Member Info for mister_tidal

I sent it via the contact form on their website.

I messed up.

I created a separate email-address for this email in order to remain anonymous.

However, now after checking if I got an answer from Simec, the site is now asking me to confirm my identity using a code they sent me via SMS.

The problem: I didn't give a valid number. That means I am now effectively locked out of said email-account. Unable to check whether or not and what SAE writes back..

Keltickilla may I point out to you that they did a switcheroo here?

Basically, they decided that the company is now worth so little, it's better to give away their old options and switch them for better once. Let's say... a strike-price of 1.15p?

Wouldn't it be nice if we all could just grant ourselves a much lower average? I am at 4.5p and I have to pay for this with hard earned money.

Seeing management making such a move TWICE within 12 months is too much.

How did they earn this? How does this match with the stocks performance? How is this in our interest?

I was able to accept the first grant which was already over 7% of the company.

Management is already in the green. They already see +20% in return as their strike price sits at 1.15p. Should management achieve a share price of 11.5p, then the'll receive a nice bonus of £300,000 to £500,000 already.

That's pretty neat and should be enough incentive imo to work towards this and hopefully even more some day.

However, all I see and fear now is them taking 15% of the company, waiting for some proper valuation in their perspective, only to sell their stock right back to us.

Yes, I want them to have an incentive to increase the value of the company, but with a strike price at 1.15p and now another at 1.5p, still down 99% since their IPO, how is this justifiable in front of existing investors?

Imo the simple solution here would have been to set a higher strike price. Their grants are not even tied to any other performance metrics whatsoever..

To whom it may concern,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my sincere appreciation for the ongoing efforts at Simec Atlantis Energy (SAE) and to address a matter of concern that has recently come to my attention.

As a long-term investor in SAE, I have been closely following the company's performance and the recent decisions related to share grants to management. I understand the importance of incentivizing and retaining key talent, and I want to give the benefit of the doubt that such decisions are made with careful consideration.

However, I cannot ignore the significant impact these share grants have on existing shareholders, particularly given the fact that many of us have experienced a substantial decrease in the value of our investments. Since SAE's initial offering, shareholders have faced a decline of almost 99%, which raises questions about the appropriateness of diluting our ownership further.

I am reaching out with the hope of gaining a better understanding of the rationale behind these large share grants and how the company perceives them as appropriate in the current context. While I appreciate the need to reward and retain valuable team members, it is essential for shareholders to comprehend the decision-making process behind such actions.

I kindly request an explanation that outlines the company's perspective on this matter, taking into consideration the concerns of existing shareholders who have witnessed a significant erosion of value.

I firmly believe in open communication and transparency, and I trust that you share these values. However, if my concerns are not adequately addressed, I feel compelled to bring this matter forward to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for further review.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your response, which I hope will provide clarity on the company's perspective and decisions.

Thank you for your time and understanding.

Best regards,

a concerned investor.

Here is what ChatGPT answers after asked if this kind of dilution would be mention worthy for the FCA:

"Yes, the significant dilution you described, especially without a corresponding increase in value or performance, could be a matter worth bringing to the attention of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). In your communication with the FCA, highlight the specific details of the share grants to management, the extent of dilution, and the potential impact on existing shareholders who have experienced substantial losses.

Be sure to provide any relevant supporting documents or references to the company's filings that detail these actions. Emphasize your concerns about the fairness, transparency, and alignment with corporate governance principles, especially if there is no clear rationale or performance justification for the large share grants.

The FCA will assess the information you provide and determine whether there are grounds for further investigation. Keep in mind that regulatory bodies aim to ensure the integrity of financial markets and the protection of investors, and they take such concerns seriously.

If you're unsure about how to present your case or need additional guidance, consider consulting with a financial or legal professional who can help you articulate your concerns effectively."

This does not feel appropriate. It would be an entirely different story if the strike price was significantly higher. It's unacceptable that they grant them another big slice of the company like that. The first grant was already hefty but I was able to accept it knowing this should motivate management. But pocketing even more shares at a strike price THIS LOW is absolutely inappropriate given how many investors are way, way under water imo.

This is what ChatGPT had to say: https://chat.openai.com/share/b9e92ec9-2e11-4ef0-a239-b0d79c0c48b0

It looks like the board of directors can do that only of they deemed it "appropriate" - whatever that means. However, it also said that shareholders have the final say and that this should be something that would require a vote during a GM.

Somehow I feel like these meetings require way more attention from us..

Tiny addendum:

The total number of shares will reach 843.15m once these grants are vested. 120.05m, the number of shares management granted themselves, represents 14.24%.

Don't get me wrong, long term incentives are important, but in the past 12 months, management has granted itself a total of 120,048,803 shares.

This is over 16% of outstanding shares (approx. 723 million)!

Once these shares are vested, we, the existing shareholders will have to endure yet another 15% dilution and that without any guarantees that management won't just sell their shares the moment they have access to it!

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but this is money taken straight out of the pockets of existing shareholders.

And it's not money that will be used to build new turbines. It is bonus money for management.

Simec will emit even more shares once the company requires more money.

I'm sorry, I thought last year's grant is already the long term insensitive which is already plenty should the stock reach that juicy £100m marker cap aka 10x or +1,000%.

But now seeing an even larger packet going in their pocket, without having created ANY value for shareholders as of yet, is an absolute joke in my opinion.

Here are the numbers:

Shares outstanding: 723m

Grants last year: 55.26m

Grants this year: 64.79m

Total: 120.05m

120.05/723.1 = 16.6%

6th of April 2023 they already implemented long term incentives. At that time I was already a bit skeptical but tbh..I rather have a financially motivated team than the other way around.

The company work at has plans like this as well.. but I have to vest my shares over 4 years and I can't just grant myself more shares as I see fit etc.

They've already put out almost 8% last time..

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SAE/grant-of-options-csop-and-ltip-k85o93rxi9f9iiy.html

Not sure if I like this

97% availability is indeed very impressive..

What I do not understand, however, is why not build a bigger array? MeyGen has proven the tech, so has the 500MW turbine. Why scale up so little?

I wonder how these things are conducted. If Proteus was able to build these turbines at a lower price, given large enough orders then, at some point, they must become a financially viable option.

Let's not forget that there's CfD money coming.. at some point we have to see the price go down further.

If Japan was to buy more turbines it would only help.

Am I over-reacting here?

Well, yes. And I am absolutely all in for giving employees long term incentives like that. However, most existing investors currently have an average way above 1.5p. My average is 4.5p and it wasn't cheap to get there..

Seeing the C-suite grabbing shares at a ridiculous price ... two times in a row .. is something I can't say makes me particularly happy.

If anything, then Cs have been incentives to keep the share price as low as possible as long as possible s.t. they can get grants like this.

It feels like stealing from us existing investors who have skin in the game for years now..

I guess at least now we know why they didn't release any significant news yet. Now they have a lower strike price of 1.5p ... must be nice.. ffs...

Yes, this will incentive them to work for the share price to raise, but how does this incentive them to hold their shares beyond 10, 25, 50p ...?

I finally made peace with the fact that I'll probably not get out with significant gains. Instead, I'll be lucky if my investment makes any gains at all.

And today I read that management presents themselves another care package? They already received options with a ridiculously low stroke price of 1.15p and now, basically a day after the got off the hook from their creditors, management decides to gift themselves yet another huge chunk of the company?

Did they literally just grab into my pocket and took another 10%?

What.

The.

Hell?

I'm just curious. I currently own 368,000 shares or

100 * 368,000 / 722,810,000 = 0.051%

Never thought much of Minesto's kites tbh. Maybe I can't imagine it but I can't see a future for kites roaming around underwater..

I just used them for comparison because at first glance the companies seem comparable in size and sector. Even though they are using fundamentally technologies.

As you said, people lost plenty in SAE in the past. The company might struggle to rebuild this trust and find new investors. Steady progress will be key here. The past years have been disappointing but I genuinely believe now that things may actually turn for the better.

Patience remains the key for us existing investors. In for the penny, in for the pound. 100p that is 😅

Let's compare a few numbers

Minesto vs Simec

Market cap: £100m vs £10m

Revenue: £3.4m/y vs £10m/y

Debt: £0m vs £53m

Total assets: £44m vs £85m

While Minesto does not have any debt, SAEs total assets can almost compensate for that. Given a higher revenue stream and BESS coming up as well as MeyGen next phases, Simec almost feels under-valued at this point.

Does anyone have a deeper insight which they can share? SAEs debt is probably holding us back but I feel like a £50m market cap isn't a ridiculous estimate for what the company should be worth. Am I missing something?

Potential upcoming dilution might be a bug factor maybe. After all, SAE will need money at some point..

Just saw we are at 722m shares issued.

So.. 13.85p if we get a £100m market cap or 6.93 if we make it to £50m.

There was significant dilution since then. 30p is probably a far reach today. What was the market cap back then? iirc it must have been 80 to £100m?

Today we are at £10m. Let's be generous and say we reach £100m soonish, then we'd have something around 15 to 20p.

But I don't think £100m is realistic. Lucky if we hit £50m, that is 7.5p to 10p.. maybe.

Any other opinions in this?