Adrian Hargrave, CEO of SEEEN, explains how the new funds will accelerate customer growth Watch the video 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.
MFGX,
Thank you for your time and very good reading.
Look forward with your inputs on this BB.
Can someone please explain the following....
If the DBX is built to order, can it *only* be ordered through a dealership?
For AML, what is the exact difference between wholesale and retail with specific regard to DBX
ie, if someone orders a DBX through a dealer, what is that classed as?
No worries 3300,
What specifically did you ask, how many DBX are on the order book, or specific DBX sales both Wholesale and Retail for Q3?
Cars could still be delivered/collected during the last lockdown. Given the price of the DBX perhaps an invite to St. Athan to collect would be in order...will be no lockdown here by then. :-)
The directors have considered a severe but plausible downside scenario that includes considering the impact of a 30% reduction in DBX volumes, a further 4 week period of factory closure due to Covid-19 restrictions, operating costs higher than the base plan and additional cash requirements linked with the end of the Brexit transition period
That was in the statement accompanying the accounts.
Richard, in the accounts they’ve made provision for a months lockdown and any impact on the DBX or Brexit.
MFGX, may I ask....
When you say 'interim report', are you still expecting one on the 12th? As in, official Q3 results?
Crank...it's the fact that the 16th is the closing date that concerns me as the interim report is due on the 12th. If they are fully subscribed on or before the 12th then the report will be out on time. If there is a delay the market might take a dim view.
Maybe we're somewhat digging a hole regarding DBX numbers where none needs to be dug. A full order book to end first quarter and iñcoming orders matching production numbers is healthy. I still work on 90 units a week, 3300 on 100 units a week.
Eighteen months ago Lamborghini stated they were quoting 4 months delivery on the Urus and longer if a customer was specifying special colours and trim. The one big downside this year has been closed showrooms, something we're about to experience again. Taken all round the DBX position does look healthy, even with all the knocks the economy is taking.
Technical point on the bond issue. If there are any notes or significant debt repayments falling due within 12 months of the Balance Sheet date, then this debt repayment has to be shown in current liabilities. This could put the balance sheet in a position whereby current liabilities exceed current assets and thereby bring the 'going concern' basis into question. This would be a difficult argument with the auditors and perhaps why Stroll chose a moment for the bond issue that puzzled some bankers. let's hope the bond issue is a success, but don't be surprised if the report due on the 12th is delayed if the bond issue is under subscribed and or the threshold hasn't been reached.
Yeah Soul, I understand that and agree.
What worries me is AML not divulging exact DBX order book numbers.
Everyone is guessing, and stating others are wrong when no-one knows.
We're showing our ages here!
3300, I've never wished to own a 911 either, but I am impressed by how Porsche have nurtured and refined it over the years.
MFGX, you're quite right about the term Vantage and where it originally applied. Innes Ireland used to run a DB6 when he penned articles for Autocar magazine. He had the standard 282 BHP engine on triple SUs and really enthused about the car. When he changed it for a then new DBS he specified the triple Weber version with 325bhp, reckoning that the heavier car needed greater power.
Tiff Needel did a lovely Top Gear/5th Gear report on the 007 DBS years ago and came to the same conclusion as yourself, although he reckoned it should have been called the DB9 GT. There was a limited later run version called the GT as you'll well remember. Using the Vantage name for a specific model has taken away a great option for AML. It means they cannot offer a DBX Vantage nor a DB11 Vantage. In a way they've somewhat shot themselves in the foot and it's not something I've considered before.
Richard, there is another fundamental they need to address. I was at Gaydon for the launch of the Vanquish in 2013 and I was being told that they were going to rationalise the various offerings as the public were confused by so many cars. Betz made a big mistake which has not been corrected. The company created the Vantage derivative as the high performance option and of course the Volante was the convertible. Nice and simple. Betz called the V8 the vantage and thereby changed it from the high performance option to a product. For example the 2008 DBS should have been the DB9 Vantage. This would have made a lot of sense. The AMV8 could have had a vantage option. It would be simple for consumers to understand. This mistake was made once before in or around 1970 when they modified the original DBS 6 cylinder from twin headlamps to the new single headlamp style to get rid of the last 70 cars. They called it the AM Vantage, but that was the end of it. The Vantage and Volante badges have been used to good effect over the years and they should go back to the originally intended use.
What an excellent thread this is - really enjoying reading it! Good work all..some excellent points made by MFGX on the design side.
MFGX, I remember earlier this year Reichman stated that AML were not car stylists, they were design engineers. Palmer stated at the same time that Aston were in the business of delivering dreams. You don't need an O level to see that these comments are not from the same page.
I'm always intrigued to see how a designer encapsulates iconic features and yet move forward with new styling statements. It's always a balance but I do agree with your logic re the Vantage and DBX. The Vantage from the rear and most of it's flanks I wouldn't change. The front has mainly been addressed although I think the lights are still too small and featureless and the side vents just appear stuck on the bodywork as an afterthought. There's no style to the indent that continues and then ceases abruptly in the door panel. Quite some time ago I raised the issue of the DB10s styling which didn't grab me one iota. It was half ****ed from front to rear. Then Ferrari brought out their Roma and you could see immediately where they got the design basis from. It was DB10, but with style.
I've often looked at how Porsche have developed the 911, albeit at one time they tried go replace it with the 928. Their's has been a gradual evolution over the decades and their engineering has been superb. Usually their styling has followed suit as it is a quintessential shape that begs to be left fundamentally alone. Usually they do although the latest model isn't their best.
But it has made me think for a long time that AML have missed a trick. When the DB9 and then the Vantage appeared, they sold in great numbers, partly because the designs were simply beautiful. Watching how Porsche refined their 911 I've always thought that Aston could forever appeal to a broad spectrum of people if they refined the design of the Vantage but retained it's DNA. They instead pretty much started with a clean sheet and forgot how people loved the appearance of an Aston coming towards them. It has been an expensive mistake and the front end revision shows how bad an error Aston originally made. It has contributed to the dire mess they found themselves in earlier this year. Their pricing structure also meant they had to have a resoundly appealing car for it to succeed and they missed the mark with swich gear and infotainment as well as the car's design. The new agreement with Mercedes should fairly quickly resolve the interior issues plus the exterior redesign should position the car where it needed to be two years ago.
Stroll only has allegiance to one share price and that is 50p. In terms of the bond issue, we are not privi to the terms of the note. My guess is that if the offering is eventually fully subscribed, Stroll will then make his next move. The current debt piece may have a lot of restrictions that he wants to ditch so the bond issue may not be all about the cash. In fact, until there is an announcement that the bond issue is either fully subscribed, or has reached the minimum threshold, I would remain cautious. The bond issue must raise sufficient cash to discharge the existing secured notes, including any early settlement penalties. The cancellation of the UK piece of the debt will have a structural reason behind it and it is more likely than not to ne a negative.
c2645sg - You're incorrect.
The 345 DBX's are the wholesale figures. It's not the total figures.
The total wholesale figure was 1,555 of which 345 were DBX's. It consisted of 660 in the quarter. So DBX is just over 50%
The total retail figure was 2,752 of which the number of DBX's wasn't noted. It consisted of 982 in the quarter. AML have said that sales are roughly evenly balanced between sports and SUV. So I would assume the DBX is circa 491
This would give a total of 836 DBX's. Which is more over 2 months than 3 months.
This provides a total for of over 4,000 for 12 months.
c2645; to be fair they did have enough cash to last a year, the reason for the fund raising was to solidify the balance sheet for next 5 years and execute their 5 year plan. Also to pay the short term debt at a better rate.
Stroll said in the Q2 conference call they had enough cash to last a year, yet 3 months later they raised some more.
I'd rather work on figures than trust what someone promises.
Synxs - Thank you for your comments. my opinion is based on the money I have invested. I am a passionate Aston Martin guy. Aston have been a big part of my life, as has James Bond. I am not going to explain why as this will give my identity away. I bought my first Aston when I was about 23 and I have owned so many that I couldn't even count them...I am talking about a serious number. I have had a close involvement with the company over many years and I would love to see the company fly. I have owned a lot of cars, and still do, but is very disappointing to me that there is not an Aston in the current line up that I would buy. I would probably buy the OHMSS Edition DBS and have Works Service make a few changes, but the price of the car is just nonsense. The two Aston's I own at the moment have their flaws, but overall I am very happy with them. As soon as Aston offer a car that is truly gorgeous to my eyes I will be amongst the first to place my deposit for a new one. I felt very odd driving a Bentley for a long time when my personality and history screamed Aston Martin.
Yes, 345 is the number of DBX's actually paid for, it's in the Q3 results.
My extrapolation was multiplying that by 4, to get a rough figure for the year.
Much of those 345 DBX's will be test cars etc.
I highly doubt Stroll is the type of person to keep quiet if there was an order book of 2600+ DBX .
MFGX
Hopefully you didnt take the critisism to heart from the board because your posts are very informative and valued, and i feel the responses were only opinions.
RE the looks of the vehicles, personally i do like the look of them.
but then again im not normally one to like the look of anyhting that has more than 2 wheels (other half has to pick our cars) so i would refer my opinion technically irrelivent.
i suppose this is the age old issue with aesthetics, but i do agree they have to align to the masses and target market and you have made some excellent points.
One questions i have to ask myself and all traders should. is your opinion biased due to monetary investment. possibly but thats a honest self targeted question
I'm pretty much in line with you 3300, although I'm working on 90 units a week and current orders matching production, which is where it needs to be.
Now here is the confusion on DBX numbers. I remember 6 or 8 months ago when unit numbers were being talked about there was something written stating around 400+ would be needed for dealerships and road test reports. Launches are still occuring in far flung countries so AML have needed to position a good chunk of early production with dealers. I'm assuming the the 345 figure relates to customer deliveries.
It's a tough one....
They sold 345 DBXs, year to date.
If you extrapolate that to full year, that's 1380, which is low, so let's hope it picks up.
Stroll would have been shouting from the rooftops if it had been a high number.
Anyone who thinks this is a quick profit company is deluded, its going to take 3/4 years to see a turnaround in AML.
10% coupon on new bonds close to £1bn is £100M per annum in interest repayable every year. That;s why they had to do what they did, very little margin for error, and no profit for a good while yet.
Karanable is spot in IMHO.