Member Info for sasa43

to consider, along with todays announcement

since the deal was announced, the reduced value for Tailwind might possibly jeopardise it?

"It's an ill wind, etc., " - you never know... - sasa.

To invoke the BoD's authority to buy back up to 10% of the equity at this near distressed level of negative sentiment?

They said at the time when they were given the authority, that they would only do so 'if ever it became necessary' - well, with the shs now yielding some 7.5% on the present divd level, anyone would think Serica today was in deep trouble / ex growth, in stark contrast to their enthusiasm for us with this Tailwind acquisition, so which is it?

'Buy backs' are usually prompted when the Dirs feel their share price is well below 'fair value' and thus represent astute use of any spare cash available.

Ergo, are they all asleep 'at the wheel'? - sasa.

Well, dick, most of the LTHs on here have amply expressed their disillusionment over this 'deal' so far and we now have to await its confirmation by the month end to see whether there is more to it than 'meets the eye', as things stand. Until then, there's little more to be said, I guess...

The re-balancing of Serica into a 50/50 gas and oil split looks expedient in the present climate but the 'achilles heel' of Mercuria ending up with a minimum 28% of the voting power is the major concern, as we all know.

The bumper 2022 Y/E figs will be announced around that time, too but whether the existing shareholders will see any dividend boost to initially pacify us , remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, just 'sittin' / 'waitin' / 'hopin' right now - sasa.

Agreed, Banburyboy (was about to post the same about the views on here re: the expensive 'deal' terms which were overwhelmingly negative about it) so what might the 'big boys' who assented to it, been made privy to, that us ordinary Pi's were not?

I liked NewK's posts on the 3rd Feb about the possibilities of a 'grand plan' which might explain it in lending credence to what / why Serica agreed to it, especially the 28% stake in the combo that Mercuria will end up with which was very controversial to say the least!

Perhaps, a pleasant outcome will ultimately transpire as you / we all hope that our initial views on it will prove misguided due to insufficient awareness of the 'raison detre' for it - sasa.

Gone nowhere over the past decade but now things might be changing, at last?

With them out of plastics nowadays as demand for cardboard packaging gathers momentum, in lieu, the outlook seems a good deal more promising for the Co today and the latest results were encouraging, certainly...

Statistically cheap with a decent yield, the shs seem overlooked to me / good value right now in these fickle mkt conditions and the overseas developments in hand can only reinforce their appeal as a 'safe haven', imv - sasa.

Agreed, Boohoomoon - if they continue to deliver, this deserves a significant re-rating, given the growing appeal of both Tin and Lithium, for sure - sasa.

Echo that, TDT - sasa.

Encouraging thoughts there of what might possibly lie ahead, NewK, especially referencing Robert Lawson's sudden move across to Serica.

Without such a 'grand plan', the outlook seems very questionable, to say the least; still can't grasp the reasons nor the terms for it, otherwise - sasa.

for crashing our sp by -45% over the past 4 months. Even they must be able to gauge what's caused this calamitous reaction, given our robust condition hitherto!

Capital destruction, par excellence, when there's been no reason for it whatsoever, other than rank stupidity - sasa.

Thanks Visitor for fleshing out many aspects of this derisory deal for us holders which most of us on here have amply conveyed our dismay, nay disbelief, in proceeding with it on such dilutive terms for Serica's shareholders.

Which begs the question - 'Why have our BoD been so keen to pursue it, as things stand'?

The rebalancing of our production, if the Board still wish to chance our arm in domestic waters, despite the increased risks of doing so, might be laudable from our overweight reliance on gas henceforth but everything has its price and what's envisaged currently is way over the top!

Having been regularly slated for not doing anything proactive with our bloated cash pile, doing a deal , any deal, at any price, cannot be the answer, bearing in mind it flies in the face of their mantra of 'not overpaying' for acquisitions that they've touted for so long.

I dunno - perhaps they've just lost it and want out? - sasa.

Echo that, NewK - you'd have thought that, with all the opprobrium heaped upon the BoD since this proposal was announced, they'd at least re-examine what they're attempting to do, unless 'the interests of shareholders' (who own the Co. after all) mean nothing to them now - sasa.

That's sadly so true these days, chinch - have to agree with that; getting elected whatever it takes and staying in power is their sole objective. Pathetic leadership, not unlike our BoD in the present situation, one has to say - sasa.

Like just about every poster on here, I've got my 'No' vote in, applicable on several holdings and hope this controversial 'deal', comprising too much, to my liking, on the questionable tax losses secured or otherwise, is defeated.

If it is, then the sp should recover quite sharply, given removal of the uncertainty, the opportunities to do something more proactive away from the NS and the onerous tax burden inflicted on the present operators and not forgetting the bumper 2022 results to be announced in April.

But what if the deal is forced through? How will the sp react, then? All views welcomed on that one - sasa.

Hi RELLIM - yes, MF came across quite well, I thought.

Promoting a problematic deal (on respective valuation grounds as much as anything else for most on here, anyway) couldn't have been an easy task but Serica's big holders will obviously determine the voting outcome in a fortnight's time...

If they're as perturbed by the anticipated amount of equity issuance as me, then that'll be blocked and stymie the deal as it stands which might then result in a re-negotiation of that 'sticking point' to make for a more balanced arrangement between the parties.

Where there's genuine goodwill on both sides, an acceptable accommodation can be reached but where there's not, then better that be known now than later on, surely?

Keep well and keep safe, too - sasa.

Apparently so, shakey - my concern, like many others on here, is that the current terms gets Mercuria and their Tailwind founders right up to the blocking near 30% level and that's an invidious position for Serica to be in henceforth, imv...

Serica's main strength right now is their enviable cash pile; using more of that surplus liquidity / less equity issuance (perhaps half of what's presently offered) would be more appealing to us shareholders, making the overall deal, if it's to proceed, more acceptable.

If Mercuria baulks at that, then walk away / look elsewhere - sasa.

Echo that, zebbo - especially to the Hardy's who sided with the Board's rejection of AA's offer last time and supported our SP back then, along with many disenchanted Pi's on here - sasa.

Great digging, Infor - the more you've unearthed, the more this stinks...

Can't really believe that ACW, being so long and highly regarded in the O&G Industry, has put his name to such a controversial venture - it's so much out of character for him, imho - sasa.

You and me both, on that one, NewK... - sasa.

from shareholders on here, re: this clearly one - sided deal at Serica's expense, suggests that this is no more than a retirement deal for the senior Board members, which will be a tragic outcome for the owners of the company, if it succeeds, to say the least...

That it should be abandoned by blocking the planned equity issuance by shareholders, is a 'given' in my book - just hope the major shareholders agree to use their voting powers to do so and thereby protect their investment and ours, too - just my own view at this stage - sasa.