The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust 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.
2015 bonds that should have been, not 2015 shares
Even with the conversion of the bonds, UGC only have 24%. With the loss of Fortiana their total votes are actually less than at the last vote. Around 35%. That's not enough to win unless they have persuaded other major investors to switch. But I don't see what they have to offer. Turnout with all the publicity is going to be high. People do care about their investments. The loss on the last vote was down to covid and apathy. That has changed.
I know Pavel isn't liked on these boards, but he delivered POX and he has the support of his staff. The support of the workforce is essential to further success.
Resolution 19 will probably pass. I see this as a positive. Though I seem to be in a minority.
I note Tamesis have increased their price target to 50p. This is based on gold at 1900. Their metrics are:
'At our price target of 50p the company
would be trading on a supportive EV/EBITDA of 4.7x 2021 estimates and PER of 7.2x'
A PER of 7.2 is ridiculous. The average Russian gold miner has a PER of over 15.
I also note net debt for POG has reduced to $538 million. With the conversion debt has now dropped to $459. That's going to be around .8x edibida for 2020, making refinancing the bond so much easier.
I assume that by 'compensation' it means that POG pay Tamesis for the coverage. Still I remember their last target of 26p was published when we around 10p so let's hope they can repeat the trick with 50p!
PVX233, I believe you may be wrong in thinking Pavel isn't liked. If there was a poll on here asking who they preferred to have a CEO I would think Pavel would win hands down.
If you had a poll asking who trusted Pavel 100% that would be a different vote. The 2 are not the same. Personally, I don't think there is anyone better qualified to run the show.
M
Workingstiff, you think they could have got a loan to pay back the convertibles. It wasn't small beer it was $100m as a minimum, we have bank borrowing in the past, which was paid off by the larger bond issue, and people disagreed with that.
But, the bank held all the cards and we had to go cap in hand just to spend money, which is why it was changed to bonds.
The mere fact they added $25 m to the bond issue, suggests to me people were not exactly queueing up to lend us the money.
At the time were we not actually borrowing money from Gazprombank to support IRC.
I am sure it wasn't as easy, and I would "hope" they explored all the options. The other thing is When were the old bonds due to mature ?? I can't remember but if they were not due to mature its a totally different ball game about repayments.
On the last point, I can't be bothered to go back through all the old bond details because I didn't have as big a problem with it as some on here.
workingstiff,
I agree with you, the 2019 convertibles will go down as one of the worst financial decisions in history. Financial transactions are not POG's strong point. Thier were many options avalaible to them.
In fact, they are rather dumb. They got caught, because the price of gold rose. They were priced for bankruptcy due to the terrible BOD and executive. This is why the share price has risen so much. I honestly think new management would be good. I think Pavel understands the local situation, but is not interested in making this into a first-class gold miner. He is quite happy the way things are.
"The mere fact they added $25 m to the bond issue, suggests to me people were not exactly queuing up to lend us the money."
POG added another $25m because the offer was over subscribed.
What that suggests to me Rusty, is that the offer was too generous. Previous CB issues were capped, enabling the issuer to force a buy back if the share price reached a certain level. This one was uncapped and thus very attractive to speculative bond holders.
spot on kenj. the $125M CB was a sweet deal for the friends, at the expense of the shareholders, who could not take part. and that is one of the reasons why at the AGM I voted against their re-election. i still want hambro&son out of POG&IRC. and this time i voted for the audit. transparency is needed.
Kenj, you know as well as I do the company at that time was strapped for cash, stumping up money for a convertable bond, is much different to a bank or someone else lending us the money.
People on here who post saying there was loads of options are deluded, our credit rating was not good after being cut.
I am not saying the extra $25m was a good idea, I never have. The point I am making is rolling it over on less generous terms than the existing deal was not as big a deal as some on here are making out.
What do you think they should have done, and how would they have done it. ???
Rusty, in 2019 they didn’t act like a company that was "strapped for cash".
Read through the accounts, they didn’t cut back on local social fund investment, they gave excessive pay and bonus increases, they bought a helicopter they didn’t go out and mine more gold from their ever-increasing reserves.
Updownflat, get your facts right, they didn't buy a helicopter, they took it from IRC for monies that were owed to them, and probably the value of the helicopter was overstated as well