Member Info for Metamorphosis84

"The Board are are conducting all their comms through interviews and quotes with the newspapers. Not an RNS in sight. I'm amazed"

"Interserve declined to comment" - seems to be the standard line doesn't it.

And this from an LSE listed company with regulatory responsibilities.......

Whatever, they are going to have to get a wriggle on, considering 11.00am 13th March is the latest time and date for receipt of Proxy Votes.

Backs up my thoughts about Coltranes barking mad plan "Its whole stance through this process seems to be based on the false premise that shareholders have any real financial control over this business. They don’t." "Sources tell me its presentation on an alternative finance package consisted of five brief slides for an overhead projector, including the front page header. " "Seems to me it is just playing a game of chicken in the hope that the banks will hand over a couple more percentage points of the equity to make it shut up." "But they’re wrong. The deal on the table has been long fought out between the banks, the board, the pensions trustee and the government" https://www.standard.co.uk/business/jim-armitage-us-hedge-fund-is-in-cloud-cuckoo-land-on-interserve-deal-a4088266.html

It is a better deal. But. In order for this to be a credible offer, the risk of de-listing needs to be removed. Remember: "It is likely that one or more of the Lenders may requision a Shareholders meeting to vote on whether to cancel the Company's listed.....if more than 75% of Shareholders votes in favour......would be de-listed." 2.5%, 5%, 7.5% or even 10% makes little difference in respect of the above.

Yes CC there if it was a case of 'business as usual' for pre-pack, then I don't think the BOD would have spent the weekend begging shareholders to vote it through via various media outlets.
Furthermore I suspect HMG do not want this to go to administration, pre pack or otherwise, thats if HMG is still functioning by the end of the week.
Remember the fuss about the Honda factory shutting.... the ferry company with no ferries..
Which former justice sec was responsible for signing off the probation services PFI. Can HMG afford ministerial resignations?

I am not suprised that an increased offer may be coming because administration has far reaching consequences.

Cc its an interesting take on the supplier situation. Are the BOD just telling suppliers what they want to here re. business as usual.

And what the hell does 'business as usual' mean anyway?

Not getting paid by Interserve? Because that is reality of 'business as usual' for a lot of suppliers.

Much bigger volume today. Is the sp about to collapse here?

It also beggars belief that a regulated company that trades on the london stock exchange can casually send out an rns saying that they have reported an incorrect debt figure by a factor of 138%.

Working out the net debt is difficult when relying on the Rns releases by Kier.
Final results 2016 state yr end 2016 99m yr end 2017 110m.
Final results 2017 state yr end 2017 110m yr end 2018 £186.

Then the trading update dated 22nd Jan 19 says the net debt was 130m on the 31st Dec 28 (compared to £239 in December 17.)

So please correct me if I am wrong- but the stated debt according to rns's released by Kier were:
Yr end June 2016 - £99m
Yr end June 2017 - £110m
December 31st 2017 -£239m
June 2018 - £186m
December 31st 2018 - £130m
December 31st 2018 - £180.5m

So how did it go up from £110 to £239m in 6 months in 2017 then back down to £186 in June 2018?

The statement on Jan 22nd 2019 verbatim:
"As at 31st December 2018, the Group's net debt was c.£130m (31st December 2017: £239m), reflecting the recent rights isse proceeds and acceleration of supply chain payments, as expected)"

So they are claiming that they got the debt down from £239m in December 2017 to £130/180m in December 2018 by means of an RI.
Yet their published results show they had already got it down to £186m by June 2018, 6 months before the Rights Issue.

How can this be so?

*edit 16-17 debt increased by 11m not 1m.

So the net debt has been reported:

Year End 30th June 2016 - £99m
Year End 30th June 2017 - £110m
31st December 2018 - £130m
11th March - 180.5

There is a big problem here:

Increase over period of 1year 2016-2017, £1m
Increase over period 18months Jul 17- December 18, £20m
Increase over period 3 months Dec 18-March 19, £50.5m

No doubt in the final results in 9 days time they will claim this to be "in line with expections".

My problem here is that the expectations are being changed in line with the results which renders them meaningless.

Mr Dew should pay his bonus back and should also be required to explain to the regulatory authorities how such an error was made especially so soon after an RI had taken place, which presumably would have required an independent audit.
No?

Don't blame you. A £60m accounting error is totally unacceptable as is inaccurate reporting to the market. The CFO has to take personal responsibility for this cock up.

Well in Kiers case, the banks have increased their holding as a result of being the bookrunners for a complete fiasco of a rights issue. The story there was that Kier reported last summer everything to be hunky dory, then in the autumn, oops, everything not as rosy as we thought. Then they said that banks were tightening their credit terms to the construction industry (which is believable) so an RI was necessary. But by time that got under way, the sp had dropped below the issue price. A huge number of shareholders didn't take up rights so the banks ended up with the shares. Today they have revised up their debt and still not appointed a CEO. That is just 1 example of calamity in this sector. I am not sure that the banks are invested by choice, this is a house of cards that I guarantee will collapse soon.

Well Kier are getting themselves into a complete mess now, apparently unable to get on top of their debt, revising debt figures upwards every few months (where have we seen that before). I would be very wary about investing in any construction or outsourcing companies at the moment. Especially those that have an element of both. In my opinion, Interserve is the second domino after Carillion. I would expect some, if not all of those companies you mention Pundit, to be in serious trouble in the next few years.

Why settle for disaster when you can have calamity instead? This company looks to be in some serious trouble here.

When all hell breaks out next week who will the contagion hit hardest? Will it be outsourcers, the likes of Mitie, Crapita and Serco who feel the pain. Or, are peers in the construction sector going get the flack? In particular anyone with JVs.

Fate has been woefullu wrong in nearly every prediction that he has made regarding Interserve on this board. However, it would appear he's correct regarding the impact on suppliers should pre pack take place. That is if you believe the words of Debbie White.in todays Sunday Times. "White is blunt about what will happen if the debt-for-equity swap is rejected. The accounting firm EY will take over as administrator of the listed parent company. All of Interserve’s trading entities, staff and contracts will transfer to a new, unlisted company owned by the lenders that will emerge on the following Monday, and continue trading normally. “It will be business as usual on March 18 for all of our staff, clients and suppliers,” she said." That said, what is your experience of business as usual, Easy?

Easy, its a good question, I would agree in the main with the replies you've had, however they focus on the fate of shareholders as opposed to suppliers. My experience of administration and certainly liquidation, is that creditors are at the front of the queue and everyone else including suppliers, at the back. Certainly when Carillion went (liquidation) a lot of suppliers did not get paid, and a number have since gone under, some citing Carillion non payment as being a factor. However, would pre pack be the same as straight up administration? Mouchel has been mentioned here a few times as having gone into pre pack. Can anyone inform as to what happened to suppliers in that instance?

Sigh.

Deep breath.

The 6m transaction you refer to was an Uncrossing Trade.

Hopefully Mike Ashley will step in to rescue another great British retail institution. The current board clearly aren't up to the task. Ashley wanted them out a while ago, but they stuck around. How did that work out for Deb? ANOTHER profit warning. Well done the board.