Member Info for casapinos

Biffa -another question then- as AFFM 's holding is classified as " indirect" what's going on there?

Biffa - and none have crossed a further 1% threshhold?

Chablard I am certainly in the dark .The share sale was described as "outside of trading venue"and was for a little more than 5% of HURs outstanding shares. It was closed on 19/07,so any organisation holding more than 3% or adding more than 1% to their existing stock should by now have RNS'd it. That hasn't happened , therefore my only conclusion is that the 110 mill shares have been acquired by a range of buyers none of whom have exceeded these limits(but who have acted "in concert") - I should be careful 'cos that's a phrase describing illegal activity! Or that they were , in fact, acquired by a market maker who is drip feeding them onto the market- tho' as a strategy that isn't working, with the market price below the purchase price(something which even the dimmest MM could probably have worked out!)
All in all its a bit of a mystery and one which either HUR or the LSE should be seeking to clarify.

WWGUK Right name - Wrong company!
From the guardian
" 25 Mar 2013 - Two of the City's most blue-blooded firms are to merge after Schroders announced it was buying its smaller rival Cazenove Capital for £424m."
I may be wrong as BE(of the FT)merely said "Caz"which might be a reference to JPM Cazenove, but strictly speaking the caz in JPM WAS(!) a stockbroker not an investment bank, so not clear which caz was being referenced.

i think Cazenove capital is part of the Schroders group- will check.

In the FT page referenced to, BE refers to "unlocking the $2.5billion revolver(not a weapon!!) from Caz"(ie Cazenove capital) that may be a keyboard slip , after all he is not so deeply interested in SXX as those who read/post here, or it may be a new piece of info.

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/marketslive/2019-07-24/

A daily roundup of the current city news, if you scroll down the page (its long!)to the entries from 11.51 onwards you will see the analysis by Liberum(SXX house broker and an explanation WRT bond pricing.
There is also an comment from Bryce Elder (BE)
" Suffice to say it won't be cheap tho, and that idea seemed to spook at least one equity holder this morning." Which may account for today's sharp fall.

Hi MJKI..... First may I offer a warm (if somewhat belated) welcome to the board to balance the ire directed your way by some. If, as I hope, you continue to offer your input , you will become aware that a balanced view is a not always welcomed by some here. There are though. others who will judge the content of your posts independent of your longevity or your failure to sing from the SXX hymn sheet.
Now to turn to the issues you raised.
I agree that there are concerns about the offtake agreements IRO their wide range, ramp up gradient and the economic strength of the counterparties (particularly those in China). I think SXX will be actively reviewing and hopefully reinforcing some of the arrangements promptly. For balance though , it should be noted that , at full sales run they represent a substantial portion of production , while leaving some for hoped for, higher sale prices.
The Gina issue is set out in RNS's of 25 Oct 2016 and 14 sep 2018 and boils down to a sum of $50 mill to be paid "once ST2 is settled"(I paraphrase slightly)and that the full sum of $250 mill is secured against the companies assets but this will be "subordinated" again as part of the ST2 settlement. Read the full RNs's if you want more detail.
As to where SXX stand IRO cash available I set out a simplistic view(based on the scant data available) in a post on 16 july at 17.09 which ,I suggest illustrates that SXX assets , at the moment at least , are adequate security for the bonds.
Accepting all that, I share your view that for the short/medium term and assuming a successful bond sale SXX is on more stable financial ground than for a long time and its prospects are sufficiently bright to merit investment.
All IMV only!!

Hi Craig8 The Kerogen shares don't need to "clear "the market as it appeared to be a private sale to one(or more ?)bodies who settled the transaction on Friday , and should , if they exceed a holding boundary, declare by close of business tomorrow......

As I suggested in my posts of 14 and 16 July, I believe today's RNS is based on the near certainty that the $500 mill. funding will be provided. The alternative would be catastrophic for sentiment in SXX and for JPM's reputation as investment bankers and I am therefore confident that JPM have all the ducks in a row.We can expect to hear that the offer closes in a very short time(ie a very few days)
As also anticipated their will be no prospectus and I suspect only the minimum of legally required detail will emerge.
That doesn't mean that today's SP bump will be prolonged but it does augur well for the Sp going forward.

Cranleigh It was a typo which i have corrected.
My point was that the wording suggests/states? that there will be no direct relationship between SXX and the bondholders.The security would be at one remove ie JPM would have a claim on the SXX assets NOT the bondholders.I am suggesting that JPM have deliberately structured it this way as they perceive a potential business opportunity to pick up a useful asset on the cheap.It also suggests that JPMs commision will be (or be supplemented by) the difference between the rate at which they " lend "to SXX and "borrow" from the bondholders.They are, after all, a bank.

Do you agree?

HI MYo I am a Matt Ridley fan, who I admire for having risen from being a Viscount to work as a jobbing journalist/author~!!
I have copies of "The rational optimist" and "Genome" in the bookcase to my right as I type.I think I understand the former a deal better than the latter!
As to doctor T I rely on his geological rather than oratorical skills.Probably just as well!

Kerogen's sale is a private sale "outside of trading venue"not through the market. The price obviously has a short-term effect on the market price, but that is to be expected for a sale of this magnitude. what is more significant is where those shares have gone, they wont be in the hands of a market maker('cos that's a week or two supply at recent volumes)but at ~5% if as I expect they have all gone to a single holder we will see an RNS very soon,. The name on that RNS is significant and may well have a major effect going forward.

Cranleigh for coupon read premium, then feel free to comment on the substance of my point.

Just to be clear , my post at 17.09 was intended to illustrate why I think the first bond tranche for ST2 WILL be successfully sold. As usual for me , that view is supported by the best fact-based analysis I can do , rather than misplaced optimism or hope. In the course of such analysis it is inevitable , and I believe sensible, to identify the risk factors, but I am currently invested here because I believe that the currently known risks are manageable.
Milo sets out the worst case downside and though that is a possibility, at this stage I think it remote(though recent market history offers several examples to support his analysis).
What Milo 's 02.33 post does , though ,is to illustrate the difference between a successful project and a successful investment, I am looking for the latter.
To change tack slightly I have re-read the 30 april RNS, in the light of Milo's post and am still puzzled by the following (slightly precised)extract
" JPM to act as initial purchaser of the initial bonds on a "best efforts"(my quotes) basis ......not under any obligation to purchase bonds for which they cannot secure purchasers !(my exclamation)
Translated in to English I reckon that means that JPM have sole rights to buy bonds from SXX and sell them on , only if/when they have a guaranteed buyer at a higher price , thus causing the end-buyer to pay both the coupon and JPM's profit margin.In that scenario , I wonder who has the legal right to seek redress from SXX if it all goes belly up, JPM or the end owner?If JPM they might just own a mine(or large part of it).

Hi Myo my typo , for which apols, my recent posts have been on this board and HUR , but all of the rest of the post is clearly relevant to my view of the SXX position and reading my recent posts on this board will make it clear that I have been reinvested here since early may and I am building a position on the basis that we have seen a short term bottom and that slow SP upward progress is probable in the short to medium term ,hopefully accelerating as funding on acceptable terms is established.
That doesn't mean that I am neglecting my other investments in what , I have always made clear, is a broadly based and predominantly cautious portfolio.
As to ratings, I think they are rightly treated with caution , they are generally provide by agencies at a cost met by the BORROWER and hence there is a clear conflict of interest - a conflict which many, myself included, believe lead in no small measure to the GFC of 2008. If you haven't already, I recommend some reading in that area , I am currently re-reading Andrew Ross Sorkins' "Too big too fail", which I commend as useful insight to the workings of the market during that time.
Largely because of such reservations about the reliability of ratings there is now a much greater dependence on unbiased, internal, fact-based research amongst potential lenders, and it is that I was seeking to highlight in my earlier post.

Scotman , HUR and SXX are different but then so are all investments , IMV the sensible way to spread risk is by diversification .I don't see one as intrinsically better than another nor do I have any emotional attachment to either, they are both IMV among the best current, high risk,high reward companies on the market and appear in that part of my portfolio planning.

Hi Cranleigh WADR I beg to differ,the potential worth of an unbuilt mine is hard to value , and is probably far less than the majority here believe(bear in mind that as we stand the cost of bringing it to production is still measured in the billions). The current shareholders investment would of course be worth zero, but I suspect Ginas royalty would be harder to shake.
I base my investing decisions on the verifiable rather than the speculative hence my analysis below.I also suspect that the bondholders view will be nearer to mine than yours!!

Hi Milo, as has already been pointed out the bonds to be sold are straight "senior secured guaranteed" bonds with no convertibility.
What your question did remind me, though, was that I had been pondering the question of "what SXX is currently worth?"ie what is the value of the asset against which these bonds will be secured, and its a question the putative bond holders will no doubt be asking, and its a question which fundamentally effects the investment case(both the bondholders and mine!)
So what is SXX worth - well one obvious answer is the market cap , around £1.1 bill at the mo.
BUT if you are to be a holder of secured bonds the market cap is useless,as that will quickly vanish if the company fails and you want your money , in any case you can't just ask the shareholders to give you your money back!, that's why shareholding is called limited liability
So the bonds are to be secured by "real" assets, cash in the bank or owed, plant, property, brand value etc.
In SXX case it looks roughly like this:

At the end of 2018 the accounts showed assets of roughly £1bill, of which £290 mill was cash,£670 mill was PPE (property,plant and equipment)and £25 mill was intangibles(mining rights??)
Against that was nearly £500 mill of liabilities(CB's,trade payables and Gina)
So to an accountant there was around half a billion of value in the company to pay back the bondholders , if all went sour.
Since then SXX have acquired about £300 mill from the placing and open offer and around £320 mill from the ST2 CB's taking the total up to ~£1.1bill, but they have spent a significant sum this year , the amount of which I cannot find any basis to estimate except "finger in the air"so i'll guess, £50 mill per month ie £350 mill .

The prospective holders of the bonds then are looking at a company whose liquid(ish ?)assets are maybe £700-750 mill diminishing by maybe £50 mill per month, but of course that is BEFORE the bond income, which , by definition is added to HUR's assets and when spent should add to the notional value of the company. So I think its reasonable to assume that the chances of the first bond sale succeeding are quite good, what becomes slightly more imponderable is that as real money is turned into a not yet producing mine, the plus side of the balance sheet does not rise in tandem with the minus side, but that's a story for another day and another post!!

HI DR BB Holding equity (ie shares ) is the highest risk method of investing because they rank lowest in the hierarchy when it comes to repayment, any other form of investment in a company ie secured loans , unsecured loans loans,convertible bonds...etc all rank above shares when it comes to divvying up monies left after a failure. Therefore an indirect holding ,of eg convertible bonds is a(slightly) lower risk way of investing . As the investment by Alken will be a fairly substantial bet , depending on which of their funds it is in , they have taken a brave, but not foolhardy step.
From looking at their website i would guess that they have bought for the GLOBAL CONVERTIBLE fund which does what it says on the tin.

This is a big bet for a relatively small "boutique fund "run by a guy called Nicolas Walewski (ex ENA -the posh french school which ALL major french politicians go to) . His fund Alken is UK based but Luxembourg registered .The holding is "indirect" so probably CB's? I will research more later today if I have time.