Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Profits of over €3 bn are fine - they should not need to grow much more, providing it is sustained it shoudl be grounds for a much higher valuation. Companies that make a 3 bn profit should not be valued at £7.5 bn, RR makes half that and is now valued at around £20 bn
Howdens is valued about £5 bn and up 8% on a (lower than expected_ profit of £340 m
https://karenable.com/the-saga-of-the-aston-martin-valkyrie/
Sounds like Nebula drank the Kool-Aid if they thought that they would recoup £150 M from 3% royalties. I would guess that they held back the £15 M in deposits because they saw their investment going down the drain. I suppose it will also swing on if they were guaranteed £150 M or if that is just what they expected - i would assume the latter but **** - companies do stupid things in dark times. Any idea how much they invested?
anyone have an idea as to how they arrived at a valuation for 3% of 'the royalties' being worth £150 million?
The FT report that the £150 M is 3% of the royalties, this seems a huge amount for 3%. - as someone in the comments points out that would make 100% of whatever it is worth £5 billion - i cannot imagine how they have arrived at that figure
...remember that, when the board said that AML shouldn't be trading as a penny stock and did the 10:1 consolidation?
What a waste of time that turned out to be. I always thought AML had more potential trading at that level, its easier to take a gamble on a share that costs £1 thinking it may become £3 than it is to think a £20 share will become £60. its not exactly been uphill since, even if on paper it matters little
I made 200% on AML at one point... no longer, but let's not be too pessimistic about the company. The new money will pay off one very high interest loan that Stroll took out and regretted. This alone is a big deal as the interest was huge - particularly in today's climate. The war in Ukraine could be over sooner than expected - which would be a huge boost. Current valuations are all pessimistic - not just AML, and it's in no danger of going bust any time soon. When i made 200% was after the last rights issue .... lets hope for an encore
the 10p is not a reflection of the value of the share, it is to do with the type of share - specifically the voting rights attributed to an ordinary share:
"There can also be ordinary shares in the same company that are of different nominal values, e.g. £1 ordinary shares and 10p ordinary shares. If each share has one vote (regardless of its nominal value), then the holder of the 10p shares will get 10 votes for every £1 paid for them, while the holder of the £1 shares only gets one vote per £1"
The number of shares will include those being issued to new shareholders like Saudi investment fund as part of the larger fund raising, not just joe public on Hargreaves Lansdowne etc
the price of 103p is the discounted rate that AML are giving to encourage investment, however the market normally dips in a rights issue so that the rights price ends up being about the same as the market price once everything is worked out. the worst thing to do is nothing, if you dont want to invest more you can sell your rights
My broker (halifax) has sent me a Corporate Actions form that gives the option to take up the rights, sell the rights etc. If I want to take up the rights I have to specify the amount of rights i want to take up then have the money in my account to pay for them by the 20th Sept
I also have the rights listed in my account like shares. The price of these is currently about 46p & i can sell them if I want (like I would normal shares). The value of the shares is the rights issue price of 103p plus the value of the rights, so 149p or so. It is cheaper to obtain new shares via the rights issue than the market at present by 8p as the shares are priced at 157p
The market cap of the company is artificially low at the moment, because the new shares people currently see as Rights have not been included. This will correct once the rights issue is complete and the new shares can be traded
Backs up how close to the red line Cineplex were coming into the pandemic, not that Cineworld were much better - but they were not under an arrangement agreemnt
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/business-finance-and-corporate/ex-ferrari-f1-ceo-appointed-aston-martin-brand-chief
The only news of note for today, is that enough for 7%?
....Cineworld has to overcome both its own issues, and those related to the market as a whole.
Cineworld is knee deep in debt. Strip out the lease agreements and you are still left with $4.6 Bn, $1Bn of which has been to keep the company afloat over the last two years, and the rest is mainly the purchase of Regal. The debt funded purchase of Regal and Cineplex was a solid strategy (risky mind) until the pandemic turned the table
The first thing Cine have to do is to get revenue coming in - which is looking promising, though after two years of Covid you cannot blame the market for being skeptical about the future of the pandemic. The market is also concerned about streaming services impacting future revenues. For the film industry this is a race to the bottom and may well come to be seen that way, however do not discount that it could do even more damage before it settles.
There is also the prospect of inflation and rate rises. This could increase the cost of borrowing which will punish indebted companies, and make refinancing more expensive - which CINE would surely like to do when the dust settles. The market worries that an over reaction by central banks could cause a recession. In these situations people are less likely to take a punt on a risk asset. As the FT puts today the level of debt is such that it may protect CINE in the short term as the best way to make sure the debt is paid is to keep the company alive
To some extent this may help with the Cineplex case, as if CINE go bust they will get nothing. The appeal may also go in favor of CINE, not least in bringing the damages to a more sensible amount... though i dont think the case is by any means certain, the appeals court hasnt even accepted the appeal yet.
On top of all that add the potential for war in Ukraine.. that will likely send the markets into turmoil and energy prices through the roof with huge knock on effects.
All of which paints a fairly grim picture for CINE and the market as a whole. In order for Cineworld to rise you will likely need to see more favorable winds in a number of areas. Hopefully this will be the real recovery rally when much of this is passed - by which time it will be important for the court case to have been settled, as no doubt that this will keep the brakes on
Even then i wonder if it is too late, perhaps the real rally in speculative assets has already been. Buy the rumor - sell the news so to speak. There is also the prospect that CINE could drop into the FTSE 350 in a couple of months.
still, difficult to see this as great news
I have reached the point where, as a holder, I am also exhausted
I did exactly the same with Dune, to give instant access to this via streaming is truly a race to the bottom.
Imagine if Cinema didnt exist - what you give for a closed network, immune to copyright infringement, where people go out of their way to pay a premium to view your intellectual property
Apparently it's very average and plays on nostalgia too much
She notes that the judgement of damages is fair because the loss Cineworld would have suffered acquiring Cineplex would be in the region of the lost synergies. At one point in the trial she did pull up CW when they tried to argue away all but the smallest possible amount of damages, she also seemed unconvinced that the synergies could be awarded. Perhaps she awarded the damages because they were in her eyes a fitting amount for the losing party. I thought she left the door open for them to be reduced when she said that she could not discount the damages in relation to the debt that would have been taken on by Cineplex as part of the deal due to insufficient and vague evidence - so perhaps that will be the angle
My friend has it and says much the same. He has not been vaccinated assuming that he would have been immune from when he had Covid in Dec 2020. He says that this time he has a worse cough but he doesnt feel as bad and its not on his chest which would fit with what the early research says
Cinema won't got ****.... it's not as respectable as proper theatre with real actors dont you know
Its bordering on bizzare that this has come down to the synergies - I thougt these seemed the least likely part of the claim. Taken at what must be the highest possible value they have been awarded in full to Cineplex despite the fact they never cant to be, and would be of benefit to Cineworld post completion - never Cineplex in its current form.
If i was cynical I would say the justice wanted to award Cinplex something and she thought this the best option - she says as much "I consider the lost synergies to be an appropriate measure of damages ...... An award of damages on this basis would therefore put Cineplex in the position that it would have been in if Cineworld had not terminated"
So there you have it, Cineplex get damages for something that was never their own, that did not exist, and that the value of cannot be properly known because it never actually happened