Member Info for stokey12

Wyndrum ref 09.40 post yesterday I asked you about three or four times for you to provide any factual basis for your argument that HARL is in danger of going bust if the guarantee is not forthcoming. All you were able to provide is that this is what was said in a newpaper article. The income from work currently ongoing is likely to mean that HARL will meet its expected revenue target. I will point out that one contract will cover 50% of the revenue target. I would also observe that revenues have gone up every year since JW has taken over HARL. It would also seem that costs are being bought under control. So again where is your evidence that HARL will go bankrupt without the guarantee.

Marcosino ref 08.57 post there are two reasons why I engage with them. Firstly, is I find it amusing to watch them argue against facts. Secondly, when they are proved wrong it is harder for them to walk back their comments.

LevsInvest ref 08.13 post this reminds me of the discussion on this thread I had with wyndrum yesterday. Looking at the known contracted work HARL has at just Belfast plus the Cory barges contract HARL is on course in my view to meet or exceed revenue projections. i therefore do not see any risk of HARL going bankrupt. A quick read of the unauditted accounts shows that there was downward pressure on both costs of sales and management and administrative expenses. This indicates to me that the guarantee is not critical to HARL's survival. That said an early completion of the new debt facility would be helpful.

ForrestGump ref 06.54 post I think yor penchant for conspiracy theories is getting the better of you. As labour has a 174 seat majority and as Sinn Fein o not take up their seats in Parliament an effective majority of around 188 seats what are you talking about a Labour/Lib dem goveernment. The government is a Labour one.

Ben Murray has not wasted time in congratulating the new Northern Ireland Secretary https://x.com/Ben_HandW/status/1809939580730114203. The text of the post says:-

'Congratulations on your appointment as NI Secretary, @hilarybennmp. @HarlandWolffplc looks forward to working with you to create further high-quality, well-paid jobs, and deliver the government's missions on economic growth, clean energy and creating opportunity for all.'

The link is https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c897pd3v7zjo

This report is on the Prime Minister's short visit to Northern Ireland while HARL is not specifically mentioned it does say:-

'He will meet the first and deputy first ministers to discuss a range of issues and areas of shared co-operation, agreed during their call on the prime minister's first day in office.

He will then meet other political leaders in the executive and opposition parties at Stormont.' One of these issues might be the situation with Spire Aerosystems and HARL. The former has been sold to Boeing so there are concerns around the work that is done for Airbus and the workers involved in that work. With respect to HARL the PM might be pressed n support for HARL and possible orders from the government. The prferrential treatment given to BAe and BAB might be raised.

LSE03 ref 14.57 thanks for this. So HARL have had visits from three of the four most iportant people tohave onside. The only person not to have been on a visit is the Chancellor. That said if the other three left after their visits with a good impression that will put HARL in good stead in my opinion.

Broomtree ref 13.47 post Yes what I suspect will happen is that HARL will negotiate another extension of the loan with Riverstone for 18 months or so. The question then becomes a queston of the interest payable on this I agree with you an extension at the current rate is not sustainable. I am not sure if there are any other lenders who would be willing to lend to HARL on reasonable terms. Also I would be very surprised if AR is not looking at this possibility.

Wyndrum ref 13.07 post there is one major flaw in your logic. It is based on the assumption that if HAR does not get the guarantee it would go bankrupt. As In said in my 11.05 post 'I would observe that achievement of breakeven is not dependent on whether HARL gets the guarantee'. HARL has never said that the guarantee is essntial for its survival that was what the newspapers have said. What has been said, of course as it is not reported in a newspaper you will not accept it, is that the loan is required to accelerate the company's growth. In the event that HARL does not get the guarantee then the Riverstone loan would need to be refinanced and HARL's growth would be slower.

Marcosino ref 12.18 post thanks.

Marcosino ref 11.24 post what show was this on as I would like to listen to the whole interview. That is an interesting answer. I read that to mean that they would look to see what will any funding secure in relation to jobs and investment. Of the £200m loan around a half will be used to pay off existing borrowing that leaves around £100m to be used for securing export orders. That would leave a significant sum to be used for bidding on tenders. On that basis a good business case can be made for the guarantee being sought.

Valuation-it-is ref 11.38 post Thanks for this very ineresting read. I see the US has the same probllems the MoD has they cannot commit to a design and are always changing the design requrements increasing the costs. If they ask nicely I am sure that HARL can knock out a few for them.

Lottie123 ref 10.53 post If I recall correctly during one of his appearances before the Defence Select Committee JW did seem to suggest that building vessels can be done in a year which is much quicker than is currently the case. I am not sure where Team Resolute are in preparations for commencement of the build operations of the FSS. But if they are on schedule and can do the build in a year then the MoD may be willing to do something along you suggest.

Wyndrum ref 10.33 post you seem intent on putting forward a suggestion based on a newspaper article written by somebody who has not seen the most recent accounts that HARL is going bust. When I have raised arguments based on the accounts you ignore them. As things stand revenues for FY 24 will be higher than last year and there is a good chance they would reach or exceed £200m. On that scenario of revenues reaching £200m+ I would expect HARL to breakeven in FY24. Do you have anything other than a newspaper article to support your doom and gloom prediction. I would observe that achievement of breakeven is not dependent on whether HARL gets the guarantee which raises the question of how accurate the newspaper article you rely on actually is.

Wyndrum ref 07.00 post I do ot always agree with ForrestGump but on this I do. What is being applied for is a financial product that is open to anyone to apply for. A guarantee of a loan under the UKEF Export Development Guarantee Scheme. Under this the banks will be providing the money and not the government. UKEF will guarantee the loan they are not and it is worth repeating as there appears to be some misunderstanding on this point be providing any funds directly. The only time any money from the government will become payable is if HARL defaults on the loan from the banks.

You ask in your post whyn is the companyb likely to go bankrupt. What actual evidence is there for this the only evidence is an article in a newspaper. If you look at the unauditted results from last week Monday and as you recognise in your post the operating loss for FY23 was circa £24m which was down markedly from FY22. This was on revenues of circa £86m. The proportion of the revenues used up in the cost of sales was down from FY22 as was management and administrative expenses. This would indicate that costs are being contained. If as anticipated HARL was to hit the revenue expectations then there is a good chance that HARL will breakeven this year. I say this because if the gross profit is at the same percentage as in FY23 then the gross profit will equal or exceed the management and adminstrative expenses. This is all a long way of saying that you would appear to be gravely mistaken to think that HARL is in any danger of going bankrupt.

Broomtree ref 15.44 post With respect had the IM decision gone the other way then the asset value of IM would have gone up. As it did not then the value would have remained the same. It has to be remembered that it was always part of the security for the existing borrowing so there has been no effect on the security for the existing borrowing. Some people have elevated the importance of IM as far as the loan is concerned higher than it probably is.

On your point in relation to wyndrum's post is concerned you have to remember that HMG are not as far as I am aware is not a shareholder or a PSC so they have very limited if any power to effect any change in ownership of HARL. In any case why is HARL any different to any other company that seeks a guarantee from UKEF.

Wyndrum ref 13.49 post Seeing as trading in the shares of HARL was suspended due to the failure to file the FY23 accounts on time your assumption about the financial state of HARL seems to be inaccurate. If you look at the unaduitted financial results RNS on 1 July 2024 you will see that losses narrowed in FY23 so the financial position is improving. The loan has absolutely nothing to do with the suspension of the trading in HARL shares. You are free to believe otherwise. I would observe that the value of IM would not have changed as a result of the NICA decision on the appeal as it remains an impaired asset.

I note this from the BBC reporting of the Prime Minister's press conference https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cd10ene4n5rt?post=asset%3A410b814d-ba67-4cc9-8186-1eefab15d9c5#post I ownder where in Northern Ireland he will go to. I susoect itmight be just to see the First Minster and Deputy First Minister as he has a NATO conference on Tuesday

Wyndrum ref 12.57 post From a value for money point of view the best way in my opinion to ensure competition in naval shipbuilding is for the government to approve the guarantee. It is not clear to me that you are aware that the guarantee would only be required to be called upon if HARL defaults on the loan and cannot get the loan renegotiated. The government is not being asked to put up any money itself as is the case in any of the other cases where UKEF provides a guarantee under this particular scheme.

In relation to your three scenarios I would observe. Your first option assumes without any evidence that the loan is necessary for HARL to remain a going concern. In this respect I would draw to your attention that so far this year HARL has obtained contracts valued at over £100m without this funding. I therefore do not think that matters are as bad as you make out. As JW said without the guarantee the absence of the funding will only slow down growth.

With regards to your second option on what basis would the government be acting to seek a buyer. Also if this was even being contemplated it would have been started under the previous government and probably leaked by now. I therefore do not think it is a credible proposition.

As to your third option I thnk that HARL will be able to trade itself out of any current financial issues it has. I say this because a successful completion of the SeaRose contract would garner more work on other FPSOs. Equally the work done on the MAS Islander and Odyssey would bring in more cruise refits.