Member Info for casapinos

Sbuild The share will relist and the price will be determined by the market, on that and subsequent days . Scroll back to my post of 22 dec for a summary of the factors which might affect the Sp after relisting, but note that it's no more than moderately informed guesswork.

JL 5006 -the answer to your question is whoever has a vested interest, ie the builder , the guy who sold him the bricks, the brickie he can't pay unless he gets the money ,the landowner the house is built on who the builder owes half the house cost to, the builders bank who he owes �500 to..........No company collapses without taking down , or severely harming, their customers, their suppliers,their landlords, their shareholders.......all of whom have an interest in preventing the chaos that ensues and who would prefer to avoid it.

Eb and muller As an investor here , post most of the chaos(I make a habit of catching falling knives)and without wishing to pry into your personal or business affairs , might I respectfully ask if you would be willing to spend the time to set out your concerns about CVR in more detail, ie issues , extent, timescales etc .EBI read that you are owed �1 mill, how long due?what is CVR's response?what do you/can you do , are there realistic alternative suppliers etc etc........ Many of us would , ithink be grateful for a view from the front line , i know i would welcome some clear insights . i promise from me at least there will be no name calling, gratuitous insults or the like . information, however unpalatable is what allows us to make investment decisions. thanks at least for reading(if you do !!)

The placing price will be whatever the co. could persuade investors to agree to, ie somewhere between 1p and the current SP.As the buyers of the placing shares are likely to be many of the existing large holders, they must balance the dilution of their existing holding against the benefit of "cheap" shares in the continuing company. From the sum quoted there are crumbs of good news, ie the amount is a "deck-clearing" amount meant to ensure the continued existence of CVR and eventual recovery of the SP, the existing II's are coughing up more cash rather than folding the co and squabbling over the assets so they believe this is a temporary "cock-up" rather than a market-driven long-term failure of the business model, and presumably they are happy with management's ability to extricate themselves from the mire. There is also little doubt that the placing will succeed, the money is already pledged and the "book-build" will be over in hours or even minutes. So the company will survive, the Sp will recover , patient holders will eventually see returns even if they have to wait some years. As to figures - who knows ? eg a placing of 185 mill shares at ~55p would double the shares in issue , lift the MC to around �285 mill and arrive at a return to market SP of about 80p not allowing for a "bounce".The placing figure could be steeply lower which obv. effects the Sp - we can only wait and see.

At suspension CVR's market cap. was �185 mill, if they need to raise �100 mill then on re-admission the MC has to stay at or about �150 mill, raising more than, or close to your market cap in a rights issue is likely to fail.Therefore CVR. returns to the market with an SP of 80p or more or the co. goes under. They will no doubt be canvassing their big holders to ensure that a market return with a price holding between 80p and �1 is on, or its goodnight .Given the implications of failure for the booze trade, I expect them to survive and, eventually recover .

Sbuild good find, so far as i can see the main bit of "new" news is the suggestion that the third unit at Uskmouth could be commissioned ie a 50% uplift to the revenue and ebitda "guesses" in my feb post. Obvs more expenditure but shows a growth path ex all other possible developments.

There appear to be at least two distinct screw ups here- the �5 mill adjustment to EBITDA referenced in the 8 march RNS and now the failure to "accrue " the �30 mill payment to HMRC. The former is permanent ie less pre-tax profit for the year and maybe for subsequent years if it proves to be a trading rather than book-keeping issue.The latter is , it appears, a bookkeeping error , I cannot believe that the co. was unaware of its liability to HMRC or that it was not reflected in the accounts, but what has happened is that it was not accrued at the time the liability occurs, ie end of tax year. Todays RNS suggests that covenants are not a problem and that amended accounting still leaves the company solvent and trading at a profit , albeit lower than previously forecast. Nonetheless the co's reputation has taken a battering and return to the market will likely bring panic selling exacerbated by algo trading clearing out some II positions . FWIW I shall hold (and when the dust settles may add)on the basis that the co's market still exists, its retail network is intact , it clearly has a customer base and sometime in the future it will recover or be taken out . I accept that alcohol consumption may fall but not precipitately and CVR can still sell and profit from it.

I am usually a cautious investor but I bt a few of these this am . Reasons revs �1.6 bn pa, narrow margins,EV about �300 mill, so either they recover (with a rescue rights)or they are taken out by a bigger retail player(TSCO,WINE?)at a premium to my ~110p average.

TYPO - 220 mw per annum.

The doc found by Pc contains some extraordinary plans and huge ambition , talk of a market cap of >�1bill is at odds with where we are now , remember at suspension the MC was~�44 mill. On re-admission the market cap should rise sharply as the companies assets will have more than doubled in value as will the shares in issue, but see my post of 22 dec ,even the most optimistic estimates suggest that the MC will be <�200 mill and the cost of getting Uskmouth up and running is another �200 mill which will require an equity fund raise and borrowings . So lets assume(what follows are wild guesses for illustration purposes only!!) that 6 months from now ARL have raised �100 mill in equity, eg sold 200 mill shares at 50p and another �100 mill in debt to fund Uskmouth they have 18 months to spend that cash and get the Uskmouth power station converted and running on waste pellets to produce 22 mwh of energy pa . At that point.the company will have 450 mill shares in issue and at a SP of 50p, a MC of �225 mill+debt of �100 mill.I estimate from the figs offered that Uskmouth will generate about �80 mill of revenue pa and maybe �20 mill EBITDA That makes the business sound, just about profitable, with a PE of 10-12 . However the latest doc suggests that this business will also be in the running to bid for projects of �400-500 mill , DOUBLE the size of the business in a couple of years , so they must have enormous faith that their "big brother" is going to keep on pumping cash in , in the form of more equity (and less for us) or "soft loans" In summary , i still think the prospects are bright, but holders must be prepared to cough up a similar amount to their present holdings in a fund raise, to retain the value of their shares and to accept that the growth might accrue predominantly to GFG rather than to us.

HI Baht I vote you post as much as you like on any subject you feel is relevant. It's up to us whether we read it and whether we accept it , we also have the ability to challenge, disagree or ignore.The more info we have, the better informed our decisions can be- this is not some third - rate university where we won't listen to others points of view!!

HI striebs, I agree that the era of fossil fuels has some time to go , but there are a couple of other points to make, First MBS the de facto power in SA ,is a young man, who is setting out a program for a generation or more , by which time the world will be a different place and within that timescale diesel and petrol usage in motor transport will have shrunk enormously. Second SA is a "one trick pony" they have lots of oil and little else so any transition to a balanced economy will need the time afforded by oil consumption to taper rather than fall of a cliff. You may be right about motor transport but the future has a habit of getting here faster than you expect and to rely on long term oil use in vehicles is to risk almost everything if you are SA Finally I think you underestimate the role of Nuclear, a look at China and India's rollout program suggests that nuclear as baseload backup for renewables may well be the standard model for the world's two most populous countries. Predicting the future is tough but i repeat my belief that SA are actively preparing for a world in which the use of oil in land transport diminishes sharply and seeking strategies to ameliorate that outcome. If MSAR is a part of that we should know relatively soon.

Hi folks (very) infrequent poster here but do hold some and have been doing my usual new year review of all my holdings.My major conclusion is drawn from looking at SA , primarily from the POV of future oil prices but as a side issue it is clear that while SA recognises the pressure on the POO as the major driver of its finances and is looking to diversify - they are also looking at ways to extend the life of their oil reserves and FWIW I think they may go big on MSAR.If crude is losing market share in electricity production and in motor vehicles then shipping is an obvious area in which that can continue to sell their product . The environmental issues mean that MSAR can become their saving grace in a large market.

The "admission document " which will set out the structure and describe the assets and business plan of the "new " atlantis is scheduled for the first quarter 2018 , the LSE suspension will be lifted on the date of publication.Interestingly that suggests that there will be time for investors to trade before the takeover goes to a vote at an agm, and , as the share is predominantly held by PI's (with the exception of a couple of local authority pension funds)I could imagine a bit of a speculative flurry in the intervening period as some short-term traders try to make a quick buck . I expect that shareholder approval is pretty much a foregone conclusion so , once the initial dust settles, the share may drift (at a sharply higher price than the suspended level) until news of the power station conversion firms up and engineering progress is made . I do wonder how much of ARL's manpower is going to be absorbed by this new development and whether other tidal activities night be put on the back burner , though hopefully with Maygen generating power nad cash in the meantime.

Sanjeev Gupta (ie Mr gfg) has just agreed to buy an aluminium smelter in Dunkirk from Rio Tinto. It is the latest part of an acquisition spree which includes half of ARL. It now seems clear that he is positioning himself as owner of a wide range of metal manufactures, has plenty of cash and is in serious expansion mode . Seems likely that he may fund the development of the ARL project at Uskmouth himself rather than seek external loans. If , as i suspect , that means relatively cheap cash for the project , that bumps up the NPV . I am inclined to think that the return to market of ARL may be nearer the top of my previous SP estimates than the bottom.

The Notz Stucki sale looks like transfer. They are a part of the Sterling empire, so its more of a rationalisation of a significant holding under one umbrella. As sterling's holding has been ramped up - now>13%, we won't have long to wait before they declare their intentions.i suspect a break-up/asset sale/takeover is being engineered.

tahmoor coalmine !!(see FT ) in Oz which suggests that their intention is maybe less about a move into renewables and more about security of energy supply for their steel-making businesses. Puts a slightly different slant on actions here but does illustrate that they have cash and are spending.

While it is impossible, at this stage ,to know whether the proposed deal will complete and if it does what price the stock will be on readmission there are ways to make estimate(or is it a guess?) At face value the transaction consists of GFC getting a half share of the "new " company which will consist of ARL's previous IP and assets which the market at suspension valued at £45 mill and a power station(previously valued at £61 mill) with long-term raw material supply and delivery contracts aimed at producing and selling 220Mwh of energy to an adjacent steel mill. So the new company will have assets valued at £106 and around 250 mill shares in issue , therefore based on assets, an SP of 42p BUT The power station was loss-making on closure in April(?)revenues £72 mill, losses£5.5 mill and will presumably be intended to make a profit on reopening and in the recent interview the phrase "highly accretive " was used, so maybe we should revalue the power station when functioning at , say a 30% premium eg £79 mill ,hey presto new SP(45+79/250) = 48p BUT If we seek to value the power station on an NPV basis(ie the current value of a future revenue stream, after accounting for initial costs)my rough estimate(based on the figures drawn from the assumption of a 1.35 interest cover) is an NPV of £154 mill (ie 61p for the power station alone, but lots of caveats to that!) Finally we could assume that a company with around £150-£200 mill in debt, is likely to need a market cap similar, or else debt ratios would be unacceptable to the market, GFC will know this and must therefore assume a market cap of ~£200 mill ie SP 80p All of this is pure estimate/guess work even though it is based on the published figures and could well be wide of the mark. In general terms the move is likely to be SP positive because of the association with a big co. and the apparent strategy of creating a fairly significant revenue stream in the near(ish) future , a broadening of the opportunity base and the city endorsement implied by the funding. Comments(and criticisms) welcome!

Hi Folks - I have now read through this morning RNS and offer the following summary (factual) and observations (speculative). The transaction essentially means that ARL are paying around £44mill , in the form of an all-share offer for the Uskmouth power station, currently closed, but which last year was valued at £61 mill , with a revenue of £72 mill and annual losses of £5.5 mill . The plan is to redesign the power station at a cost of £200 million to generate 220 mw/h of energy by consuming pelleted fuel manufactured adjacent to the site by N+P from around 1 million tonnes of (household?) waste per annum. The output will be contracted to GFG for a 20 year period(probably for steel production by the related party GFG) with " a minimum contracted cash flow" The costs of conversion are to be met by "medium to long-term senior debt" and an equity raise for "working capital" On the face of it this is an enormous leap in scale by ARL . What is currently a £45 mill MC company is embarking on a £200 mill "Fixed price, date certain turnkey project" over less than 2 years to meet a 20 year energy supply contract. .In addition ARL have an offer to make "a number of acquisitions from the GFG alliance(funding?)" Clearly without the shelter of their new and significantly larger partner this would be a non-starter. So much for the facts now for the speculation- for ARL to be able to raise £200 mill of "senior"ie relatively cheap debt the presence of GFG is essential and I cannot help but suspect that , if all goes well, ARL will be subsumed into the GFG empire within a year or three. The reasonably good news for current holders is that the takeout price will be above yesterdays close and may be several times that. GFG's stated aim is to "create >1gig of renewable energy in the UK within 3 years" ARL's IP may well contribute to that but ARL as a discrete organisation is now less likely. All just my opinion/ surmise.

Just skimmed the RNS - out of the blue! First (very rough) thoughts The new merged organisations of ARL as currently exists MC ~£45 mill and a functioning pellet-driven power station(in 2020) generating 200 mwh per annum earning~£10 mill pa profits (fag-packet). value of the lot ~ £100 mill. So on the face of it looks positive , existing shareholders would own half of a £100 mill co. rather than all of a £45 mill co.Implying a ~10% uplift in SP on re admission. BUT lots of other implications all to complex to analyse yet.