Member Info for Leisurely

“ sn't Naples situated in northern Italy?”

Yes, it’s in the part bordering Greenland.

Two of the three shareholders mentioned are on the board no? They would have been 100% certain when pledging their shares and not declaring it that what they were doing was wrong. It stinks!

The report only has revenue increasing 60% from 2019 to 2021 - hardly stratospheric. And they’ll still be making a loss at that point. Not a great proposition at least until funding is sorted.

I think the drop is largely due to forward projection of another 6 to 8 percent drop in revenue this year.

Thanks besharp!

Does anyone have a theory supporting Link still being in trx. From their announcement yesterday they mostly are still to sell non liquid unquoted securities. This share would fall into their other category of quoted securities which they are implying they have sold....

Sandhopper - those 4 were buys. The report here is wrong.

Chester, you may well be right, long term. However, a good point to buy in is just after the funding is sorted (if a placing). This way you miss the share price drop that immediately follows a discounted placing (the size of the discount and number of shares correlates to the share price drop).

Taff, whilst the news wasn’t brilliant it was good. It showed a pragmatic approach to manage the situation by both parties given recent events (apparently at no additional cost). And as yet, there’s no evidence the Lek board are at fault the dodgy loan if they outsourced Due diligence and Loan arrangement to more experienced & reputable parties. They may also be in a position to get some or all of he loss back. But none of this can be concluded until they produce a report on the matter.

A solid rns with, as someone said, an air of caution. I’ll likely get back in when funding is sorted. It would have been nice to see a projection of a break even date.

I think the point is Lek were not really dealing with Seawave at all (to be confirmed). ‘Seawave’ acted as advisors to get the deal and received an arrangement fee when Lek agreed to go ahead. But I’m guessing Seawave will say they have never been contacted by Lek and it was an imposter. I’m sorta reading between the lines tho.

Marshall Wallace reduced by 0.12%

The RNS does lead to some genuine questions:
- how is the platinum production limit get set by ‘authorities’ and what does that mean for profitability and value of the company?
- how can they know they have mined 66kg of platinum but not know how much they have mined of the other precious metals (particularly palladium)
- all most of us talk about on here is the palladium deposits at WK and how much that is worth to the company valuation. Yet, in the company summary at the end there is no mention at all of palladium at WK but they refer to the platinum assets only; they refer to palladium for the other nine but not WK.

There are inconsistencies or at least a change in emphasis here compared to what we’ve been used to.

Well Sharetalk do say the interview was done today and is being being edited. It may be the weekend arrived before they finished editing; or maybe eua want to give it the once over before it is published. Either way it has been done. They probably aren’t as desperate to rush to publish as much as people here are desperate to see it.

zaccs, good point. Thanks.

Ratknapp, that’s very useful thanks. It does highlight that this lending was part of a quantitative easing phase that is now closed. Therefore, there’s nothing that indicates a right by metro bank to rollover the deposit at the same rate.

An article a month or so ago noted the bank was effectively being subsidised from the central bank with about £4bn funding until Dec 2020 and there was no guarantee the central bank would keep such generous terms after that date.

So I checked the H1 accounts and you can see a deposit with metro of £3,801m from the central bank at a rate of 0.75% (the base rate) and this cost metro £14.1m interest payment in H1.

Metro obviously uses this to support lending, the lending being at a higher rate allowing metro an element of guaranteed profit to support their challenger bank activities.

If metro have to replace some or all of this funding by Dec 2020 from the market they would clearly pay a higher rate. The metro prospectus that facilitated the £350 MREL requirement allows for up to £3bn to be raised through multiple issuances over the coming years. This £3bn total may have been set to partly facilitate replacement of central bank funding. We have already seen the punitive coupon achieved through this bond issuance process.

I’d suggest the negative sentiment is more than just the outstanding FCA issue; and that the replacement of central bank subsidised funding will become far more prominent an issue over the coming months (and is already part of shorter’s analysis). I say ‘subsidised’ because the funding is at exactly the base rate so the central bank have not required any margin on the deposit rate to account for metro bank’s credit risk at all.

Just thought I’d highlight it for those interested in material risks and very interested if anyone thinks this is not significant.

On the original interview Dmitry doesn’t say the currency of the 50m payment. So I’d assume it to be $ not £. That’d be about 1.5p per share not 2p. Maybe he has clarified the currency on a different interview though.

The trading update seems in line with previous expectations so hopefully a positive impact on the share price over the next few days. Not sure why the rns is not on this site yet though.

Panderman, It’s probably because they lose money on the 2% fixed interest rate.