Member Info for Couerdelion

Anyone see anything unusual in the Board resolutions for voting next week? Nothing stood out to me as worrying

I say another piece in the Times today which gave a little more history of PTEC and it's dubious governance. It makes it look more like a scam than a publicly traded company with a dubious Asian holding making it even more dubious.

I'll wait for the best time to exit my position, having fortuitously sold down over 50% of my holding over the last few month. I will be voting against the Snaitech deal and/or the remuneration proposal - which I believe will be tied together. But I can't believe the LSE allow this sort of dodgy governance to go unchecked.

...but here's my take.

First the placing. Dilution of the shares (c 15%) at a discount of 25% is, at face value, only a loss of around 4%. My guess is that the market will overcompensate for this because they know some people are getting the shares for 11p. And at the margins, why would people be able to sell at 12p, when others are buying at 11p. Those more familiar with these sorts of markets will perhaps be able to explain why there might be a disconnect between the placing price and the opening SP.

Next the loan notes - I'd missed the fact that we'd passed the 3-mth deadline for redeeming these at 15%, so now they are costing 5% per month (or around £100k per month). The next capital raise will need to reflect the higher cost.

The charge is more concerning because this now shifts the balance of ownership more in Regal's favour. In extremis, they might be left owning the company to the expense of the shareholders.

Which brings us back to the ASX listing. Unless there is a plan B - which I doubt they have the time to do - this is the defining moment. The withdrawal recognises that the new listing price will be lower and may have to raise more money so the dilution will be greater.

Might be time for a tactical retreat though whether you'll find any buyers is anyone's guess.

There is no good way to spin this news.

Latest from Simon Thompson

https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/content/e66c59e1-e4e8-54ee-8d24-2b64239856b1

No mention of the institutional selling here. And rather modest expectations of copper expansion in the current FY.

It's not clear yet what costs GenIP will have but around $1.2m a year will cover a lot and there is plenty of potential to expand that revenue.

Valuation of GenIP is anyone's guess - it could easily be worth $50m - so those first set of results will be eagerly awaited.

I understand that notification comes if you breach the 5% level. Though it wasn't clear to me that Fidelity were selling all their JLP or just the stock held in one of their funds.

Not that I worry about institutional selling - more value left to PI's who don't have to sell.

This looks like it might be related to employee share options. Not all that different from a buyback scheme except that the shares bought on the open market will be given to members of the share option plan.

At some point, the discount to NAV has to narrow. Maybe not completely, but the value of the company cannot totally ignore the underlying value of it's holdings or value it on a fire-sale basis.

GNIP listing was a smart way to recognise value within the company and, as much as the muted response of the markets to the IPO, it raised a decent sum to put that company into funds which will flow back to TEK over time. SALT is still in doldrums but we are now looking forward to getting some external financing for Guident.

I think the market is realising that the recent drops were a bit of an overreaction.

Did we establish if Fidelity owned over 5% of the shares prior to their sell off? I believe we would expect an RNS if their holding fell below that level which you give us rough guide to when they would have sold all their holdings.

The SP feels like it is primed to surge at any point, but the weight of selling seems to be endless. Fortunately, the board tone is much more upbeat after the recent news and we are in the unusual situation that almost all holders are feeling bullish about the prospects. I'm trying to see the flaw in the plan but simply can't so will be topping-up/averaging-down again tomorrow.

One of these days I will build my own more detailed pricing model for this stock. But that's for forward planning - simple back of the envelope calculations work just as well.

It was covered in the Times too. Seems like the new bonus sharing scheme is giving managers up to 10% of any shareholder distribution from future deals.

But apparently it needs 50% approval from shareholders.

Let's just say that I am a much more aligned to the Hartley argument than the Happer one. There are far too many problems in my mind for me to accept the premise that CO2 is not harmful in the quantities being produced and there is sufficient evidence to date (at least to satisfy me) that those effects are emerging quite rapidly.

While unable to dispute the physics, I can at least quote Planck's principle.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ..."

I'd perhaps not put too much weight on the 300k tons of copper potential. It's there as a possibility but there's all sorts of hurdles to get before it is even realistic and there are costs and operational risks to overcome to get even close to that number. But from today's position we'd be happy with 25k tons in the not to distant future and if started looking like 100k was realistic, we're all laughing.

Even after topping up on Friday, I can see myself adding to my position over the next few weeks if Fidelity are still unwinding their holdings.

PHNX is interest rate sensitive as it is often seen as a bond proxy. More precisely, it is sensitive to the yield curve rather than BoE base rates

Clearly I will need to find a spare hour before I will be able to look at that in full. And even then I doubt I will be in any position to counter the specific arguments although it appears to dispute the central claim that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will have the warming effects that most members of the scientific community believe. You argue that these others are guilty of groupthink but who's to say which party is most prone to that risk. As a member of the public jury on the matter, I will naturally tend towards the majority view of scientists on the matter.

Even if I am wrong on the matter, there is a more practical view to the matter - what if the science is broadly correct? You don't have to be a climate zealot to believe that global warming brings significant threats that will bring huge costs to the world economy - a brief perusal of the WEF top-10 threats shows many of these. Those threats will be exarcebated by any realisation of the global warming projections so a pragmatic approach now is to take out some insurance against those threats by acting now to reduce CO2 emissions. Now that insurance is not cheap but it is far cheaper than the costs of dealing with it afterwards. It will pay for itself if there is just a 10% chance that climate scientists generally are correct.

In short, you can doubt the majority view of the scientific community yet still believe it makes sense to pay now to bring CO2 levels down - well before we are down to net zero we will know more about the effects and costs of global warming.

I don't think it is simply a case of increasing the dividend. If the company is better served by reinvesting profits into the business, it clearly believes that there is a better long term profitability from this route than in returning money to shareholders. If they are right, there's simply a deferral of income now for higher returns later.

There are plenty of high dividend stocks that are also very good value if this is what you are looking for. Jet2 is at the other end of the scale although it does require a certain level of trust in management and the Board.

You might perhaps read it. For all the arguments you can raise about comparisons between NAV and MCap, the selling price currently showing cannot be far from firesale prices of the value of the underlying investments.

And the facts don't change even if you might want to question the motives of the author.

Unless you really believe the stock is going to dust, this is clearly too cheap now. I topped up earlier today in the expectation that the market will rerate as production ramps up as promised.

Legache, it's not stupidity but it is a lack of understanding, and I would be willing to bet that some of it stems from a refusal to accept a fairly simple premise on the basis that it does not suit them to do so. I won't repeat that here because it will fall on deaf ears but the arguments raised against climate change here are astonishingly weak - whether it be dickupham complaining about the rain and local cooler temperatures (longer term cooler temperatures in the UK is perfectly in line with the latest climate projections) or Sharksaber suggesting that climate change is a function of energy usage (when anyone with a basic knowledge of physics will know that this is a small fraction of the heat that we get from the sun).

Most importantly, I don't think they accept that the data is genuine. And without that there is no basis of serious conversation about the future.

Very little of this has much to do with the price of SQZ - though local tax will. And risking drifting into the political, the carbon capture investment might arguably be necessary but it is VERY expensive. I see that aspect as virtue signally on the part of the new government and probably another misstep on their part.

Why would quarterly dividends help? If you know of any financial companies that do this, please let us know.