Member Info for stokey12

In relation to your 17.57 post it is more for those odd occasions when someone has posted more than once on the same topic and you are responding to a particular post it is clear which one you are posting. Of course you are right I am just odd.

Si_Derman In relation to your 17.42 post I do not think that is the problem as the Morningstar page you provided does not include Killick and Co. It may be other major shareholders that it has not mentioned as it depends on the source of their information.

Capdevila11 As you clearly have a problem with how I write my posts do feel free to filter me I will not be offended. I have no intention of changing how I write my posts as it is done to assist other people to find the posts I am responding to. I suspect that other people on the board amusing that I go to the trouble of identifying my posts I am responding to. You are the only problem who complains so I can only presume that it is a you problem.

Si_Derman Thanks for your 16.49 post and the link. If this information is correct it would seem to imply there is only one notifiable major shareholder. My point about the significant shareholder list on the company website is that as I understand it under the AIM rules this information is supposed to be updated at least every six months. It is a worry if the company administration is unable to do something so easy.

On another point If you click on the valuation tab that makes interesting reading.

Just seen this https://t.co/qqcvvmqp8d?amp=1

Chitta123 In relation to your 12.26 post the question is not funding. The issue is how much trouble the local opposition will make. From the documents oldtramp has posted in relation to the energy policy I am confident that the Marine License will be granted. However, I am also reasonable sure that any positive decision on the marine license will be subject to a legal challenge which will further delay matters. How long such a delay will be is what is uncertain.

Loosegoose In relation to your 09.54 post the list of significant shareholders has not been updated since September 2020 so it is out of date and I believe is in breach of the AIM Rules. Last time I mentioned this to INFA which was in the middle of last month they were in the process of updating it. I have just checked and still not been updated.

Chitta123 In relation to your 08.31 post in my view IslandMagee is not currently a saleable asset as there is a significant degree of uncertainty over when and if the marine license will be granted. Also I do not believe that future cash will be an issue as the company strategy unfolds and income from contracts come in. From various reports in H1 2022 income work in progress is possibly going to reach £65m. I also note that cruise ships are starting to go to Belfast so there is a good chance of more cruise ship work as the turn around from repairs to resuming sailings will be down to hours.

spudtheplumber In relation to your 17.02 post bearing in mind the probable tenders that the BoD are working on and their value my inclination would be to give them about a year by that time we will know if Team Resolute area serious contender for the FSS contract. In addition we should know about the new National Flagship and whether INFA has one that tender. Also coming in the next 12 months is the implementation of the national shipbuilding strategy and I suspect more higher value fabrication contracts.

spudtheplumber In relation to your 16.00 post as I pointed in my last post the projected revenue from this year is £20m+ which is more than enough to cover the salaries. For your information in calculating the £20m I took the revenue booked figure in the trading statement from this week ( £9m ) and added the payments under the Saipem Contract on the basis of monthly payments from August. I did not include any other income including ship repair work so the income from the work on the Azura is not included. So the £20m is a conservative estimate. Cenkos has calculated projected revenues of £30m so the profit margin would seem to be enough to cover the salaries.

As people will note from my social media posts where I believe it is justified I do not hesitate from criticising the company and will continue. That said I think we need to recognise where the BoD has taken us since December 2019 when Harland and Wolff was bought. This acquisition marked the start of a turnaround process. In that time the company has gone from zero income to this year a projected income of £20m+. This was done without any government assistance. Had the company done as some on this board would have preferred and just pursued the IslandMagee project then even if the company was still here it would still not be trading and would have zero income.

I have noted the discussion over the last couple of days about the cancellation of the Triumph Subsea Services Letter of Intent. We do not have any facts that are in the public domain to make an objective assessment on where the truth between the competing explanations for why it has been cancelled lies. I am not, therefore, going to get into the debate as to whether this was ever a viable business proposition.

Going forward there are reasons to be encouraged based on the start made on the Saipem contract there is a good chance that INFA will get the £43m Saipem 2 contract. The most recent note from Cenkos makes reference to a £22.5m three cruise ship contract being negotiated. We have the Azura in dock at the moment we have no information as to the value of the works to that is all we do know is that it is currently scheduled to be in dock for three months. The share price is depressing but we should give John Wood and the Board space to carry on with their work. By my calculations the chance of breakeven this year is evens.

An interesting article which mentions INFA although the main thrust of the article is investment in Scotland. https://magazine.dailybusinessgroup.co.uk/2021/07/02/scotland-absent-from-uks-industrial-party/

For those of you were all the money raised is going here is part of the answer https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-6816748751248486403-yaW6

Valhalla14 In relation to your 15.32 post at the last roadshow JW indicated that there would not be another raise for at least 12 months. I would remind you before you dismiss that comment that he would have a better idea on likely income over the next 12 months.

On Monday we have Defence Questions and one of the questions from Kevan Jones is Whether the procurement costs for the proposed national flagship will be drawn from his Department's existing budget allocation.

On Tuesday we have BETS and one of the questions from Stephen Crabb • What steps his Department is taking to support the marine renewables sector

visual confirmation courtesy of the H&W Linkedin page https://www.linkedin.com/posts/harlandwolff_we-were-pleased-to-welcome-the-ms-azura-this-activity-6816614913495199744-h1u7

I have confirmation from both the Belfast Harbour website and vesselfinder.com that the Azura is now in port.

Just seen this article from Vox markets on yesterday's trading statement. https://www.**********.co.uk/articles/infrastrata-secures-3m-in-revenues-in-latest-quarter-77e3309/

Loosegoose In relation to your 17.35 post in respect of the credit finance I was thinking could they be using a Export Credit Finance Facility underwritten by HMG? This would give reassurance to the lenders that they would get the money back. Also the existence of the credit would hopefully persuade cruise companies to place contracts with H&W. Also there are some new cruise ships likely to be ordered in the coming years this kind of facility would help in trying to get some of those orders.

oldtramp In relation to your 14.26 post you raised the question of whether the extended stay is incorrect the dates I have given I took from the Belfast Harbour website. This information is taken from bookings with the habour master I do not see why they would book the berth for three months when they only need it for a shorter period. Also |I believe that they may be charged for the time they are berthed so they may incur additional costs doing that.