Member Info for Couerdelion

Maybe I should have been clearer - It WON'T be to the liking of most on this board.

I'm looking at this as the likely source of my confusion yesterday that the SP would rise on the rumour of a deal but fall on the announcement. The logical conclusion being that the deal itself contained certain terms that suppress the share price more than the positive news of the deal.

I will have to reread the RNS and make my own judgement but the market looks as though it is pricing in a large risk of management helping themselves to profits after the event. Even on the gain made since the 2019 purchase, it's over 10% but that ought to be included in the remuneration agreement rather than settled after the fact.

I'm certainly not against the idea that managers are rewarded for their efforts but that's why these are aligned with the SP - hence the use of options as part of the salary package. There's big questions to answer here on governance.

LLOL,

At least from an NAV basis the transaction does create value because you get an NAV and cash benefit where none existed before. I would probably argue that the SP also did not take into account the value of this profit stream although this claim could be disputed and I doubt there could be any winner in that argument - so just IMO. But the decision to carve off a separate company is consistent with the goals of the company which is as an investor so operationally it makes sense that some of their subsidiary services should, quite rationally be separated so that focus on the different units is clear rather than divided between looking after investments and building a separate business services company for which there is clearly a market.

The mysterious £450k that seems to have appeared in our CEO's backpocket is big bugbear here. Where did that come from and how was it agreed? And where was this disclosed in any shareholder notification to be approved in a proper manner, particular when the realisation of the profit is - as you rightly say - redirecting revenue streams that were originally going to TEK. There is no mention of it in the RMS which suggests a lack of openness and nothing to say how the shares were paid for.

Of course if the salary package has a clause that gives the CEO 10% of any NAV increase, we can decide as shareholders if we agree with that. But one suspects that the share options he currently has are being generously repackaged as a free gift here.

Correction. The proceeds of the IPO sale are probably net of fees and represent the sale of 27% of the company.

TEK capital gets £1.5m cash and books around £4.1m of NAV for it's share of GenIP. So around 2.6p per share.

Where does the £6.5m come from if 37% of the company is being sold for £1.5m

I can see TEK made a little over £200k last year from these sorts of services which represented a little over a third of their revenue from services. There is an element of transfer of value into the new company but there's nothing I can see in the accounts that places any value on it so all that's really happening is that there are capitalising the value (at around £4m) of which £1.5m is being sold through the IPO.

Spin that how you will but I don't think we have been assuming any value in these revenue stress. It looks to me like they are getting about 2p per share from the deal.

So they've updated the website for GenAI but are still showing a 40% holding in LUCY?

I don't think they are doing the same thing. TEK is an investment company that nurtures start up tech companies. GenIP provides services to other companies, not ones necessarily looking for VC investment.

There are clear overlaps in the market which creates synergies within the portfolio and it might be the case the TEK were spending time in this type of work. But if that were the case, the hiving off of a separate business from within TEK makes a lot of sense so that TEK can concentrate on the investment side.

And I also like the extra money.

Price target of 873p

Maybe they just copied mine.

We are now marginally off the price it was just before the last dividend.

Well we are all guessing and the uncertainty is not doing anyone any favours. The arguments on WFT and Capex, will be for others better placed to make their case though I will still carry some of the risk through the investment even though I will be relying on protagonists who care nothing for me - such is the life of an investor but them's the risks.

Serica, at least, with it's pile of cash has options and it has the people well suited to exploit them should they need to adopt a plan B.

And yet is was still the closest :D

Now another step up to $8.5 and rising. Market cap of c$11.8m or £1.5m for TEK's 17% holding (=0.77p per TEK share)

If we assume that the higher special dividend is declared (at £4.83 per share), then almost all the sale proceeds will be spent - Euro1,800m on dividend, Euro350m on debt repayment and Euro134m on bonuses. Then based on the YE23 balance sheet there is Euro63m of net cash (or 0.17p per share).

Finally, there is the residual B2B business for which EBITDA guidance of Euro 200-250m was provide. Taking the middle of the range and applying a modest multiple of 6x would value this at Euro1,350m or £3.64 per share.

In total that's £8.64 per share after a deal that sold Snaitech at over 9x EBITDA.

Is there some significant detail I have missed?

I think we can all agree that the transition will cost a lot of money and won't progress at the desired pace. As for the impact on public finances, this is likely to be a judgement call by Rachel Reeves and I suspect she will understand the trade-offs. The political trade-offs is a tougher one to judge although I've long been inclined to think that the jobs will be the biggest clincher here - for the same reason you can't replace all the gas boilers by 2030, you also won't be able to transition oil workers into green energy workers overnight.

So expect a fairly balanced Autumn Statement. That is not to say that it will be to the liking of this Board - just not the armageddon scenario that some here fear.

Well I would hesitate to advise going over any limits you may have set yourself because there are always risks in overexposure. But you'll already know the stock is a solid long term investment so a lot will depend on your investment horizon.

Any evidence you get here could be anecdotal so bear that in mind. Based in London, I can only talk about the food side of the business where they are surprisingly good value for money and comfortably beat the "local" offerings of Tesco and Sainsburys both on range and price.

But If you've read through the accounts, you'll know as much as I do from the perspective of an investor.

Auctus removed both the North Flank and Anchois South from its risked net asset value (NAV) estimate and reduced the size of the Anchois development to 365bn cubic feet (bcf) of prospective resources. Anchois now accounts for 2p a share (risked) and 14p (unrisked) of the brokerage’s slashed sum-of-the-parts valuations of 8p (risked) and 43p (unrisked). Auctus reduced its target price 80 per cent to 8p and house broker Cavendish put its target price (previously 47.9p) under review, pending an update on the contingent resource estimate and clarification on the next steps in the project.

Shareholder’s attention will now focus on the group’s transitional power business. Chariot has received several offers of financing that should highlight material value in that business. The £19mn market capitalisation company raised $8mn (£6.1mn) of new equity recently, so is not in a distressed negotiating position. In addition, near-term testing of its onshore gas discovery in Morocco could lead to a fast tracking of gas to the undersupplied domestic industrial market, another potential positive share price catalyst. Hold.

Three more days like today would be nice....

But there's still the dividend!! Where else can I find a stock yielding over 17%?

Https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/content/2f3d69f9-af58-591c-b319-b1bc7142d21c