Member Info for stokey12

Lottie123 ref 10.34 post the £40m that is stated as being banked for next year is on present evidence NOT confirmed. £25m is from yesterday's contract. My issue is that Cenkos are banking £15m from Cory. This is where I have an issue.The RNS of 1 June 2022 gives the contract price for the Cory contract as £8.5m. We have not been made aware of any other contracts from Cory so either the figure has been misstated or there are other contracts that have not been the subject of a RNS. I can therefore only vouch for £25m for next year with a probably further £8.5m.

On the question of other possible revenues I would expect at least one renewables contract that will edge towards the £100m.

richielh ref 08.03 post I had a re-read of the article and the actual statement was 'This marks the shipyard’s first defence contract in its 161-year history .' Which is also inconsistent with the statement that it completed vessels for the Irish Naval Service when Appledore was owned by BAB.

I have noticed an internal inconsistency in the article. It starts by saying that yesterday's contract was the first defence contract in the company's 161 year history then towards the end there is this sentence 'It played a crucial role in the Second World War, building 140 warships and 123 merchant vessels as well as more than 500 tanks.' Which statement is true as they cannot both be true.

Twitter thread from Navy Lookout https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1547148402072371203.

I wonder whether the lukewarm response to the contract news is caused in part by people being on their summer holidays.

Radders99 ref 13.05 post I think he is worried that it looks like all his negativity about the Board's strategy as opposed to focussing just on IM is about to be proved wrong. Like his carping about the executive bonuses which was admittedly badly handled he never said anything when there were no bonuses last year.

ban4118 ref 12.34 post If you look at the Contract Win RNS of 1 June 2022 the contract value is given as £8.5m. I am therefore not sure where the £15m figure comes from unless there is a follow on contract that has not been mentioned.

There may be a bit of an ironic twist to today's news. As HARL may not have the expertise inhouse to do the systems integration work they may have to subcontract the work to BAe. So after trying to get subcontract work from BAe HARL will end up subcontracting BAe to do work for it. I hope HARL remembers the liquidated damages clause in case BAe are late in completion of the work.

Avyererdowt ref 09.59 post a fair question to ask. As I understand the terms HARL has secured income from the contract over the next three years. This means that we know that next year income will be not less than £25m. Also it will allow HARL to show that it can do large refurbishment projects. So on balance it is in my view a good deal especially as HARL did not provide a performance bond.

Bubble2021 ref 10.00 post I am not sure where you got the news about spending review next week from but I am not sure that it will be going ahead now. With the conservative party leadership election there will be no new policy announcements until September when the new leader is chosen.

Cenkos have issued an eight page research note this morning. That might generate additional interest. Off to read it over breakfast.

My 18.05 post of yesterday was done without foreknowledge of this announcement. The contract value is 2.5x the current MCap of the company so I would expect a uptick in the share price and BAB and BAe are likely to be slightly concerned that this might lead to further deals with overseas governments. Hopefully they will be right to be concerned.

Chrisatrdg ref 16.56 post. I would be surprised if the SP can keep rising without any news until the investor events next week. If we see favourable articles which suggest that HARL may get some contracts then the SP in my view might stabilise but we do need some news of significant contracts from either renewables or the MOD.

It is in my view a question of chicken and egg. Which should come first contracts from the MoD or investment by the firms in their shipyards. It would seem from the article that BAe were looking for the MoD to fund the investment and got rebuffed. I also note this comment from the Defence Secretary's evidence to the Defence Select Committee last week '“If a British bid said it wasn’t going to invest in yards, or a foreign bid said it would invest in British yards, which would you select?” Wallace stated.' I take this to mean that during pre bid discussion Team UK intimated that they would not be investing in the shipyards but Navantia as the lead bidder for Team Resolute said they would be investing in shipyards. Final Bids are due this month with contracts to be signed Q1 2023.

Like Bubble2021 I would want to see some contracts soon to justify the investment that HARL have made.

Pokerchips ref 14.08 post The problem is perhaps in part caused by HARL not doing what it promises. For example last year we were promised quarterly trading updates. we had one in March and one in June. There was then a business update in September not sure if that is the same thing. There was no update but we did have a general meeting the notice of which probably covered everything that would have been in the trading update. We had a trading update I am not sure if this was planned as it came out mid morning and not at 7am.

Also last year we were promised a newsletter which came out once. This would have been useful for shareholders who are not on social media. I am not sure if HARL has a stakeholder engagement policy but it does need one.

My 13.37 post should read I do not dispute what you say but the continual missed deadline for when contracts will be concluded does not inspire confidence. Matters are not helped when no information is then given about the reason for the delay. They could at least say that negotiations are ongoing but are taking longer than anticipated due to whatever the reason.

Pokerchips ref 12.37 post I do not dispute what you say b

My question for the meeting 'We are frequently told at investor meetings and in update RNSs that significant contracts are likely in a few weeks. While I accept that events are not totally in your control. Would you agree these continual jam tomorrow announcements erodes confidence in the company's ability to actually conclude contracts.'

Chrisatrdg ref 07.35 post I agree that news may be forthcoming soon. I note that the in person event is at a Central London commercial meeting venue so I presume that they have something to say to justify the cost of hiring the venue. I wonder how many of the company knockers will be attending either event as opposed to sniping from the wings.

In the same vein this article may be worth a read https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4784da2e-2927-4488-8c69-e0a39f7fc42f&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2022-07-08&utm_term=/ The plan seems to support my argument that IM may be able to attract funding from the Infrastructure Bank.