Member Info for casapinos

typo that 0 should be a close bracket ).

NO, this is the RNS setting up a "formal sales process", there are now two (at least 0 bidders and IMV it is now VERY likely that a sale of the business will occur. well done to all holders(assuming of course your average is below the current SP)

To be clear the Article citing a link to Elon musk is tenuous, the incubator fund mentioned(Gigafund) is supporting a dozen "blue sky" projects, three of which have Musk as a backer BUT NOT the mini-nukes proposal. The Musk projects cited are SpaceX, the Boring Company and Neuralink. Musk has no connection with Last energy, the company proposing the construction of mini-nukes. The quote attributed to Musk is in reference to the problems of nuclear fall-out from problems with conventional reactors. As is almost always the case the headline is an attention grabber which is belied by the content of the article. The scale of the proposed reactors is tiny and poses no threat to RR's proposals, which it seems are liley to be endorsed by Government in the coming days.

Two corrections - the Times article goes on to say that Oasis have held for over 2 years and have declared because of more stringent reporting rules under the possible takeover scenario, and
932...are you confusing RK's declaration of his personal holding with Sycamore?
See RNS on 1 April at 17.29 . The heading is slightly confusing but the holding is quite clearly that of RK

IMV the problem is that ALL the boards on this site are predominantly populated by holders and therefore a stream of positive posts appear. I too post positively on boards where I am invested, after all if you don't think a share is going to rise you don't invest!! BUT that means that there is a serious bias in favour - I try to redress that imbalance with the stuff holders don't want to hear . It is not a bad thing to be confronted with a contradictory view, if you listen and then conclude you are happy with your investment then good for you and I wish you luck ,if you don't listen......

Just a couple of points to explain why I pop in here now and again from my history.

"Hi folks as an investor here when the GFG reverse takeover took place in Dec 2017 I thought I 'd refer back to what I wrote then as a bit of context, (in the unlikely event that you want to read my comments for yourself they are available in posts between Dec 17 and Jan 2018.)
At that time the ARL (as was) SP was about 35p and the market cap~ 45m. GFG in effect purchased SUP (the Uskmouth power plant) and gave it to SAE.....
I do recall is that in 2018 I had an exchange of emails with John Collingridge of the Sunday times following his first? article expressing concern about the GFG empire and I flagged up to him that SAE was minor part of the GFG empire . At that point I sold(at 35p) and have not re-entered since."
That was Posted on 15 mar 2021, SP then 11.5p
"There is a business here ,but as ever no cash no prospects"
Posted 28 mar 2021 SP then 8.5p
So as you can see I have followed the company for a long time but recognised an impending disaster and exited.Since then I have popped in now and again to emphasise my concerns and hopefully to balance a certain degree of widely misplaced optimism. I will continue to do so in the hope that I can save a few of you from what I fear is a total and final meltdown.
That said for those who exercise their right to ignore me I wish you good luck , maybe, just maybe something can be rescued here, it's just that I very much doubt it.

Disclosure - I am not invested here ( and unlikely ever to be) tho' I held in the past pre the GFG fiasco and the interminable failure to make the Maygen project work consistently
A couple of points about the loan offered by Scottish Enterpise
First - it is a"non-convertible loan " which simply put means it cannot be repaid in shares or any other form of equity - that makes it pretty much a gift from SE , there is no disclosure of interest rate or repayment schedule, which IMV suggest SE know they will never see the cash again, this is a short term sop by the Scot Nats to cover, temporarily, another c**k -up.
Second, according to the last accounts I found (unaudited!- a massive danger sign!!!) the company is running at an annual loss of ~£24 mill ie the £ 2mill will keep them afloat for 1 month and yet they cite a date of this time next year to get a turbine in to the water (those of you more familiar can no doubt calculate how long it has been ashore) . How on earth are they going to keep going beyond next month let alone into next year?
Third, the elephant in the room is still there, a near defunct company with no liquidity holds a controlling interest in the stock , tho' the good(?) news is that that holding is essentially worthless.
As is always the case the viability of a company depends far more on cash than concepts and SAE sadly is desperately (IMV terminally) short of the former.
I look forward to a plethora of tick ups for my post !!

Chase are just following the Goldman Sachs playbook for entering the UK market, Goldman's Marcus accounts initially offered generous(!!) interest rates to lure in new business but soon reduced their rates. The logic is that bank accounts are "sticky" ie people don't change often, I don't think the challengers present a real problem to the UK incumbents in the short to medium term, LLOY have 26 mill customers, almost all in UK and most with a current account. From their latest accounts LLOY have £476 billion of customer deposits, all earning(ie costing LLOY) very little, so to put it brutally LLOY have no need to raise interest rates to depositors and will only do so if/ when needed.

LTI to be an effective pedant you need to ensure you have all the facts. A pertinent one relevant to BARC's recent SP fall is that they have just owned up to having sold over $15 billion more of a structured product than allowed by the US authorities - backing out of those deals will cost them over $450 mill. That accounts, in large part for their recent SP fall!

A further thought - some of the bondholders might have bought in the market at (well) above par and are thus not earning 7.6%, so perhaps LLOY's offer is more attractive for them. All else still applies, rates are going up but LLOY don't need to borrow - the public has substantial sums sitting in low interest accounts much of which will be with LLOY( a subject to which I will return sometime soon after some more research)

Today's RNS shows that Bondholders have offered £421mill of the 2023 7.625 % bonds which LLOY tendered for a few days ago. TBH I don't know why anybody with a bond paying over 7% would trade it in before it was due(with LLOY credit rating at the top of the scale they won't need 7%+ money for a long time.) .Maybe it is a sign that holders expect to be able to lend at much higher rates to other stable borrowers soon. What it means though is that LLOY's capital postion is so strong that they can retire almost half a billion of debt and have retired more than £ 2bill this year{approx haven't added it all up} and still fall comfortably within BOE guidelines(which I hear whispered may well be relaxed shortly). it also implies that the city and the US are positioning for a reasonably long period of higher interest rates , something that I am old enough to remember but many aren't.

From memory,LSE rules prevent companies from buying back more than 25% of the daily average volume over the previous month. I suspect the buyback programme was sensibly, going full steam ahead when the SP was in the low 40's and of course that drove the SP up so they are currently up against volume limits. As a holder, I am quite happy for them to lay off for a while and, if and when the SP falls back to ramp up again.

LTI.... When you were last there did you try an opium den?

RR's accounts (available for all to read!!!)show that last year " Defence" generated £3.3 billion of revenue (around 33% of the total) and an operating profit of £457 mill , so any increased defence spending could well have a significant positive effect on RR's income.

Or perhaps how the rules can be circumvented/avoided/manipulated ......
In order to recognise the above you need to read all statements from the relevant parties very (VERY)closely . take todays as an example:
in block capitals at the top it says
"THIS IS NOT AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF A FIRM INTENTION TO MAKE AN OFFER UNDER RULE 2.7 OF THE CITY CODE ON TAKEOVERS AND MERGERS (THE "CODE") AND THERE CAN BE NO CERTAINTY THAT AN OFFER WILL BE MADE, NOR AS TO THE TERMS ON WHICH ANY OFFER MIGHT BE MADE.
It also says

" it (ie the board)has received two unsolicited non-binding proposals from Sycamore Partners Management L.P. ("Sycamore") in relation to a possible cash offer for the entire issued and to be issued ordinary share capital of the Company."
Ie we've had a chat or two but neither party wanted the offer to be formal and subject to the rules 'cos that means we have to tell the punters and we really don't want them involved. It also means that the board were not obliged to tell Tosca and the other major holders who might want to take the deal.
One of the possible reasons why the board might be more reluctant than the shareholders are that (so far as I can tell) the board don't hold a lot of stock ie the CEO and other board members hold 33k each and the Chair 133k so the bids are not nearly as attractive as a continued salary of £578k pa for the CEO and no doubt commensurate sums for the other board members.
The likely next steps already being taken are, Sycamore and Tosca in conversation and if they are inclined to take the cash, Tosca having a word with the board (if you look at Tosca business model there is a vanishingly small possibility of them buying TED themselves- they are a speculative multi channel hedgie not buyout specialistsand of course they could have gone over 30% by buying stock at sub £1 for many weeks.
As most of you know Sycamore have , by the rules,28 days to "put up or shut up " although as it was TED who went public see
"This announcement has been made without the consent of Sycamore."
The board are probably hoping that Sycamore have been caught on the hop and won't come back with a higher bid , and judging from mrket reaction that looks quite likely.

Re granite you really need to read and understand what you are trading, it is a SYNTHETIC entity , designed to track but cannot be accurate and particularly when the SP is volatile (ie the only time you should even consider using it )it is inaccurate in the tracking algorithm. It isn't that they are crooks, it is that their customers are naive and greedy ,just what they want!!

Maryb ..yeah I may well return to hold here 'cos I do think there is a profitable business to recover slowly as there is with a number of retail names severely oversold.As you say anything in the vicinity of 100p is a good entry point, the business is near enough debt free, well-established name and despite today's flak ,a reasonably competent management and someday ( hope ) the world will return to normal!!!

See my post of 7.35 - it looks like the market agrees with me, a bid if forthcoming, is going to be, at best, 20% above the current SP, the risk/reward is now to the downside. I have cashed out.

The oddest thing about this morning is that RR did not put out a "We know of no reason........." RNS .

WADR Mary...I think you may be over-optimistic. The board aren't really in control here, Tosca, Thread.. et al have a near controlling interest and I have no doubt that Sycamore and the major holders are in tacit discussions. Those discussions will be about a takeout price that those holders will accept,and I guess sycamore have already got significant acceptances at or around the prices offered and with bids at 130 and 137.5 they are homing in on a takeout price between 140 and 150 at best. TBH this is a sideshow for Sycamore as they are also one of the prospective bidders for Boots at levels in the order of £7bill and IMV if they can't get this deal done at the levels I suggest they will walk. After all, there are a lot of other juicy deals to be done in UK retail.