Member Info for stokey12

Si_Derman ref 08.05 post please see the information on this link https://www.gov.uk/guidance/export-development-guarantee I meant bid on tenders that relate to exports.

Can we separate fact from fiction on this. I do not mind if anyon wants to challenge me on any of these facts with cclear reasoning.

1. The current size of the guarantee being offered by UKEF to HARL is 100% and this is a first. (See my post yesterday under Financing which provided the parliamentary question and answer on this.)

2. The size of the funding is £200m.

3. The interest on the current debt is circa 13%.

4. The interest on the new debt facility is expected to be around 7-8%.

5. Based on the current exchange rate after paying off the RiverFort loan HARL will be left with between £100m - £115m.

6. The new financing is restricted to being used to help HARL win export orders and bid on tenders.

Those are the facts from them we can make some educated guesses.

!. In order to get Ministerial approval the Minister would have needed to be satisfied that the mney would create jobs and exports.

2. To do 1 above some indication of what the loan would be used for would have been given.

3. It is not for FSS or any of the existing work as they are not export related (FSS) or the client would have been entitled to apply for Creddit finance under a different scheme.

4. There is a large contract being worked on n the background that would require significant expenditure,

The full text of the parliamentary question and answer is as follows the question was from the Honourable Member for North Durham.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, for what reason UK Export Finance would provide a 100% guarantee on lending to company under the Export Development Guarantee.

Answer

Greg Hands

Conservative

Chelsea and Fulham

Commons

Answered on

19 February 2024

UK Export Finance (UKEF) has not previously 100% guaranteed any Export Development Guarantee (EDG) facilities.

In principle, consideration can be given to guarantee percentages above 80% where this is needed to ensure the success of the transaction, subject to ensuring that the guaranteed loan meets UKEF’s requirements including compliance with applicable subsidy control rules.

Mamissimo ref 09.33 post thanks for this makes interesting reading. I note that HARL says that it has emough income to carry on until the financing is in place.

Broomtree ref 12.00 post I see your point and I would agree that it does seem to imply that there was a further advance. I do note that the functional currency for HARL and the currency of the loan are not the same and the change in the amount of the loan may be to reflect a change in the exchange rate between the two. If there had been a further loan I would have expected it to say to secure further advances.

Bridgedogg1 ref 07.56 post the financing will be at SONIA + I believe that the plus part is what advice was being sought on. The current SONIA rate is at 5.19 which is the rate it has been on everytime I have checked.

Scaffman ref 15.00 post thanks for this an interesting read. HARL has the advantage over both BAB and BAe that it has ac tually built a floating berth for the RNLI in London so it has relevant recent experience in building a floating deck.

LSE03 ref 11.10 post interesting intervention it is not normal for junior government ministers to make such a open call for additional spending. This is especially interesting as I do not believe that either is a defence minister.

Further to my 06.07 post i is worth noting that both Arnish and Methil have passed Stage 1 of the Strategic Investment Model of the Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Council. This means that they will now progress to engagement with Offshore Wind Developers. This engagement is supported by the Scottish Government and in the case of Arnish is a joint proposal with Stornoway Port Authority.

Consuela ref 19.48 post while past performance is on ocassion a good indicator in this case I am not sure. You are looking only at JW and his past performance, I do not know enough about it to comment, in your post you mention Infrastrata and H&W as if they are separate companies but they are not. Infrastrata changed its name to H&W so they are in fact the same company. If I recall Vittol was/is related to IM so as IM has not progressed the agreement with Vittol cannot progress I cannot see how this is something that JW can be blamed for.

In any case I look at the Senior Management below the BoD as it them that are responsible for things on a day to day basis. In addition I look at the workflow both anticipated and actual. When you look at these factors then the issues with JW and his past is less of an issue as the Senior Management seem to be competent and experienced. As just one example at Arnish the five year Master Services Agreement is with a global oil and gas company. When the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill is enacted probably later this year this would create a requirement for annual licenses for petroleum exploration. This alone is likely to increase the need for this product. In addition with other petroleum exploration projects worldwide the value of the agreement during its five year term is ikely to be more than this initial order. Arnish also has a Greenland client I am not sure if this would bring more work.

This came from the UK Defence Journal twitter feed https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-increasingly-reliant-on-allies-to-protect-british-interests/

Consuela ref 17.43 post can you share with us the data and the source of the data you are relying on to make your statement

Scaffman ref 13.58 post the first indicator that HARL is on the right path will come when the FY23 accounts are published which is due by the 30 June. The second indicator is the H1 2024 interim results which are due by 30 September this would be the first indicator that HARL is on the road to profitability. The next indicator will be in June next year when we have the FY 2024 results. So I am not sure that 1 - 3 months would tell us much unless the accounts come out before 30 June.

Nobby31 ref 12.54 post leaks would be almost impossible to avoid when you consider the number of people involved. Interesting that the view given to you that it might be transformational given that some on here having been saying about the debt level.

MaryBr190 ref 11.10 post I am going to respectfully disagree with you. The issue I see is that the mix of busimesses and contracts means that whoever was to ake a bid approach would have a number of non core assets that would need to be disposed of. As an example if either BAB or BAe were to make a bid appproach they are unlikely to want to retain either Anish or Methil as they do not seem to be suitable for shipbuilding without significant capital expenditure. In addition BAB would need to admit that they were wrong to dispose of Appledore when they did. Furthermore I suspect that MoD would express a negative view of such a move as they want to develop a thrid shipbuilder.

In relation to Arnish and Methil while a company looking for acreage to develop a factory might want either one or both of Arnish or Methil Belfast and Appledore would be non core assets and would need to be disposed of or managed.

What might happen is that there is a J/V to develop Methil to handle the Offshore Wind Sector.

Ref my 04.42 post that should have read replying to.

Hebridean9 ref 21.29 post You refer to the distressed balance sheet. I would agree with you about the state of the balance sheet as at 31 December 2022. However, as I have stated before due to events in 2023 I am not sure that the balance sheet remains distressed at present. We will need to wait until the FY2023 accounts are published but the balance sheet would be affected by the FSS Manufacture Sub Contract. As well as the existence, if any, of any prepayments in relation to the FSS Manufacture Sub Contract.

Broomtree ref 19.39 post you are taking my comment out of context. The post that comment was taken from was dealing with a particular point where HARL was being compared with another now defunct company. My argument was that the fall of the other company was not due to the MM as stated in the post I was relying on but by the actions of the board. The comment you quote was comparing the approach to refinancing and has to be seen in that context. While it is true we do not know the full terms of the financing we know enough to compare the two.

Forrestgump ref 17.54 post apologies for discussing another company on this board but I must disagree with you about your comparison between Sirius Minerals and HARL. In my view thereason for the demise of Sirius Minerals had nothing to do with the MMs. The issue in my view was that the BoD of Sirius Minerals overcomplicated the restructuring the finnaicng of the company so it was forced to agree to a takeover. I know some would say that is what is happening here but I would disagree the proposed debt package is more straightforwad than what was contemplated with Sirius Minerals.

Nojy ref 16.19 post most long term holders are nursing significant losses on this share I would say give it about two years.