George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
No quick buck here though!
I've adjusted my prediction between 3.6 - 4.4 until early late October / early November
What's this collections update you speak of, do you mean a trading update? The next news coming out of this company is the half year results in mid October. There maybe a trading update if we are very lucky, but this will be overshadowed by the FCA guarantor redress issue along with the funding issue. Not much moving until early November and remember that will be H1 results 4 months of which were lockdown and 2 months of a low trading period.
4.9!
My prediction is that the price will now fluctuate between 3.8p and 4.8p for the next 2 - 3 months. So, lets all meet back here just after bonfire night and pick up the conversation then!
crh888 - thanks for this info.
So are you saying that Woodford etc will no longer own PFG shares? Just even more NSF shares?
Crh888 Thanks for your response. I’ve put my response in brackets.
1. The only major backers who have agreed this deal also happen to own a controlling interest in NSF (Woodford, Invesco and Marathon) and so the deal benefits these for very different reasons. The other major institutions who only own Provident stock have analysed and said no, suggesting that this deal benefits NSF shareholders who acquire a much better business for a price which is far too low.
[I don’t understand why non NSF PFG shareholders are disadvantaged]
2. Provident shareholders are being forced to accept a deal and NSF shares BEFORE CMA, FCA and PRA approval. If the merger is not approved, it will by then be too late and you would be a shareholder in NSF instead. In addition the deal would have to be unpicked at great expense, which would be borne by shareholders. In essence, we are going in blind.[NSF have stated recently that they expect regulators to approve the deal shortly]
3. If the deal went ahead, it looks very much like some of the plans the new owners have would come under intense FCA scrutiny which would plunge the company into yet more years of uncertainty just as it has come out of the woods in this regard.[ I don’t think this is true ]
4. Although it seems that the current board could have done more over the last couple of years, it does have to be remembered that their hands were effectively tied whilst under FCA investigation. This market is now very different to a few years ago and I'm not convinced the NSF board have a grasp of just how different the regulation is. [ Although FCA investigations don’t help it wasn’t just that which crashed PFG share price it was bad management, overlooked by at least one of the current directors. John Van Kuffeler, NSF chairman was in charge of PFG through the growth years]
5. The main reason I think this deal is so bad is that we are being asked to accept an offer for no premium whatsoever in return for a strategy which carries lots of risk and expense. Seems to me a great offer for NSF shareholders (Woodford, Invesco and Marathon in particular) and not so for Provident shareholders. [you are not selling your shares to NSF so why can you expect a premium? For those that accept the offer there’s the premium of also owning shares in the new Loans at Home company]
There has not been a price offered, so I don’t understand this objection. The offer is 8.88 NSF shares for one PFG share. You still own exactly the same stake in the company as you did before. Plus as I understand it there will also be shares in the new Loans at Home company and a payback for the division they intend to sell.
crh888, I know it’s too late for me, but can you explain why this deal is awful? Once I understand where you are coming from I’ll try to explain why I think it was a decent offer.
I haven’t, but then again, I accepted it already.
Lemontree - I think you hit the nail on the head when you say you are not impressed with PFG management. If this was a cash offer then 450 would be an insult and would crystallise your PFG portfolio at a massive loss, if like me I had some in there at 1200. But........ it’s not. It’s unfortunate that the market price of shares is so low at the moment, really this has nothing to do with it. You will still own the same as you own now, except the management in charge, I believe is better placed to make this share a great share again and I am trusting will get the price up again. After all, it’s a great board, with great news and great profits that usually get the price to go bull.
Yes - I suppose the name PFG won’t exist anymore, but I’m sure the name Provident will remain as a brand. Why get rid of over 100 years of history! I suppose the other 2 brands that are going won’t be missed, one a loss maker and the other not strategically placed to be part of the new company. At least we will get some cash back from the sale and we’ll get some shares in the new Loans at Home company too.
As I understand it the offer is a share swap offer. There is no cash involved. The bidder (NSF) has not offered to buy your shares but rather swap them for new shares in a new enlarger company. The offer of 8.88 NSF shares was I presume based on the fact that at the time of the offer PFG was 8.88 times bigger than NSF. I suppose they could have said to NSF shareholders that for every 8.88 shares you hold we will give you 1 new share in the enlarged company, but then if you only owned 5 you’d never get a new share! So using the least largest denominator it was done that way. I don’t understand those folks that think they are getting ripped off. If the deal goes though everyones investment will continue to trade as normal with Old PFG shareholders owning the same stake as they did before. In no way does the deal crystallise the investment as a loss, remember you haven’t been paid cash for your shares. Reading in-depth news stories over the last few months it seems to me that the whole thing was spurred from the fact the John Van Kuffeler was witnessing a disaster happing in a company that he had seen great growth in over the 22 years he was involved. The share price in PFG had gone from 12p in 1990 to over 2400p when he retired 5 years ago. I think he just wants to see the company great again. Like all us long term PFG shareholders, we all want PFG great again and that’s why I voted yes to this offer.