Hand sanitizer and surface cleaner company Byotrol had a strong 2020 and are confident about 2021 Watch Now
I’ve certainly got nothing against CRUX and they are definitely one of the better interviewers and ask proper probing questions. But I’ve always done best on AIM resource companies that do very little PR and get on with the business! It’s the ones that constantly need to promote their company as being ‘the best thing since sliced bread’ that you have to be wary of! Although I also really couldn’t care less what the SP does short term and it all comes down to the ultimate success, or otherwise, of getting Araguaia into production.
They've been terrible so far and would be nice to see them buying a load on the open market themselves - not just shares gifted as part of the IPO! I do think that Bybrook and Slater are no mugs though and must see something here. Oil price will play a big part though in how cash generative, or otherwise, the Canadian assets turn out to be - if oil does recover to any real degree they may have bought this asset at just the right time. Actually reminds me a bit of SQZ - they completely screwed up Indonesia (2010/11, SP hit over 60p), share price crashed, everyone thought the company and management was awful, then they got the North Sea asset at just the right time and never looked back!
I very much doubt that the IIs who put in £30 million - including Slater which doesn't generally get involved in small AIM cos and invests long term - would have done so if it is all a scam. Weak oil price, lack of liquidity and a PIs buying in via Primary Bid for an expected pump, or who got caught out buying at 7p, isn't helping. Obviously I wish I'd bought in cheaper but still not too disappointed to have an average below the placing price - wouldn't actually bother me if it did go down to 3p or whatever as would be happy to take some more.
I would definitely agree with that comment about JB and have found him very open, even if you have a different opinion on something. I would also point out that not many people, whilst holding 60% of a company, would point out how screwed it was in terms of the potential cost of complaints and contribute to the share price plummeting - his comments will have caused the FCA etc to take a closer look at its practices. It’s more the sort of thing you’d expect the likes of Muddy Waters to highlight - so fair play to JB for doing so himself, at the expense of his investment!
Yuri - the shareholder agreement in the IPO document may well stand though (it’s something I’ve discussed with him and is a concern of his lawyers). If that was invoked again he could have similar problems to what he has done and which caused him to have to sell down below 10%.
Seamus - they must have backed the board as over 90% of the minority holders voted against Richmond (Richmond legally couldn’t vote their 60% - hence why they have sold, as any chance of winning a vote meant putting those shares in the hands of people who might vote for them). Some PIs are hopefully more aware this time though and won’t have had their voting rights in nominee accounts automatically voted in favour of the BOD by the brokers who hold the shares and vote as a proxy.
Yuri - he already held over 60% so surely he would just have bought another 10% and forced a compulsory bid back then? Rather than dumping stock at a very low price. Doesn’t seem logical to me! I genuinely think he wants to come back to the company but also to keep it as a PLC.
The instruction to buy up to 29% is irrevocable and can’t be changed - hence why by making that contract now and being unable to alter it, he can potentially get around any rules relating to price sensitive info that he would subsequently be in possession of if he wins the vote and comes back.
If he were to buy now - and given an irrevocable instruction to buy 29% - it would take him over the 30% threshold and spark a compulsory takeover bid. Which he has carefully avoided with his instruction to buy 29%! The same is true with any connected parties who buy shares - if they can be considered a concert party that would also trigger a bid (I’ve seen plenty saying his mates are holding shares on his behalf etc). The only real uncertainty with his instruction is if the FCA block him taking a controlling interest - more than 20% - given that this is a regulated lender.
Worth reading his Irrevocable buy instruction again - it actually states that buying will start once he is CEO (which he has confirmed means once the FCA approve him to take that position, not just if he wins the vote).
We should see if any larger amount of warrants are going to be exercised as a big chunk of them are owned by Bybrook - if they are going to exercise then I’d expect to see them having to sell shares first (given how close they are to the 30% threshold which they won’t exceed). I’m pretty sure the selling we saw was those already exercised warrants being sold off into limited buying volume - I added more at 4.6p on Friday. Short term direction will probably largely be dictated by the oil price and lockdowns.
I suspect it could just be the recently exercised warrants being sold at a time when there isn’t much volume/liquidity - from a price of 0.01p they won’t care what they get for them! The fact that Bybrook holds so many should in theory limit the amount we see exercised at the moment - as it would take them above 30% (if they wanted to exercise now it makes no sense to me that they’d have taken the amount of placing shares that they did!).
Even more bizarre when you consider that the company had $3 million in the bank at the end of June - so why place at a discount immediately afterwards and then use that money to buyback shares above the placing price! Feels like some sort of pump/spoof going on by the company!
Not one I personally would want to invest in until after the outcome of a judicial review is known, whenever that might be. Plus I’m very bearish on this whole sector and have been for some time (largely due to regulation and complaints) plus my expectation of higher delinquency rates once the loan repayment freeze and furlough comes to an end). I see the chances of Amigo recovering as being much higher with JB back in charge though - especially if he is able to persuade Glen Crawford to stay, as he still hopes to do.
I only have one account and have had the same one since 2009 - as admin here will verify I’m sure! If I’m going to say something then I will do so under my own, real name - I’ve no need to hide behind made up avatars (I post on Twitter under my real name)! I rarely post on LSE these days as the boards generally seem to be more about posters having a pop at each other than actually discussing the fundamentals of companies!
TheMuir - you seem to be making the assumption that I agree with TW’s assessment of James Benamor, which I don’t! That is one of the reasons I’m happy to contribute to that site - I’m free to have my own opinion, even if it disagrees with other writers, including TW! If I was a shareholder I’d vote for JB - hence why I’ve regularly posted links over the past week (which JB retweeted himself) explaining how those PIs with shares in nominee accounts can actually vote, as most don’t realise that it isn’t as straightforward as they might think in many cases!
Jimmy - I'm aware of that but maybe wasn't clear enough when I mentioned it. It is why it is potentially such a big issue for the company, if those complaints relate to loans over a number of years (during which time multiples of the loan book value will have been cycled - JB mentions around £1.5 billion of loans in recent years). Just accepting that the FOS will find in favour of the complainant in the vast majority of cases brought to it isn't an option - the 'no win, no fee' outfits will have a field day! Hence seeking a judicial review to challenge the outcome of those cases, and also with regards to future lending criteria.