Member Info for h4mmered

Most costs were accrued, not paid, if you look at the cashflow, with overall cash outflow from operating activities £160k less than the previous year.

The company has been clear that the core business needs to be funded on a going concern basis before they will consider holding any bitcoin, therefore that should not detract from its core business.

"Whilst he had historically provided some services to the company, these all ceased before the new management team took over in May 2024."

That doesn't state when he ceased being involved in the company, just that it was before May 2024. If the new management only took over in May 2024, how could they make any assertions about what happened prior to that period?

You just seem unable to accept facts as they are and want to imagine some massive conspiracy that is being created for some unknown purpose by people who own a large proportion of the company and yet want to trash the share price, all at the behest of someone else who has nothing to do with the business?

Could it possibly be that the explanation is actually the one given by the company?

Due to the dilution of the issue, Shore Cap fair value is down to 5.8p and Zeus down to 8.4p. Whilst it's a long up way from 0.8p it shows the risks to the business of a continued sagging share price - cash consumption equals dilutive share issues equals falling long term price targets. I used to be a huge bull of the stock but I really can't see it ever getting a decent return for shareholders because it still needs more money to develop its portfolio to achieve those long term price targets.

This company does seem to have an obscene amount of good news flowing. Wouldn't take much buying to send the stock flying.

I think your patience is about to be rewarded big time...sudden uptick in interest shows that something is going on that is yet to be discussed with the market...

Surely you can't include the shares yet to be issued, and subject to shareholders approval to be issued? Those shares both don't exist currently but also cannot exist unless or until the existing shareholders approve their issue.

If you look at where the new management want to take the business, they will want to exit Igraine; yes, it is possible that they may be able to find a willing buyer and not have to take too much of a discount to the current price, but they will not be long term holders.

There is an alternative approach to the future for Vela shareholders, if Igraine really is worth having; instead of the recapitalisation plans announced yesterday, Vela could merge with Igraine and Igraine could then use the proceeds of selling down Vela's other investments to grow Igraine.

Could be achieved by getting the Igraine Board to formally approach Vela with a takeover offer.

For Vela shareholders it would mean avoiding the 50% dilution of their NAV that will result from the proposed recapitalisation. Starting from a value that is twice what it will be seems far better to me.

For Igraine it provides the capital to move forward.

No idea if Igraine is worth backing, but given the enthusiasm expressed, maybe worth trying to get the Igraine management to discuss the idea.

No chance they'll want to up their position in Igraine - they have committed to focusing on financial services businesses.

I can only assume that they have thought through their exit strategy for all the current investments, except presumably Finseta.

Assuming the deal goes ahead, tangible NAV will be around 0.005p per share and 0.0017p of that will be cash. So, assuming that the shares drift to around the 0.0025p placing price, that's a 50% discount to NAV (more or less where it was trading pre-announcement) and most of the price you're paying will be covered by cash.

On the other hand, if the deal gets voted down, you could be looking at a 3x return as the company is wound up. Maybe the smart thing is to buy now and vote against the deal; worst case scenario you've bought a stock that is planning to do deals at a big discount to book value...

They won't need money to acquire a series of assets, they will acquire assets for shares in the company. The challenge will be to get the share price higher, in order that they have to issue less shares for each purchase; these sort of roll-up strategies can be successful, but it is crucially dependent on a supportive and growing shareholder base, and a very comprehensive investor relations programme.

They clearly have a plan to reverse in a series of assets to grow the company; the £1m will just cover the corporate finance costs of the first deal.

Given the enormous dilution, surely the sensible thing for shareholders to do would be to vote down the deal and push for the company to be wound up. That is presumably the only thing that is holding the shares as high as they are.

I think everyone has given up, and there just isn't the enthusiasm for doing anything about it...

So, less than 10% of the company's much reduced assets is going to save it? Really?

I agree that it is not without risks, but I have taken a very small punt on the company. My thinking is that a stabilised company is capable of getting back to the price immediately pre-delisting announcement, and that gives a buyer a potential c. 5x return. However, it is only something for punting money, not a material investment.

I would have agreed that a raise was unlikely until Allenby were appointed. Why, a week after a delisting was announced, would Allenby take on the role as broker and Nomad if it were just for a couple of months before a delisting? I can understand why Investec wanted out (company had got too small for its investor base) but had they simply resigned then the company would have been delisted as soon as it no longer had a Nomad, and thus would have saved the cost of the EGM etc.

Therefore the company must have a future as a quoted company or they would not have appointed Allenby, and the only two ways in which they would have said future would be if there was a fund raise, or a corporate deal. Allenby must have signed off on whatever deal is being proposed, because otherwise they would not have accepted the appointment.

I think the most likely scenario is that there is an investor who is prepared to underwrite a fund raise. That doesn't conflict with the previous statement by the company, that a fund raising on public markets is unviable, since this is a single investor prepared to take 100% of a raise, if existing investors choose not to support the raise. Why would the new investor allow existing investors participate in the raise? Because it will need to be approved at an EGM and existing shareholders will want the opportunity to participate.

I think it's unlikely to be a corporate deal, because Investec would have stuck around for a corporate fee if the company was being acquired/merged, and worked themselves out of a job.

The level of a raise will have to balance the desire of any new investor to get a bargain (ie, discount to the current share price) with the dilution implications and therefore the ability of Allenby to get the votes to approve the transaction, as it will almost certainly need a 75% approval at an EGM.

This points to probably a deal somewhere between the pre-announcement price and the current price, and the ability for existing investors to participate...

Great news from MTI Wireless this morning, good to see a Vela stock with some momentum...oh no, wait...

Bloody hell; guess that just leaves Skillcast, Northcoders and Ensilica as the only holdings above £200k, and the whole portfolio under £2m (taking WeShop at the value implied by WeCap).

They can't go on like this...

I thought I'd take a look at Vela, first time in a while. Jeez, the value destruction is mind-blowing. If you assume that the Hamas loan is good and Aeristech is worth the book value (brave on both counts, to say the least) but value the WeShop holding at the level implied by the share price of WeCap (which is logical, since it's a quoted version of the same stock), then the current tangible NAV is around 0.0069p, or pretty much the current share price. Having thought that there might be something interesting in Vela when I started to crunch the numbers, I came to the conclusion, extraordinarily, that the shares are 30-50% overvalued. It is mind-blowing how much value has been destroyed here.