Member Info for mt11

Nah they’re thick and shouldn’t be allowed near a listed company ever again.

Just saw they want to agree a deal before markets open. Okay, so this will be lowballed. FFS.

.

https://twitter.com/MrMBrown/status/1711005938184798445

Autocorrection from last post

- fine should be find

- boars should be board (either works here though lol)

Guess tomorrow’s the day we fine out just how buggered the boars has left the staff, shareholders, bondholders, and new entrants to the sector. We need a you’re faeces at your job award for the board.

If they make it to the next AGM then they better be prepared to eat humble pie.

Since we are on the topic. Just because a potential acquirer didn’t proceed previously doesn’t mean they won’t now. In the past they were nowhere near being profitable, now they are. In the past the price might have been multiples higher, now it might be closer to the share price when they last looked. Not saying this is good for the shareholders and that most won’t lose money but equally it’s not all lost either.

AIM shares have different rules on reporting and shareholder disclosures. Maybe it should with the way the board has been acting but I doubt the PRA/BoE would allow them to.

TwoGood2Die

Which post of mine is untrue?

Is Metro on AIM?

I didn’t post the headline because JP Morgan thing isn’t new.

Metro has already rejected a bid from fellow challenger bank Shawbrook, but the latter remains interested in doing a deal, according to one person close to the discussions.

The Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority, which supervises banks, approached a number of big UK banks last week to see if they had any interest in Metro, according to three people familiar with the approaches.

The regulator is keen that any bids would be for the whole bank, rather than parts of the business, according to two people familiar with the approaches.

https://www.ft.com/content/fe6f375e-c52f-496f-90dd-9c34e64cb581

The balls on them if they made such an offer and then leaked it to the press. Remember that the company had no issues in September which was when they made their latest offer. All was well. Then the idiots at Metro decided to provide a timeline when previously they refused to do so.

Companies cannot make future looking statements without consideration, otherwise some of these clowns would claim all sorts.

The CEO’s golden parachute is probably more lucrative than his shareholding.

Even if it’s not, the quantity of shares doesn’t determine the board’s responsibility to the shareholder in law.

The CEO has repeatedly said no fundraise required. Either one is or not.

Sky would have asked Metro for a comment, they could have said they have an offer from bondholders and taken the sting out the news releases. They could have engaged. They didn’t and saw shareholder value diminish further.

The board sat on an offer for a week.

The board sat on acquisition attempts, they should have informed investors they are receiving offers and polled shareholders.

At some point shareholders need to hold the board to account. They are responsible to shareholders. They need to take this seriously.

If they want to earn their keep then Metro should agree with the bondholders the £350m extension and agree to carry on discussions about the equity investment. Getting the MREL agreed takes the pressure off but Metro doesn’t need either.

£600m from bondholders could be £350m for MREL and £250m for taking the Bank private. No longer being a public company gives them room to breathe. It’s not like they are benefiting from being a Public company.

On the other hand the board need to come out of their boardroom and communicate.

Depends on what the offer was. It’s easy to say they got a takeover offer but if it was too low then it’s a non starter.