Member Info for Germanicus

The shares have not gone ex rights yet - therefore any shares you sell the buyer will gain the right to participate in the rights issue. So if you sold your entire 100,000 shares last week you would not have any right to buy at 2p. When the shares do go ex rights then the price should theoreticaly drop to reflect the fact that the shares no longer carry the right to participate in the rights issue. If you held 100,000 shares and sold 50,000 at 4p then when the shares go ex rights you will have 50,000 shares plus 2,000 pounds plus the right to buy 50,000 shares at 2p. Therefore if you take the right you will end up with 100,000 shares plus 1,000 pounds. You will have the same amount of shares plus some cash but you will have been diluted at your % ownership will have halved, therefore the value of the shares should fall to reflect this dilution. Theoretically (nothing else changing) the share price should fall to 3p giving you shares with value of 3,000 pounts plus 1,000 pounds cash equal to your original holding value of pounds 4,000. Clearly given the share price movement the outcome is somewhat different.

That should remove some of the uncertainty. A 3.5 million hit to the balance sheet still gives net assets of 44.4 million or 14.8p per share. Add back the pension liability and it gives 15p a share. No mention of any hit to Harworth from it's exposure to UK Coal but possibly limited. Would expect to see further uplift in Harworths book value given progress on it's developments and improvements in UK real estate. Looks very undervalued at 4p.

Peel own 29.9% of CRES, if this increases above 30% they will need to make an offer for the whole company. If they underwrite the rights issue then presumably their stake will increase above 29.9%. Perhaps there will need to be a waiver of the need for an offer for the company.

"In order to fully exploit the significant opportunities available in 2013 - and to return to sustainable profitability - Tanfield requires additional working capital, beyond the £2.1m placing in April 2013." How is that supposed to be interpreted? With a 14 million loss and only 2 million of cash they presumably need to return to sustainable profitability to continue as a going concern.

Retained earnings is not the same as tax losses. See the note on taxation in the annual accounts: "The Group has trading tax losses of £52.1m (2010: £57.2m) that are available indefinitely for offset against future taxable profits of the same trade in the companies in which they arose. The reduction reflects the fact that the Group no longer have the rights to losses in respect of certain discontinued operations."

They have trading losses of 52.1 million so at the new corporate tax rate of 20% these could be worth up to 10.4 million. Assuming there is a biofuels business in the UK that can earn 52.1 million in profit and get around treasury rules preventing the transfer of tax losses. Realistically given the time that it would take to generate the profits to offset that level of losses and the uncertainty over the usability, the tax losses may not be worth a great deal.

They have released their results. Net asset value 47.9 million (16 p a share) of which the main part is the stake in Haworth - 50.3 million which is 24.9% of the net asset value of Haworth less 5 million for the first 5 million of dividends that will be paid to the pension fund

The accounts in the past took the lower range of the RICS valuation. As it is development land there is significant uncertainty over its value so the RICS valuation would give a wide range. Another underpinning for the value is that they have 7,000 consented residential plots. At 40,000 per plot that alone would equate to the book value of the portfolio. In addition they have the potential for another 6,000 plots.

With the rate this business has lost money in the past and with just 2.75 million of cash at the half year and troubles at SEV, looks like they are one more bad half year away from oblivion.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/staggering-smith-electric-may-be-next-solyndra-like-clean-energy-flop/article/2508972