Member Info for stokey12

Manabouttown - Further to your 06.15 post in repsonse to my post on the valuation of W2T. I am by nature somebody who bases decision on verifiable facts. A you will notice I always ask for the source of information so that I can check the information. In this case I can see the merits of the acquistion of W2T. I have concerns over the management of W2T but those are manageable if DR remains in post after the transaction. The value of W2T is the only concern I have left and I need satisfying that PHE is not overpaying for W2T. This is a question which each shareholder needs to answer for themselves. What they take into account inarriving at that decision is fo them to decide. For me I am not taking into account market reaction for two reasons firstly despite what you say about Protos being the only thing that the market is talking about I am not convinced that is the case. There are more than three brokers in the city and they are not all going to think the same way. They will make individual judgements. Secondly, on the day of the announcement the share price dropped and did not go up again until the Friday after the Christmas break. Also on looking at the split between recorded buys and sells there have been days when sells have outnumbered buys yet the price went up. There have been days when the opposite has happened. Therefore the rise or fall in the share price and we have had two days of falls is not a reliable guide.

Unlike Manabouttown I believe that shareholders have a right to question the rationale behind the W2T proposal. By calm and considered debate and discussion in reasonable and courteous fashion we can see what differences of opinion there are. From the discussions over the last few weeks the main sticking point appears to be over the value attributed to W2T.
The notional price being paid for W2T can be worked out. Legally PHE cannot sell shares for less than the nominal value of the share. In the case of PHE that is 0.5p. It follows that to keep within the law the notional price for acquiring W2T is 0.5 x 1.3BN. I am not sure what that works out at but assuming that the electricity at Protos is sold at £60 and it produces hydrogen as well I make the total gross revenue to be £6,193,600. Therefore, anything above this figure means PHE will be paying more for W2T than W2T would earn from Protos in a year. If we are not valuing W2T on the basis of the current value of its assets I do not see why a value should be put on it of more than a year’s revenue. Also, above this figure would, I believe, mean that W2T would be valued at greater than PHE as on the day of the notice of the conditional agreement to acquire based on the MCAP for PHE on that day. I would need strong justification to agree to that.
The best summary of the merits of the proposal can be found by reading the one given yesterday by Piltick. You will have to go through his post history to find it. I agree with most of what he says.

BumbleB - I agree 100% with your 19.33 post my two major concerns is the value being put on W2T shares. Secondly, ever since the announcement of the proposed acquisition of W2T the way Manabouttown has at times been trying to scare people into agreeing to the proposal has caused me to pause and look with caution at the proposal.

Manabouttown - My preference would be to pay £1.3m payable in PHE shares based on the share price on the day of the EGM. But that was not one of the option so my preference would be to pay in PHE shares based on the share price on the day of the EGM.

Piltick - Thank you for your post of 16.21 I am now regretting posing the question. What makes me think that the meaning was deliberately vague.

Piltick - In relation to your 15.23 post I have gone back to the RNS to see what it said about the split. What the RNS said is 'The acquisition would be in the form of a non-cash transaction using PowerHouse shares to acquire the whole of the issued share capital of W2T, at a ratio of 60% PowerHouse to 40% W2T.' I am not sure that it means what we have taken it to mean. It is not clear what the ratio is of. I might be over analysing this but the part after the comma would make more sense if you were creating a new company which would be owned 60% Powerhouse and 40% W2T.

Can anyone with a better knowledge than me of corporate finance confirming either way what I am saying.

Manabouttown - Glad to see that you have been able to read the shareholder circular which will give the definitive information on the offer. I note what the RNS said it is the basis of the calculation that I was querying. The 60/40 split could be based on either the totla shaees in issue which is what we have been assuming or on the market capitalisation on the day that the conditional agreement was made. On those ocassions I have seen an acquisition including al all share offer it has been based on a price which is paid in shares. I am sure with your expert knowledge you would be able to provide an example of an acquisition where it was a percentage of the company that is taking over the target company.

Gadams In relation to your 09.20 post. I agree with you n relation to the valuation. W2T being a private compnay is not supposed to sell shares to the public. It probably took that prohibition to its legal limit when it posted the Pre-IPO document on its website. I would like to see if the price is a percentage of PHE or a figure based on the share price of PHE as on a particular date. In the case of the latter it would be interesting to see what that date is taking into account the new shares in W2T that was allotted earlier this month.

BumbleB - In relation to your 07.35 while I believe I think it was Sprogbarnes who blamed the calling of the general election my view is that if you apply a but for test even if the general election was not called there would still have been a delay. The other reason for the delay was the amendment to the planning application to include thecabling to the electricity grid. This was taken as a material amendment to the planning application requiring a fresh consultation. As a result the application could not have gone to the December meeting as the closing date for responses would not have allowed for the report to be done in time.

Newboy58 - In relation to your 07.09 post it cannot be said with any degree of confidence that the issues raised by BumbleB are the only cause of the delay in planning. It is possible that even if the Habitats Regulations Assessment had been done with the application we may have had the delay.

Manabouttown - In relation to your 4.10 post as I pointed out to you before the lEP is not part of the council. The council is a member of the LEP. The clue is in the fact that the P in LEP stands for partnership. In any case even if the LEP was part of the council the fact that a grant has been given is not a planning issue and is therefore irrelevant to the question of whether planning should be granted. I am not even sure that the planning officer would know about the grant.

While nine times out of ten a planning committee follows the advice of the planning officer they can refuse to do so. As the planning officer may not have written her report how do you know that she has recommended approval. Planning applications on the Protos site have been refused before.

Wolveshaveeyes - In relation to your 16,53 post I was trying to establish who told you about the trade as I cannot see it on the list of trades.

Got that wrong it would require a TR1. The reason that I thought it did not is I keep rounding up the shares in issue to 2bn so have 3% as being 60m

Wolveshaveeyes - In relation to your 15.59 post can you please explain yourreference to 58 million shares as I cannot see such a trade. I would agree with you a purchase of that amount would probably justify a RNS but would not of itself require a TR1 unless they already owned some shares and it put them over the 3%

Prognosticator - In relation to your 08.36 post I do not see that as the complete answer two of those RNSs were last month so would have been priced in by the market so should not be in my view having an effect on the share price today. Also we are having trades at the rate of one a minute at present. we are close to having a volume of 10m shares traded in the first hour of trading. I agree with Piltick in his 08.48 post. Hopefully we will get a statement from the company soon on any known reason for the share price rise.

Does anybody else suspect that the share price increase so far today and yesterday may in part be due to a leak?

The current share price is the highest it has been since mid November 2017. Depending on whether we get any news this week it might test the three year high.

LedZep - It was an assumption I mad from your tweet as there had previously been as you know much discussion between me and BumbleB as to whether we would need a response from Natural England. Hope Natural England do not hold things up.

LedZep - This response is not from Natural England but from Peel's experts. Natural England does not appear to have responded. We will know by the end of the week if it is boing to plannng this month without a response from Natural England.

Painstake In relation to your 09.49 post that is really a decision for you to make based on your own personal circumstances and your appetite for risk.