The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
@confluence - it is possible that the reults will be written/contain enough to keep the banks/lenders/creditors on board and not provide any resolution to the ongoing saga.
They may only provide further vague commentary similar in nature to the most recent RNS.
On the other hand, any comment or remarks made by the auditors would warrant close scrutiny.
Surely whoever lobs some new money into the company, be it by D4E, takeover or whatever, surely the amount of money that is needed is going to give the incoming party a say in what happens going forward, a say in whether the exisiting management continues, a say in whether they bring their own people in to steer the ship in some way.
Perhaps these questions are occupying the mind of some of the BOD as much as doing what is needed for the company.
Snapper10 - wouldn't it be the case that to get a revolving credit facility that they would have had to give some security, but that the security would have needed to be worth perhaps double the credit facility limit and that said security could not have a charge over it to somebody else ?
Also, as it is a credit facility, so not a loan, it does not immediately mean that they have max'd out the facility limit, indeed they may only be in hock for a small proportion of the total credit limit.
An RCF is quite expensive to run compared to an ordinary loan and are best used to fill a cash flow hole, rather than as a long term loan.
They need cash, but, the sale of non core assets will take time, which they don't have.
A D4E solution is near, but the "new money" wants a certain level % of the equity/control, therefore a rising share price kills the D4E deal (because it messes with the E4D ratio) that they are looking at, and they feel that they don't have time to find different "new money", perhaps, they also get to keep their jobs on the board.
Credit_Limit - If you are right that a D4E solution has been discussed, then maybe it has tacitly agreed.
That tacit agreement would have been for an amount of money that equates to a number of shares, which in turn equates to a paticular % of the company.
A rising share price could mess up those calculations if the deal was close, perhaps causing an involved party to have second thoughts, one way or another.
Perhaps a D4E deal is cliser than anyone thinks.
As for sale of core assets, surely they can only be part way through any such deal, and in any event I don't believe that the sp would affect a sale.
MaryBr190 - Reality maybe, but why this RNS and why now ?
It doesn't convey anything tangible
It clarifies very little
It does stir the pot ahead of the expected update
What is "management" trying to achieve?
How does crashing the share price by issueing the RNS help in their quest for a D4E agreement with someone ?
Have they already agreed the deal ?
Are the board members now negotiating for their own positions with the new largest shareholder ?
I don't really know who is going be selling a large quantity of shares to save the shorters day.
The vast majority of retail must be in the hole and waiting on a rise to 60/70/80p along with any institutions in the same place.
Those that bought in at the low 20's, or on the way down can't be a big proportion of MCAP, whilst those that day traded at the bottom equally can't be a big proportion of the MCAP - they would all wait anyway.
The MM's surely don't hold that much in their back pocket.
Those that are trading the dips on the way up are surely just circulating the same shares.
Company insiders won't be sellling if they know it is all hunky dory, which it apears to be otherwise something would have leaked.
I know everyone has their price, but where is the 10% of MCAP coming from ?
Or am I missing something ?
Not being a sophisticated investor type, but why ...
If you were being paid to manage someone elses money and had opened a short at 70p or 80p, then seen the sp fall all the way down to 15p and only to settle in the low 20's, why would you keep the short open and expose yourself to the risk that PFC's management pulls an iron out of the fire (or a fast one) that sorts out the financial issues ?
Why not take some decent money while you can ?
Surely keeping the short open isn't worth the extra money from any further falls in the sp when viewed against the risk of getting it wrong ?
Or is it that because you opened the short at 70p to 80p that you are banking on being able to close and still make money, in the event of a short squeeze that starts from down in the 20's ?
Given the nature of the pessimists on this board, they will probably make something of him being 5p short of the full £20K
Petrofac revealed on Friday that chairman René Médori had acquired 75,820 ordinary shares in the London-listed energy services company.
Médori, who previously served as Anglo American's finance director, purchased the shares on Thursday at an average price of 26.38p each, for a total value of £19,999.95.
Following the transaction, Médori holds in interest in 660.040 ordinary Petrofac shares.
For interest
https://www.alphaspread.com/security/xber/p2f/summary
Have to say that it would not be surprising to see one of the shorts has reduced their exposure as we go into the easter break.
Not saying that its suddenly going to be down to 5%, but just a little nibble off the 11% might be on the cards
To me short selling is like someone borrowing my car at night, whilst I think it is parked in my locked garage, and using it to earn a living only to return it to me in the morning, sometimes shagged out and useless, without even giving me a cut of what they earnt overnight.