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.
That's not rubbing it i because it agrees with what I've been saying all this time. Value will be determined by earnings which I think is strong. Thanks for finally agreeing with this. I also, think if earnings are strong then current shareholders will not be wiped out. A debt for Equity will lead to a dilution but not a wipeout. If the debtholders can recoup money from the fraudsters then it will add more value for existing shaeholders.
You are the one that is saying debt for equity and then a sale. Why would that add more value than simply selling the business?
You seem to have evidence that would suggest strong earnings means a complete wipeout for shareholders. Please do share.
I've also been clear to say I'm not sure that there is value but waiting to see how things play out.
What an amateur!
You need to make some sense and re-read what I posted!
I said a debt for equity for the purposes of a sale makes no sense, just like your argument. You really are cluching at straws.
That's my argument, not yours, d**che. and it implies there's value in the company and so shareholders will get money back. I take it you agree!
How is it not right? Why would they just not sell the business as it is instead of doing a debt for equity. you're making no sense. You think they need to do a debt for equity before selling?
You're argument for doing a debt for equity doesn't match up with what's being said by the administrators which is why you're scrambling for a reason.
Do you have Google?
Debt for Equity is completely pointless unless earnings are strong. I think you've pointed out in the past that you think earnings have been overstated as claimed by Muddy Waters, so earnings are poor. Which do you think it is?
Correction...NMC was suspended not delisted.
Value is determined by the market. A company can't simply determine that the shares have no value and de-list. The reason why NMC was delisted was because of factual inacuracies in the finacial statemenst. The reason why new board is looking to delsit is clear and I quote - "FT - The newly overhauled board of NMC is considering delisting the company, according to a person familiar with the situation, which would remove costs and complexity." Can't see anywhere in that statement that they think NMC has no value.
I personally am still not sure whether there's still value here but am being pragmatic.
The ADR's as we know are extremely volatile and it would appear they move at any news. probably best not use them in an argument. I do think they're a good indicator of news sentiment.
Eddie Stobart.
Deos, still too early to tell. Hopefully on Monday, or shortly after, we'll know more. But saying it's a write off is just as extreme as saying it'll re-open at £9.
Sounds all over and they will go private?
Ah, so you only think a stock can't be re-listed because you don't know of any that have done so in the past.
I don't know off the top of my head but I do know that once the listing requirements are met again, it's possible for a company to be relisted on the exchange.
Im not sure where you read that a delisiting is permanent. Can you share? As far as I'm aware there is a route back without going to full IPO.
Correct. So delisitng doesn't change much from the current situation.
The devils in the detail. When words like "continue" and "retain" are used it doesn't suggest an overhaul of exisiting ownership.
Adzy,
Regarding FT article - Delisting is a suggestion by the new board to save money and make things simpler but this is what it ultimately means:
""Delisting" is generally used in a negative way, for when companies no longer meet the requirements to be listed on an exchange, and are removed either voluntarily or involuntarily. However, delisting technically just means the removal of a listed stock from its exchange, and there are a few reasons that can happen.
If a company is delisted, technically there is no change in the shares. They still represent the same ownership stake in the company, and nothing officially changes in terms of the company's ability to conduct business.
However, the market generally sees a delisting as a major negative sign that can damage investor confidence in the company. In addition, moving off one of the major exchanges can result in less interest from institutional investors, which can in turn result in lower volume and reduced liquidity for shares."
The Times article was an opinion piece but contradicts what the administrators were saying: This includes actual quotes from the administrators:
"On Monday, The Times newspaper in London reported that administrators could return to markets to raise capital if a restructuring of NMC Health is deemed to be achievable.
It cited court documents accompanying Alvarez & Marsal's appointment which stated it "may be desirable to continue to make use of the company as a listed entity to allow the group access to equity funding”.
In a statement to the newspaper, Mr Fleming said retaining the company's listing could “provide an exit route for investors if and to the extent that any of the existing financial indebtedness should be converted to equity under a restructuring that has the support of the creditors of the company and the group”."
Rastuss, It would be very unlikely that a bank can forced to do a debt for equity unless they explicitly express an interest to take part. Can you please provide evidence to the contrary? Any creditor that doesn't take it up would move up the scale for seniority of debt.
“That's not what the administrators are alluding to. When they talk about looking to equity markets that means working with exisiting shareholders”
Are you sure? Both the FT article I posted yday and The Times article on Sunday suggest delisting, or new co. ... both those option wipe out existing shareholders. Have you got evidence to suggest otherwise?
FT - The newly overhauled board of NMC is considering delisting the company, according to a person familiar with the situation, which would remove costs and complexity. ADCB had previously highlighted the “intrinsic value” of the listing as a means to potentially raise capital, according to documents filed ahead of the administration.
Times - Should NMC go to the market, it is unlikely that its existing equity would be maintained and trading resumed. Instead, it is more likely that new equity would be issued out of a “new co” listed entity.
There's a point some people keep missing here. There are around 80 seperate creditors invloved and they would all have to agree to a debt for equity for it to be viable a option. Otherwise, the creditors who don't take part would be the first to get paid in a disposal of assets. Also for a debt for equity swap to have value, it would require the company to be listed and traded because price discovery can only happen with a traded stock. Furthermore, I find a debt for equity for the purposes of a sale rather pointless. Right now the creditors pretty much own the company, meaning if they're looking to sell they can do so without any debt for equity swap and without a listing. If they could find a buyer willing to pay circa 4Billion and take on the 2.1Billion debt into the Newco then it would work. Or some other variation depending on how much money they can recover. This would, in any case, wipeout shareholders. The funny thing is, That's not what the administrators are alluding to. When they talk about looking to equity markets that means working with exisiting shareholders. I'm sure we'll know more come the 20 Apr after the meeting between all creditors.
Yeah you’re probs right, what are lse rules when you’ve stolen $4.4bn!
The default would have shown up atleast through the finance team, and they probably hid this from the board. It just keeps getting worse.
P.s. Remit2India, I know ha!
Just have to have a bit of faith in due process, but for me already accepted 100% loss. Wonder how much the ii’s are saying about this. Can’t believe they will write off £500m + without some legal challenge?
Rastuss - do you know if being in default on Feb 2nd and failing to disclose to the market Is considered market abuse? How did they manage to avoid telling us?
If it’s a going concern they can’t simply write off existing s/h. Nobody wants this company wound up, they might trim some assets but ultimately (hopefully) the profit figures are accurate. If not, everyone is fooked.
Adzy
Do you honestly think they take it private or relist under a different name?
Cant see them relisting under a different structure know one will buy them. Dont see liquidation either
it says 8 weeks? Do you mean 20 May?
So we have the nail put in the coffin for the 2nd time.
What’s the source for that?
Im nervous lol