The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Finally, after five and a half years and losing shareholders 90% of their money, CEO Andrew Whelan has been given the heave ho. Clearly not planned, as Mr Whelan stood for re-election at the AGM three weeks ago and an interim is taking over whilst a new CEO is found but leaves the question, given how damaging he has been to the company, what has been discovered now that caused the Board to act, when so much damage had been done in the previous five and a half years and there was never any action taken.
Nice touch for the Chairman to acknowledge Mr Whelan’s efforts to finalise the recent refinance of the company, when Mr Whelan had led the company to the verge of bankruptcy, requiring the refinance in the first place. Kind of like congratulating an arsonist for calling the fire brigade.
Won’t be missed by shareholders.
@Valuerebel how do you get to 20p+ on your numbers? The total NAV would be around twice the market cap, i.e. 18p per share.
I increasingly feel that 15p might have been a good exit price and suspect next time we get there I'm out...
Just reading the announcement today about Leap I couldn't help thinking back to the days of the dot com bubble 20 years ago. Then companies put out announcements almost every day about deals signed and enthusiastically talked about growth and potential, but crucially never actual numbers. Revenue. Even less profits. If FFwd really believes in what it is doing, announcements should focus on revenues, profits, provide a clear breakdown of its current NAV and impact of the various transactions that have occurred. Raising cash at a discount to NAV has diluted the upside of existing positions for shareholders. Talking exclusively about the gross return on an investment ignores the costs of getting the return and how much impact per share it had. Not sure shareholder value is top of mind of the management team.
Jim Mellon is simply a share holder now
Jim Mellon's sale timing, with no knowledge of a forthcoming sale price below market expectations for a prime asset looks remarkable, some might say incredible.
Anyone would think that they needed the price to be in the right place to close the fund raise with the appearance of success, despite most of the stock being left with the underwriters...
What is something you don't see every day?
Looks like the answer was a firm no, another refinancing, no doubt more promises of jam tomorrow...
I can't see how the bond gets refinanced, unless all holders agree to kick the can down the road, but that shouldn't be a cue to start paying dividends, given that the funds just aren't there to repaying the company's debts.
With no realistic way of refinancing the Zero Dividend Preference Shares and with the likelihood of bad debts building in the portfolio with everything that is going on in the world, this business must be technically insolvent.
....and cannabis stocks are off around 50% since that quote last August.....
The key phrase is "authorised", which means that it is a regulated structure; this is not important from an institutional investor's perspective, but does make a difference to private wealth managers, who can only invest in regulated funds.
Looks like Aaron Banks has sold out and an outfit in St Vincent (not exactly a haven of good corporate citizens) has taken a stake. Could tucking the stock away in St Vincent be a convenient way for Jim Mellon to own greater than 30% without making an offer? Whatever the case it doesn't look like anything will change for the near future in the prospects of the company. Still dead money.
A placing is done before the announcement, a book build is done after the announcement, but given that most of the stock has already been lined up prior to the announcement they amount to the same thing, the only difference being that in a book build institutions that have not been approached prior to the announcement can participate. From a private investor's perspective the result is the same - significant dilution.
"Given this promising start, the Board is confident that trading is in-line with management expectations for the full financial year to June 2020 . The Group intends to report its interim financial results for the six-month period to end December 2019 on or about Wednesday 18th March 2020."
https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/mj_hudson/news/rns/story/xl3qggx
PIs have bought in on the assumption that Jim Mellon will make them a fortune. Unfortunately banking is not biotech; it is a capital intensive business that is all about the cost of capital - the cost for Conister is never going to be as low as larger banks.
In addition the regulators in the UK and IoM can't be overly impressed with the owners of the business - just look at how it took over a year for them to get regulatory approval for the acquisition of Blue Star Business Solutions.
Dead money.
Jim Mellon and Aaron Banks both saw an opportunity to use an offshore bank, back in the days when offshore activity was less regulated and there was far less information sharing with other tax authorities. Now that all information on UK account holders goes to HMRC there is far less scope to use it for asset planning purposes.
There are now no advantages for UK tax payers in using offshore banking, and Conister is basically a small local bank serving the local community. Being sub-scale the cost base is too high for it to consistently make high margins. The company needs to be 3-4 times its current size to be optimal scale.
It's a sub-scale, poorly run bank and related early stage punts alongside; controlled by Jim Mellon, although he had to bring in a biotech mate to provide some capital a year or two ago. They have 30% between them and are a concert party, so therefore cannot buy any more stock. Then there's Aaron Banks who has 30% and given his travails over the past year is thought to be a seller. Jim Mellon has warned off anyone from trying to buy the holding and bidding in an RNS. It's going nowhere, trades at a discount to book for a reason, difficult to see the longer term attraction.
It is not a requirement under the AIM rules to disclose any changes in Directorships. It is required to be mentioned in the annual report under related party transactions.