Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
I'm not sure that the shareholders at the time of any payment will have much crossover with the shareholders at the record date. I can't imagine I was alone in selling when the shares went ex-prefs. (I'm unclear as to the difference between a cash shell, a SPAC, and "an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is". Because I don't understand it, I'm out. Possibly my loss.) I would also expect more shareholders to leave once the RTO occurs and the new business is trading at whatever value the market assigns to it.
Not much I can do now, but as far as I can see the payout on the prefs depends of 4 things.
1. The claim being decided in favour of IMM.
2. AAG being able to recover the money from Govt on Mozambique.
3. AAG paying the money to PFP.
4. PFP paying the money to the holders at the record date.
IMO 1 and 2 are quite likely eventually, although 5 years seems optimistic. However I'm trying to get a handle on the probabilities of 3 and 4. I was hoping that someone with more legal knowledge than me might be able to shed some light on this.
Does anyone know if the owners of PFP at the time of any award being received are under any LEGAL obligation to hand it over to the holders at the date given in the timetable? (Assuming of course that they are competent to determine them and that their custodians at the record date are willing and and competent to forward the payments to clients who may well have moved by the payment date.)
Https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/investing/stocks-shares/infrastructure-trusts-buy-sell-interest-rates-dividends/
"We advise readers to hold on to their infrastructure trusts. For new money, our pick would be International Public Partnerships.
Questor says: buy
Ticker: INPP
Share price at close: 128.8p"
@Danger_Man, As I see it, as with all issues which are of no interest to the majority of the US voters, it's going to be down to how much influence various lobbies are willing and able to exert. Clearly we still have the strong headwinds of the Anti-Colonialism movement (i.e. to erase the influence and culture of the former colonial powers), the natural desire not to kick (or allow a vasal to kick) a hornets nest in their own back yard and, possibly, the desire of the US oil producers to limit competition. However Argentine becoming a paid up "bad guy" has got to help.
What we really need, of course, is a US partner.
@40thStreetBlack. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. In my understanding "international law" is whatever the international (i.e. US or might as well be US) elite say it is. What the population of the Falkland Islands, Britain or anywhere else want is irrelevant. They can bankrupt us any time they choose. Russia may fight, Britain wouldn't. Co-operative local politicians who lose office can always be offered some international role so they keep their snouts in the trough.
I'm not saying that we should follow Russia. Life in the cage is far more comfortable. I'm just aware that it's there. If the US administration doesn't want Sealion to happen, it won't happen.
Good find. Love the tie.
I think he was pretty clear that he was primarily focusing on US interests and the fact that the Soviets were backing the Argentinians. Also, as he stated, probably truthfully, he's not keen on "the settlement of claimants' property disputes by the use of force".
Applying economic/political pressure to persuade the British to reach a negotiated settlement with the Argentines over sovereignty and mineral resources which suits the current US agenda doesn't count as use of force. Hopefully, however, the fact that Argentina has signed up to the current Axis of Evil will align perceived US interest more with British sovereignty.
Does anyone else see the recent BRICS summit as positive for Sealion eventually going ahead:
1. Saudi joining reduces the available non-BRICS oil, making it more imperative to develop western controlled oil reserves. i.e. worth spending more political capital fighting the green lobby.
2. Argentina joining makes it less likely that America will decide to give the Falkland Islands to Argentina, however much Biden and the Democrats hate Britain.
One possible reason for the lack of buying could be that a lot of small investors (myself included) hold, or will be looking to hold in an ISA. The fact that the preference shares will be untradable means that at present it would be a bad idea to buy the cum-preference-share shares in an ISA since the preferences will be transferred out of the ISA which both wastes ISA allowance and is complicated from a tax point of view if the claim finally succeeds.
The market cap is too small, the liquidity too low and the bet too binary to be of interest to institutions so you're limited to a small pool of individuals who fancy gambling a few K unwrapped.
"buy now you are in both , soon you are only in the RTO"
Aren't the new preference shares likely to be exchange tradable too? If so, after the split you should be able to invest in either or both depending on which you feel will be more profitable.
I'm sure I read somewhere (I think it was an LSE board for another share that Amati were dumping, having held from a much higher price) that Amati have limits on how much they can hold in shares with market cap under £50m. I'm not sure if this applies to the VCT though.
"At least we still have a deal, albeit back ended rather than front ended."
Based on the history, we only have a deal once we have an RNS confirming cleared funds in Pathfinder's bank account.
Also assuming (a) AAG has actually secured funding for at least US$15 million to fund the Claim, (b) does pursue the claim and (c) wins and (d) manages to recover the money from the Government of Mozambique: What certainty can we have that AAG will then pay us? Contracts only matter if they can be enforced.
The Board reaffirms it is targeting an aggregate dividend of 6.0 pence per Ordinary Share for the year ending 31 December 2023[2]. The initiatives above are believed to be accretive to dividend cover, however for the avoidance of doubt, and as stated before, further capital being invested into the Investee Companies is not forecast to be required to achieve a future period dividend covered by the operating cash flow of the Investee Companies. This is expected to be substantially achieved by 31 December 2024 as a result of the continued maturity of the high-growth platforms (particularly data centres and subsea fibre), the reduction and ultimate expiry of the accretion payments made by Arqiva (in relation to its inflation linked swaps) and the future forecast IRU sales from the Company's investment in EMIC-1.
The Board has considered reducing the above target of 6.0 pence per Ordinary Share for the year ending 31 December 2023 and understands some shareholders would support such a reduction. However, on balance, the Board considers it appropriate to maintain the target given: the route to a covered dividend outlined above; the income requirements of many shareholders; and the relatively limited absolute sum that would be saved by reducing the 6.0 pence target.
I can't see how a Morocco have a problem with Emmerson using too much water has any bearing on a project in the Republic of Congo. As I understand the problem the govt of ROC have with Kore is our total failure to build the mine, not the environmental impact if/when we do.
I can't see too much significance in a large price move as result of £10K of sales, other than if PIs with even a moderate holding want to throw in the towel, we're looking at a large discount to the listed price :(
Unfortunately it's not at all difficult to make a loss on German residential real estate at the moment. Take a look at Vonovia for example. The situation with Deutche Bank and it's knock on effect on lending isn't helping sentiment either. Possibly oversold but not at all unique.
Adamsky,
I hope you are right. However:
The valuation, being based on what AAG are willing to pay and PFP accept for 80% of the risk adjusted cashflows resulting from the claim very definitely does take into account any settlement or a successful BIT claim. The probabilities and payouts of such outcomes will have been estimated by AAG when determining the price they were willing to pay and by PFP when deciding whether to accept it.
I'm sure AAG will 'use its best endeavours to settle and/or finalise the Claim within five years’. they want to get paid!. I still believe that 5 years is a very optimistic timescale to seek and win the claim, deal with any appeal / attempt at an annulment and then identify and seek ownership of Mozambique overseas assets when they refuse to pay. It's doable - it's how litigation finance companies make their money - but it's not quick.
I still maintain that few managers or politicians will volunteer for a small amount of pain now to save however is in their role in 10 years time a lot of pain then.
I've been trying to come up with a back of an envelope fair value for the shares given today's news. As far as I can see, the current share price seems reasonable, however I would welcome being told where I have gone wrong.
We now have the following mark-to-market value for the claim:
Price paid for 80% of claim = £2m + $15m = £14.24m
Therefore value of 20% = £3.56m
Add in the £2m received and say half the £.5m recently raised to get a value of £5.8m for the company.
Divide by 632m shares gives about 0.9p per share.
Then of course you need to discount this for the fact that over half of this is fair value not cash and the risk that the BOD will make a bad investment with the cash. The 40% implied by the current SP seems a bit harsh but a lot of other investments are getting marked down at least as much. With the current general market sentiment it doesn't seem crazy.
The only thing that could change the calculation would be the prospect of either the Mozambique government or TZM making a bid for Pathfinder before the AGM on 26 April to make the problem go away. I can't see this happening since, whatever the long term benefit, the Mozambique government would seem weak in the short term. TZM has no incentive either since the compensation is the problem for the Government of Mozambique in 5-10 years time. If they then try and reassign the license then they will be messing with China which would be unadvisable!
I currently have a smallish long position. Based on this, I will be holding but not adding.