Member Info for ownthingowntime

Or oilman even. Same question

Jarv- do you think these 2 funds now want zero exposure to Russian equity? Or just balancing for the redemptions?

Hi Jarv
Fair point - selling by Lazard and CoLI is indeed orderly at about 500,000 per day each. If they keep up at this rate, it’s a lot of supply onto the market in next few weeks!

But I am long term long in a big way, and am willing to ignore this selling in the hope and belief that value will scream loudly enough soon

40,776,176 shares in JRS. Reported NAV of 43.03p This implies total assets of ~£17.5. What absolute nonsense!

JRS' holding of 71,192 shares in Norilisk Nickel alone is worth ~£13.5m. These are currently trading on Moex at 20,872 roubles a piece. Converted back to GBP you get the £13.5m

In the short term, apart from possible escalation in war, biggest risk seems to be that Lazard and COLI seem hell bent on exiting at any price, and they still own around 25% of the trust. Not sure if demand will be equal to or greater than this supply.

Hi Petra I too would welcome any thoughts on what to do. There have been a lot of RNSs concerning what institutional holders are up to. It seems that they may be selling and buying CFDs as a means of benefitting from any further upside.

Deadline is looming, but I'm still undecided and HGM is my biggest holding.

I would have very much liked to have held HGM for the long term, and my understanding of the £3 cash offer is that it is just that, an offer, which I could choose not to accept and therefore continue to hold HGM. In making that decision my attention turns to whom I would be getting into bed with in the form of the new controlling shareholder.

RNS 7345U: "Fortiana is a Cyprus registered company majority controlled by Vladislav Sviblov and is part of his wider business interests in the metals and mining industry. Vladislav Sviblov is Chief Executive Officer and majority shareholder of Ozernaya Mining Company which is developing a prominent zinc-lead deposit in the Buryatia region of eastern Siberia in Russia."

Does anyone have any insight into Vladislav Sviblov, good or bad? I'm struggling to find much of a career history for him and have no idea how he came to be so wealthy. The fact that he makes his acquisition as the beneficial owner of a Cypriot vehicle incorporated in 2019 doesn't help to shed any light. Ozernaya Mining Company seems pretty small.

2019 audited accounts put Net Assets at £1.8bn (£7.1bn total assets - £5.3bn total liabilities).

Very crudely, if we discount all assets by 25% that = £5.3 bn, or nil NAV per share.

Bearing in mind that the assets valuations in 2019 accounts were already based on chunky writedowns, would anyone, Sain included, have anyone any optimism of a better outcome for equity holders i.e. better that 0p per share? If there was a lousy £100m left for equity, then a lot of latecomers to the party would do fine.

I am wondering whether Odey has made his dash for the exit today. His 3.64% short position is about 50m shares. If the volume (as quoted on this board) really is 150m, he could have already finished the job.

Any why might this be of any interest to a long term investor? Well, to me it seems likely that Odey has an information advantage. The type of advantage that gives him 'balls of steel' when it comes to shorting. For example, imagine how insightful it might be if you could be a fly on the wall of intu's dicussions with its bankers (like some time ago, when things were going bad, and ever since). Moreover, if that same information advantage now leads Odey to believe that intu may be given a lifeline, he would likely act by closing.

Pure speculation on my part, not grounded in any actual knowledge.

Even it were correct, question of whether intu can possibly pull through with such a lifeline remains a seemingly very open question, perhaps at best.

thanks jvalueinvestor - what's your source of this info?

Matthew Roberts is a disgrace, past and present, and I would be very happy to see him go. Past leadership as CFO (and principal architect of horribly broken balance sheet), and his hand in the baffling 'done deal' revolving credit facility and RI announcement snippet RNS being examples of his ineptitude. Seems a proper 'Tim, nice but dim' character, from what I can gather. When the last CEO went, I wonder if Roberts was the only volunteer for the job. A 'Theresa May' character, if you will (in fact, much worse than her).

With my average in price being over 20p, I would rather own the seemingly less and less likely off-chance of a positive turn of events, than crystallise losses at these levels. I plan to emotionally treat this as if it's already gone to zero, and I hope that I can make it an experience that I will learn well from.

As it's not so far away, and based in London, think I'll make this my maiden trip to a quoted company AGM.

Hi HeresHopin my point (not entirely clear, I admit) was not that a £1.3bn raise cannot happen. It is of course possible. It just seems puzzlinging improbable. For an investor looking to acquire an equity stake/ bigger stake in intu, the open market (for the time being) would be many times better value than a stake via the rights issue.

if it does happen, it would seem that the banks are simply forcing JW to inject cash in and he has no other option. Unless JW cash call underlies this and is locked into the raising deal, who in their right mind would underright the raise

On reflection, I don't see how a rights issue can possibly work. Whatever the level of dilution applied to existing shares (e.g. 1 to 100, or even 1 to 1000), they can still only in effect sell 100% of the company, and if the market cap of 100% of the company (at £187m) is approx 15% of the required raise, it would appear that a successful rights issue of this magnitude plainly and simply will not happen. The bankers must be laughing at intu management, while not busy keeping their hedgie mates updated.

Sain - thanks for you reply. I think I understand and agree with the following: Metro bond breach, extremely reluctant lending market, somewhat falling rental rental income, RCF maturing in 2021 only being extended as a smaller facility with £1.3bn equity raise.

All that said, if intu recieve £1.6bn of equity, then surely that- coupled with the possibility of further asset disposals- is an ample 'war chest', so as to, for example, bring the Metro bond LTV back into line, bring any other debts back into line post further valuation write downs, possibly pay off one or two other maturing debts.

Further prediction- JW will not want to be diluted and will therefore be good for his share of the rights issue. In order to stimulate appetite amongst other would be investors the rights issue will have to be priced at monumentally dilutive levels, i.e. so it becomes almost 'an offer that existing shareholders cannot refuse', and to outside investors the potential return becomes worthwhile bearing in mind the quagmire of extremely high risk and sectoral uncertainty.

So pessimistic Sain- on 'dealing with the debt': how about they simply derive rental from their assets and service the various debts, and plan ahead re future maturities.

If £1.3bn equity can be raised, survival ought to be an absolute shoe-in.

"Given the law against issuing shares at less than par value, (unless stating that they're only partly-paid-up), I imagine the way around this is to split all the existing shares 5 for 1, reducing the existing 50p par value to 10 pence each and the Rights issue would then be 2 new shares at roughly 13p for every 5-1 split existing share." Thank you, Gewilla. all sounds entirely plausible.

I think I would/will take up my rights and not have my lifetime interest in all future cash-flows from these assets be diluted by approx 90%. Of course, I believe that such cash flows should be many times higher than current SP.

In case this may be of any use to anyone: https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/article/how-rights-issues-work-and-the-decisions-investors-need-to-make

Poker- would be good to have that clarity. but in the absence of it, surely a fair assumption has to be that equity means equity capital raised from shareholders and not cash generated from any disposal past or future

Do any on this forum have any insight into the potential issue of intu being prevented by company law from being able to issues shares below nominal value (in intu's case, nominal value being 50p)?

Insight sought is more specific than simply a belief that a city law firm can somehow engineer this.

Given this condition, I'm appalled that intu put out the RNS as if it's somehow a done deal. CEO's comment being most guilty of this. Lacks integrity.

They're not lending unless the condition is fulfilled. Condition = £1.3bn equity raise.

Hmm. Let's not be popping corks just yet. Seems the only help the banks will be is a smaller facility- conditional on £1.3bn equity raise!!- and doubtless on worse terms.

Urgently need a plan B.