Member Info for casapinos

Cliff I think you've got the apostrophe in the wrong place (and there's a K missing!!!)

Hi Looking at....(the Ronson book about using the paranormal to achieve objectives???)
The investment case derisking depends upon the completion of the production shaft . That work has been suspended until next April. It will only re-commence when /if SXX can raise $600 million . The terms for that raise will be extremely onerous, after all it is high risk money with the prospect of no return unless the second element ,$2.5 billion is forthcoming.To my mind that is still a significant hurdle.I Disagree with your view that " the investment case for the $2.5 b required to complete the project is excellent..." it is part of an inverted pyramid of debt balanced on a relatively tiny market cap.
I have made my views clear, I will leave the board in peace for a while

HI Fred,and thanks for a response free of personal abuse!
I post here to try to balance the company view which is and perhaps should be, that all is well and we will succeed, with my experience of the realities of investment, business finance and the ruthless nature of the City.It is important to try to extract the truth from the verbiage of company output (and SXX are no worse than the rest). Far too many here take the RNS's and presentations at face value and that is a sure fire way to lose money. Close scrutiny (really close)is an essential part of an investors armoury and analysis of the numbers not just the words is important.
I know that my input here is unwelcome to some ,but I try to steer clear of relentless, unsupported negativity. Nevertheless, in the interests of balance, and I hope better information for the less experienced investors, I will still pop up now and then with a view. If it changes I will be along to say so. In the meantime good luck!

Despite the volume of posts since there are few , if any, which IMV note the important pieces of information provided.
My initial scrutiny(focused on the finance rather than the engineering aspects) highlights the following :
from the RNS " Development work on the production shaft has now been suspended"
from the presentation "development recommences on 1 April 2020"
The former stage 2 funding has now been split into two packages , one of $600 mill and a second of $2.5 billion, so two hurdles to overcome not one . Despite the apparently sensible engineering tweaks) the total spend is almost unchanged(see slide 21) and the company still require ~ $3 billion to complete the project.The capital savings are eroded by a combination of additional funding costs and longer duration of management costs.
Production (to end 2025) in the new scenarios falls by either 8.6 or 17.5 million tons(see slide 21), and revenues accordingly.
Without knowing the discount factor applied(though it has to be very low and dependent on low inflation for the next decade) it is impossible to confirm the company's figures for NPV, BUT at face value the minimal differences shown in slide 21 seem highly improbable.I fully expect a correction to be issued at some point.
The initial scope funding (of $600 mill)is being sought from a"strategic investor" and "financial investors" and implies an entirely equity or equity -like solution.That means a sum of double the current MC in equity now or deferred equity via warranted debt - the effect of that is for current shareholders to hold only around 30% of the company once this funding is achieved.
The only good news is that the company's survival in some form is possible and that , if all goes well for the next twelve months , the possibility (no more than that)of project completion still exists.
I will not be re-investing here for the foreseeable future.

Lady S (is that appropriate? It's ages since I addressed a member of the aristocracy!!)
In accounting terms it would be beneficial if the SP stayed low until the CB expiry date,it would also help if the SP was flat for the period as SP volatility is one component of the accounting calc. In real financial terms if the SP was at or even below 40p it would mean real money for HUR and LTH's as CB holders would have lent at a rate somewhat reduced because of the prospect of capital gain which CB holders would fail to realise. SO if LTH's can bear it a 40p(ish) SP until july 22 followed by a pronounced spike is the optimum (if highly unlikely ) scenario!!

Jiffy....The company's accounts are required to calculate the implied loss of converting the CB's to shares, if the CB holder requires. AIUI the consequence of this is that if the SP rockets the "cost" to the company of issuing shares to CB holders increases in proportion .
As a very crude example if the SP was £1 then as CB holders convert , they collect shares at 40p which the market values at £1 ie implicitly the company is losing 60p per share.
As ever its not simple to value the cost of this implicit loss on a day to day basis but there is a calculation in note 15 to the accounts if you care to pursue.As I think AS is suggesting, its more of an accounting convention than a real expenditure because of course the company issues the shares at nil real cost but at the cost of some dilution to existing shareholders.This is to a significant degree offset by the accompanying fall in the company's interest payments, so is broadly a positive in every way except the notional presentation of the accounts.

Woolvers ....In which case I suggest you start ignoring Yahoo.com, you might be better advised with the FT or Morningstar or MSN . BUT also you need to distinguish between significant holdings in the hands of brokers, investment managers etc . As an example the FT figures have Hargreaves Lansdown as the largest holders with almost 10% ,ALL of those will be held on behalf of PI's

Woolver... sorry but that's nonsense , a check on the FT website shows top ten holders with 36.56% of SXX .But even then most of those are holding on behalf of PI's . The real figure for II's (on their own account ) is probably well below 20% and that is the root of SXX's problems. Almost all of the buying in the last month will have been II's "topping up or " averaging down" or "taking a punt". there is no evidence of II buying at these levels

Myo re your post at 17.01.The facts are correct , the interpretation is flawed. That SXX market cap. is about 25% of its perceived assets is a huge red flag.Many companies have come unstuck because the accounts record assets which are worth much less than imagined,see recently Thomas cook,Patisserie Valerie,Conviviality(in which I invested and lost money"!!) Accounts are a somewhat artificial construct , a picture frozen in time and based on what was paid for a good rather than its worth.
The market is telling us that whatever SXX paid to acquire those assets ,the WHOLE company is worth much less, distressed companies, and surely all here recognise that that is a fair description of SXX ,cannot command a price equivalent to their assets . Most functioning companies have a price:book value of much greater than one, after all the purpose of a limited company is to make its assets worth more than they cost. otherwise why bother ?
The PPE (property , plant and equipment )is second hand, specific and could only be sold by a distressed seller . At a rough guess 25-50% of cost is its value.
This is why SXX fund raising prospects hinge on its market cap not the perceived value of its assets.

HI Fred, All gov departments carry on as near normal as poss. during an election period BUT because of "Purdah", they are not allowed to make or announce any decisions that could be construed as political, therefore there is no possibility of any announcement WRT SXX until after an election.(I had a spell working for a senior minister back in the Thatcherite days- not my favourite job!!!)

SEE

"LONDON (Reuters) - Private-equity firm Kerogen Capital is seeking offers for its North Sea business Zennor Petroleum from a select number of bidders with the help of U.S. investment bank Citi, industry sources said."
Kerogen wholly own Zennor , valued at $500/700 mill, producing 5000 boed, ramping up to 35000 boed by 2023.
I wonder what they're going to spend the money on???

I keep repeating it, because so few seem to understand, shorters generally take a balanced position , such that a SP move in either direction is profitable. In SXX's case that is a short to hedge a CB position or other "swap" (see citi), in Tesla's case it is probably short the stock with a matching Dec. 270 call(the position I hold), ergo SP falls close short and take profits, SP rise, sell call and take profits.
Its investing, whereas holding a large, uncovered, speculative position in a single stock is gambling.

I think the contract is merely a reflection of "winter" and "summer" rates.

Max " He was a she ...... hey babe , take a walk on the wild side!! "

SXX is NOT a private equity buyout contender. PE buy companies with revenue and recurring costs, ie retailers, service providers etc etc. They strip out costs, borrow based on the revenues , pay themselves handsome dividends and at a propitious moment when the accounts have been "tidied up " read , massaged to appear positive , they sell out a highly leveraged company in a legacy niche to foolish investment managers. See AML, AA ,SAGA,,,,,,,,

OK so it's the daily Mail not the FT .BUT the article specifically says "Fraser told the Mail..." and it puts some paragraphs in quotes which implies that theses are CF's own words not a journalistic spin.Assuming that to be true the CF is highly likely to be censured or worse by the appropriate powers, anybody who doesn't think this is "market sensitive" should watch the SP on Monday morning. I don't do short-term SP price predictions but those who do can start at down 30/50%.
Quite what CF was thinking is impossible to fathom, he has created a situation , if it wasn't already there, of offering a fire sale of SXX and its assets at a price somewhere between the current SP and zero. Remember "taking private"excludes ALL the big miners who are public companies. There will be no bidding war and if such a private sale occurs I have only one name in mind.
This sadly is the end game for SXX in its present form and for the assets of all current shareholders.

lovelyboy Remember the vote is share -based so its the total number of shares voted for or against a motion that decides it not the number of shareholders who vote either way.Having said that, it may be that SXX is the only company on the main market where PI's hold a majority.

Scotman I think motor racing is a waste of valuable resources and never drive over 70 MPH - though I have to confess that 30 years ago I was done for doing 33 MPH in a 30 zone ! Bitter? you bet I am!!

Sorry Lost but your view is at odds with that of all the investing community save for the army of PI's many of whom read or post here . The evidence I call in support of my view is the trajectory of the SP in the last twelve months.I think I get it well enough.
Gotta go I'm cooking .

Lost.... you are technically correct, but in truth the book value is now irrelevant , at the last half year report the Assets were (allegedly ) £1.6 billion of which £900 mill were PPE[how much of the kit on-site do SXX actually own? and what are the assets which are allegedly worth almost a billion pounds?, it is clear that the market has a fundamentally different view of what the company is worth.] and £350 mill was cash, the cash will be all gone soon, the £320 mill of escrowed cash for CB's has been returned and the PPE are now clearly valued at much less than they were then. I therefore based my post on figures which which reflect the REAL situation, not what the last accounts show, and that they are not too far from the assumptions being made by prospective lenders, and the ratios I set out are the reason why the SP is in low single digits. It is impossible for rational investors to assume that SXX CURRENT financial position can support a debt anywhere near what is required.