Member Info for casapinos

Giant.... WADR your latest post is ill-informed nonsense, you can clearly read the accounts but equally clearly don't understand them.The positive NAV you quote is entirely due to the company's own estimate of it's PPE which is it's property plant and equipment. If ,as most informed observers expect it ends in being wound up , or at best taken over, neither outcome would result in shareholders getting 12p per share, indeed the new owners if there were any would write the assets down to a value near zero for future tax purposes as would the liquidators in order to find a buyer.
You say "the company has producing assets" , yeah, they are producing an £11.6 mill loss per half or about £23 mill per annum-and they had less than £6 mill in liquid assets, ie enough to meet about 3 months worth of bills.They cannot keep raising finance at ever lower valuations , the well will, if it has not already, run dry.
One other point you can check from a rereading of the last half's accounts is the line entry for share capital, ie how much has been invested over time in it's shares, that figure is £197 million , current market cap? £10 million.
I post this not to make fun of you but to alert you and the others who read this board that the market assessment of SAE's prospects is based on the realities in this post not the misplaced optimism in your last twenty.

ULVR have sold most of their tea interests to CVC for 4.5 bill euros, they have retained the fast growing tea interests in Asia where sales are rising (see last results) but sold off the european interest where conventional tea sales are falling. In the light of increasing concerns about the wages and conditions of tea plantation workers this is a shrewd deal, the costs of tea growing and picking are certain to rise and the economics of tea are becoming harder . ULVR retain interests in "posh " teas, green, camomile etc which are becoming more popular .Relatively small beer(Geddit!)but a sign of a responsive management shuffling the pack to good effect IMV.

Giant ....remember that in your list of holders most of them are brokers holding PI investments in SAE, eg Hargreaves, interactive, Canaccord,Andy Bell, Halifax, almost none of it is Institutional money. The last sentence of your post (though taken from the SAE website) is at best misleading , at worst dishonest...

Gwm the answer is simple - there is a belief that the sum of the parts will be valued at more than the whole, the same logic is being proposed for a number of conglomerate -type companies , BT,RDSB,GE, J&J.Unfortunatley the evidence will only be available a few months, or more after such splits take effect!

Poker.... there is a pattern at the mo. of conglomerate business being under pressure to split , in the belief that the parts in aggregate are worth more than the whole , see RDSB, GSK , in the US it's GE, J&J ....In a sense it doesn't matter in what proportion, merely that the sum of the parts exceeds the previous EV of the whole. As shareholders we may have the chance to hold all of the parts or less if we choose , for me it's a wait and see ,or maybe cash out if the SP rises more than I judge is appropriate before such division occurs ,or if I'm sitting on fat profits- my perennial investing fail is premature evacuation!.

Cheap... oddly the A shares have traditionally been more expensive than the B shares because they rank higher in the hierarchy but lately they have drifted down , the gap is likely to close to zero before the simplification takes place . Whatever happens there will be no opportunity for the sort of arbitration you are describing , the markets are not that stupid! If you read up you will find that the other issue is the B shares liability to Dutch withholding tax , so don't think there is a way to make an easy profit!

Given the likely bump the latest Drahi news will give the SP I would guess his agents have already got their options in place for execution in December. I expect news of the next stage of the Drahi plan to emerge before christmas.As I have said before it cannot be a fully fledged takeover, nor can it be Openreach falling into foreign hands , thus I'm guessing a break up with maybe EE floated off to fund the full fibre rollout? sale of football tv rights? (see today's suggestion that the US broadcasters are willing to pay ~$2bill for the next round of premier league matches)still v positive for SP in the medium term.

Char it is normal practise for a company to appoint an intermediary to buy back stock up to an agreed amount within an agreed timescale. In effect Shell pay from revenues, for the shares held by other institutions which are then cancelled, this has the effect of reducing the share base and thus means each remaining share owns a very slightly larger part of the company. In terms of the cash , it comes out of Shells bank account , goes to an investment bank who buy from a broker (having taken a small percentage for their trouble), the broker gets the usual "turn " on the difference betwen buy and sell price and the shrares effectively disappear.
As an aside the US Gov. has recently implemented a 1% tax on share buybacks which will either generate enormous sums or lead companies to find an alternative (many of them pay almost no divis)

Another 22 mill shares issued today(about an additional 3% to the shares in issue) at a heavy discount to the SP(circa 1.3p?)and the predictable result, another 7% down. I am sure someone who holds here can work out how many shares have been issued in the last year or so , the average discount and the full effect of dilution(10%, 20%, more?)The company's IP and expertise may be worth something but financially it cannot survive in this form.
For those of you who hold it is now IMV too late to sell , the likelihood of a white knight is a slim but only hope.

Todays fall is an inevitable and logical response to the BOE inaction. All bank's Net interest margin(NIM) is a function of the base rate, the higher base rate the higher NIM and profits made by banks . A simple calculation , let's say banks expect to lend at X and borrow (ie pay interest on account) at X-10% call it Y . when X =1, Y=0.9, when X=5, Y=4.5, exactly the same in percentage terms but five times as large in absolute terms,thus the market knows LLOY profits will be smaller for at least another month and maybe longer.

interesting pice of research, see
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/11/211102210150.htm
but as ever having the right answer is useless without the funding.

I suspect that a number of investment banks have psuedo -long positions in BT on behalf of Drahi, remember he went (apparently ) from zero to 12% overnight!

Update.Reading comment on BP's results today sheds a little more light on Shells reported derivatives losses .
Bp ' s account s reveal a similar loss and this sentence from an analysts commnets is significant
"The adjustment relates to a hedge on higher gas prices which would unwind in the event of falling prices or the delivery of cargoes."
I have been thinking (yes I know it's hard but sometimes there is no alternative!) I speculate that what may have happend is this:
Shell as a matter of course know that their revenue is directly related to the price of their outputs -oil and gas and so high prices equals high profits but when prices are low the reverse is true , so their derivatives team may well have cfd's which make profits when prices fall thus "smoothing out" their cash flow. If as seems likely they were caught out by the sharp and so far sustained rise in gas and oil prices then lots of theses positions are in the red, hence the losses. It is reasonable to assume this will not happen again, they will have adapted to the current prices , at worst moved up the positions to higher levels or maybe just decided not to play against the rising tide.

Never .....we know that the two major elements in the latest results to reduce profits were the pay down of debt and the derivatives losses. The first is easy to understand, the latter less so and in truth we won't ever know exactly what these losses are , but I offfer the following possibilities
Shell have a large trading desk for all the commodities they produce and they do two things , one is to seek to smooth profits by eg agreeing long term contracts to supply at fixed prices or maybe prices with up or downwards movement depending on, but not as much as the fluctuations in oil and gas prices.The other is to make profits based on their superior knowledge of the markets and production levels.
Misfortune
So it's easy to imagine thay they had deals in place to supply oil at $50 per barrel when the market price is $80 ,so a notional loss or maybe they had a deal to sell from the gulf and couldn't meet the contract due to Hurricane IDA damage and had to buy from other suppliers at $80 to meet a contract fixed at $50 so a real revenue loss.
Incompetence
They just didn't anticipate the sharp rise in oil prices and had CFD's or futures positions that went bad.I haven't trawled through previous accounts but there may be many postive contributions from tradingto offset these negatives
Opportunism, they may have lots of positions in profit and many showing a loss and they decided now was a good time to close the losers , take the hit and leave themselves with winners to declare when the eyes of the world aren't on them.
To repeat, these are suppositions , the real reasons will remain commmercial in confidence .

Just to clarify
Drahi does not need to hold 30% of BT to make a bid , his only current limitation is the 6 month period since he formally committed not to bid.He, or anyone can bid from a standing start but that is not such a good idea as they lose the inbuilt advantages of buying a stake at low levels and of driving up the value of their existing holding.In any event he is wise enough to know that there is no chance of a bid for the whole of BT being acceptable to HMG .
He may be able to convince BT to hive off EE, sell TV rights or even to split Openreach in to a separate Co. all of which IMV(and probably his) would instantly add value, but a straight takeover is not, because of the current security scares WRT the security significance of Openreach, on the cards.
As we saw in June Drahi (or anyone else ) can assemble a stake without alerting the market , using the dubious but legal methods of taking up options with other players who acquire < 3% stakes(ie not notifiable). The most likely evidence of such activity is an increase in volume(there is some evidence of volume growth lately but that may be no more than a rise from slow summer trading) or SP(significant rises from here might? indicate such activity)
Whatever his plan ISTM that he clearly has one and it is intended to make him money , as an incidental it will do the same for all holders, so iIam happy to wait and see, it may not be long!

I have had in the past close connections with hedge funds and without divulging too mucch thought I might set out a chapter of their "playbook"applicable in almost any situationbut aprticularly here and now.
Hedgies know that for various reasons the major players in the UK market are undervalued, so
they buy a stake.
Then they choose one or more of the standard arguments and write to the target company (and make the contents public)to hopefully stimulate action or at least a degree of market excitement , and a rising SP.
The standard list of possible actions inclued, but is not limited to , the following
Suggest managment changes
Recommend breakup,spin off, merger,takeover of, or by, another
Take on debt, pay down debt, rights issue, consolidation, other financial engineeering,
List in another territory , delist, simplify listing structure, add or subtract share types.....
Enter new business, sell off parts of businesss, create diffferent divisional structure....
The list is extensive and any or all of the above serve the primary purpose which is publicity, analysts who have ignored sleeping giants suddenly wake up and think "am I missing something" and even if not ,show they are on the ball by re -appriasing the target , maybe raise forecasts, agree or disagree, but most importantly TALK and WRITE about the company in question.
Hedgie sits back , throws a little more fuel on the fire occasionally and waits , at worst they can exit with a minor profit , and a reputation as an insightful, hard driven business, profile advanced....at best they see a real fundamental change and short term bounce and fat profit or longer term holding in a much more highly rated company .......easyyyyyyy!

It looks very much like the Shell accountancy dept realised that blow out figures at a time of a tax raising budget would not be a good look so they have massaged the figures by taking a major "fair value "accounting hit on their gas futures contracts,see page 20 of todays RNS. I have no doubt that when the economic consequences of Covid begin to clear that Shells results will begin to reflect the significance of the sharp and prolonged rise in fossil fuels . I have held here off and on for decades and am sitting at 60% up on my average (remember these shares were available for under a tenner for a couple of months last year).Following todays results I expect a more considered view to emerge from analysts over a week or two and hence I will not be selling and expect a divi stream of ~5% pa (and a couple of specials) and price stability at worst , more likely a slow rise into the mid twenties , and I can wait for years, not months if need be.

Yesterday in the US it was announced that RDSB had acquired 248 retail fuel and convenience outlets from the landmark group. Some on here a few days ago mooted the possibility of Shell paying down debt with their excess profits, ISTM that they may well choose to continue to service low cost debt while utilising cash to migrate (slowly ) away from dependence on oil .
In other news, todays FT has a piece suggesting that the last few years of worldwide reduction in fossil fuels prospecting and development means limited supplies and a long term period of high oil and gas prices.

Boyo.. one last comment on this as I don't want to continue a back and forth exchange overlong , BUT, the model implies a parabolic curve and estimates were/are based on that ,the outcome over the last thirty years is essentially a steady gradient ,(see nasa again)still concerning, but current evidence supplied by those most concerned implies sharply lower outcomes than they originally projected and which are still widely promulgated.

bald.... I reread the 1990/92 to see how accurate the predictions were.
I found that broadly they were significantly out, ie
Temp projection 0.3 degrees per decade, actual 0.57 in 3 decades(source nasa figures)
Sea level projection 6cm rise per decade, actual 10cm in 3 decades (also nasa figs)
So I extrapolate those to suggest that their 3 degrees warming by 2050 and 0.5 metre sea level rise by the same date are, shall we say, unlikely.
As an aside the Uk co2 output has been falling pretty steadily for those three decades and is now 40% below the 1990 figs so the issue is essentially one for China, India, US, Russia and Indonesia who make up half of the worlds co2 output(also todays FT) behind paywall else I would link.
I am not King Canute (indeed nor was King canute if you know the full story!)I am merely someone who bases his judgement on the facts and has an optimistic view of humankinds adapability and ingenuity.