Member Info for StarBright

@Duggs999, 12 months applies ONLY to Rule 9 Mandatory Offers - a scenario that is unlikely to apply here for obvious reasons. No subterfuge is required for 12 months not to be relevant.

The TC provisions around mandatory minimum levels of consideration are quite complex, and in any case waivers may apply. No-one should rely upon your assertion of "...at least at the price he paid in the last 12 months".

You can download and read the code here: https://code.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/code.pdf

I'm not going to interpret/summarise/simplify it for you.

If JD's objective is to secure ownership and control of the Superdry brand then a buyout may not be the only option. His objective may be better pursued via some sort of CVA followed by a privately backed purchase of a subset of assets - perhaps limited to the brand, sourcing operation and the better performing stores - from the IPs.

Whilst this might create howls of protest from those losing out - landlords of the stranded stores, existing financiers etc - it could be a better outcome from the point of view of employees (important), suppliers etc.

Superdry appears to have reached an inflexion point, it's hard to envisage business as usual being resumed under the existing structures. Whether there's a buyout or a CVA there is going to be significant pain for some stakeholders. Long-term equity holders have perhaps already experienced theirs; it's right that they suffer first..!

But everyone should recognise that significant losses have been incurred. What is happening now is a process through which those losses are being allocated between competing interests. Someone (else) is going to get hurt. It is VERY hard for the board to secure the best outcome for shareholders here, especially as their CEO is so fundamentally conflicted. Shareholders interests will not be the prime determinant of the eventual outcome.

Tread carefully.

Touché..!

But it’s not you, its me ;>

A chunky monkey hiding in plain sight...

If you haven't worked it out, small cap investing isn't for you.

@tichtich - they were the best market-maker bids/offers taken from the order book at the time I posted. Your understanding that all trades are executed via market-makers is mistaken. For a share like LGEN most of the volume is matched on the order book between willing buyers and sellers. Here’s an old - but essentially still correct - article for you to read that covers this quite well.

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/81/idiots-guide-to-the-london-stock-exchanges-setsmm-0379.html

Fold and some form of PE-backed pre-pack would be a tough outcome for existing holders, but I can see the attraction for JD who could win time and funding for a relaunch followed by a glorious exit on a refloat in a few years time....

Price is basically back to the range it occupied through most of the last quarter of 2023. In reality a downward spike followed by an upward spike... Perhaps the downward spike - leading as it did to an SP below 20p for a couple of weeks - was a trigger for JD (a known opportunist with an emotional attachment) to look seriously at a bid despite the obvious conflicts and complexities. I wonder if the upward spike market reaction, and perhaps a greater appreciation of the practical difficulties involved in getting a deal done given his starting position and the proximity of other sharkish actors, has cooled his jets somewhat..?

Interesting one to watch.

Total nonsense re "tree shake". MM's aren't in anyway involved in price formation here. The best bid and offer they are showing right now is 242.6 / 249.3, whilst trades (lots of trades!) are being matched between willing buyers and sellers at 245.4 / 245.6.

If you don't understand how the market works, why comment on it?

This thread is in questionable territory.

@Chambery - yes, I think so. But it's somewhat irrelevant as DELT is never going to be a producer itself. It just has to advance its prospects far enough along the value curve to realise a profitable exit. This point will come long before production prep costs materialise.

So....

Rig contracts for both prospects announced on Monday. A farm-out for one of the two announced today.

I can't help but wonder if this is all part of a wider negotiation with Shell. And that GS has just played one of his cards, proving that he and DELT can get deals done. To some extent the shape of the deal (specifically the absence of up-front cash) confirms that DELT has enough cash in the kitty to see it through to drilling results.

I don't think we'll have long to wait for an announcement on Pensacola. Perhaps on similar terms now that some price discovery has taken place.

The announcements this week represent a significant de-risking in my view. They address directly some of the questions about short-term funding, operational timetables and dealmaking ability. It's easy to see how far a re-rate could take this if drilling/geological risk becomes the principal concern.

I am happy to hold and watch.

A story relates how monkeys are captured by putting large nuts into a bottle with an opening just big enough for a monkey's hand, and tying the bottle to a tree.

A curious monkey comes along and notices the nuts in the bottle, reaches in to grab a nut. With a fist around its prize, the monkey finds itself unable to pull its hand out of the bottle’s narrow opening to go free.

To go free, the monkey would have to open its fist and release the nut. But to relinquish its prize--even temporarily--is something the monkey cannot bring itself to do.

So the monkey, trapped by its own desires, clings to a nut until hunters come along to throw a net over it and take the monkey captive.

Interesting move!

“Deltic Energy Plc, the AIM-quoted natural resources investing company with a high impact exploration and appraisal portfolio focused on the Southern North Sea, is pleased to announce that it has entered into an agreement in respect of the farm-out of a 25% interest in Licence P2437, containing the Selene Prospect, to Dana Petroleum (E&P) Limited ("Dana"). This transaction, in combination with the existing Shell UK Ltd ("Shell") carry, results in Deltic retaining a 25% non-operated interest in Licence P2437 and having no exposure to 2024 drilling and testing costs up to a cap in excess of current success case well cost estimates provided by the Operator.”

No. That’s LSE bulletin board nonsense, up there alongside MM’s can see your stops, place a limit-sell to stop your shares from being lent to shorters, 1-share trades and all the other drivel repeated daily on boards like this….

No. Not unless he and his advisers make a horrible mess of some relatively straightforward dance steps, which they won't.

“Gore Street Energy Storage Fund plc ("the Company" or "GSF") notes the turbulence in the market and reconfirms its strong liquidity and its commitment to the current dividend policy. The Company also reconfirms its commitment to a diversification strategy, which has insulated it from the current dynamics of the GB market.”

Some quite punchy language used, particularly with respect to competitors. As per discussion here, GSF’s roll-out programme and international diversification are favourable to cash generation.

@Krustysmegma - analysis/discussion of this sector is overly dominated by consideration of NAVs, which are not in any way comparable to the NAVs familiar to investors from traditional investment trusts. They shouldn’t really have the same name. I don’t think that the “discount” calculated by comparing the so-called NAV to the traded price is particularly useful/relevant as a result.

What matters more is the ability of the funds to generate and sustain the free cashflow needed to cover their dividends. If they can achieve this then they can be valued by reference to their yields, relative to prevailing rates. GSF today offers a yield of over 11% which I see (ymmv….) as a good rate of return for the risks involved.

GSF needs to bring online the additional capacity it is working on, and show investors that it is generating the free cashflow to properly support its dividends.

If in time we get to a world of 3% inflation and 4% rates then the real yields from GSF will be extremely attractive. It would be reasonable to expect capital appreciation as a result. I’ve built a holding here in recent months on this basis.

Or maybe DOCS went ex div today?

Just a thought ;>

Fascinating investigative piece today by Bloomberg. Link underneath excerpt below, but I think paywalled (sorry).

Here’s perhaps the interesting part for GSF holders:

“Thousands of giant white turbines straddle the lush peat-carpeted hills of the Scottish Highlands and Border regions. Given their dimensions — typically taller than Big Ben, with three long blades that rhythmically scythe the air — they are mostly built in remote areas, where land is cheaper and planning restrictions looser. Most are in Scotland, which offers some of the windiest conditions in Europe.

Their output largely flows to population centers in England — but the system often can’t cope with the power surges that occur amid high winds.

This wasn’t much of a problem in 2008, when wind generation accounted for less than 2% of British electricity. But wind power has ballooned — in December it accounted for more than 40% — and the UK has lagged in expanding its grid to handle the extra load.

Each wind farm files daily estimates of the power it plans to generate. When these indicate there will be too much wind power, the network operator intervenes and pays generators in the north to switch off. It’s a policy meant to incentivize energy firms to build wind turbines without having to worry about losing revenues when the grid can’t handle all the energy..“

If only there was a technology effective at balancing out periods of over- and under- production…? How helpful would that be in maintaining effective capacity and a functioning grid?

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-uk-wind-farms-overstate-output/?srnd=premium-uk&leadSource=uverify%20wall

Very confusing presentation!

Reading it again, I think it is proposing two consecutive consolidations 1000:1 followed 10:1. So that would be 10000:1 in total. I'll get my coat...

"The Board proposes to carry out a subdivision and reclassification of the Existing Ordinary Shares by 1:1000 so that each Existing Ordinary Share will be subdivided and reclassified into one (1) new ordinary share of £0.0000001 each ("New Ordinary Share") and 999 deferred B shares of £0.0000001 each ("Deferred B Shares") ("Subdivision"), followed by a consolidation of the New Ordinary Shares and Deferred B Shares by 10:1 so that every 10 New Ordinary Shares and every 10 Deferred B Shares will be consolidated into 1 New Ordinary Share and 1 Deferred B Share of £0.000001 each..."