Member Info for Carcosa61

If FitzWalter acquires shares taking it to 30% or more, this triggers Rule 9 (mandatory offer). A Rule 9 obligation takes precedence over the Rule 2.8 restriction — meaning:

They are required to make an offer

And can do so immediately, even within the 6-month period

The additional 25bps added peanuts to the debt burden; and given the fact Avation bought back that debt in the months beforehand they end up with lower actual cash costs in servicing that debt.

Even with the replacement bonds they have a $30m benefit arising from additional cashflow using the 'expensive' unsecured debt as modelled on my theoretical spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lbTIDZSy6C3H7LXpSLgow4JUzunuhSL2GZcWmxNJDXE/edit?usp=sharing.

The secured debt is only $300m, which is quite small in the grand scheme of things.

Whilst it is human nature to find hard reasons for share price movements, I'd more likely fall on the side of Rangeley exiting as being the primary cause of late, assisted with the mis-conceived implications of a slight market disappointment of the bonds; which in fact significantly stabilised and improved the credit ratings.

But in the 'real world' anyone who sold their holdings upon the bond announcement made a good call. The next good call is when/if they buy back in.

Avation is a complex beast given that in any given year either of the following items can be significant:

I. Core Operating Revenue: Lease Rental Revenue / Interest Income on Finance Leases / Maintenance Reserves Income

II. Finance Income: Interest Income / Gain on repurchase of unsecured notes / Gain on early full repayment of borrowings / Fair value gain on financial derivatives (Purchase Rights) / Interest rate swap break gain

III. Other Income and Operating Gains: / Recovery of Claims / Fees for Late Payment/ Deposit Released / End of Lease Return Compensation / Gain on disposal of aircraft / Gain on derecognition of a finance lease

For anyone to model this, I'd say its nigh impossible which is one reason why broker notes are traditionally all over the place and may as well be ignored.

To simplify matters, given its an asset company, I suggest concentrating on NAV, Aircraft yield/net interest and dividend yield. FWIW I calculate current NAV around 300p given the post FY events and exchange rate changes; aircraft yields are c12% which is at the high end for the industry and dividend yield needs to grow substantially.

Are their easier and better companies to invest in? Yes, for sure so I'd advise any investor to look elsewhere for now unless they have a personal interest in Aviation finance.

Clearly cheaper unsecured (Bond) debt would be advantageous but at 8.5% it's no big deal. The cashflow that is released by using unsecured debt makes up for the higher cost over 5.5 years.

For Avation, unsecured (bonds) debt primarily provides cashflow benefits. Having secured debt means:

- Much of the company’s incoming cash is locked up in making scheduled loan repayments—both interest and principal—rather than being freely available for other uses.

- Secured loans are often structured so that the loan principal is gradually repaid (“amortised”) during the same period that the asset is leased out, not necessarily the economic life of the aircraft.

Should be noted that major lessors have 80-90% of their debt as unsecured i.e. bonds

So, the more secured debt a company has, the more of its operational cash must be used to service that debt (interest + scheduled repayments). That means that after meeting its debt obligations, the company has less discretionary cash for other activities such as:

*Investing in new aircraft/engines,

*Paying dividends

*Covering operating expenses or contingencies

*Reducing other liabilities

With the pedestrian pace of fleet expansion over the coming years Avation will be awash with cash, and therefore able to make these large tranches of share buybacks following Rangeley et al's exit and indeed today they announced repurchasing the bonds that became active today is on the cards too.

Personally I'll be in a much more positive mind if there is a substantial increase in the dividend to the levels pre-covid.

Finally, consider the NAV. With current exchange rates and the post FY end events I reckon NAV is around 300p.

Sadly Avation is a complex financial business that happens to deal in aircraft assets. There are no equivalent companies on the LSE so I think for the average punter its just seen as being in the too difficult to figure out pile and gets ignored.

Other considerations for secured loans can include:

Restrictive Covenants and Financial Constraints: These covenants and restrictions in secured loan documents can "unduly restrict the leasing company’s or the airline’s ability to operate its business".

You mentioned that Avation has “massive debt.” That’s true compared with most businesses, but it’s normal for a company that leases aircraft. In fact, Avation has been steadily reducing what it owes. By June 2025, its total debt stood at about US$604 million, down from US$651 million a year earlier. Over five years, it has paid off more than US$416 million, and its debt now equals 54.8% of its total assets, a small but meaningful improvement from last year’s 57%.

The debt was not suddenly taken on in the past year. Most of it comes from unsecured bonds that are due in 2026, which were issued during a difficult time in early 2021 when COVID caused severe disruption in the airline industry. That refinancing was expensive but necessary for the company to survive. Management’s main focus now is on refinancing the remaining US$298 million of those bonds at a lower interest rate.

Lease rates have risen because demand for aircraft is high while new planes are in short supply. Avation’s average lease yield climbed from 10.7% in 2024 to 11.3% in 2025, and lease income rose accordingly. Older leases are still locked in at lower rates, so the company will only fully benefit from higher market prices as those older agreements expire and planes are re-leased at new, higher rates.

On paper, Avation reported a loss of US$7.7 million for 2025, but that was mostly due to non-cash adjustments, such as revaluing aircraft purchase rights. In reality, the company generated a strong US$91.5 million in operating cash flow, showing that its business continues to produce healthy cash returns despite the accounting loss.

The company is also growing again. It has ten new ATR 72-600 aircraft on order, with the first two already placed with new airline customers in South Korea and Cambodia. In addition, Avation holds 24 purchase rights for future ATR aircraft, which gives it flexibility to expand further if market conditions remain strong.

Avation has been selling aircraft profitably and using the proceeds to strengthen its balance sheet and reinvest in newer assets. In September 2025, it sold a Boeing 777-300ER for a US$4.1 million profit above its book value. Two ATR 72-600 aircraft sold in 2025 generated another US$3.5 million in gains, while an ATR sold in November 2024 brought in an additional US$1.7 million.

In summary, Avation still carries a substantial amount of debt, but it has been steadily paying it down while generating strong cash flow. The company’s fleet is fully leased, its new aircraft orders are progressing, and it has been selling older planes at a profit to help reduce debt further. If it can refinance its expensive bonds and maintain high utilization, Avation could see both stronger earnings and a recovery in its undervalued share price.

This is a secondary placing by existing shareholders, not a primary fundraising by Ithaca Energy itself. Ithaca, essentially, has nothing to do with this.

The sellers are Delek (52.2% owner) and Eni UK (37.2% owner) — all cash goes to Delek and Eni, who are trimming their holdings.

For the selling shareholders, it’s a way to release a small portion of their large stakes, providing liquidity and partial monetisation without a disruptive large-scale sell-down.

For the company, while it does not raise capital, the placing improves free float and trading liquidity

What’s likely happening here is not that MicroSalt (or its customers) are deliberately colouring “table salt” itself, but that the reformulated food products using MicroSalt’s low-sodium ingredient sometimes contain small amounts of colour additives to maintain a consistent appearance. Many of those colourings in the US are petroleum-derived (for example, FD&C Red 40, Yellow 5, Blue 1). These are common in processed foods—even in items where you wouldn’t expect them—because they help standardise colour from batch to batch and preserve the “look” consumers are used to.

So when the FDA suddenly pushed harder on eliminating petroleum-based food colourings , some of MicroSalt’s customers had to reformulate their products (snacks, ready meals, sauces, etc.) to replace those colourants with plant- or mineral-based alternatives.

Wise commands a premium valuation (~26.5× P/E, ~16.5× EV/EBITDA), reflecting strong growth and cash generation, similar to Payoneer. PayPal offers lower multiples (~14× P/E), suggesting value in a mature fintech. Western Union is cheapest (~8× P/E, ~3.5× EV/EBITDA) but faces legacy challenges. Block trades on mid-20s P/E with growth potential. Coinbase has the highest multiples (~66× P/E), driven by crypto exposure. Remitly remains unprofitable.

Overall, Wise needs to sell a good story about future growth and given the CEO's 10 year+ plan I don't think he is overly concerned about short term valuation as such but what is good for the business long term, as per the circular e.g. Pathway to US Index Inclusion and enhancing Wise’s brand visibility.

So other than a maybe temporary potential share price bump the real goal is years away. This is one for long term buy and forget bucket.

While the claimants are formally asking for shares, this may well be a strategic position — and cash would likely be acceptable or even preferable from both sides in the event of a negotiated settlement.

Cash is Simpler and Final. as it offers a clean resolution, avoids governance complications and potential further litigatoin from current shareholders.

Even if reinstatement is the formal legal remedy being sought — possibly to increase negotiating leverage — it is quite common in disputes like this for claimants to accept monetary compensation in settlement negotiations.

It would be preferable for Big Technologies to settle the legal claim with the former Buddi shareholders out of court. This would likely involve a financial payout from the company to the claimants, the amount of which would depend on negotiations and the perceived strength of the claimants' case; which is likely to be considerable. While a settlement would avoid the uncertainty and potentially larger financial risks associated with a court decision, it would still represent a cost to the company.

In addition to the claim from the former Buddi shareholders, Big Technologies has now initiated its own legal action against Sara Murray and the Relevant Entities. The potential outcomes of this claim are also varied. If the company is successful in its suit, it could potentially recover the diverted funds and seek damages from Ms. Murray and the involved entities.

However at this stage of the proceedings there are numerous paths that can be taken and further investigations to be undertaken some of which may lead to censure/fines by the FCA. A lot may depend upon how management deal with the situation. When the results eventually get published investors may have more clues as to the level of provisions they make and the associated commentary. Whilst the reputational damage is considerable the underlying business is sound and personally I doubt they will loose much business, if any.

If this goes to Court I would not be surprised if a resolution could take a couple of years. An out of court settlement might occur in half that time IMO.

Fortunately BIG has plenty of cash and adding to it.

The litigation could proceed to a full trial, culminating in a court ruling. If the court rules in favour of the former Buddi shareholders, Big Technologies could be compelled to purchase their shares at a court-determined price, potentially leading to a substantial financial obligation. A full settlement would probably not be associated with the IPO price in practice. The Buddi Acquisition claim was initially filed in 2023 and between IPO and then the share price was roughly around 270p so they could be looking at 139m in recompense before legal fees. That's absolute worse case IMO as it fails, for example, to take account of any company debt. A realistic figure IMO is 50m. Either way BIG would be seeking to recover all of that from Ms Murray.

Yes, it is surprising. When a company is under an active takeover offer, analysts are typically restricted from issuing or updating price targets. This is primarily due to the potential for conflicts of interest and regulatory constraints that aim to ensure a fair, orderly market environment.

For Equals Group PLC, under UK Takeover Code regulations, analysts are particularly cautious during an "offer period". The Code, discourages the issuance of new, speculative price targets to prevent undue influence on share price, given that the outcome of the takeover is still uncertain.

Analysts within the brokerage firms advising Equals (such as Canaccord Genuity) or any involved financial adviser typically avoid setting or updating price targets until the takeover process concludes. They may only report existing targets or comment on general market conditions without new recommendations. Additionally, any commentary issued would have to clearly disclose any potential conflicts, ensuring that no unfair advantage is conveyed to specific investors.

So, while official commentary is allowed within these limits, brokers generally refrain from publishing updated price targets to adhere to the standards of transparency and market neutrality.

It would be interesting to actually see the broker commentary to see what it says and by who.

Interesting observation that the PUSU has 'only' been extended by 21 days rather than the usual 28 days. I do not believe that's a regulatory requirement. With rose tinted glasses it may infer a real offer to be announced in a couple of weeks?

Is that 'Payload' not referring to ESA’s Advanced Research and Telecommunications Systems (ARTES) and/or Almagest Space? Very limited volume? May have cross-over use to Starlink perhaps?

OT: The mass retirement of older Starlink sats launched in 2020-2022 continues. 83 are now down, with 69 more on the way down.

NB: Potential investors should note that Filtronic do not provide any hardware for the satellites themselves.

MDB reserved the right to re-bid and have restrictions in Rule 2.8 aside should a third party bid occur. However, note that the consortium has not actually made a bid yet. That may come later.

To date there have been nil shares traded on OTCQX since W7L made their announcement about being able to trade on the platform. However there are only 214 shares available anyway. https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/WPNTF/overview

Equals booked Professional and advisory fees incurred on the strategic review of 0.656m by 31 Dec 23. No doubt that rate of expenditure has increased somewhat.

I would say the placing failed. They only got a small portion away. Now they going to have to think hard about what to do tomorrow morning for the Retail offering. Maybe 32p?

Vox Interview: HTTPS://www.voxmarkets.co.uk/articles/q-a-with-supreme-ceo-sandy-chadha-9a2f973/

In summary:

Supreme CEO Sandy Chadha discusses the company’s strong financial performance, future prospects, and industry trends in a Q&A session.

Highlights:

- Supreme’s adjusted EBITDA nearly doubled to £38 million, with sales up 44% to £225 million.

- Despite regulatory uncertainty, demand in the vaping industry remains robust, with a shift towards pod systems anticipated after the ban on disposable vapes in April.

- Higher margins are expected with reusable vape cartridges, with plans to manufacture them in the UK.

- Supreme is in a net cash position, considering options like dividends, share buybacks, or strategic acquisitions to utilise cash (preferred option).

- The company’s other divisions, including batteries, lighting, and sports nutrition, are performing well, positioning Supreme for continued growth

I wrote extensively about DNA3 here over the years.

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=24434&sid=2b3f9d1f5d1ac007e541a7018804f8db&start=80

TLDR: Minimal upside.

Under typical aircraft leasing conditions a lessor has to return the aircraft back to the lessor in accordance with the re conditions set out during the commencement of the lease. This is normal almost boiler plate contract clauses. Essentially all the original equipment has to be placed on the aircraft e.g. aircraft engines/APU's would have been placed on other airframes during the normal course of business so they have to be removed from wherever they may be and re-installed on the lease aircraft. This also applies to other components eg avionics etc although there is some room to accept equivalent parts as these may not be life limited. Typically the interior/seating has to be returned to a particular standard. These latter issues may have a cash element payment as, for example, the interior will be impossible to return to original condition.

However the aircraft must also be returned in a serviceable condition with a pre-agreed minimal life expectancy and here is the rub. Often the aircraft will have to undergo a 'C' check which is a major overhaul taking several weeks. Additionally the engines must be to a minimum engine modification standard and will almost certainly have to go for a shop visit. This means in practice to return an aircraft to the lessor may cost the airline $20-40m.

However having an aircraft returned to the lessor implies that the lessor will be re-leasing it to another operator. Unfortunately this cannot occur with A380's as there are no customers for the aircraft type so its just going for scrap, in which case the potential recovery is largely based on the materials irrespective of its serviceability. Therefore a 'happy' medium is for the lessor to offer the airline an option to pay them a certain cash payment ($12m) and the airline 'saves' an unnecessary expenditure of $8m - $28m.

Should be noted that an airline would start to plan an aircraft redelivery to the lessor around 6 months or more prior to the end of the lease and the likes of Doric are informing it's investors they have formally issued a side letter for the $12m and whilst it has not been formally accepted its almost certain, given the timescales involved, that the airline intends to sign the side-letter.

Hope that helps.