Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
100% agreed Da Master and Tommy15.
Here here tommy. I also hold BUR and until now it seems their only limitation has been getting hold of capital to invest - I am also a bondbolder as well as a shareholder. That could all change if they manage to collect on the YPF case.
As you say, MANO are very much in their growth phase, have invested in personnel, with plenty of scope to gain market share and they are still recovering from the lockdowns and postponement of bankruptcies and have not insignificant borrowings. They are highly cash-generative and I too would like to see them allocate that cash more wisely than appeasing shareholders. Jam will come but I think we have a 1-2 year wait before we see any form of 'returns'.
The best use of the company’s cash is reinvesting in the next tranche of cases. Dividends would be a misuse of funds, especially at such an early stage of the company’s “comeback”
Can't see a divi under present Bank facility covenants.
Company is profitable. Has reserves. Can pay divi. Prob won't pay much of one, but can do so.
Don't be distracted by one off write downs in H1 23.
Yeah and H2 FY23 was a £4.5m net loss
Moral is, don’t get too excited.
How can they announce a divi if the co isn't yet profitable?
Subject to auditor review of the interim accounts, the Directors believe that the Company will report profitability for H1 FY24 at marginally less than was reported for H2 FY23. This is primarily due to the reduction in average case sizes and after the investment in new staff and business development, as the Company builds capacity to meet the current, and anticipated, significantly higher business activity levels. Traditionally the second half of the trading year is the stronger for the business.
This is just gapping up without any volume. If the well-over due divi is anounced this week, we are back on track for that conservative 240p?
Not quite @UPshunt. At 12:38 there was a buy @143.40 You could have sold before close @160.00
The spread does account for a large part of today's rise though due to Last Traded Price (LTP). The market closed yesterday with a sell (the Bid price) and closed today with a buy (the Ask price). It gives the illusion of volatility, especially on AIM, and is designed to make retail investors freak out (and place more trades) with daily 'swings' of 10%.
It isn't a spike, the little lift is only equivalent to the margin of spread. So if you bought this morning you still won't be in profit until perhaps next week when they announce some good news.
Big jump given the news was just that results are in a week. Hopefully someone knows something we don't!
Sorry to bleat on but half year results are just around the corner and insolvency cases are at their highest since 2009. I can't be the only one thinking we should be on for divi.
A little divi could stop this from dropping like TWA FL800.
Hope the board are planning to give long suffering shareholders a ray of hope.
Censorship is alive and well on LSE.
Someone is very"frit" -was it Spike Milligan who said that?
Forensic do you mean this?
“ the Company is pleased to report that the decision in PACCAR has had no adverse impact”
Obviously that’s positive, but the cynic in me wonders whether if a case or two has just been reopened, what the comment really means is “no adverse impact… yet”.
Would they be obliged to disclose if a case had been reopened?
Tommy - please refer to their TU RNS. Reads very clearly to me.
@Forensic just making sure I'm up to speed - when did it turn out that "no IPs" was the case? I know that Mano didn't mention it in their update, but not sure that's proof?
Exactly Littlejimmy.
He went from saying: “I spoke to a whole group of IPs…”
To saying: “I spoke to one IP….”
Then he went very quiet when the truth came out that “no IPs” was the case.
Embarrassing but also pretty funny !
Fomo has been caught lying on here before, please take his comments with a pinch of salt.
@Da_Master - I don't really understand your question about creditors? If no-one made any attempt to return money to creditors, then why would creditors even bother pursuing the case? The creditors are the ones providing the business - presumably there must be some competitive element where the IP / funder combo that can return the most money to creditors gets the most business.
Your comment feels like buying shares in a burger chain that puts poison in it's burgers to lower costs, and asking "but why should I give a hoot about the customers" - because if you kill off all the customers, you don't have a business any more!
@Fomo FWIW on their website they say "We give a minimum of 50% of net proceeds to the Estate after costs. This rises on a ratchet basis up to 90%. If the claim fails, we bear 100% of our own and any adverse costs.". So I think Forensic is right on that one (unless they're just lying...)
I'm sure it's true that going with Mano returns less money than going a longer route (including to court), but of course there are loads of other benefits
- no costs at all, even if the case goes to trial and you lose (no ATE)
- (small) initial up-front payment (which might be welcome if you need the cash)
- quick returns due to early settlement - need to take into account a) the time value of money, b) the value of the human stress avoided with a drawn-out court case, c) the reduced risk due to Mano's track record
I'm not saying it's a slam-dunk, and I agree that there will be cases / situations where it makes sense for a creditor to go a different route, but Mano seems like a valid option serving a meaningful market niche (although yes, Cooklin. saying that they want their model to take over "the entire pie" does seem far-fetched, for these reasons).
FoMo: if the IP refers the case on early rather than sitting on it on a CFA with his lawyers for years, then IP costs will be minimal and there will be no need for external legal costs. Therefore the full benefit will be for the creditors. Pay attention and follow the calculations: Mano pays £40k in costs - that is the lawyers fee right there. Now go and book a golf lesson or something.
@FoMo Lol. No, I'm just a little outside my circle of competence on this one, so looking to better my understanding using this board, which is what I thought it was for? I just didn't see why it was important to look after the creditors (apart from the ESG arguement) as I am invested in MANO, not a syndicate of creditors. I do have a friend who is an IP though but only see him on occasion.
@Forensic Thanks for all your help today. I was thinking about increasing my weighting due to my initial valuation (based on an algorithm of price ratios, debt levels and long term growth), the SP recently falling off a cliff, the presentation this week and now a better understanding of MANO's premise. I have now averaged down today and with AIM having a better day, I am hoping we will soon turn the corner.
Forensic
Beg to differ.
"Half to creditors" isn't so. It goes to pay IP and their solicitors for what is on the clock before assignment to MANO.
Got cut off. Just to finish:
"Half to creditors: £80k. End".
Sorry to read about your experience in 2011 Da_Master. But it happens a lot. Practically every contractor I have ever spoken to had an unhappy experience of doing work for a company, then that company going bust and nothing ever being paid out on his invoices. We then look at the Liquidator's Report and you see the Director/Owner took all the cash/assets/customers from the business a few months before liquidation for pennies.... Almost every story in the press has the same detail: "unsecured creditors likely to get 2p in the £..."
One of the (sadly) many problems with the UK insolvency regime is that Liquidators/Administrators will sit on potential claims for far too long. Costs then rack up. The lawyers the IP employs will be on a CFA (they get paid double if there is a recovery but zero if no recovery) and the IP may well be on a CFA himself. The avg insolvency litigation claim is for around £400k. They usually settle at around half that: £200k. The IP and the lawyers know that. Its all laid out in the Professor Walton reports I referred to earlier.
So if the Director has a fairly nice house that he bought in say 1998 or the early noughties that will have almost zero mortgage on it now. All equity value. Say that house is worth £800k. So the director can release equity to settle the claim. But his own lawyers know that aswell....so a cost game then kicks off over several years:
The IP's lawyers write lots of letters setting out the claim. The Director's lawyers respond. They are all billing time of course and they know, ultimately the Director has that asset. That game of letters goes around and around. For years. Why doesnt the IP issue the claim ? Because then it gets risky. If the IP eventually loses at trial he is personally liable for the Directors costs (which will probably be around £200-300k by then). But the IP is happy. He is also racking up "time costs" and also knows about that nice house the Director has....Eventually he takes an ATE insurance policy to cover him in case he loses. The problem is another game is going on there. The ATE policy for £200-300k of costs if the IP loses will cost the IP a 50%-100% premium. Not joking. Fact. Oh and this is the model that our friend FoMo is promoting of course lol.
Eventually costs are rising hugely as the trial approaches (both sides need a barrister at this point of course and they aint cheap). The Director finally agrees to pay, say, £200k and gets an equity release on his house. The IP accepts that £200k because he hasnt been paid a bean for the last 3 years working on this case and if it all goes pear-shaped at trial his ATE policy might not cover all the Director costs and he is personally liable !! At that stage the ATE, the barrister, the solicitor CFA and the IP CFA do what they call a "carve up". They carve up every penny of that £200k. Nowt left for creditors.
Mano version: case settled in 12 months at £200k. Costs: £40k. £160k left. Half to creditors: