Member Info for Couerdelion

If they give a huge chunk of this money back to shareholders that would probably be my trigger to leave (or sizeably divest). I'd be looking for grander aspiration for where they are going to take the business - perhaps an acquisition.

That's not to say they should not pay a dividend or buyback shares. But both would suggest that the growth opportunities are limited.

I'm gonna sit and see where this goes for now but it will be interesting to see how this affects the strategy as this is more than half of the business they are selling (also the highest margin) and represents virtually all of the B2C business.

Left largely with a B2B business a third of which is the Mexican revenue that is still subject to a legal dispute, it's going to leave a very different business albeit one with a lot of cash. So the question would be how they intend to use that.

While it is hard to resist keeping an eye on the SP, I tend not to get too worried about it given the yield available. Simply asking myself what price I would sell at tends to come back with 700+ levels where it is still trading at an 8% dividend yield.

Anyone know what it is that is creating this momentum? It's rapidly approaching levels where I might consider getting back a little cash but sense this could run and run.

Doing some quick sums in my head here. Anyone looked up how much it was valued in their accounts?

If you think of LGEN as a bond proxy then you don't value it that way. Instead you look at it as an income stream to be valued at an appropriate bond rate. Or maybe expressed another way, you can get 9.5% p.a. here or perhaps 5% on high grade debt and sub-4% on government debt. On that measure you are getting risk-free plus 5.5%

Applying the 9.5% discount rate to the cashflows will always get you back to the dividend yield. Better instead to measure the uplift you get to the income stream and judge how reliable that might be.

The only difference is the price you paid and the capital losses you're sitting on. Knowing how loss aversion works, I think you might be happier sitting for a longer haul before choosing to divest. But ideally you will ignore the price you paid and only assess the investment from the perspective of what it is worth and what you might be able to sell it for.

In your position, I think I'd hold but it all depends on personal circumstances.

Why do you think I am a pessimist? I only quoted your earlier post about getting in at 50p. I too am exposed more than I would like and waiting for some limited opportunity to recoup a little cash. Probably luckier than most on here but my average purchase price is a little over £1 and I think I might shave of 10% if it pushes into the 90s.

Understandably you may be a little upset that the shares didn't drop to 50p. There'll be other opportunities to buy cheap - ie tomorrow.

I think they understand this fairly well and I don't think it's the economic illiteracy you view it as. Yes it's a sequestration of property rights but it's not new and governments have repeatedly adopted forced purchases to meet policy goals - usually for roads and railways but not exclusively so.

Not that this makes any contribution to the SQZ board. But I've mentioned that before and got accused of holding all sorts of left-wing ideological views when all I wanted for serious discussion on the company which I would like to make some serious money.

Plenty of people on this board have made the bet that there will be a softening of the implied threat to the industry. The market seems to be agreeing that it was a fairly good bet.

For my part, I'd rested my hopes on the arguments of the workers. The loss of tax revenue is one thing but add into that the loss of income tax and increase in benefit costs and Reeves will come to a pragmatic solution.

At least that's my bet.

Allowing for the options, that's about right. After repayment of the bridging loan, the company will have around £8m cash from the maximum fund raise, for 66m more shares, with a further 71m of options likely to raise another £14m (average strike 20p).

The Australian investors would get around half of the company by paying c18p per share which is what we can get now (albeit without the downside protection from the options).

That's a very simplistic summary which rather glosses over the value of the options available to Australian investors. But there's a good chunk of cash flowing into the company.

Not that this is the last of the fund raises.

Next landmarks - CEOL update end August, Fund raise in Sept, Samples to off-takers in Sep/Oct, Reserve assessment Oct, PFS by end year

Hard to understand how 15p is a strong sell, while 14p is time to fill your boots.

Just because they are part of a remuneration does not mean they don't represent skin in the game. All that differs is that the upside would form part of his income on exercise rather than a capital gain.

There's a case that far-out-of-the-money options would create little or no interest in the share price but that would be pointless as a form of remuneration. Some options near to maturity might also take this form but ones agreed recently would not.

Not sure on the technicalities but it should make no difference. Dividends don't get paid on shares held in treasury so if the dividend pot is the same but 10% of shares are in treasury, the dividend paid to non-treasury shares will be 11.1% higher.

Yes, pennylots does make some very valid points. The main point is that the IRR figure of 27% excludes operating costs so do need to be factored into any valuation. Some presentational form might help to explain how much these costs reduce the overall ROC or perhaps we could start to lose some of the "old" information to allow us to assess the more recent experience rather than a one that, were it to dip, would still remain high because of historic performance.

But still the costs will only reduce the return, not bring it down to single figures. As such, the cashflow point is as much a feature of circumstances that a big payday is expected soon. Debt is only high if returns on capital deployments drop and/or expected cash receipts fail to emerge. If it all simply hinges on the YPF valuation, then that's part of the risk we are taking here.

Dividend day today which means dividend reinvestments are starting.

Can anyone explain to me how the trades are working? There's plenty of buy trades that appear to be made at similar prices. Does this suggest there are lots of people in the background trying to offload stock and that the buyers are simply picking up a large block of assets waiting to be sold?

Perhaps optimistically, but I'm expecting this to break out suddenly once it's clear that there's money in them there hills.

Depends what they do with it. But they can't choose what opportunities become available so it might be they retain a large chunk of assets for future firepower. Probably pay off a chunk of debt though and maybe a sizeable share buyback.

Nothing like a downturn in the economy to trigger a few legal cases. But not sure they want to go anywhere near Elon Musk's latest brainchild.

I think the valuation of these sorts of shares are driven more by gilt yields than BoE pronouncements and you're perhaps forgetting the immediate aftermath of the decision to cut rates took place across the Atlantic where expectations of rate cuts shot up with the release of new economic data. Couple this with the secondary impact of the unwind of various Yen carry trades and you get the sell off that largely took everyone down - no matter how closely related they were to the trigger events.

Not sure that the markets have fully settled but I think we can expect the price to continue drifting back to levels we were seeing before the dip in yields. Dividend yield here is still nearly 6% higher than the 10yr gilt yield which I think is quite a generous premium for the risk involved.