Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
First announcement about a potential offer for the Company was 4th August, so the share price in July is the undisturbed share price. That is the reference share price for any announcement of premium or otherwise. Bids don't have to be at a premium but obviously have greater chance of success if they are.
For clarity, Pincus have NOT bought any shares. If they had they would have to declare to market.
The 12 month rule is acquirers have to match the highest price they have paid for shares in the last 12 months if they buy the Company. Not relevant in this case as Pincus haven't bought any. But as example, if Davidson Kempner or Albert Bridge made an offer, it would have to be equal to the highest price they have paid in the last 12 months.
A lot on here lack patience. Imagine if the Company didn't respond to speculation in August, we would not know anything and the share price would likely be back in the low 20's where it was over the summer. (I think it would be undervalued at that price, hence I am long).
Good luck all and stop whining about the delay.
Maybe I am gullible but I doubt there is manipulation in this stock. Examining the free float (excluding all the large holders) and the small market cap, there is limited ability to manipulate. Added to this, the fact it is under Rule 8.3 reporting, most compliance departments will require notification of every trade, bringing in an additional layer of scrutiny.
For that reason I doubt any manipulation.
Sorry meant to add, because AA is under takeover discussions.
Anyone who changes their position, over 1% has to declare their holdings.
Additionally, anyone who is advising the various parties, has to declare anytime they trade. Hence, it is best to ignore the 8.5. 8.3 are the ones to keep an eye on.
Why are people in such a rush. This is likely to be extended next Tuesday.
As per their presentation for FY16 numbers, Ireland EBITDA was £13m. I don't have the figures for EBITDA in 2020, thanks for those. It appears there was a typo, sorry. Got the message elsewhere.
Sold on an implied 4.0x revenue, similar to the 2016 revenue multiple. On 3x sales multiple the AA plc share price would be 57p.
In 2016 it was sold on a 6.7x EBITDA multiple, (don't have upto date EBITDA for AA Ireland) but if AA plc sold on similar multiple today the shares would be worthless.
Fun times.
I don't know who it is, but it could be Albert Bridge or anyone else. But although CS represents Pincus, those shares they own aren't held for Pincus. Pincus would have to declare if they own any shares, and none of the bidders own shares (or at least own >1%).
If you count the shares owned in Rule 8.3 away from the dealers c. 65-70% is accounted for. Add in Private Investors and there is very limited free float.
Panderman, who is the form from. If it is a dealer one, then you can ignore. It is the buys and sells of the dealer to end clients and usually they are trying to have a matched book, but not obliged to.
So personally I ignore the EPT ones, as these are dealer desks away from the advisory side.
That statement from GS is from their dealing desk. I would ignore the EPT rule 8 declarations. They are just noise of the dealers trades. Won't be anyway involved with the actual bidding parties (and the restricted buyers are not able to buy at the current time, they have access to insider information).
Look at the Rule 8.5 that are not for dealers, and you will see 60-70% of the shares are held in 12 accounts. Hence the volatility in the share price.
a bank will own the shares and write the CFD to the other party. That is why you shouldn't count Investment Banks holdings separately, as they are usually neutral - long the shares, short the CFD.
They will convert depending on financing and tax issues - CFD has no tax - and they have plenty of time to convert before a vote. So I wou;dnt read anything into it.
Am surprised no one has mentioned the numbers released by RAC. Membership numbers up, sales down, EBITDA up but a little lower than I was expecting. Steady state business and any risk that Covid19 was a negative for AA has been dismissed by their peer.
Am still a weak buy here, but instead of reacting to old news about Jefferies (which was sent to clients yesterday) react to the current news.
The RNS doesn't state they bought recently - they are disclosing their position because >1% of outstanding shares.
Credit Suisse are not buying for themselves. It is client buying. and market trading. Irrelevant.
Look at the RNS rule 8 without EMT/RI reports. that is the ones to focus on.
What info are you expecting. Number 1, refinancing complete - unlikely, because would have to report to market. So a non runner.
Take out: possible but again unlikely. There is no update because it is steady as it goes. Next update will be pre release of H1 numbers.
Start with a tweet from "lucareds85" - he appears to be the author. I have spoken to someone who subscribes to the research, but not seen it myself.
Start with a tweet from "lucareds85" - he appears to be the author. I have spoken to someone who subscribes to the research, but not seen it myself.
There is a research note out from Reorg Research which is stating Evercore have been appointed by AA plc to work with the upcoming maturities of A5 and B notes in January and July 2022 respectively. The three potential options discussed are sale of the insurance business, amend and extend or issuance of a convertible bond.
I think the A5 notes will be amended and extended post release of H1 results in the September, similar to what occurred in February.
The B notes, which are subordinated to all of the A notes, is more problematic, but I don't see a sale of insurance business as a possibility, given the A notes would have first claim on any asset sales. An asset sale would just reduce the A notes, and the B notes would be still outstanding.
A convertible is difficult to imagine given the small market cap of AA plc.
I don't have the article itself, would appreciate it.
It isn't CS increasing their stake - it is a fund using CS to finance their stake. i.e. look at the Davidson Kempner declaration. DK owns 8.6% but some of it is owned by JPMorgan on their behalf. So JPM does not have economic interest in AA, but just financing Davidson Kempner stake.
It will likely be the same for CS.
And still selling. - no market manipulation. just a big seller
Can't believe people still think this is manipulation. A large holder has disclosed that they are selling and potentially are still selling - there isn't the market depth to absorb such volumes.
I am long, I like the situation, but get exasperated when people claim manipulation whenever something doesn't go the way they want.