The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
" You can always guarantee a labour government will tax everything and spend the money in the wrong places."
And there's me thinking we had a Conservative government! Tut Tut!
Should also include this company and technology in your research.
Kalina Power is a power company focussed on delivering value to its stakeholders through ownership of the Kalina Cycle® Technology.
The Kalina Cycle® Technology utilises waste heat generated from industrial processes, such as petrochemical, steel or cement making, to produce electricity to supplement the purchased power requirements of the manufacturing facilities, thereby reducing the plant’s overall operational costs.
The technology can also be used to generate power from renewable energy sources such as geothermal and solar thermal.
"Modern electronic exchange mechanisms ensure that differences in the stock prices (arbitrage) are closed in milliseconds. "
Not true. See BEM quoted on AIM and on a Swedish exchange for example.
Arbitrage opportunities occur because market participants have a differing view on an SP, exchange risk, and the supply / demand availability of the underlying share in the market.
It is however correct to assume that eventually the arbitrage opportunity evaporates - but this is over time and not necessarily in millisceconds
Correction
27.3%
The value of their holding equates to 30p of the 155.8p of their NAV.
They hold 23.3% of HURR's issued shares.
It does not reflect the cost of acquiring those shares
RB
See Articles of Association and take into account the following.
AIM Rule 26 which governs companies listed on the London Stock Exchange’s AIM market.
Takeover Regulations
Tremor International is not subject to the UK City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the “City Code”) because its registered office and its place of central management and control are outside the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. As a result, certain protections that are afforded to shareholders under the City Code, for example in relation to a takeover of a company or certain stake building activities by shareholders, do not apply to Tremor International.
Israeli Law
Tremor International is incorporated under Israeli law. The rights and responsibilities of holders of Ordinary Shares are governed by the Articles and by Israeli law. These rights and responsibilities differ in some respects from the rights and responsibilities of shareholders in typical English incorporated companies.
Clearly the various UK companies acts do not apply to Tremor
I think that resolves the issue!
My understanding is that TRMR, as an Israeli company, operate under a different set of rules to a UK company.
I also understand from my limited research that it is not necessary for TRMR to seek prior approval of shareholders if the company wishes to buy back its own shares.
Now whilst it would seem perverse to raise capital in the USA, by issuing the IPO shares, and then using the raised capital to repurchase shares from the UK market, the repurchase would forestall the current activities emanating from the USA. This would benefit all shareholders, wherever they trade.
Happy to be corrected and for Ofer Drucker and the Board to “earn their brass” by authorising a large and immediate repurchase of shares on the London market.
I await the future RNS that this has occurred.
“,,, require the Fund to "formulate proposals...to reorganise, reconstruct, or wind up the Company.”
I rather think that the fund will be restructured as part of a reorganisation of assets!
The problem with a total wind up” of the fund is that the quantity of shares delivered into the market in order to monetise one of the shareholdings is very likely to have a detrimental effect on the market and share price. Unless, of course, the sale is “out-of-the-market” to another investor at a price that reflects the current share price – or with a small premium. Note the problem faced by Woodford – late of this parish
CA could of course distribute all its share-holdings in specie to individual CA shareholders and allow them to make their decision to sell or retain. Messy, but a possible option.
Alternatively, as part of a restructure, CA could create a new fund and choose to place selected shareholding or shareholdings into that fund. Again, this would have to reflect the current share price. Proceeds from this particular transaction, and other disposals, would become available for distribution when the fund is “wound up” after 30 June 2022.
Problem of course is financing the transaction! For example, if one of the investee companies had a market cap of say £84million and CA has a 25% shareholding in that company then CA would have to jolly-up £21million to finance the initial part of the venture. Obviously, if more of the current investee companies are retained, or new ones identified, then more finance would be required.
Would this be a problem to a management that has successfully created wealth, in the past, for the shareholders?
It would appear that many of CA’s shareholders were content to continue but are now faced with receiving wads of cash in the second half of 2022. What might they invest it in?
Well on the 30 Sept HUR’s contribution to the NAV of a CA share valued at 152.85 was 21.7p!
I leave the future speculation and calculations to others – as previously stated we live in interesting times!
LTT Fri 1226
Your contribution “Interesting read about Hurricane, their May 2021 presentation about the wind down of Lancaster. It would free up the BlueWater FPSO from June 2022, of course the timing would be off for us, but looking at the Lancaster field they have a small footprint, just two producing wells that were producing 12-14k barrels a day. I think currently they have only one well online and they have discovered they reservoir is highly fractured, hence they plan to possibly shutdown production and terminate the contract with Bluewater if they cannot come to up with a smaller extension to keep producing.”
Hurricane specifically set out to exploit the fractured basement reservoir of the Lancaster field. They certainly did not discover that it was highly fractured after drilling and that this fracturing was problematic. One well is currently operating at c 11000bpd. The contract extension negotiations for the Bluewater FPSO continues. That it was not extended on the original contract expiry, and that the previous BoD produced a presentation to wind-down Lancaster was, allegedly, a fraudulent scam by the BoD to deprive shareholders of their investment. The matter was settled in the Courts when the shareholders won. The non-executive members of the BoD resigned before they were sacked at a scheduled EGM.
I find mis-information unhelpful so I thought you might like to be corrected as the basis for your arguments lack credibility if they are based on information.
AGM 22 November - which I believe is this month - except for those who reside in last month / Hull :-)
With regard to Saba Capital Management I rather think that they might have had, as yet undisclosed, a change of mind regarding their intended action, as promulgated in the 25 June RNS.
Hurricane, although it might not look like it at the moment to everyone, are an attractive investment / acquisition opportunity. As stated in CA’s RNS today, and commented upon on the Hurricane BB, the previous BoD need to be held to account for the losses of approximately US$111 million. These losses are equivalent, according to CA, to more than 4p a share. Furthermore, the tax losses and allowances, which would feature in the event of a corporate transaction, are equivalent to 56p a share. That’s 60p a share of value and whilst that might not be reflected in any offer for HUR it is reasonable to expect a large percentage of that figure - which would be a multiple of today’s share price.
An investment in Hurricane at the time of the Saba June letter looks very different from how it can be viewed today. Particularly once the CB issue is dealt with, at maturity or before. Indeed, as CA comments in the RNS “… the Fund believes that Hurricane's prospects have been transformed.”
So, as a Saba investment decision maker, would it be justifiably sensible to continue and crystalise the CA fund investments, given CA's achievement with the Hurricane investment and the future prospects of that particular investment?
If CA were to wind-up their fund the market would have difficulty in redistributing the Hurricane shares – leading to a substantial fall in the SP (see Woodford, late of this parish). The investment would have been abysmal and despite the past profits on the investment of £43million, a return of capital c£10million might only be possible. This might be very much less than the overall amount invested overtime.
Of course, Saba might have someone in the wings ready to take these shares as part of an acquisition strategy – but would the other shareholders and the Oil companies allow this to happen?
The CA SP at the time of the letter was c100p today, four months later it is c115p. The NAV of the fund at the end of June was 146.81p per share and at the end of September it is 152.85p.
So do I invest in CA or HUR for the best return?
But if Saba is acting in concert with Kerogen then we certainly do live in interesting times!
I rather think that Saba Capital Management might have had, as yet undisclosed, a change of mind regarding their intended action, as promulgated in the 25 June RNS.
Hurricane, although it might not look like it at the moment to everyone, are an attractive investment / acquisition opportunity. As stated in CA’s RNS today, and commented upon on the Hurricane BB, the previous BoD need to be held to account for the losses of approximately US$111 million. These losses are equivalent, according to CA, to more than 4p a share. Furthermore, the tax losses and allowances, which would feature in the event of a corporate transaction, are equivalent to 56p a share. That’s 60p a share of value and whilst that might not be reflected in any offer for HUR it is reasonable to expect a large percentage of that figure - which would be a multiple of today’s share price.
An investment in Hurricane at the time of the Saba June letter looks very different from how it can be viewed today. Particularly once the CB issue is dealt with, at maturity or before. Indeed, as CA comments in the RNS “… the Fund believes that Hurricane's prospects have been transformed.”
So, as a Saba investment decision maker, would it be justifiably sensible to continue and crystalise the CA fund investments, given CA's achievement with the Hurricane investment and the future prospects of that particular investment?
If CA were to wind-up their fund the market would have difficulty in redistributing the Hurricane shares – leading to a substantial fall in the SP (see Woodford, late of this parish). The investment would have been abysmal and despite the past profits on the investment of £43million, a return of capital c£10million might only be possible. This might be very much less than the overall amount invested overtime.
Of course, Saba might have someone in the wings ready to take these shares as part of an acquisition strategy – but would the other shareholders and the Oil companies allow this to happen?
The CA SP at the time of the letter was c100p today, four months later it is c115p. The NAV of the fund at the end of June was 146.81p per share and at the end of September it is 152.85p.
So do I invest in CA or HUR for the best return?
We live in interesting times!