Member Info for Guitarsolo

As a small shareholder here, but who might buy more, I am trying to understand the large and growing discount to NAV.

Is it being an unloved sector/ company? Is it the effect of higher interest rates recently meaning there's a safe 5% out there, so risk attracts a discount? Are the individual asset values just puff? [note, they have sold assets in the last year above their carry values, so it would suggest not] Is it just 2 years of poorer weather and volatile energy (gas) prices?

Over the last few years we've seen commercial property slide considerably, affecting LTVs and occasionally forcing sales leading to the loss of income. The debt ratio here seems perfectly acceptable at first glance. But am I missing something?!

Obviously the dividend is attractive at current prices and it is covered. With much of the revenue being contractual, how much danger is there that the dividend policy will not continue? Politically we have a supportive government.

So many questions!

Guitarsolo

MV: Stop being so one-eyed.

"Gambling was the industry that donated and lobbied the most – giving relatively similar amounts to Labour and Conservatives"

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/construction-finance-gambling-companies-donate-money-mps

Man accused of being thin-skinned gets posts removed because he is thin-skinned!

You couldn't make it up!

Bless.

Oh dear LTI, you prove the point for me.....You are just so precious!

LTI: "They are NOT random"......Yes they are! Every single day you choose a few RANDOM shares that happen to be up on that day.....but funnily enough you never seem to go back to them....So I shall for you.

On 11th September you said "BAT reached another 52 week high" at 2985p.

It is now 2685p.

Down 10%

On 17th September you said "National Grid up"

It was 1056p, now 991p.

Down 6.1%

On 17th September you said "SSE reach another all time high consolidating above £20 per share".

It is now £18.16

Down 10%

On 16th September you said "BLND reached another 52 week high"

It was 462p then. Now it is 422p.

Down 8.7%

I could go on.......

Nothing was inaccurate about what you wrote. But to claim you "randomly" selected these shares to proclaim how well they are doing (and thereby seek to shine some sunlight on yourself because of your condition to need people to think you're great).....is just inaccurate. You choose to say that this share or that share is up, because they are on that day. Pure and simple.

August 2024: NAV 66.34p

Sept 2024: NAV 67.44p

One swallow doesn't make a summer etc. But it's better than hearing NAV had dropped (again).

Snob, why? What do you lot seriously offer. FA is the answer.

The long term investors here are trying to help build a high-end, world class manufacturer of a unique product that, if successful, would generate hundreds if not thousands of well paid jobs exporting a British product around the world. Most of us have lost a lot of money. Not because the product was wrong or risks weren't understood, but by god-awful financial forecasting and amateur management of a plc. There are contributors here who have actually put ideas and contacts directly to the board of directors to assist them.

And what do you day traders do? Nothing. You contribute nothing. You're just scavengers. If that makes you think I am a snob, so be it. It clearly proves the difference between me and you.

Indeed Poker, as if it wasn't bad enough that Bundred and Johnson have f***** this up completely with their horrendous financial reporting and messaging, utter bull**** that production problems and scrappage were easing, this board has now been taken over by a crowd who have absolutely no interest or knowledge about the company but just scavenge on any company that suffers a 75% fall to see if they think they can predict when it is going to soar, or crash, or clear a seller blah blah blah.

SCE is on its knees. Bring back to posters who (whether they have won or lost, got things right or wrong) are at least not a bunch of day traders who offer zero to this world.

MV: "A majority government with a minority vote of the population."

There hasn't been a government since WWII that received the majority of the population vote (over 50%). Under the system we have (FPTP) Labour won. Why can't you accept a democratic decision?

I think that is irrelevant at this stage Flatline. This hasn't been a share to trade for months now as it has basically straddled 4p +/- a small amount. Shareholders are taking their positions, influenced by their own circumstances, based on whether they believe the forthcoming DFS is either going to be a massive positive, or a damp squib.

AI4x, I suggest reading through some of the posts by AndyOJ2 and simonnm (amongst others) which are informative.

But in my less-knowledgeable assessment, the Emirates leases terminate between 2026 and 2028. Income shoud remain where it is until 2026 and then begin tailing off. Emirates will likely want to keep their A380s (imo) as they know the aircraft etc. So they could buy them (likely) or extend the leases (less likely). As you note, the shortage of aircraft is supportive to values and the Emirates Chairman really likes the A380 which is no longer in production. Hence I think the market is pricing in better residual values.

The fate of DNA2's aircraft will be a good indicator what will happen to AA4's.

After Emirates there are the Thai Airways' aircraft, whose leases run to 2033/34 (from memory). That's a different kettle of fish because Thai is coming out of bankruptcy protection. The earnings don't contribute towards the dividend cover but are paying off the debt (please correct me if I am wrong about that). The values of those aricraft are also improving.

If there is a complete capital return from the Emirates agreements, we will have to see if AA4 continues with the Thai operations or looks to offload them and shut down completely, with funds returned to shareholders.

It's a bit different for sure, and interesting to experience how it unfolds.

Whilst there might be some news flow in the coming months, I don't expect anything to happen to the share price until the DFS is complete. I believe that is due by the end of the year, so 31st December in SAV's case. The DFS opens to door to everything we need; a resource upgrade, details of financing, mining decision (!), etc etc.

This has tested everyone's patience for sure, but we need just a little more. I will, however, be annoyed if the DFS date slips.

Taverham, any decent society should accept (genuine) asylum seekers who may choose one country over another for many genuine reasons (family connections, language, attaché connections (Afghan translators) etc). The system is being abused at present by people claiming asylum when they would/should not genuinely qualify. But until you have a legal route(s) you don't have the moral or legal authority to do anything about it. This is proven by the fact that all the destination countries struggle to prevent the flow. As for population density, that has never been a sustainable argument. Even within the UK we don't spread out evenly. Perhaps we should send a few million up to Hardup's neck of the woods? So:

Establish legal routes

Deport those who don't arrive that way

Educate/ advertise in the home countries that migration this way results in deportation

Help tackle the reason people are fleeing the home countries (war, lack of education, prospects, effects of climate change etc).

LTI, "A migrant arriving on a dinghy is guilty of an offence under section 24 of the Act "

Sorry, but a ratified international treaty supercedes domestic law. The 1951 Convention was ratified in 1954 I believe. If not, why haven't several governments used the 1971 Act (answer; because it is superceded).

Now there is a good rationale to reconsider the 1951 Convention. But this requires international cooperation, the like Brexiteers have quashed. So that will be difficult.

So establish legal routes. Then you can say people arriving by boat outwith those routes are here illegally, and you can legally and morally deport them. If they have destroyed their ID and refuse to say where they are from we simply say we will guess where they are from and send them there.

The US, Canada, parts of Latin America, Europe, UK, Australia, NZ, Japan, Singapore etc all have immigration issues that will only get worse with climate change. It requires a coordinated response. But it is imperative to have genuine asylum, so have legal routes.

MVarawa "And they are to claim asylum in the first safe country that is signed up to the 1951 act."

WRONG!

The Act does not require this. UK case law supports that asylum seekers DO NOT have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. And you claim you're intelligent and we're all thick!

Do we have to go through this again?!

The problem is entirely of the making of the Cons/Reform/Right Wing/Old Codgers Bridgade that refuse to provide safe routes. Do that first, and then when people don't enter by that route you have the moral and legal authority to deport.

"And any country has the right to refuse asylum !"

WRONG! If a country has signed up to the 1951 Convention (and we have) then you have to accept the asylum case if it meets the applicable merits.

As I have said, I doubt many/most of the cases are true asylum claims, but unless you have legal routes you can't stop it.

You are literally making this happen!

Wrong LTI!

Under international law, anyone in the world has the right to claim asylum in any country that signed the 1951 Convention, which the UK did. But presently the only way to claim asylum in the UK is to reach the UK (unless you're from HK or Ukraine where we have special prorammes). Therefore the act of entering a country is not illegal if you intend to claim asylum. Whether that is a genuine claim is, of course, disputable.

So set up legal routes and then we have the moral and legal authority to label people as being illegal. But you are proving my point that Reform/ Cons can't even get to this simple first point.

"there are people committing an offence by illegally entering our country."

In your own tone LTI, FFS not this again! It is not illegal to enter another country IF you immediately claim asylum. Claiming asylum is NOT illegal. Whether they are genuinely claiming asylum IS another story. But what you have failed to understand is that the UK has deliberately made it impossible to claim asylum in the UK unless you reach the UK first. We have literally encouraged this behaviour. The logical solution is something like:

(i) Establish legal routes to claim asylum BEFORE travelling to the UK. Use our embassy network and build processing centres (e.g. in Calais).

(ii) Pass a law that says that this is the only way to claim asylum in the UK.

(iii) Then if people cross the Channel in a boat without using the legal routes provided you can say they have entered the country illegally and take action.

The problem is, all the Reform/Con voters can't even get beyond (i).

Lucky: "Ricky Jones Labour MP has not been given a custodian sentence ! Funny that 2tkier at his finest !"

That's because he has pled not guilty so will have a jury trial! Why did you feel the need to try and infer he has been let off?

Winslow is doing the usual CEO thing, given the circumstances. Pay out as little as possible whilst he can lay the blame on the previous administration, then increase to the proposed 60% and look like the hero.

Patience......

Thank you Krusty! My personal feeling is that the longer the wind down takes the better, providing of course the balance sheet loans continue to perform. At 7.56p annual dividend (after the reduction for the capital return) we're still looking at about a 17% yield! If it stays somewhere close to that for most of the next 18 months to get to the Q3 and Q4'25 payouts then you've got a lot of your investment covered before a capital return that is hopefully somewhere between the current share price and the NAV (hopefully nearer the latter).