Member Info for sirimcbonus

The non collection of rents has affected shareholders as there is both the loss of income and the capital value did not increase in line with the increase in rents.

Triple point however are paid by nav and thus not directly affected,, despite it being their decisions in choosing providers ,w hich has caused our loss.

The forgone rent should be refunded from Triple point fees as it was entirely their responsibility and yet it is us who bear the cost.

In addition, when you look at their fees, they amount to ~20% of passing rent. That is ludicrous.

I can get less than that for renting out a single property, thus they are immplying there are zero economies of scale !

Has anyone spoken to the company or got an idea of when we might hear some deal news and how they will structure it ?

I am concerned that the value in the company will be removed from minority shareholders, but unsure how this will happen. The majority holder transfered/sold his stake to an opaque trust. He is personna non grata in Ukraine, but the recent reversal in the confiscation action implies that part at least of the Ukrainian authorities believe there has beeen a change in ownership and it is possible that this entity/ person could try to take control of the whole entity.

But the company is cheap, both v current nett cash and v production.

Some clarity from the board would be welcomed.

Is anyone going to the AGM ?

Whilst they have updated the EBITDA figure, they have not explained the effect on cash and the 'independent expert [BDO ?!] have said that the increasein EBITDA from $57m to $90 now in the space of 3 months and with it looking likely to continue, does not affect their valuation of the company !

Most of the shareholders are retail and appear not to be paying attention, its more like rape.

So the x6.4 EV/ EBITDA figure relates to 23/24 yr ending 31/6/24 and the x 5.2 fiugre relates to the calendar yr 2024 [assumes no further increase in day rates, but some tax paid.

Noooo!

MMA made $57m in H1 and the board indicated a same again H2. in the offer document [where they mention the 7.7 figure

3 weeks later they up the ebitda figure and again 5-6 weeks later, such that the H2 EITDA figure is now estimated at $91m mid point for the yr ending 31/6/24.

Add to that in H1 the company paid off all ~$83m in bank debt and you can see that the nett cash position now is substantial as the the company will pay no interest and has tax losses.

So the co guidance mid point is $148m. Hence the ~ x 5.2 EV/EBITDA figure assuming ~ $150m nett cash at End June.

It is an absolute steal at 2.70 imv. and should be able to buy 2 new boats a year and pay 15c a share in dividends .

Doesnt tempt me before $4.00...

Thanks.

I hold MMA and it's trading on about x 6.4 EV:EBITDA for yr ending 31/6/24.

Interested to hear your thoughts on why 30p is the target price...

Ps. To be fair, at Coro JM did the Duyung acquisition in 2019, but that is probably 2-3 years from production, so succesful in one sense , but a poor return on cash .

I liked the previous set up. Whilst I like JM and he was succesful 3 companies ago, he subsequently was ceo of Tap oil though it had a producing asset in SE Asia, he was unable to raise funds and there was a boardroom coup pushed by a shareholder and he resigned. He then went to Coro plc and again didnt manage to close a meaningful deal and then didnt want to reduce his salary as the other board members had during covid and was therefore squeezed out/ resigned.

Though he touts his connections, In neither company over a total of around 4/5 years did he manage to complete a meaningful deal.

As a result of this history and having been persuaded by his charm, I dont see him as ceo material anymore. and was pleased that the HH and the Norges were in place to manage him.

Let's see about Nick...

Amstrad, why are you concerned where it is or isnt ?

There are some relevant questions :

1/ How did they arrive at the offer price ?

2/ Where is the Independent Expert Report with a valuation ?

3/ What do they know about the status of the court cases , which had depressed the share price ?

4/ What value is being attributed to the 10% holding in 10% holding of the ordinary share capital of PJSC of "Mining Company Ukrnaftoburinnya" ("UNB") , a significant O+G producer in Ukraine, which they appear keen to hide away ?

Cant believe there wont be a review of this, or has London become such a den of thieves ?

Is it a further $75m or a further $50m by end 2022 ?

For 2022 perhaps $100-120m looks achievable as rates follow untilisation and they state 92% for H22021. The prospect of another equity raise in 2022 is receeding. Apart from the woeful financial reporting function, things look like they are ion track....

A number of people entering around 3p might think the same esp if there is a lack of operating results.
For 2022, i expect EBITDA of $120-150m and as the cash rolls in , equity value should replace debt as it gets paid off.
it sounds optimistic, but if you look at 2014/15 and similar companies, you will see the powerful operational gearing inherent in the business.
Agree, that they might want to drop the Seafox junk assets into the company...

For Castro to have bought in much higher up, when the sesv and o+G markets were much softer and and now to not take up the open offer when the company's immediate future is secured and the underlying market firmer is a bit of a connundrum.
Some of this heavy turnover will be the same share flipping across holders. I hope someone with a strategic eye and a long term view has picked up a blocking stake.£3m to control the fate of a $450m enterprise is a cheap option.

I was watching for the past 3 years and have bought occassionally and then after the debt agreement as i could see trading improving. I applied for max over allotment.
My understanding of the issues to watch as far as I am aware are that we need to be well clear of the 10% which would allow a forceout in a bid situation. The more pertinent issue is the level of seafox friends who would not be not deemed connected parties, as they will be able to bugger things up for us if they use a scheme of arrangement.
Any corrections/additions to this view are welcome.

Any other

This is unfortunately misguided.
Competent investors ask for and generally get the most up to date figures in order to make a decision.
[See other fundraisings]
When stand up companies raise capital, they provide true and fair views. ie up to date figures.
GMS have the Q1 figures to end March and could have used them. Unaudited, true but so where the final results.
It is the decision not to include the Q1 figures in the fundraising docs that is one of the more obvious problems.
The management's intentions and the lack of independent directors allows this.

But they have used the calender end 2020 figures, not the current figures and added the fund raise details.
E class vessels were going for 9% more this year than last year and nearly all of that increased revenue drops to the bottom line.
This is a serious failure of governance, not to present up to date figures, especially when there has been such a significant turn around in the business.

Thanks, well spotted.