Member Info for mf12

This, but there's probably also a "conceptual" double boost of (i) buying back the shares and (ii) cancelling a bigger chunk at once as opposed to in smaller chunks.

Is the CEO a clown? Why give your IP away without understanding how it's performing but even worse, he's being very arrogant and/or naive.

I first seen this via the investor meet presentation, and honestly there's no way I could invest. The fact that the CEO cant tell the market how the company's product is doing based on a deal he's done is catastrophic - more questions than answers.

Gobsmacked that a company like this is in business, never mind listed on a public stock exchange.

Who cares what Willie Walsh says. Clearly not the market.

Willie speaks and the share price goes up 2%... Let Willie speak!

The fundraise wasn't a surprise to me given the expected completion. However the monetisation of own-products is a real issue, and I worry that the current BOD do not have the skills and capability to do this. Lots of isolated good pieces of use, but can they actually execute and get product out more widely - I don't think so and there's no track-record... these 'partnership' agreements just aren't working. The sooner one of the big boys come in the better.

I'm still holding, just because there's little value in me selling now... just in case there is a miracle!

Agreed - I simply see this 51% sale as something to strengthen the balance sheet. Whether they will need a bridge-raise before then, given completion isn't until Q1'25 (and there are clearances required, meaning it's not a foregone conclusion it'll go through) is another question.

Riverstone hold all of the cards. The return on their debt is not linked to the stock market, they’ll be exploring options that work for them - as is their right being higher up the cap table than us equity holders.

It’s not in admin yet (a bad outcome for Riverstone as well as shareholders) so fingers crossed they’re working on something meaningful.

What has happened at HARL is a spectacular failure in leadership and in particular a failure of judgement on the part of the board - but I don't think this will be a surprise to anyone here.

Strategically, with a without sufficient backlog of work and capital, going out to acquire Methil, Arnish & Appledore was a series of fundamental mistakes - never mind the bonkers distraction that is the ferry fiasco. To any potential customers, looking at the financials of the Company they would have a significant concern that any proposed contract is deliverable. Any potential customer could quickly see that it would quickly go insolvent if further proof of funds were not immediately available OR the Company could offer a significant bond - neither of which particularly palatable or deliverable.

As a shareholder, I'm disappointed, but not surprised that the Government rejected the export guarantee. You just simply cannot use this method of financing for what the board were looking to do which is principally fund retained losses by repaying the existing debt down. There may have been potential if - unless a significantly profitable export contract(s) was going to get the Company out if its predicament by showing that the Company was at least going to be profit and cash flow neutral in the future. This would be difficult to cover all of the different sites, however.

What is slightly surprising is that Riverstone allowed the Company to draw down what it did. They must have seen the impending doom, or had other information to show that it was going to turn the financial situation around. Perhaps they were led up the garden path, or perhaps this was always their end game. But I don't think the break-up value of the assets are in excess of £200m, especially after the IM judicial review.

Struggling to see a way out, but I'm sure the advisors will now be looking to divest all non-core assets - Methil, Arnish & Appledore - whilst trying to retain the rationalise Belfast yard to try sell this as a going concern to deliver the FSS and some other commercial contracts. The Company in its current form has bitten off more than it can chew to focus (and incur significant cost) on the 5 markets without building out a track record. All that said, nobody knows what the contract for the FSS says in terms of change of control, insolvency, etc.

Why is the CFO hanging around, must surely just be a transition?

Pure speculation on my part, but it could be because at the point of signing the accounts the directors (and auditors will review/sign off on this) have to state that the Company is a going concern covering a period of not less than 12 months in the future. In this regard, certainty over funding this may well cause an issue.

In the event that the Company is not a going concern, the audit procedures would likely need re-done as assets have to be valued on a break-up basis.

Hebridean9 - would you mind posting where you found Riverstone's annual accounts? Thanks

Chris you're not wrong when you say the standards are quite clear in terms of revenue recognition.

The auditor will simply be applying the accounting standard, which looks not too dissimilar to the accounting policy in the company's 2022 accounts. If the company can't follow it's own accounting standard, we've no hope.

I still hold shares in the company, but have no confidence in the finance team if they can get revenue recognition so badly wrong, potentially up to 25%, if the final outturn is £80m!

For this to news come out 1 month before year end is surprising also - for the types of contracts H&W have there's often little benefit to the auditor testing revenue to this level of detail prior to year end.

I would expect the payment to be held within liabilities - one would expect there to be strings attached to it in relation to the fulfilment of the contract. Whether this liability can be amortised (offsetting depreciation) or has to be released in one go once the contract is fulfilled would only be known by reading the contract.

@ForrestGump i think that's the key rationale around me thinking the ferry project is nothing more than vanity project without seeing any detail, which only the company can provide.

You've hit the nail on the head around it likely being a low-margin operation . So passenger volume is key - otherwise there is no money to service the debt, operate, and maintain the ferries. Maintaining your own ferries is not revenue generating unless the ferries are profitable as a whole, including the maintenance part - maintenance is a zero-sum game from a group perspective.

I am well aware that HARL building the ferries in-house will be cheaper than A N Other company trying to operate them without any build capability - as that A N Other company will have an in-built margin to build - the key risk to HARL is around deliverability at that lower cost. You can fix the price of a contract with an external party, you can't internally.

I'm not trying to deramp. I'm just fed up with the lack of detail.

@Citizenlane - where has your figure of £48m come from? As a holder of HARL, I'd be delighted if the Govt was to hand over £48m to build the ferries and HARL gets to keep the proceeds from operations but I doubt it's quite as simple as that - HARL will be expected to take a high degree of commercial risk.

In my mind the questions that need answered are:

- What is the build cost (and what is contingency)?

- How is this going to be funded - and at what cost?

- What are the expected cash flows from operations when the ferries are active - what are the operating costs & what revenue do the current ferries generate - assumptions around volume is key?

- What is to happen to the existing ferries (and operator) - what are their plans? If they continue the market will be saturated.

I am not surprised around the share price movements. The issue with Harland and Wolff is that detail is always thin on the ground. The key thing holding this share back is the uncertainty around funding.

Issuing RNS' like the one about the Scilly ferries is counterproductive from a funding perspective and just adds risk for the equity holders. The company is heavily loss-making - and adding in large projects such as this (which, at this stage, feels like vanity) will inevitably burn cash before there are any returns - and we have no detail on this.

Following on: the strategy changes like the wind, since when was HARL ever going to operate a ferry business? Such fluidity on strategy I suspect will be a drawback for potential institutional investors.

Is it Sightlink 47 again today?

Unless all trades are at (or close to) the ask, with the ask ever constantly moving down, what does it matter? There was a counterparty that bought that value of shares.

£77m investment into the assets of H&W, miles in excess of the market cap. How it’s funded, who knows yet but nevertheless it just adds to the confidence levels.

Is anyone familiar with MoD contracts and change or control, specifically to foreign owners? Navantia would be as well taking H&W out now!

Intrinsic value. The FSS contract underpins the whole company, you wouldn’t find a government [typically] trusting a company to deliver such a large contract if it wasn’t deliverable. This goes straight to credibility and in itself will give confidence indirectly to other potential customers, never mind investors. The indirect implications of this contract is probably worth more than the c£30m market cap, especially against the backdrop of other valuations that are out there.

Key thing for H&W short term is shoring up the cash flow. Unsure of the flows from the FSS contract itself, but again the heads of terms from the most recent investor provides decent comfort over this - they will have been doing diligence and I’m sure would have been in the know around the FSS award.

The value of the yards - on the basis of work flowing through (very highly lightly given preferred bidder status) - is more than the MCap, never mind Islandmagee.