Member Info for stokey12

Broomtree ref 12.44 post you obviously did not read the caveats in the post.

LSE03 ref 12.30 post thanks for this makes interesting reading. The issue with IM is how do you value it. One of the factors which in my opinion makes valuing IM complicated is what value you put on the term of the license. I do not think any of the regulatory issues that Consuela would be relevant for valuation purposes.

Consuela ref 11.09 post i see you are playing the man instead of the ball. This is normally only done when someone is incapable of arguing the facts. As you say let us see when the final deal is done and also see if you can be objective in your analysis.

I have just seen this article from Simply Wall Street https://simplywall.st/stocks/gb/energy/aim-harl/harland-wolff-group-holdings-shares/news/many-still-looking-away-from-harland-wolff-group-holdings-pl Important note I have not read any of the links in the article. Also it is worth noting that I do not consider Simply Wall Street so you may want to do additional research in relation to the points made in the article. That said the article does raise an interesting point about the price to sales ratio.

Consuela ref 21.10 post you are letting your dislike of JW cloud your ability to look at things objectively look at matters. Under the Export Development Scheme the normal maximum guarantee is 80%. So the fact that we have agreement in principle for a 100% guarantee is in my opinion highly significant. Before you say it I know we have for the final sign off from the Minister of the deal HARL would not, again in my opinion, have been given the nod to enter negotiations for the loan on the basis of a 100% guarantee if it was not highly likely the Minister would not sign off on it.

Also with the guarantee I would not expect the interest rate to be higher than SONIA +2%. This would have the effect of slashing by half the interest rate currently being paid. So the shareholders on this board and seemingly the markets are right to be excited.

I have started a new thread for this as I think it sould have its on thread and has nothing to do with the new funding deal which it was originally posted under. Having read this article https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41200252.html#:~:text=The%20State%20looks,150m%20in%20length. I would observe that I am not sure that the Republic of Ireland are clear what they want the ship to do. I appreciate that it is supposed to be a multi role vessel but even so it sounds like they want it to do everything. Surely that will simply increase the price and complicate the design.

As the designers are Scottish I do not see any reason why HARL cannot bid for this. If I recall correctly under its previous owners Appledore did build a vessel for the Irish Naval Service. Of course this was pre BREXIT.

Broomtree ref 13.49 post when writing the post I forgot the contract value so put in what I thought it was. Besodes what is £100m between friends. Hopefully with M55 finished next year they can make a decision on what to do with the Atherstone another decision that keeps being kicked down the road. Hopefully next year HARL will pick up some wind fam fabrication contracts.

Porthy ref 11.48 post when looking at assets I would argue that you need to include the order book. This includes:

FSS Sub Contract which is circa £650m

SeaRose Mid Life Extension £65m

HMS Quorn £55m

Cory Barges £30m

The stated size of the order book is circa £1bn but I have only added known contracts. Also you need to add assets from the purchase of KMS. So I think you valuation of the assets are a bit conservative.

Andymck ref 11.21 post the guarantee is in place to cover the possibility that HARL is unable to make the payments for any reason. A forced sale might mean that the banks are unable to recover all the money provided. In addition in the unlikely event that HARL was to go bankrupt it ensures they are able to recover their money. I am not expecting either to happen.

Porthy ref 10.02 post that would depend on the wording of the charge. It is possible for the loan agreement might have some restrictions on what can be done with the assets.

On twitter or X whichever the stocks guy was saying that, this may not be his exact words but certainly the gist, the sale of IslandMagee would be a condition of the loan from UKEF. I pointed out that UKEF was not providing the money they were only providing a guarantee. I am still waiting for his reply. Personally I cannot see any logical reason for tying the sale of IM to the provision of the guarantee. Am I missing someting apart from the stocks guy has a hang up on selling IM.

Further to my 18.25 post the relevant provisions of the LTIP are

'· Restricted Shares will represent 30% of the total number of Options, earned on a straight-line basis over three years from 1 January 2023. If any Executive leaves during this three-year period as a "good leaver", such Executive will be entitled to keep a time-apportioned number of those shares.

· Value Shares will represent 35% of the total number of Options and will realise value provided that the volume weighted average price of the shares for the 90 trading days immediately preceding and including 31 December of each calendar year is as follows:

o 2023: 37.50 pence per share

o 2024: 46.88 pence per share

o 2025: 58.60 pence per share

o Value Shares will be granted in proportion to the uplift in the share price since the previous award date such that if the growth in share price falls short of the target by 5%, then the number of Value shares awarded will be reduced by 5%. However, if share price growth is less than 10% in any year of award, no award of Value Shares will be made for that year.

o Failure to achieve the relevant trigger in one year will not be recoverable by over-achievement in subsequent years. This means there will be no "re-testing."

· Enhanced Value Shares will equate to 35% of the total number of Options. Enhanced Value Shares may be available in two equal amounts at any time up to the end of 2025, with half of the Enhanced Value Shares triggered by the Company's share price being at or above a volume weighted average price of 60 pence per ordinary share for a period of 60 days, and the other half being triggered by the share price being at or above a volume weighted average price of 100 pence per ordinary share for a period of 60 days.'

So they will only get the value shares which I am understanding this correctly amounts to 10% of the value of the options available.

Spudtheplumber ref 17.23 post you would lose that bet under the LTIP the share price had to reach a certain price for the 90 trading days endig December 31. This was not met so they would only get if I recall correctly a third of the award under the LTIP.

I am going to be totally unrealistic and would want more playing the ball and not the man on this board. As most people on this board I presume has finished compulsory education can we engage on a topic without resorting to attacking the person posting. What is everyone else expecting or wanting for in the New Year.

Porthy ref 15.49 post At one of the investor evenings I asked if JW would provide quarterly trading updates. He refused and said he would do six monthly trading updates. There is in my mind a distinction between a trading statement and a trading update. A trading statement is a statement issued normally after unusual trading activity to provide reassurance to the market in relation to a particular issue. An example would be where the share price has risen unexpectedly then a statement would be issued to deal with any rumours. A trading update is a more general update on how trading has been going across all the activities that the company is engaged in. The 30th November RNS is clearly the former while what is awaited is the latter.

Porthy ref 13.18 with respect I would disagree with about the 30th November statement being a trading update. It does notsay that it is a traing update. Also it reads to me as if HARL had been asked to make a statement due to trading in the days before. What me and others are looking for are details around activity at ll the sites.

Porthy ref 09.33 post Whil I would agree that normally civil servants would make a decision. However with a guarantee of this size either the Chief Secretary to the Treasury or The Chancellor would have to agree to this.

Bubble2021 ref 09.03 post at the risk of being nit picking technically JW has not delivered as we do not have a signed and agreed loan facility. We know the outlines of what it is likely to be which is notthe same thing. Also if there is a change of Minister there is a theorectical possibility a new Minister can refuse to consent. I doubt this will happen but it is possible. I note that the interest rate that will be payable on the facilityn is about half what is being paid now so I hope we can get everything finalised in Q1.

BeanCounting If you read the RNS it states that the facility needs ministerial sign off. How long that will take is unknown so you cannot give a deadline. Also you also stated that the finance might not happen I would give that a less than 5% chance of happening as Ministers would normally follow Civil Service advice.

Mikee_p ref 07.13 post HARL had previously said it would be Q4 2023 which effectively means today.