Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Honestly... anyone who's a longer-term member of this BB will know that the (allegedly AI asserted) opinion that Bubblepoint and WG818 are the same person is literally utterly farcical.

It is possible to have more than one person convinced that ANGS isn't exactly a bed of roses, you know?

Meanwhile onto more important points - where on God's green earth is the "imminent/next few weeks" refinancing agreement? It's been a year already...

Why has the suspension price changed? Simple...

Because there were four off-book (OTC) transactions (amounting to a jaw-dropping £320 of total value) last week, where shares changed hands at that 0.213p value.

So... 0.213p is the last traded price.

Those four OTC trades totalled 150,876 shares at a price of 0.213p - so a total transaction value just north of 320 quid. Hardly a meaningful amount.

However I would also like to think that this might... just might, mind you... be some early sign of the blocked drain finally becoming unclogged. Having just bought ANGS a "Well done! Happy one year anniversary!" card for its seemingly interminable suspension, I'd hate to think that this literally farcical delay can go on much longer.

...before we need to get the refinancing discussions a 1 year birthday cake.

This is (and has been for some considerable time) beyond farclcal.

Yes, there's just 19 days to go before the suspension of ANGS shares and the discussions over the much-promised refinancing reach will have taken a whole year - and counting - without reaching a conclusion.

Perhaps long-suffering shareholders should send the barely manned ANGS BoD a cake to commemorate this utter farce.

...until it's been a whole year since the shares were suspended and the refinancing negotiations started.

This is simply ridiculous. What can possibly be taking so long?

Geez. Nobody can possibly have a clue without knowing the terms of the refinancing - so estimating a 6 to 8 bagger is frankly ludicrous.

I agree. It's all about the terms of the refinancing. And it looks ever more certain that this is going to have taken over a year (!!!) to sort out - maybe more.

One just has to ask the question why...

"However, even with an increased income stream none of us can know what the future will hold until we have sight of the terms of the financial restructuring package being negotiated with the company’s creditors."

That's the most intelligent thing anyone's posted in here for days. As I've said myself more than once, of course this is true - the genuinely eyebrow-raising thing is that it's taken almost a year (so far) and the refinancing package is still not agreed?

It's an impossible question to answer, because we know nothing of the terms of the refinancing.

Which, as needs to be pointed out, is fast on its way to taking a whole year to get agreed.

PS and today's FY report was not in the least encouraging, as has been detailed by those who have some understanding of financials. It shows (as was obvious to any realist) that as of end Sep 2025, ANGS was in a perilous position.

What does give rise to some hope is what has happened since (increased gas production and gas prices) and what is still to be revealed (terms of the refinancing) - but to claim that the FY report issued today is "encouraging" is just complete nonsense.

As the Ocebot well knows already, Malcy will say whatever he's paid to say and no even part-serious investor will place any value at all on what a paid PR merchant writes.

Which then begs the question, why is the Ocebot expending effort promoting worthless Malcy puff piece comments?

NeoGeo, you say "£18m revenue and £8.3m EBITDA tells you straight away this is now a functioning, cash generative business".

Sadly it doesn't.

You're entirely ignoring the fact that the EBITDA figure quoted is merely a rough measure of the cash-style earnings from the core business BEFORE ANY financing costs and major non-cash accounting charges. It's almost irrelevant with regard to a company carrying as much interest-bearing debt as ANGS currently does.

Much more realistic than the EBITDA figure is the Pre-Tax Profit figure, which comes in at just £143k... and that's after taking into account a £9.1m derivative fair-value NON-CASH gain.

Having said that and as my other post details, although ANGS remained totally and utterly on its last legs, financially speaking, as of the end of Sep 2025, we need to see the results of increased production and higher gas prices (and of course, costs) in the half-year report (due end Jun) and the terms of the ludicrously delayed refinancing arrangement in order to be able to assess the likely state of the company going forwards.

ResRes, as I stated (and as you agree), it's largely irrelevant old news.

As I mentioned, there are factors entirely subsequent to the recently reported period that should work to ANGS's benefit - but without knowing to what extent, at what cost and without knowing what the terms of the refinancing will be (amount, revised repayment term, interest rate applied), it all (as seemingly always) remains finger in the air.

So no, definitely no pompoms yet (because as things stand with the existing financing, ANGS is still entirely screwed)... but also no need to read the company the last rites yet either.

You may expect some cynicism from longer-term ANGS watchers, because the entire company's history so far has been one of "Jam tomorrow! Honest!" (a promise that has been invariably broken), but maybe for the first time ever things may change to some extent. As ever, we'll just have to wait and see.

Sadly for the cheerleaders, today's FY accounts show nothing new that's worthwhile, but that won’t stop them squeaking that this news is just brilliant. Equally, there’s nothing new for the doomsayers to get their teeth into.

So how about applying some realism for a change? Here are some actual facts taken directly from the report:-

In the period, ANGS's declared profit of £0.14m was solely declarable because of a "fair value" £9.1m derivative gain that was NON-CASH.

In the period, ANGS only generated an extra 0.33m of cash, compared to the half year figures – and in fact had £1,047m LESS cash than at the end of the previous full year.

In the period, ANGS DID NOT not manage to pay off any of the capital sums owed to its three main creditors (Trafigura, Forrest and Aleph/Kemexon). So that means that it was unable pay all three contractually enshrined quarterly capital repayments on the existing £20m loan, an amount totalling £3.75m (obviously with Trafigura's acquiescence to such).

In the period, ANGS DID manage to pay off £1.591m of loan and other interest, but DID NOT manage to pay off the other £0.61m of loan interest (at 12%) owed for the period, nor any of the £5.427m legacy/crystallised hedge position liabilities (incurring an interest rate of 14%).

None of this comes as a surprise to anyone watching ANGS with any degree of realism or even a faint grasp of the financials - and as such, today's FY report is largely irrelevant. It shows ANGS as a company that as of end Sep 2025, had effectively no hope of being able to meet its already incurred liabilities.

HOWEVER...

What is needed in order to have a much clearer and more up-to-date picture of ANGS's prospects are:-

a) much more recent figures that reflect the financial effects of recent increases in production alongside even more recent rises in gas prices. For these, we'll have to wait for the half-year figures, due by the end of June.

and

b) ridiculously delayed detail on the amounts and terms of the refinancing agreement, so the impact/weight of that can be sensibly evaluated.

So, bottom line on this set of FY figures? No surprises and at that stage (Sep 2025) the company remained in very serious trouble, being way WAY too overgeared. However and as stated above, things could meaningfully change, depending on a) and b) above.

Onetomany, you say "The new loan at lower interest..."

I have no idea why you think the interest rates on any replacement/consolidating loan will be lower (and of course, nor do you).

On that basis, I think it would be a great deal less lunatic to wait until the terms of the refinancing are finally announced.

If one is to be realistic here, today's RNS is somewhat irrelevant. Nobody expected the creditors to force the company into insolvency, so the only surprise is the ludicrous length of time it's taken to get the principal terms of the refinancing agreed.

However, what has still not been revealed - and it's the most crucial information needed by the market - is what those new terms will be. Nobody can make a realistic assessment of ANGS's prospects without knowing those details.

Anyone who thinks it would be a good thing to live in an echo chamber where literally all you hear are opinions that are totally in tune with your own and thus do nothing but support your own confirmation bias is suffering from a serious dose of at best naivity, but more like stupidity.

WG, it looks like we're having an AI-off.

In the case of an AIM share suspension, does the nomad of the company whose shares are suspended have to make a public statement regarding anything at all in order for AIM to continue to allow a suspension longer than six months?

"No — the Nomad is not required to make a public statement for AIM to allow a suspension to continue, but the Nomad must remain actively involved behind the scenes and satisfied that the company is complying with the AIM Rules.

1. What the rules require

Under the AIM Rules for Companies and AIM Rules for Nominated Advisers:

Every AIM company must retain a Nomad at all times.

The Nomad is responsible for advising the company and confirming to the Exchange that it is complying with AIM rules.

This obligation is ongoing, including while a company’s shares are suspended.

2. How suspensions are handled in practice

When a suspension approaches the six-month point under Rule 41, the Exchange typically:

Consults with the Nomad

Reviews the company’s progress toward resolving the issue (e.g., reverse takeover, accounts, financing)

Decides whether to:

allow the suspension to continue, or

cancel admission.

The Nomad usually provides private confirmation to AIM Regulation that:

the company still has a credible plan to restore trading, and

the company continues to meet its obligations.

This communication is not normally disclosed publicly."

ChatGPT at least does not think that any public statement is required, though both it and Gemini state that the Nomad will need to have "private ongoing discussion with AIM regulation" in order for a suspension longer than six months to be allowed.

So... bottom line, providing that SP Angel keeps telling AIM that everything's just hunky dory chez ANGS, the suspension will be allowed to persist. Which is a little worrying, since it's a given that Nomads (those supposed guardians of PI's interests) will say and do literally anything in return for their retainer, a few paid-for lunches at The Ivy and the odd case of vintage claret at Christmas...

WG it's rare that I disagree with you (and certainly don't about the eventual fate of ANGS), but in this specific, I think you're wrong.

Rule 41 explicitly states thus (and this is exact wording):-

“Where the securities of an AIM company have been suspended from trading for six months, the Exchange MAY cancel the admission of those securities to trading on AIM.”

I've capitalised the oh so obviously important word. - basically, cancellation of a listing is discretionary, and not automatic.

AIM Regulation will permit longer suspensions if it has been led to believe that:

1. A significant transaction is still progressing (e.g. reverse takeover, restructuring, refinancing).

or

2. There is a realistic path to restoring trading (e.g. financing close to completion)

or

3. The company’s Nomad supports the extension

Obviously as you point out, #3 doesn't apply here - but #1 and/or #2 could. And as everyone knows, AIM's policing of its rules are slapdash at best with due diligence never being applied, so I personally am not surprised that it has allowed the suspension to continue... but continue it does.

Separately, looking at AIM history, roughly 80% of AIM-listed companies that were suspended for 10 months or more (such companies being known as 'AIM zombies') ended up eventually having their listings cancelled, with only 20% eventually resuming trading. And of those 20% that did resume trading, almost 90% ended up very significantly gapping down when shares did start trading again.

I'll let others decide which historically factual bucket ANGS ends up in...