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.
TGTD- two points re your response. Firstly, as noted the recapitalisation was indeed a "vote" with a gun to the head- the chairman's letter essentially said, vote yes or we go into resolution. While there is less of a "gun" this time, essentially there is a 75% controlling interest across Galinski and the cabal that were able to buy in at 30p too (and so have the same incentives as him going forwards). No one outside that group, institutional or otherwise, has any power to stop anything they want to push through. Which is why such things are typically not allowed under the takeover code, and why this is unfortunately not a business you can invest in and expect the retail shareholders interests to be considered- doesn't mean you can't take a punt riding on Galinski's coattails, but you do have to consider if your interests are aligned...
Why this share so cheap compared with other Bank with the same revenue ? Is this big debt or trouble in finance to run the bank at moments? Is this lost customers and closed branches everywhere? Non of that at moment and bank will have first ever real profits over 5 years time so just leave it sometimes to settle down as all of troubles have passed and it is time to recover.
RNS show number improvement and nothing can kill it at moment as everything are on tracks and it will come back its true values .
Longfell
Reported.
Chatbot2
" As you ought to understand, the takeover code typically requires any investor taking over 30% of the voting rights to make an offer to buy out all existing shareholders."
Putting this to a vote is one thing having institutional investors forced to accept at 30p and well below their average share price holdings is another.
Your basically saying I'm holding a gun to their heads you will be forced to sell at the price I dictate that's the part your implying.
A democratic vote is one thing having the proposal forced through is another.
As for another rights issue your implying rhe business won't turn to a underlying profit and also won't generate sufficient capital to grow the lending base.
You need to factor in both the £50m savings target by Q2 and the further £30m identified for this year primarily through job cuts, reduced branch opening hours, and changes to back office process with automation but mainly the first two whichvare quocker to realise the savings.
After the one off redundancy costs your left with £80m effectively flowing straight to the bottom line. Whether the mgt team achieve the full £80m savings this year is one thing but assuming they do that will boost the share price.
Why should Gilinksi take Metro Bank private when he can simply sit back, slash costs, at some pont the share price will rise and he can reduce his ownership percentage, banking profits through teducing his stake holding and reducing his risk exposure..This has been his modus operandi in the past..While Metro Bank remains listed it becomes a more attractive take over target. A private company is less likely to attract buyers as its harder to value hence why Metro Bank will remain listed.
TGTD I am sure Cyberdog he does not need me to speak for him but for the benefit of people who might take you seriously, i will explain the rules around this. As you ought to understand, the takeover code typically requires any investor taking over 30% of the voting rights to make an offer to buy out all existing shareholders. That is the reason why all Metro shareholders, including institutional investors, were asked to vote through a rule 9 waiver in October, thereby foregoing this obligation. So the short answer to your question is that institutional investors have already voted in massive dilution at 30p a share.
The smarter question you could have asked, is, if Galinski wanted full ownership why didn't he do it at that point- when everyone would pretty much have had to accept 30p? My suggested answer is that Galinski clearly wants to hedge his bets as much as possible. If he can effectively control the bank at 52% with his "useful idiot" in the key role, why take on more. But if the bank needs more capital, which it surely does now if it wants to grow and is unable to generate meaningful organic capital until 2026 (according to managements plans), then you are in for another round of equity raising. Given the ownership structure, a rights issue mathematically increases Galinski's control in line with his majority holding. He would not necessarily be forced to take private- i.e. he could just put in his 52% of the new equity, but he isn't going to do that at a price that substantially dilutes his current position, and without his support a rights issue doesn't fly. But my observation would be that the regulator and listing authorites would, I am sure, be more comfortable having the company taken private rather than continue to have the embarrassment of a UK listed bank having a guy put himself, and various members of his family, on the board, particularly given some of the issues Mr Galinski had with the US regulator back in 2005....
I was wrong that the stock would rise after the results. trying to catch the bottom is of course hard. The results were better than I expected, especially the deposit figures, I expected 14.5 billion and stagnation despite the successfull campaign. it turned out deposit is 16.5 Billion as of February. the guidance was lowered so that must be why some are disapointed, but overall these are better results than I expected. oversold?
Cyberpuppy
Yeh that's right explain how institutional investors would react to a 30p buy out offer from Gilinksi and what precedent and regulations apply under Company Law...that's assuming you can read lol!
LegalBeagleUK
Minority shareholder protection go and do some research on UK company law and while your at it change your user name!
Tg2d
''and given the growing M&A activity in the mid sized bank sector.''
forget that - Metro needs to fail or succeed on it's own.
I am not sure that a £233 million valuation of Metro qualifies it as a mid sized bank . It is very small change even for a small bank to be able to purchase.
Even VM is being valued at getting on for £3 Billion
Let’s just all have a biscuit and come back in May!
i predicted that level of outflow 3 months ago. 4 days on the share price has shelved 8.5%. the mkt doesn't buy this 'shrink your way to greatness' bs. metro bank has no usp anymore and they could attract customers away from their existing banks before when they they were at your beck and call - now they are the same they will have no chance. a branch i visited said their safety deposit box customers had left in droves, as weekend s visits not available (about 15% had closed and some their accounts too) which very bad for branch cost coverage their main point of installing them - all this ramping nonsense is just ****-gravy, sorry, but it is !
no actually i was ****ed as a fart and commented on the wrong board but hey ho roo on it's way up today from a very low price! :-)
Like a pheonix slowly rising from the ashes.
£30m extra savings on top of £50m already penciled in mainly to be realised by Q2 this year.
The next half year update should be interesting as Metro Bank is returned to profit 📈 and given the growing M&A activity in the mid sized bank sector.
htTps://www.cityam.com/metro-bank-swings-to-first-annual-profit-since-2018-after-slashing-staff-numbers/
Xwave10
I was going to mention that but thought another waste of time poster on all BB
Jk,
you gonna say how well you've allegedly done on every board??
TWAT!
Hey guys. Too many emotions here. As someone who has done very well investing low (RR, Invididia more recently even ITV, some others long list, I wait on a few but most l
Glowacki
You put a sell at top of your post
so you own no Metro shares correct
It's bad enough making a loss for yet another year,but what makes Metro bank investable is is what the CEO said with regard to 2024.....that costs of continuing restructuring will carry thru and impact on 2024 profits..
But then if my auntie had 8lls she's be my uncle.
Surly some of the problems lies with the CFO & to bring up 2+2 =4 not 7
The CEO should go also as has the old CFO
If the CEO had raised equity capital before the cliff edge of refinancing ,retail investors would not have been diluted down to 25% of the ownership
If the CEO had not promised the market IRB and then had to retract prompting a run on the bank we would have £1.5b more current accounts and atleast £70m more income
If the bank had actually hedged its assets so that its treasury book was yielding base+20bp not base -450bp and its mortgages base + 100 not base -250bp we would have had another £200m of income...
Then by my calculations the share price would be somewhere close to £3.50 share.
But then if my auntie had 8lls she's be my uncle.
Due to one off factors … namely the need to stop outflows from last year." So again. break that down. We can see that the bank lost £1.5b of current accounts which cost 0%
Yes the outflow was due to media news that Metro was / needed bailing out/brought out.
So yes people panic when there money is in danger
I know i would take my money out but hopeful things have calmed down & with these New branch's opening up North Metro can start saying good bye to the passed
Agree re Peston. Incidentally did you see the opening line on the BBC article today?
"Metro Bank is to end seven-day trading in all its branches and cut about 1,000 jobs after reporting huge losses."
I'm pretty down on management but "huge losses" is not a sensible way of presenting it. I hope they correct that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68554199
“Yes if there were no outflows due to Metro going bust they may have turned a profit‘
I’ve yet to forgive Robert Peston for the run on Northern Rock or his leaking of insider information on the takeover of HBOS - where the fears incurred costs.
Don’t have much in so didn't pay attention to the sell off last year but steadily got the average down from 70p to 43p as a bit of day trading fun post December.
Curiously enough, I find my levels of concentration proportional to the amount invested.
"Meanwhile, think about demanding accuracy whilst being sloppy about stating Q4 losses … these were due to one off factors … namely the need to stop outflows from last year." So again. break that down. We can see that the bank lost £1.5b of current accounts which cost 0%. They probably lost a chunk of other low cost instant access savings accounts which we cant see yet. The bank has lost those deposits which it could park in cash at 5.25% and make >£70m That is not a one off. It has lost that income until it gets that volume of low cost deposits back.
WHat the bank chose to do was to keep the cash at 5.25% and raise new deposits at a loss leading price to fund it. they could have raised a load of deposits last year if they wanted to lose money. But they decided not to. Presumably they decided to lose some money in Q4 because they preffered the optics of a growing deposit base, rather than shining a light on the deposit outflows in October.. But the eye roll of the CFO said it all. They clearly got a ton of new deposits in at a loss, and its killing NIM. They can roll off the excess but they can't get £1.5 of Non-interest bearing balances back any time soon. So again, sorry to have to explain the basics of banking to people, but the losses are not one off. they are driven by the mix shift in deposits driven by outflows of low cost deposits. The bank needs to get them back- but there is no credible strategy to do so. Slashing costs by firing all the nice people in the front line isn't helping there that is for sure
Twogood has been wrong from the outset, proof all there. I really need to learn to ignore but can't help having a laugh at times