Member Info for sheps8

Sorry Myo my response was more related to a post on the 11/3/16, however it all makes interesting reading for perspective of said random poster (random depending on his current position of course.;-)

Sheps8.

Myo, thankyou for that pointer into a very real lesson in duplicity from a certain poster on here, very enlightening indeed, strange how he's not singing the same tune about the benefits of long term holding on SXX now has he clearly states back then!!!. particularly given that the shareprice is currently hovering about the price of his suggested very rewarding future growth, like I said agenda, agenda, agenda ;-)

Sheps8.

Sheps8.

Myo, your 9:49 post, spot on and the reason I and many thousands more who aren't chancers or traders remain firmly invested for the long term and post accordingly with the best interests of our underlying asset, nothing wrong with taking a different approach according to your own thoughts but when someone spends considerable time tying to undermine a longer term investment strategy repeatedly then it has to be called into question. IMO.

Sheps8.

Casapinos, thankyou for your reply, the structure of my responce to you was based on the details of the Forth Qtr RNS not on what CF said in his conference call upon which it clearly states:
"Our new structure contemplates three tranches of debt, totalling US$3 billion in aggregate, that will rank senior secure, pari passu, but will be drawn sequentially linked to key construction milestones."

I don't find any ambiguity in this written statement in the RNS or the meaning of "pari passu" it seems to me that you clearly do which comes down to your conjecture rather than fact, given that I know that senior lenders have a wide spectrum of assessment in valuing what's considered 'secured' debt rather than your definition of pure base asset value at any given point there's nothing in your reply that gives me reason to doubt my assertion that you really don't have a full grasp of real world debt financing, you have a knack of projecting that you are enlightening/ teaching me something I don't understand Casa, however for the benefit of others on this board I clearly state I believe that's not the case, it's for others to decide who they want to believe, I'm hopefully suggesting to others that they dig a little bit deeper into what You state as "fact" because of your style of writing with authority, even your response to me while accepting I have knowledge of the subject has a strong air of superiority when the actual real grey area of debate is between the meaning behind CF's Covered/Secured debt statements, something that can only contain conjecture from contributors to this board until further knowledge comes from the company itself, however what is highly likely is that the future financing structure of ST2 will encompass elements that are totally outside the confines of this discussion which on my part is conjecture until the company releases further detail.

Most importantly you have taken a position you are happy with just as I have that's the only real consideration individuals need to take, I do however really question your repeated negativity on a range of financial scenario, that raises an eyebrow, I think we can clearly understand your position here from quite some time ago, I don't feel the need to re enforce my current invested position so I feel strongly that your repeated attempts at re enforcing your stance has a very real ulterior motive.

Have a good day, Sheps8.

You state that your above statements are fact, however they are not fact at all, far from it, the rest of your post you tell us is "conjecture" so I won't waste any more of my time on your "conjecture" it's worth very little when you clearly do not have a grasp of the facts relating to lending assessment of securities, there are many other "Secured/covered" potential options open to SXX that I believe could be in the background but that would be conjecture on my part so I won't go into that in my reply to you at this point.

There are a few perfectly understandable and factual responses to your posts, you have never deemed any examples worthy of accepting others input as standing up to your opinions which are purely that, just your opinions, you have a knack of sounding factual, knowledgeable and experienced in the matters you write about on here with an air of superiority that you are adding balance, I would welcome that but it's apparent that you are not adding balance or facts at all.

Sheps8.

Casapinos, having just finished a very long working day so In simple terms with regard to your Wednesday 15:44 post.

1, You state:

"First, as work progresses SXX will have some "secured"debt and some unsecured debt. The former will consist of well-defined debt entered in to under contract and "secured " against the company's assets so if SXX default the lender can attempt to recover some cash by seizing and selling the assets.
The latter in the main, may be working debt which is essentially the (very large ) bills to pay for services rendered , goods provided etc.Depending on payment terms(which might be 30/60/90/120 days) these may well run into many millions . However, if SXX fail to pay these the suppliers have no recourse to SXX assets."

In terms of stage two debt financing security / risk of lenders (which I presume you are attempting to define) you have separated the working capital and the company assets in some bizarre thought process I find unfathomable you have tried to separate ongoing supplier liabilities and the debt lenders risk, what we are actually talking about is the senior lenders risk profile, as clearly stated by the company the whole of ST2 finance will be assembled and announced as a complete package, this means that the funds will be in place to complete the project and pay the contractors, suppliers and ongoing costs as accounted for and all tranches of senior debt will rank pari-passu, this isn't "posts rattling on about various tranches ranking pari-passu are flawed" it a fact as stated by CF himself, perhaps you should carefully listen and read what the company are actually telling us instead attempting to accuse others of "rattling on" when it seems your doing the rattling on!!!

2 You state:
IRO ST2 it is , I hope self-evident that SXX cannot borrow $3billion of "secured" debt as they don't have $3billion of assets to offer as security.

The reason this isn't self evident is because it's simply not true, as with all lenders from Small businesses loans from High Street Banks to Senior City Financing that is not how lenders assess security, we would still be in the dark ages if that was the case, the assessment of security is a far more complex assessment including value of tangible assets, looking at the whole business model including future, current and completion valuations and future earnings potential, it's simply wrong to say that the lenders will look just at current asset valuation for security before lending to a developing company and project, again the company has clearly stated that St2 will come as a package with all senior debt ranking pari-passu and thus these statements from you that clearly indicate you do not have a proper grasp of financial processes and assessment of such you would have some believe, Myo indeed quotes a very common procedure of business development via secured debt finance that I have used on my own business dealings with lenders on numerous occasions.

You state t

Casapinos, your "As ever happy to have a debate about the content of my post but have given up replying to abusive , sarcastic or personally offensive posts."

I've read your post on Secured vs covered debt and the reply's from GK,MYO and others and have to say you leave a challenge when trying to reply without scarcasm because from your second paragraph on it's obvious your knowledge of commercial finance is no better than your last foray onto this board about SXX's requirement of commercial letters of credit, I'm sorrry I don't mean this as a insult to you personally rather an observation for others on this board that when you start to take apart your latest sentences on Secured v s covered for further scrutiny it soon becomes apparent that although your prose has the impression of actual knowledge the reality is it's pure invention.

No amount of bluffing about your actual source of knowledge and background into City Finance will stand up to reality Casa, it's become fairly evident you are substituting invention from facts, I have built my own business and portfolio of assets on business debt/ borrowing/repayment and understanding leverage and securities and can say with certainty that you do not have a realistic grasp of such.

Sheps8.

In my excitement I've just shown my partner the video of the TBM leaving the factory in Germany, she said with just a hint of sarcasm " does it have a 'Backstop' with it", serves me right for thinking a woman would get excited about a boring machine, well we have been together for many years. :-).

Sheps8.

"It's become a naked truth that the slightest anti SL rhetoric posted here is lauded by the obsequious flock.

Pathetic.

Prost
SL"

You just don't get what a complete tool you are do you SL, I've said it before that you've done more damage to this board than any other ever, when you look at just how diminished the on topic posters are on here these days I wouldn't be suprised if the 22 people who recomended Scottys post is the total sum of people left here because of your arrogance, you really genuinely do need to take a very long thorough assessment of yourself on this board, you've most certainly have a very real problem in accepting when enough is enough.

Sheps8.

Hi Rich, I have no faith that the news about Nissan will make the slightest difference to the IPA's negotiations with SXX, there's a very real disconnect between Parliament and the IPA and the Leadership has far more pressing issues at the moment.

casapinos, it's because of my personal dealings with "Trade credit Insurance" that I felt able to respond to your supposition linking what CF was saying in his conference call to Credit insurance, it's as fabricated as you could possibly get to make such an assumption and I 100% stick by my thoughts regarding your agenda here, it couldn't be more obvious.

Sheps8.

Casa, Ive never had a shadow of doubt that you appeared on here weeks ago to simply talk your book or lack of it but your last post is absolutely clutching at straws on trying to connect what CF said In his conference call and letters of credit, you really couldn't make your agenda to sow seeds of doubt to the unwary more obvious, you last post is absolute made up fantasy.

Sheps8.

For those of you who would appreciate looking at Engineering on a cost scale not dissimilar to SXX I'd highly recommend watching the program on BBC2 at 7pm tonight, some of the technicalities they overcame building Londons new super sewer where well worth watching.

Sheps8

Casapinos, it may seem that Scotty underlines your take on "gratuitous insult." but to many on here I'd say he was absolutely spot on, you really don't have a grasp on how you come over do you, the tone of your reply to wwguk was in your usual higher than thou and demeaning tone, I have to say if in real life you come across with the same up yourself attitude I'm pretty sure there'd be a much stronger reaction to what you consider a gratuitous insult.

Sheps8.

LITC, your 19:57, sadly I'm at a funeral tomorrow otherwise I would have tried to make that meeting, I'd like to study Robert Goodwill's reaction if I had chance to ask him a question that's been bothering me since the RNS: "Did you had any idea that HM's IPA department had altered its risk profile to SXX to such a degree that they have had to completely re profile their lending criteria when you probed Teresa May at question time last week".

I have a suspicion that there's more to his timing of bringing this up than initially some thought as a distraction to the Brexit storm, I suspect he had recently got wind of the IPA situation and considering how hard he's been banging the Sirius drum for so long wanted some kind of higher command intervention!!!.

Not that I'd ever expect an honest answer he's an MP but his reaction would be telling.

Sheps8.

And the post of the day goes to (drum roll) ---------------- northernisler's 17:17, probably the most factual post since the RNS coupled with a proper laugh, thankyou.

Sheps8

Scotty, it's as plain as the nose on your face that Andygolf it trolling this board, why else would he be here for three consecutive days regurgitating the same story when he only needed to give his views once!!!, I see he has failed to answer your question but the use of "we" is an absolute deliberate tactic to lure those who are unaware of his previous admission that he'd sold out, so why would he be here for three days taking this share down, it's blatantly obvious his agenda, he wants this SP as low as possible for his own personal gain and would say absolutely anything to try and achieve that at anyone else's expense, despite my outburst yesterday upon reflection we are simply feeding a troll by attempting to converse with him whatsoever.

Sheps8.

Herecosimgreedy, "pompous, chuntering, worthless and quisquilious" and you don't consider yourself to hold any, indeed all of these qualitys!!!, no of course you don't your a school teacher, silly me.

Sheps8.

Agreed MYO. LOL, it is quite a circus here, I'm off to build a big white shed, see you in a bit.

Sheps8.

AndyGolf, I give up I really give up, your statements are as illogical as it's possible to get, if you for example won a million pounds on the lottery does that mean you wouldn't give a flying f what happened to it because you were given it, he's actually dedicated years of his life to achieve his lot including his share options do you seriously think it means nothing to him, end of from me, I need to get on with my new project, your proving I'm on a dead cert winner.

Sheps8.