Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video here.
I see that now you have done the maths you agree.....I have seen posts on here from people who are first time share holders and others seeking information who are clearly confused and nervous. All you have tried to do is smother the information I have provided because you didn't understand it until now.
I have taken issue with 246 regarding the debt piece. I commented on the summary listed by Delmia. You clearly don't understand the implication of the warrants as they have nothing, per se, to do with debt and everything to do with a potential dilution.
If you feel that I should grow a spine, I assume you mean that being abusive is acceptable behaviour, well it's not.
Robglfc...just because you don't know what you are talking about there is no need to be abusive. The warrants are not debt. They are options on 126m ordinary shares at 50p. If you don't have the IQ to comprehend this, there are others who might be blindsided and wonder why the share price drops on consolidation when everyone is saying it makes no difference. This BB is not the global epicentre of AML share price movement and there are people who read this board because they want proper information.
Delmia et al....I think you are forgetting the warrants, all 126m of them. This is a serious dilution. The warrants are valid from today of the motion is passed and will represent an instant profit given that the exercise price is 50p. Whilst the warrants expire in 12 months, the first profit might be considered to be the best profit by the bond holders. A quick sale at a good profit would also maximise income against the bond as it would represent an immediate reduction in exposure.
3300: I have found the juvenile behaviour of some and the aggressive behaviour of others not to be to my liking so I decided to abstain from posting. Sensible questions or issues that are grounded are the only ones I am interested in engaging with.
One poster said that he did not have an issue with share options or warrants. Whilst they may appear to be the same thing by a different name, they are, in fact, quite different animals. Share options are usually awarded for performance and very often will have restrictions on sale relating to time attached. Warrants on the other hand are a call option, in this case at 50p. All 126m of them prior to consolidation. Warrants are like bearer bonds, the holder is anonymous and where the coupon is attached, the holder is entitled to any dividend. This being the case it is quite possible for Stroll & Co to end up with them and no one would know. Additionally, they are a potential dump at any time on the basis that there is no time restriction attached, so if the warrants are exercised in acquiring the shares, they can be sold immediately. This means that at any price higher than 50p over the 12 month period of validity, the share price will be vulnerable to a significant fall. I also find the split of the ordinary shares between interim and deferred curious. There is a clear change in the nominal value of the shares. Under normal circumstances it would be a straight swap. They will have to keep the deferred shares for a time as a nominal value is being attributed to them and cancellation would change the value of issued and allotted chare capital. I am sure they have a reason for the deferred share step, but I don't know what it is.
The main point for small investors is that they will get 1 share for every 20 ordinary shares they currently hold. the split of the ordinary shares between 'interim' and 'deferred' is that the company are engaging in a three step process, first to split the current ordinary shares and then issue the new shares in exchange for the 'interim' shares. The final step is that the company are then left with the deferred shares. As far as I am aware they have not declared what they are going to do with the deferred shares. These shares, until cancelled, will form a new class of share. Usually these shares will have fewer rights, such as no voting rights. Most companies ultimately cancel such shares, however, in this case they may not be cancelled and Stroll may do something else with them. The overall impact on private (small) investors should be nil, however, if the company were to reissue the deferred shares in another form then there will be an impact.
Crank: I am too old to behave like a child. If you actually read my post, but then again why should you:-), I said that my analysis of the figures suggested that the sp was undervalued and that it should be well above £1. I estimated that the breakup value of the company would be about 50/share. Like most shares, ultimately it is like an expensive game of snakes and ladders. Success very much depends on when you get in and when you get out. I don't have a crystal ball, but I have instinct when it comes to the product. To me it all hinges on the economic backdrop and whether AML can sort out the design issues I have with the range. Time will tell, but for me this is a watching brief which requires vigilantes and not blind faith.
I like Wolff, he is a clever guy. If he is the MB board member for AML I would regard that is a major plus. I think he will bring a lot to the party, both car manufacturing with the integration of F1 technology and knowhow. Obviously what he an Cowell are going to do adds to the interest, which makes up for what can be a bit of a dry sport at times.
3300. I have skimmed the prospectus. There is a lot of padding in it so I just read the sections that I thought were important. I don't see everything that Stroll is trying to do as bad, there are some good points, but I think on this BB too many people focussed on what the consolidation was going to mean, but to me that is a red herring. My main concern is the stripping of pre-emption rights. This puts the PI's in a very weak position. If further issues allowed PI's to maintain parity, I would be cool with that even if I was having to constantly pay out, at least I would have the choice. If the stripping of pre-emption rights is approved, which I don't doubt that it will, then PI's will need to be vigilant as well as having a lot of trust and faith in Stroll. For me the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Richard, the F1 piece is interesting. MB get a seat on the board with the first tranche, will this be Wolff I wonder? Also have in mind that MB play a long game. As I recall AMG had 6% of the company about 7 or 8 years ago. Also the Mercedes Racing team is not wholly owned by MB, so how the FIA would view MB having a stake in AML that owns an F1 team will be interesting.
My aim today was to highlight underlying issues of resolutions that shareholders were being asked to approve, but had not been mentioned on the BB. For me (and only me) there is a lot to think about here. the sole purpose of buying shares is to make money. Some people here ridicule others for taking a profit as though there is some virtue in holding long. I think the GM is a bit of a watershed moment. I think it will be good in the short term if AML buy the F1 team, but long term, who knows, it will very much depend how successful the team is and whether it is a net contributor or drain in the balance sheet.
Today the sp is down, I think it will take a few days for people to properly read and digest the prospectus and then form strategic decisions with regard to hold, short or long term or whether to divest, stand back and see what the fallout is from the GM and consolidation.
DunnieBoy: You once asked me a question, which I then answered in good faith. Subsequently you then used this information to ridicule me at every opportunity. You will therefore have to forgive me if I don't answer your questions.
Rob:- The post was to assist people in adding bandwidth to their thinking about the GM and what shareholders are being asked to approve and what the implications are for the sp. Stroll& Co can move the chairs around all they like, but at some point they have to sell product. If you take the £125m cash raise that Stroll and a couple of others did for themselves, with no real justification, plus the £60 warrants, that's almost £200m. The F1 team is a clear question mark. Wolff declared his investment in AML, that's not the F1 team...same with Vettle. Lots of things don't add up. Stripping shareholders of pre-emption rights is a big health warning. All these things should make shareholders think.
The following is just 'food for thought'. I have seen a lot of posts regarding the upside of the consolidation and how Stroll can't possibly be a bad guy as his reputation will be trashed etc etc. From the moment the RNS was published yesterday I had serious concerns. I wondered why it was necessary to publish a prospectus to approve retrospectively Stroll issuing shares to himself and his mates at 50p when the actual sp was 80p, and ignoring pre-emption rights, and to ratify the bond issue. I contacted AML for the prospectus as the two web addresses wouldn't work and I was told I had to accept the T's&C's and so they couldn't e-mail me a copy . I did get a copy in the end. This is a huge document and of course the average person is not expected to read it...that's the point. Previously I had also highlighted the heavy handed qualification to the 'going concern' in the Q3 results. The prospectus uses sledgehammer language to force approval of the resolutions at the GM. Also note that virtual participants at the GM are unable to ask questions. If the approvals sought are not given, shareholders will be wiped out as the company will be insolvent. Hidden within this is the additional dilution of 126m warrants for bond holders not previously disclosed and at what price, you guessed it 50p. Further, shareholders are being asked to approve being stripped of pre-emption rights, meaning that Stroll can continue to dilute and build his share position by issuing shares to himself and or preferred stakeholders and there is nothing shareholders can do. For example, he could purchase the F1 team for shares. Page 162, para 4.3 Squeeze Out. Whilst framed in such a way that does not sound alarm bells, this section is fair warning to any shareholder. By consolidating the shares and then potentially issuing further shares to himself and the likes of MB, either for cash rang purposes or other valuable consideration, they can accumulate the 90% of shares required to force the purchase of the remaining 10%, no harm no foul. Would institutions buy in to shares with no pre-emption rights and real risk of being diluted ....hmmmm question mark. Remember, the sp was at 80p so this should result in a £16 sp. that is the benchmark to measure against post consolidation. I don't know Stroll from Adam and so there is no personal underlying agenda here, it is just food for thought, please read it as that.