Member Info for stokey12

I have just read this from BBC Northern Ireland https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz44zxr9yr1o you will need to scroll down to see what it says about HARL. It seems to feel that ht enew labour Government would not want to plunge HARL into crisis. It also suggests that it might attach some strings to any support. If that is the case then provided that the strings are not too onerous JW would probably accept them in my view.

On a more positive news Hilary Benn who led a delegation to Belfast has been confirmed as Northern Ireland Secretary. This gives HARL at least one supportive voice in cabinet. I do not know anything about Ian Murray who is the Scottish Secretary but with HARL having two sites in Scotland he may be willing to at least listen to HARL.

Tiredhands ref 16.43 post I take your point but if he wants more shipbuilding done in the UK he will need to ensure that the capacity is present in the UK. This would mean using more yards than BAB and BAe,

One more relevant appointment and that is Jonathan Reynolds as Business Secretary. As such he will have Ministerial Responsibility for UKEF. So as a technical matter once the Treasury has agreed it would be for the Minister of State or Mr Reynolds to sign off on the guarantee.

Relevant cabinet appointments that have been confirmed according to the BBC John Healey as Defence Secretary and Rachel Reeves as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think that either of these are necessarily anti HARL. John Healey has asked questions about FSS but that is not concerning as he was Shadow Defence Secretary.

Just came across this https://agendamalvinas.com.ar/en/noticia/harland-and-wolff-podra-hacerse-cargo-de-la-renovacion-logistica-y-portuaria-en-puerto-argentino luckily it is in English.

I hope that Kevan Jones having been elevated to the House of Lords and now entitled to be called Lord Jones will not use his new position to continue asking questions about HARL. It also menas that he can be made a minister hopefully not in the MoD.

HARL will need to work with new Labour Ministers. Ben Murray has laid the groundwork for this with attendances at the Labour Party Conference. Assuming that the Shadow Ministers keep their posts then Jonathan Reynolds will hopefully swiftly approve the guarantee for HARL. I am not sure that Rachel Reeves as Chancellor would seek to block the gurarantee being granted. Due to her background working at the Bank of England as an economist she would probably be more concerned about the return on the investment. So the question of whether she would seek to block the guarantee is how many jobs will potentially be secured by the loan.

Broomtree ref 20.10 post While IM was part of the security for the loan I do not see how its value has changed post the NICA decision. I have never thought that IM was a central part of any proposed deal that was coming from those who want to see IM sold off. My view is that it was something that did not make sense. It is part of the security for the current loan so why does it now need to be sold off?

Tapp ref 19.41 post The guarantee is coming from the UKEF Export Development Guarantee scheme so the funds that are being guaranteed can be used in anyway that facilitates a company being able to increase exports. The eligibility criteria can be found here https://www.gov.uk/guidance/export-development-guarantee . If HARL was not eligible then I do not see how matters could have got to this stage.

I have been reading the posts on this thread and I think we need to remember what the facts are and ignore speculation and ramping or deramping. The known facts are:-

1 HARL has been negotiating for a significant amount of time for a loan of £200m to enable it to firstly pay off the existing borrowing and secondly tender for significantly larger contracts.

2 The loan that is currently being discussed would be underwritten by a guarantee from UKEF under the Export Development Guarantee Facility.

3 In December 2023 permission was sought and received from the relevant Minister to negotiate on the basis of a 100% loan guarantee. This is up from the normal 80% under this type of facility.

4 From what has been said publicly the interest payable under the new loan would be SONIA + an expert was going to determine what the + would be. The current SONIA rate is 5.20%. The interest under the current loan is SOFR + 9%. With the current SOFR rate being 5.35% this equals 14.35%.

5 The Isle of Scilly Steamship Company has alleged that a guarantee would breach either EU State Aid Rules or the Subsidy Control Act. In my opinion this is wrong but it had the effect of forcing Treasury Officials to reassure the Treasury Ministers that this is not the case.

6 The Department of Business and Trade Officials would have needed to assure their Minister that there would be no breach of the EU State Aid Rules or the Subsidy Control Act before he signed off on negotiations on the basis of a 100% guarantee.

7 About 50% of the loan would be used to pay off the existing loan which would free up capital to help with trying to obtain export ordrrs.

These are the only known facts. It is not clear what the working capital element of the loan is to be used for but it mus be to help with obtaining export orders.

Just came across this https://simplywall.st/stocks/gb/capital-goods/aim-harl/harland-wolff-group-holdings-shares/news/market-cool-on-harland-wolff-group-holdings-plcs-lonharl-rev I do not make any comment on this.

Halfpenny ref 15.01 post thanks for this. I note that the UKEF guarantee has been referred to as a bailout. That I think reflects the view of his former boss. I would say that almost all UKEF guarantees are to an extent a bailout. The question is what return would be made from the loan by way of export orders and new jobs. So a £200m guarantee that generates say £150m in initial export orders and secures hundreds of jobs would be justified. Also if the money is used to obtain contracts in relation to the renewables industry then the orders generated could be more than the loan we will need to wait and see.

Randerson19 As the accounts have to be laid at the AGM and three weeks notice needs to be given for the AGM it will be August/September.

An interesting video explaining the position in relation to what has delayed the departure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDyF93CvpPA&t=695s The takeaways I take from this is that the delays are not due to HARL but decisions taken by the client especially with regards to the rudder. It will be interesting to see if she comes back for another drydock after the first trip. The other takeaway is that the 20 July is a firm departure date.

Read this article from the Financial Times not my normal paper of choice. Due to who the comments are from which ever party wins tomorrow will need to take hat it says seriously. https://archive.is/FqyEQ it would be impossible for BAB and/or BAe to carry out all the work needed in a timespan to be of any use. HARL should consider putting together one or more consortiums to bid for chunks of this work as well as lobbying the incoming government to take this matter forward.

ForrestGump ref 09.32 post you seem to be assuming that the steamship company is correct in saying that the provision of a guarantee to HARL would breach state aid rules. I have previously posted why I think that they are wrong on this. In short the guarantee is not a subsidy under the Subsidy Control Act because it does not pass all the four tests for it to be a subsidy. As far as the EU state aid rules are concerned which would only apply in relation to Belfast I doubt it would apply as they relate to the steamship company as we are talking about different markets.

One thing from the article worth commenting on, In the article it says that JW was still insisting that they would still have revenues of £200m. When you look at the results around 50% of the FY24 revenues is coming from just one contract. Which begs the question why has the projected revenues for 2024 not been increased? I can only guess is that there is a revenue recognition issue. This would certainly be the case if any of cruise ship contracts referred to in the RNS for Q4 come in as they would probably slip into 2025.

Si_Derman ref 07.37 post Thanks as you say nothing new. The headline is alarming rubbish.

Caravan ref 06.49 post I do not subscribe to the Telegraph can you summarise what it says