Member Info for NorbertDentressangle

If that's going to be the case, all I hope is that Colette followed his/her instinct and bought in before today's rise. He/she seems to have a pretty good eye for this...

I have no exposure to the building industry and so I thought I'd buy some of these this morning. There's a large amount of upside, coupled with some risk, but the location of the properties has swung it for me. If anywhere in the UK is going to bounce in the next couple of years then it's East London and the Thames corridor. A load of property shares have risen significantly in the last couple of weeks, let's hope this one's lagging behind...

It's substantial now isn't it (Panther's holding) but there are other large holders too. Panther 35,900,000 Utilico 24,675,179 Aberdeen AM 9,412,000 Rathbone Nom 3,930,462 Total 73,929,641 or 60% of the shares. Could there be a power struggle or takeover? It all depends on the success of the Olympics as they're probably banking on a surge in property values in the area leading up to 'O twelve' and the potential of high rental values in the area during the games. Interesting one this, I'll keep my eye on it. I'm not confident about property prices though which leans me away from this sector en masse

They have a portfolio valued at £246m at Dec 31st 2008, but with borrowings of just shy of £170m. Presuming that property values don't diminish by more than 25% this year then they are still in positive territory. Revenue is listed as £18m, which equates to around 7% of the property portfolio value, just about right in a rental market. How much are they paying for their mortgages though, 4-5%? That would equate to around £9m a year in interest alone. That's not taking in to account any admin costs, loss of rent or maintenance. It sounds a bit risky but then I've probably missed a load of the financials there!

Ignore that! £86m in assets = 70p NAV

£5.21m market cap and 122.5m shares in issue = 4.25p NAV doesn't it?

London, UK and Los Angeles, California, March 31, 2009 - Solar Integrated Technologies, Inc. (AIM:SIT.LN), a leading provider of building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) roofing systems, announces today that the Company has extended the term of its loan and security agreement with an affiliate of GE Energy Financial Services (GE) until May 15, 2009. The Company has also signed a non-binding term sheet with a commercial lender relating to an asset-based revolving line of credit for up to $25 million. The Company believes that it will close this new credit facility prior to May 15, 2009. In connection with the extension of the GE facility, the Company has agreed to reduce the exercise price of the warrant to purchase 2,617,353 common shares of the Company previously issued to GE at an exercise price of £0.20 per share to a new exercise price of £0.12 per share

Cheers buddy. SIT are located perfectly for the Californian market, it's just a shame that the Americans don't seem to be embracing solar energy at the moment. It'll change. Re debt issues, the debt level has reduced significantly, I think by 50%, cash in the bank is roughly equal to the market cap and turnover has doubled. I they can't trade out of this recession then in an ever increasing sector then I deserve to lose my investment ;o)

Tricky name to remember... http://www.marketwatch.com/quotes/sqm

Hiya, I have some Lithium shares but they are US listed - SQM. They're currently trading at $29 a share having recently dropped to around $26. They control the mining operation that was mentioned in Chile, however they are making more money from mining potassium for fertilizer at the moment. From my point of view, I'd rather buy the shares of the miner than try to play one of the battery or car manufacturers who will be sharing the spoils. Good article today, the political stance by Moreles (?) in Bolivia may mean that the money making opportunities are limited there.

Then an RNS saying that they have had an appoach made would surely encourage the share price more. Using the word 'caution' would promote investors to sell, at least I'd think....

You reckon? They released an RNS about 30 mins ago, the content seemed very strange. Have a look... http://www.investegate.co.uk/article.aspx?id=200904031506301297Q&fe=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj7D65SFOhM

Never heard of it, oops! It only forms a small part of the work I do, last year we only had half a dozen installations where we dealt with the main contractor. I sub for another company so am not directly employed and in honesty, I haven't a clue what their arrangement is.

No need to object, I'm actually on your side! I think that all sites should adhere to the letter of the law but what I'm trying to say is that the further down the scale you go, the less likely you are to see site policy followed. You certainly don't see subbies demanding that the main contractor makes changes, it's only the other way round. If the site foreman isn't doing his job, he wont budge - the subby just has to bite the bullet.

I'm just gutted I sold these at 36p a couple of weeks back. Grrrr

Like I said, you work for a huge company and my guess is that you use the same contractors for each region. However, when dealing with local authorities, who have an obligation to put all contracts out to tender, you find that quite often you're working for a builder that you don't meet until the day you start work. With a tight works schedule, and no chance in hell of getting a penalty clause included if the site isn't ready on the day your turn up, the sub-contractor simply has to put his safety at risk or face the wrath of the main contractor. The Method and Risk are for the benefit of the main contractor, it's his safety net. Let's face it, most main contractors don't give a hoot if a sub-contractor twists his ankle or injures himself on a ladder - except if he feels a law suit pending.

That's how it feels to subbies like myself. When we sign the book after our induction/site rules meeting I just get the feeling it's for the legal benefit of the site manager / contractor. Worked on a site in Worcester (at a school) and was told to prepare method and risk, plus arrive with PPE and attend induction. When we arrived the site was a mess, the foreman saw us and said 'you're not lads, you know what's required so sign here and you can start working' We should've walked off site because we were working up ladders in an area where the floor hadn't been levelled, raised drains etc. Like he said, we knew the score and at the end of the day, if we hurt ourselves then they have covered their tracks. We should've walked off site and demanded that they call us back when the floor had been laid, but that just doesn't happen in the real world. FWIW, James works for a very large company and is the guy who can enforce the law book to the letter. I've met guys like James, no offence intended, and it's no skin off their nose to see a contractor turned away (regardless of the circumstances) if they don't adhere to the H&S on the site. Fair enough but IMO, as a grown up, is that common sense needs to be applied occasionally and it's not being.

Pardon my ignorance, I've been on holday, but what happened on 26th March for the solar industry?

That's why I thought you had these....