Member Info for Guitarsolo

FTM, you say the share price has barely budged in the last 10 years. Well in the last five it has been anywhere between 10p -to 80p. That's not a share price that has "barely budged". Of course, you may have bought in at higher prices (I started there).

I have always considered this to be a long-term investment (for me that is 10 years+). I first bought in 2021 so I have a long way to go. But the reason I highlight 2027/28 is that, by then, there will be a nine-figure capacity (over £150m, perhaps £250m?) and crucially by then SCE will have multiple contracts being supplied and paying at the same time. Until that capacity is built there will remain significant restraints on revenue.

Any reader of these pages (or ADVFN for that matter) will hear you frequently complain about the management (capital raises, content of RNSs etc). I am not here to defend the management and I would agree there have been a few mis-steps along the way. But I feel you're overly critical of them. The installation and commissioning of the new furnaces is something that has not been done before. The fact it went slightly askew and required about £2.5m (is that correct?) to fix them is not unexpected. But they have put that right and, crucially, own the "interlectual knowledge" about how to fix them. I view the complexity of producing this stuff as a benefit (a Buffett moat).

I acknowledge the fact that Kevin Johnson, David Bundred etc have designed a fabulous product against a monopolistic supplier. That product is aligned with the future of motoring (lighter, greener, more suitable to EVs etc) in a market that will only get bigger as CCB start appearing on non-supercars. They have hooked some major fish already. The new board members and NEDs have some impressive credentials and I would also give David Bundred/ Kevin Johnson some credit for realising the need for them when it is always easy to cling on yourself.

You're correct that the company is not "new", but it is still young in its growth trajectory. That might be the result of a preference to grow slowly and deliberately without basically going for broke too early on.

I repeat that this is a company with 60% gross margins with a market leading product and only one competitor. Nothing is certain but that is a great investment opportunity for the patient.

There was no spinkler system.

Video footage shows the first vehicle on fire.

Diesel is hard to ignite, but not impossible.

"because we will never betold the truth if it was an ev".......I give up!

"Investigators believe the blaze was started when a diesel car suffered an electrical fault or leaking fuel line."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12618033/started-London-Luton-car-park-fire-moment.html

This is the danger of the gaslighting to blame "the rush to net zero" and "anti-green" measures. It deliberately makes people blame the wrong thing and we see that again in motion with Asperger. Why not wait for the experts to confirm what happened?

And mankind's use of hydrocarbons as fuel has been incident free......!

You're spamming multiple boards about the fire at Luton airport drawing tenuous links to that company (Tesco - put the car park recharges a long way away, DLG - who has an expensive insurance claim, Lloy.....). Why?!

But the problem with that argument Regardless is that Brexit was a Tory referendum proposal to appease a Tory right wing of the party and to neutralise a threat to the Tory Party (from UKIP). The parameters of the referendum were drawn up by the Tory Party and, whilst there was support or opposition across party lines, it was predominantly backed by Tories and funded by Tory Party and UKIP backers. After the vote, it was the Tory Party's new leader who said "Brexit means Brexit" and it was the Tory Party who did a deal with the DUP (£1bn!) for support. The Tory Party began negotiations with the EU but couldn't sell their deal (May's deal) to the right wing of the Tory Party, and so it failed. With a new Tory Prime Minister we had a general election when Johnson promised to "Get Brexit Done" with his Tory manifesto's "oven ready deal". But when the Tories who had negotiated the deal (Frost) realised it was a bad deal and not at all "oven ready", they squirmed and ran away. The Tory Prime Minister (BJ) even admitted that he had never intended to stick to parts of the deal anyway (NIP).

And so, here we are, seven years after the Tory-planned referendum with everything a collosal mess. But if you think for one moment that the Tories will not forever own Brexit and all its fallout, I think you're mistaken.

Richie33/ Armani/ ShazbotNaNuNaNu,

It is no more a Labour proposal to further tax financial services than it is already a CURRENT Conservative policy to do so. The Chancellor in the spring budget announced further review since some financial services are already subject to a tax of some sort whilst there are a myriad of exemptions (some of which may no longer be justified etc).

Why do you feel the need to misrepresent this?

Hi Gary,

VAT on financial services, and its multitude of exemptions, has been under review for many years - both when the UK was within the EU and since. Indeed it was mentioned again in the Spring Budget by the Chancellor. So it is not a Labour proposal as such but is something already under review by the Conservatives. I would imagine all parties will continue to look at unnecessary and unwarranted exemptions from VAT (or IPT) with an eye on raising funds, but will delay any increases until the current inflation spike is well behind us for fear of stoking it.

Guitarsolo

So that highlights from the 6m announcement for me:

“Operating loss1 increased to £4.6m primarily due to £2.5m of non-repeatable outlays to overcome technical challenges.

H1 technical challenges NOW OVERCOME (my emphasis).

Cash at 30 June 2023 was £4.5m (31 Dec 2022: £14.9.m)

Additional furnace capacity in place and increase in proprietary know how. (So we “own” the IP how to make these furnaces work?)

Strategic investment programme for c.£75m capacity progressing well, with capital expenditure of £4.8m (H1-2022: £2.8m). Phase 2 target of £50m capacity will be available in 2024

Strong order book unchanged

Healthy prospective contract pipeline increased to £420m”

They are expanding capacity to £150m. Yes, we have had bumps in the road. But this has always been a share for what happens after 2027/28 or even later.

Believe in the product. Believe in the people who developed it. Hope the changing management team can tweak the system to maximise the £££.

This is still a company in a duopolistic system with c.10% of the market, top-level OEMs as customers, 60% gross margin etc. Repeat, 60% gross margins with a market leading product and only one competitor!

I’m as disappointed as anyone in the share price but on many levels this is an astounding company to be able to buy at this price if you can hold for 10 years.

LTI, your point was to (as usual) bully another person into not posting what they have a right to think/say. No flaw to any logic there. You just don't like it when the same light in shone on you.

I own plenty of LLOY shares. Perhaps not in your £xx,xxx,xxx league but then I'm not a tw*t like you and I don't need to claim a wealth to appear superior.

As for my political interventions, I am certain the laws of mathematics and Mother Nature will prove me correct. I really hope you are around to see it.

Now, as I am in Bolivia at the moment I must dash. As you know, I investigate dishonest bankers (if you're up on your current Bolivian events you'll know why I am here). Funnily enough, you pop into my mind when I am investing the narcissitic tendencies of bankers. I have no idea why.

Musicman: "make no mistake a lab gov will cost people a of money and a lot of person choice / freedomS gone out the window"

But the actual truth: The Tories have set the highest taxes in 70 years. The Tories have removed more of your rights, including the right to protest, than any other government in living memory.

Whoever you want to vote for is your choice. But don't peddle mistruths.

It wouldn't be a surprise. The incoming CFO and COO, combined with an inflationary environment, can say it's going to cost more than thought to build the furnace capacity etc. That said, I think it would be a very poor time to raise money unless they can say they've put the recent production problems behind them. Otherwise they won't get much for the new issue! I just hope it's not another stitch-up with PIs betting last dibs as usual.

I fact, a better time to raise money would be to say production is sorted AND here's a new OEM contract! But the share price is not telling us that's about to happen!

Sorry, my post was cut in half (like my investment!)....It should have read in full:

Thanks Agricore and other posters for comments here. Clearly, those holding (including me) are taking a kicking but sharing comments and insights is useful if done in a pleasant way.

Agricore, you say if they "could sell off (at 20% discount) the empty stuff then the EPS impact is negligible". I've always assumed the c. 20% of unoccupied space is within otherwise let offices. Do you know of specific buildings which are completely empty? If so, then yes these could be disposed of without affecting EPS. But if the 20% is part of otherwise let offices then disposing of them will have a proportional effect on EPS.

Thanks too to #715. No one "wants" to hear negativity around their investment but what you have said is true.

This is clearly a case of "control youe debts before your debts control you". Stephen Inglis needs to pull his finger out and get debts to a more comfortable level, focus on letting the empty space, have a sensible maintenance and refurbishment plan and set the dividend according to earnings.

I suspect they might now feel that they could have/ should have cut the dividend more than they did during Covid (the perfect cover for everything) when it was cut from 8.2pps to 6.5pps.

REITS have definitely not been a good investing ground for me!

Thanks Agricore and other posters for comments here. Clearly, those holding (including me) are taking a kicking but sharing comments and insights is useful if done in a pleasant way.

Agricore, you say if they "could sell off (at 20% discount) the empty stuff then the EPS impact is negligible". I've always assumed the c.

Musicman....."Another champagne socialist... non invested type mr solo... and going to be more poor when his beloved labour get in"

I'm not even close to being socialist! Not even a fan of champagne, prefer ale.

Non invested type.....wrong, I am invested in LLOY (currently underweight for it though)

Beloved Labour.....wrong again....independent voter me!

What exactly have you been right about?!!!!

BTW, read what I actually wrote....Bline was quoting a stupidly exaggerated GB News headline that bore little relation to the BNP Paribas guidance note. Read and understand that before you make stupid comments.

Not the point Blooo..... the point was Bline quotes a stupidly exaggerated GB News headline as if it is representative without actually understanding the underlying comments by BNP. It's just emotional tosh designed to appeal to a certain type.

Your reaction shows you fall for exactly the same type of thing.

So the actual advice from BNP was for “clients to put their money into British stocks, arguing that a cheap pound, an attractive combination of sectors and the better-than-expected performance of the British economy makes the country attractive”.

So in other words, our cheap currency caused by a weak economy and Brexit made us relatively cheap compared to the continent. Also, the UK economy’s performance was not as bad as previously feared. This is standard fare for banks advising their clients where there have been short term over/under performance in different territories or sectors.

By the time it got to The Sun the headline read “back Britain and move money out of the Eurozone”.

By the time it got to GB News the headline read: “French bank urges clients to ABANDON Eurozone with Britain tipped as lucrative investment”

And you then quote GB News! And you call other people morons? Hahahahaha

OK guys, when you show yourselves up with basic knowledge you have to understand why people will doubt other claims you make (even if they happen to be justified).

When HFEL issues new equity (at a marginal premium) those new investors are providing capital to Mike Kerley that he might invest. He will likely do so into the same companies he already invests in. That means more dividends that are more or less in proportion to current dividends (a marginal benefit to existing shareholders). The dividend doesn't grow by 75% because there is 75% more shares in issue over a 5 year period. The dividend per share remains about the same. If you don't understand that, I don't know what to say.

If you honestly think the dividend should be 75% higher because there are 75% more shares in issue over a 5 year period then you really shouldn't be investing. I don't often talk in such language but I think it is justified in this instance.

And as an addendum, when you make comments like that it really does detract from the worthwhileness (is that a word?) of comments about dividend washing.

Do you see the problem here peeps?

Guitarsolo

Bott, those original investments would have fallen in value whether or not new equity had been issued. The fact is it has, at a marginal value over the NAV, but it has of course befallen the same fate as other investments. You say there is no advantage to issuing new equity to existing shareholders but I disagree. First, it allows the fund to get larger and therefore it has more clout when investing. The larger the fund the more it can use its size for its advantage (that's why the big boys get to dominate). Secondly, the increased scale reduces costs per share.

To be honest, this is not what HFEL investors should be concerning themselves with. The greater concern is the falling NAV. Some believe there is dividend washing/stripping going on but as far as I am aware no one has confronted Mike Kerley about it (I tried but there wasn't enough time during the presentation). I would appreciate a greater deal of transparency from Mike about how the income is generated but, to correct a point just raised, HFEL DOES have a reserve fund equivalent to about 16pps I believe.

Guitarsolo

Bott, you're confusing the performance of the shares bought by the fund managers with the value of the equity. By definition, if new equity is issued at a premium to the NAV of the shares then that new money is marginally benefitting the fund and the existing shareholders. What happens afterwards is a different matter.

By way of example, on 15th May 2023 the fund issued 200,000 new shares at 250.5p for a total value of £501,000. If the issue was at say 2% premium (about the average) then the new equity effectively gave Mike Kerley £10,020 more than what he would be able to buy assuming he replicated existing investments. That £10k has gone into the pot which all existing shareholders share. It's marginal but issuing equity at a premium is a benefit to existing shareholders. If you like it is just the opposite of a company doing an equity raise at a discount, which dilutes existing shareholders.

What Mike Kerley does with the money afterwards is a different matter.

Regards

Guitarsolo

Bott,

In 2018 the dividend was 21.2p (4 x 5.3p). It is now 24.4p (4 x 6.1p).

The new equity issued means there are more shares in issue. The funds are used to buy more dividend paying shares but the aggregate dividends have to be divided by the larger number of shares in issue. Hence it largely stays in balance.

The funds have not been squandered but they have been invested into shares where the NAV has declined (that can't be disputed).

To be honest, I find it impressive that Mike Kerley has managed to keep issuing equity at a premium. I have other investments which have performed immeasurably better than HFEL where the fund trades at a discount to NAV and that prevents the fund from being able to issue more equity and grow (why would you buy new shares at the NAV when you can buy existing shares at a discount?). That has resulted in at least one of those funds being wound up despite it earning 12-14% returns. So I am grateful in a way that we're at NAV and HFEL continues to issue new equity.

Guitarsolo