Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
They have no credibility and signing a contract with a company that I bet most investors have never heard of let alone been a customer of does not change that.
The fact the SP has already started reversing since the RNS reflects my opinion that more hot air has just been released into the air.
Exactly this deal is just so ME can keep the gravy train going a little longer. Once the granules have settled I think we will all see this is another nothing announcement that 18months ago would have spiked the SP but most are wise to this management now. The only RNS which deserves merit is the one that blows the financials out of the water....
Even with Bitso involved this still makes a really poor stock.
Jabbera - I took out a new contract with O2 the other month. No one got excited that tiny little me worth a few thousand pounds had got into bed with a billion dollar giant....
... They haven't signed up for a share of Bitso's mcap - They are just using their interface to advertise the shiny player cards that I expect are not selling particularly well otherwise.... No different to me using ebay to sell my tat.... I wouldn't RNS it though!
Warrants at 50p so the placing will be at much less and the warrants may act as a price ceiling in all but extreme positive trading. This is horrendous management. Weren’t they buying back shares in the 70-90 range? Only a few months later to sell them in the low 40s??!! How can a board that oversee that sort of management remain?? Yet they will because the 30% shareholder is the main beneficiary. Gutted for those in this who could quote reasonably have considered to be in a safe cash generating investment.
If you believe their EBIT statement then it’s a wonderful update. If you are dubious then it is a depressing RNS. Guess you all have to decide whether you trust their forecasts based on previous….
Do they have £80m more cash though? As I have mentioned on a previous thread - They have £55m of financing costs so this leaves £25m net - Although perhaps some of this was already baked in previously (i.e. not all the £55m is a new information??)
More significantly though is your turnover reassurance - I could set up a business tomorrow selling £20 notes for £10 a go and I would have a turnover in the Trillions of pounds but it would not be a good business. Profit (so should I say cash generation) is the measure to use. ASOS appear to not generate cash based on them needing to carry out placings despite having a £4bn turnover. presumably they have spent all of that annual £4bn or more on the operating costs of the business as I am not aware of any distribution back to shareholders and the money is not sitting in the bank.
If not already then when do you see them becoming a business who annually generate cash to invest/return? ASOS are not an up and coming brand yet to be discovered by would be customers - They are a mature business and it turns out the business model does not work.
I am actually quite honored to have a thread named after me although it does the job of burying the thread where I made my admittedly uneducated observation.
My post is born from having this on watchlist since huge fall last week. I then went camping with no internet and returned this morning. Only a comment on Twitter from Rampy McRampy Bottom feeder Blowster highlighted that there had been a placing…. Something that I thought had been ruled out. Obviously this led to smug relief I hadn’t invested last week but also curiosity as to whether I now should…. So caught myself up on RNS,s and bulletin board hence my original question….
Has the company really just raised £75m to then pay £55m in finance fees!!? And if so is this a shock to more hardened ASOS investors??
Finally West - in response to your operating profit postings… doesn’t this just go to show how clever us accountants are… Consistently posting profits and yet running out of cash. Tis why Free cash flow should be the go to metric here (unless you are getting huge capital growth of course - which you aren’t fyi).
Just catching up with all this after being off grid all weekend.... Hardly seems to have been mentioned except on this thread but £55m financing costs in FY23!!! Horrendous headline, anyone closer to this than me who can convince me that this is not as absurd as it seems.... Otherwise ASOS have just diluted 20%, raised £75m and are then handing over £55m in costs and keeping £20m.
Anyone thinking this price is great compared to historical prices..... Please research MADE.Com.
I am simplifying it too much here but ignoring the warrants we have taken an additional $111m debt and have increased our production by 2000 BOPD. That seems expensive to me... PTAL has Mcap of $520m and produces circa 20k BOPD valuing 2000 BOPD at $52m. SQZ valued at $1100m produces 43k bopd so 2000 bopd here is $50m.
Is it the reserves that make everyone think this is a great deal?
I think everyone is slightly blinded here by the promise of 8p in 1 years time (2%)
The contracted revenue of 50m is vs 60m this time last year.
I still think this is a good company at a good price but I wonder how the market might respond to a first time of dropping revenues which is a real possibility in the H1 interims based on booked rev.
Hi. Is anyone able to point me towards any commentary the company have made (hints or otherwise) as to timescales they might be mining and selling gold as opposed to feasibility studies (results of which I appreciate will influence the answer to my Q).
Thanks in advance.
Glacial progress
The settlement is going to be $200m - $250m dollars - we have almost been told this. We may have to surrender $80m-$100m to the litigation funder. Might be less but worst case.
So I would love a plausible reason why at the lower end of reasonable outcomes NANO don't at least come out of this with circa £100m - Pretty much the Mcap this evening. Cash burn is currently miniscule so without ramping up operations (which may be a good thing) we will have this money in our bank account for the foreseeable.
Seems to me we have arrived a pretty favorable risk v reward.
My take on this mornings RNS is. Low end is $200m. So worst case (but probably not far from the reality) is $200m - I don't think there will be a second figure that then covers future royalty. There is going to be 1 settlement figure and BT has basically told us the region t o expect that in - It is up to you to decide if $80m is the settlement for historic loss and $120m covers future royalties or any other spilt but I don't think there is going to be second windfall on top of the one he referenced in todays RNS.
If we het $200m I actually think the funders may get 20% of this as I understood a "low" settlement gave 20% up to a high settlement at 40%. So maybe $160m to NANO = £135m - subject to corporation tax of 19% and you have net cash of £110m which is 34p a share
As others have pointed out - Impossible to value the enterprise value - we went a s low as 10p a share when settlement was most distant back in early 2020s but so much else changed since then... I am thinking Current SP is bare minimum the right price and depending how optimistic you are about future earnings you could argue higher but even 70p sp would value our EV at £120m - What medium term EBITDA expectations are there to justify this?
Its a shame but when were thinking there would be a royalty agreement it was so much easier to value the business on a eps.
I would be fully supportive of a suspension between the start of the trial and the verdict RNS. Level playing field then for those who are in the courtroom vs those who don’t have time to follow but get RNS notifications as well as all those who are between these 2 extremes. My worst case scenario would be looking at my portfolio and being down £10k with no RNS to explain why.
I don’t understand why companies publicly highlight the need for a raise prior to organising a raise. Any IIs will now be looking for 0.4 as entry Where’s could have been 0.8 if done pre announcement.