I've seen some other companies consistently printing shares year on year whenever they run into troubles and keeping wasting money on a very questionable dodgy ventures (but without going into explanations on why I was invested there on a first place) - generally there were a questions on governance (and historically bad track record of it over a long time) to begin with, not like with MANO, therefore not comparable at all (let's assume it stays this way).
It's understandable what market capacity/depth for this business obviously is cyclical in nature (economic cycles) and at this moment opens very broad opportunities within the segment for market penetration & profitable capital deployments/growth, but if you're planning an equity raise then I would prefer to see at least formal justification / purpose this money are going to be spent/invested on/in - for traceability on meeting the targets/goals and accountability for it. Not like my vote matters much due to negligible size of an open position but this whole situation potentially creates a little bit of a "fairness" conflict between existing holders and new ones (that's why dilution was mentioned) as additional risk factor to weight in (and for example I wouldn't want any other surprises, e.g. debt conversion into shares at significant discount). I can double position if this raise goes via existing holders channel but wouldn't enjoy going too far beyond limits because of predefined boundaries for portfolio diversification and crossing some thresholds will lead to undesirable skewness if exposure to MANO gets too high..
Yuri and all - are those resolutions a dark, eyebrow-raising, alarming red flag? Perhaps to those who don't understand them.
- An ordinary S551 resolution giving authority to allot. Why? It is standard practice to obtain shareholder authority/ permission each year, whether or not the company thinks it is going to use it. A good company lawyer will recommend getting that permission upfront. Why? The idea: keep it in reserve **as a matter of course**. Some companies will state "there are no present plans to undertake rights issue or allot new shares" - here, Steven Cooklin has repeatedly emphasised he sees NO situation where they would need to. Hence, the board considers it desirable to retain the maximum flexibility permitted by corporate governance rules to respond to market developments and enable allotments to take place to finance business opportunities as they arise, which is sensible and what every serious PLC should consider doing at their AGM. So, the main reason: flexibility. In other words, they now have this power to issue shares in place, which means they don't have to wait until a later date for a general meeting to be held, for notice periods to elapse and so on. The other reason is certainty - the directors will have that authority secured - there is no argument later on about whether this power should be granted, whilst avoiding doubt as to whether they can issue. Lastly the classic time and cost argument - if they get this permission, they avoid the time and hassle of holding a separate GM later on. Saves money producing the documentation, having to hold the event. AND, another reason not to worry - in practice there are still limits on how much authority can be gained this way at the AGM - look at the cap in the drafting of OR7. Cross refer the IA SCM guidelines for further information on why this is a standard, uncontroversial resolution, and compare other PLCs to see the commonality. Note, alternatively, some companies retain this power in their articles as standard, but a more routine practice is this one: to request it upfront once a year.
The special resolutions are on a similar wavelength/ have the same reasoning - they all piggyback on each other [come as a package] and continue the important caps and limitations on the authority.
Special resolutions 8 and 9: Why do you need these? Because resolution 7 has few teeth if you don't: you need to also disapply pre-emption rights for it to work effectively. What's happening here is (1) getting s551 authority to allot, (2) passing a special resolution under s570 to disapply pre-emption rights, giving them both the power to issue and, the crux, allowing the directors to **decide* who they grant those to, further increasing flexibility. So now we have (a) a limited authority to allot, in advance, (b) the disapplication, in advance.
If you want to learn more, see the pre-emption group (PEG) statement of principles which sets out the good corp gov. gu
Well, while some keep reading mantras there's a dark side raising with alarming red flags - e.g. ordinary resolution 7 and special ones 8&9 all of which are raising eyebrow on a question why and what the heck?
I wouldn't be very happy with dilution, I mean yes, sure, recent processes have triggered an incredible opportunities on current market within this segment offering "huge upside potential" https://youtu.be/MJXLV_DMKa0
but would prefer to hear on justification behind this move from BoD first, not like that out of a blue sky without any reasoning behind.
This is looking very good - just look at the breakdown of the trades. Bordering on something beautiful happening here, hopefully.
I've put in another very deliberate uncrossing order in case any paper hands want out
triple bottom emerging?
on this one.