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.
I think all this chat regarding The employees and directors having shares given to them is talking the share price down. Surely the more skin they have in the game, the better the performance and eagerness to make things even more successful. Having said that, looking at the share price today, it’s balancing around 1.4 which isn’t too bad.
“1.4 share price isn’t too bad”….except for those who paid nearly 30p a few years ago.
I agree, of course, it’s shocking when you have paid so much for a share that has dropped to such a low-level. Believe me I’m in the same situation with a couple of other shares. However, I do believe that there is a lot of mileage in this one, I think I could see 5p within a year. If you are brave enough and have the funds you might want to level down. I have done it myself and been able to come out with my initial investment as well as the second investment. It’s a risk like everything else.
> I think all this chat regarding The employees and directors having shares given to them is talking the share price down.
Or it's the fact that management literally takes 15% of YOUR investment away over the next few years?
These grants are diluting shareholders.
The company has a market valuation of £10m. That is barely it's booking value. The company has barely any revenue and over 90% of investors are retailers.
I am not envious. I do believe people need financial incentives. However, Graham Reid, as an example, already has a base salary of £290,000. That's not too bad for a company of 20 people. Then, they've already granted themselves around 7% of the company last year at a strike price of 1.15p. That is, if the company ever reaches 11.5p, already a nice bonus for them of around £400,000 to £500,000. Also not too bad. Still, the company won't be worth much, should this ever happen. A market cap of £100m..
So now.. would they sell their shares or keep them? It's already a nive bonus .. but it can be more if the company had a higher valuation, right?
Again .. my biggest fear now is that they grab shares, pump the valuation of the company up as high as they can and then sell their shares back to the market causing the price to drop. And all that before the stock even reaches 10p.
What is happening now has the potential to make the current management millionairs without any of es break even at all. That is the danger that I see as they gift themselve large grants like that at a strike price that is at current levels.
Please think about this.
The general role of thumb under the circumstances is that they would not be allowed to sell them for at least one year.
I do not think for one minute that a few people on this board have the impact of lowering the SP if that were the case then this SP would be through the roof.
Please get with reality, do you really think that investors are going to be and sell based on 3-4 people giving views on here.
Really?
Agreed. What I'm struggling to understand is if there are a few of us here with a few hundred k of shares and we've all been averaging down. Why has this SP remained stagnant? The only folk that can manipulate the trade therefore have influence on the SP in either direction are the MM'S and the II's. (Possibly PI's if you have enough leverage). Do we think these shares are kept artificially low for some reason? If so what could that reason be?
Just a novice trying to understand if I was an expert I wouldn't of been here in the first place 🤣
> The general role of thumb under the circumstances is that they would not be allowed to sell them for at least one year.
The shares of their last grant vest over the next three years iirc.
> What I'm struggling to understand is if there are a few of us here with a few hundred k of shares and we've all been averaging down. Why has this SP remained stagnant?
This is not easy to answer. There's many reason why the share price would go down. One of them is good old dilution. Over the past years, said management has had many grants. I don't know how big those were but the last two make up 15% of the companies shared issued.
Now, as these shares vest, they are offered to the market and somebody, don't ask me who, buys them. Bear in mind, that those shares offered are already going to be cheaper. Why? Because that's how shares work of course. The more shares there are, the less a single share is worth.
In other words: Whenever one of us averages down, we are, among other things, paying for these grants/bonuses. Literally paying for part of management's salaries which is why these particularly large grants are a thorn in my eye.
Another big factor then is, of course, demand and supply. Simple as that. If people sell shares, they name a price, and they'll always ask for as much as they can. However, they can only ask for so much somebody is willing to pay. A simple market.
> Do we think these shares are kept artificially low for some reason?
Maybe..? If I was management and had some good news to share, then I'd wait until I have my grants - for example. I am not accusing current management of doing that, because it is illegal, but there is some control that it in the grey zone.
The BESS planning committe meets on Wednesday, 10th January, 2024 10.00 am. Just a few days after management has granted themselves a huge chunk of shares.
Coincidence? Maybe? Did they have any control or say over this? I don't know. Also maybe.
But even if not: The company has performed abysmal on the stock market so far. Leaving every single one deep red. So.. is it appropriate to grant management a huge amount of shares in this case? Based on what performance? Did we see an increment in revenue (not couting the one-time payment of course)? Did we see any value increment? All we saw was selling assets. ATES, Uskmouth..
Did they do a good job? I don't know. Maybe. Do I feel that the grant last year should suffice? Absolutely. Am I convinced that another big grant is appropriate? Not so much.. all I am afraid now is that they sell their options the moment they vest because it's not unlikely that SAE might see a rise in valuation.
Again: It is us existing investors who pay for these grants. It is our money. Yours and mine. It is my opinion, that we have paid enough already and that it's time that we see some returns, or at least break even, before management grants themselves new shares at the (almost) lowest price ever recorded in th