Member Info for Stuartrm

I agree up to a point, Coeurdelion. If losses of a holding were falling rapidly, accompanied by rapidly increasing sales, a clear and convincing plan for growth and a product that would undoubtedly become a market leader investors would probably fall over each other to get “onboard” at an IPO. Do Alusid and, for that matter, Pulsiv fall into that category? Possibly, but insufficient information has been provided to convince the market so far and it seems more likely that they will be useful additions to, rather than transformers of, their respective markets. As for FIP itself, it needs income. Whether that comes from sales of holdings, dividends or a mixture of both is immaterial in the short term, as long as that income is sufficient to avoid a need for share dilution or expensive debt.

The Swedish deal is good news but is Alusid profitable? FIP owning a large portion of the company is only good news if that company is making (increasingly meaningful amounts of) money.

It might be as simple as a correction, in a more positive market, to the gloom that caused a significant drop in the share price since the end of last year.

While I thank you for your analysis and I would like to share your optimism, I fear that the macro-climate will put a dampener on thing. Specifically:

a) The US - Chinese trade "spat" is far from over.

b) There will probably be other trade "spats". Indeed, President Trump seems to be more interested in trading with Russia than countries with which the USA already trades.

c) The middle east situation is far from settled, despite claims that we have peace in our time.

d) The Ukraine war seems to be far from settled, and if it were to be settled on Russian (and US?) terms, Russia would gain control of 30% of the world's grain supply, which does not bode well.

e) US inflation is likely to increase because of tariffs - it has not happened yet, but it is early days.

f) Fear over lenders unsettled the markets and could well repeat.

g) IA hopes may be over-blown

h) Many western countries, including the US, have serious debt problems and increasingly unstable governments.

I could go on, but will not. In short, sentiment is not in our favour and Molten may trade at a similarly large, if not even larger, discount for a considerable time. For that discount to close, sentiment will need to improve and/or Molten will need to sell assets and bank cash. There are no signs, as far as I know, of either happening soon. I am in this for the (increasingly) long haul.

As you will have seen by now, Phyl, the drop is due to President Trump threatening 100% additional tariffs on China, rather than being specific to WWH.

While SMT has risen significantly from a low early this year, it is still way below the 1528ish peak at the end of

2021. Several of the holdings are no doubt “toppy” but others are not. If the fund managers judge the market well, SMT would not necessarily crash in the event of an AI correction. They would probably dip, however, because everything tends to take a short term dip during such bubble bursts, following which the uptrend should continue.

Please ignore that. It should read 20%.

Why? That would be a rise of 33%!

If one were to pick the winners and losers in legal actions, using the pin method, one might expect to pick the winners 50% of the time, as there will be equal numbers of winners and losers. Picking the winners 75% of the time, which is what the claim of winning three times as many cases as are lost means, would be impressive, if it were true. This, however, is not the whole story, as there are no reliable statistics to show the percentage of plaintiffs who "succeed" or what "success" actually means. All one can say is that given the risk of losing and the costs that would accrue therefrom, a plaintiff would need to be pretty confident of success to take the risk of suing a third party. This would tend to skew the chances of winning, as far as any backer is concerned, toward the plaintiff..

The other issue is costs of losing versus the rewards from winning. If, say, one were to invest $1m into each case, and win $2m on each success, a 50% success rate would mean that the winnings would be double the losses and, excluding company overheads, the company should be profitable. LIT has, traditionally, claimed to win about three times its outlay on each case. On this basis, with a 3:1 win to loss rate and a 3:1 fee to funding loss rate, the result should be akin to shooting fish in a barrel, generating a 9 to 1 return (assuming that cases have investment, which clearly they do not).

A run of three bad cases is not statistically significant. Think of picking red versus black at a roulette table: one can easily get it "wrong" three times in a row. On that basis, provided the situation here is no more than a run of bad luck, there is no need to panic. The matter of concern is the legal judgment that has been exercised, namely whether it has been competent. If, as has been suggested, past successes have gone to the head and poor legal advice has been swallowed in a desire to fund an increasing number of cases, the future is not bright and one must hope that the promised review of cases results in a rapid and ruthless weeding out of all cases that are going "pear shaped". Time will tell how successful that will be but any news about abandoned cases might give us an idea of where the problem rests, ie luck versus hubris.

A drop in share price of over 5% (at the time of writing) when the company announces that results will be (albeit marginally) in excess of analysts' expectations appears to be harsh, especially when the company is forecasting further progress in 2026.

If I am reading this correctly, BATM does not receive any money from Mr Marom. Rather, they acquire his shares and they will allocate them to a subsidiary company. If the shares had been cancelled, the NAV per remaining share would have risen. If the acquired shares were sold, cash would be generated. I am, however, uncertain what BATM intends to do with the shares and, other than by reportedly reducing costs, how shareholders will benefit. Can anyone shed any light on it, please?

I recall that some months ago there was a discussion on this board about the fair value of the assets of the company. Specifically, some argued that the ongoing cases were being undervalued and if those cases were given more realistic valuations, the share price would rise and reflect more accurately what the company, as a whole, was worth. If the recent run of judgements has taught us anything it is that the value of each of the cases is similar to that of a lottery ticket. The ticket itself has a value that merely reflects the hope of the holder that he will win a prize. As such, the amount that might be received if the ticket were sold is highly variable and impossible to estimate. This effectively means that the value of the company is likely to be little more than the residual value of the winnings, once costs (including the purchase of more lottery tickets) have been deducted. One good win may, therefore, make a large difference. Good luck to all punters!

Any message may be upbeat but they cannot predict the verdict in any litigation with any degree of certainty. All that we can hope is:

A) The three appeals go in their favour.

B) Ongoing actions are successful.

C) They try as hard as is reasonable practicable to ensure that they only fund cases that seem more likely than not to be successful.

D) They get out quickly when cases start to “go pear shaped”

Remember that Court judgements are often perverse, hinging on points of law, and that they often appear to contradict good sense. There will, therefore, be ups and downs.

SpectralBlue. Thank you for your response. My understanding is that the market price for the shares may be considered to comprise current assets minus current liabilities, plus a premium for anticipated future growth minus a sum for the anticipated risk of underperformance. Based solely on current assets minus current liabilities, the share price may well be low: we will need to see the accounts to know the assets per share. The problem for Kromek, as I see it, is that the market still has concerns about future risk and these concerns are high compared with any anticipated growth premium, resulting in a depressed share price. Steady growth would correct this imbalance but only time will tell whether the current good progress will be maintained or whether it is merely a blip. At the moment I am hopeful that Kromek will perform, although history has taught me that patience may be needed before any significant rewards are obtained. In the interests of transparency, my average purchase price is 15.75p so I am well under water.

The relatively muted market response to the results indicates that much of the news was already in the share price. My suspicion is that, given years of slow and poor progress, the market will want to see at least another couple of years of solid growth before the share price starts to rise convincingly. Alternatively, the company will be purchased for a song and the directors will be given plum positions in the new owner’s organisation.

There has been relatively little news about Alusid recently. In case it is of interest, here is the link to the latest shareholding announcement. It can be found on the Companies House website, if there is a problem with the link.

https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-live.ch.gov.uk/docs/RoL1jSAOgGzaBEdRrzvhH-GOOZT9YoMC6GOH18ZI9WE/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAWRGBDBV3JZH6XL67%2F20250910%2Feu-west-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20250910T091645Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEH8aCWV1LXdlc3QtMiJHMEUCIQDZDFmj047SiR3icH93v2ca7iLq16LrR47Mb9wJ4v7rpwIgePl4%2BlF3zVLjwrrzZkcfJHydvz8Tb89cJR2tdfGLjLUqwwUI6P%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAFGgw0NDkyMjkwMzI4MjIiDLBCp2mzcFGvRz0VhCqXBRLsFVSE361mk2snEFlOErp2%2FhVDF0SRV0UCik6ewOuL%2BPTJYnwLg7k30VUedZ52jf5fDsTW9he3U82WumQjvbBr4GD5DKtDoTvejLrP5GZiMUrOCBrugT44RVrF%2FXiYJi3MKGMQapKgwmHu767%2BhHzt8KnWU4lCFQOCvZOcuREFHgvEuIZ%2Fi0SsFU9TfjHd4XfX%2Be0PoGtLNQ1rinyZq%2BAimeascLNUFyrKNE7Yz0lo0vWoJwKGZKPCWvZUPn8iYKi4Q4jIwhRhbXgZgiOfes%2FhksKmC42Y4MD%2FPmJtzXkQe45RLhxcFa%2FQMmVGJziLCAclgICEvYbOLW0%2BqplyiwNm70em96Y4x2CQ2zGfsa9yWwEQb0H06K4Qvc3rKuSTOhNT63nxcEIwVRNYEnvsA7s41Ny2p9uIiK%2BdwGFPg75BcCeyXI6qBW6Z6G%2FkRYgWZ%2BDSdbvR8a0HC9EoBZ2I%2FZ9BXB4GbHxZFxDB0NRvLKqVVoVtKzcS3AQDIQB7ECrtgajIkML6R%2B5WHrkD8xt7M1j9Tpl6N%2FPmRgiBeP9Nlt10v%2FuuH0%2BH4H2AqlV2eMJDE0uvVkDZvhTwR86YldqV8VJQLPJkjmWun9IIgR9eDvEGN9u0YnpOTPEealhFnKaf8n21JcdX86916ONFbV25hG%2BXoYpzuBNHxXDYnVSbddsGZasY8DhZtU%2FBoze4YQwrLEx%2BUYwOmz%2Fugamci9B9gwQaUlYfkoqPsEEV1LEKrmWfSJ6bsFdVXP7a9cwrmgTzWGak0aI1amJDUHqeeILFNUGS5NjZFm9AeEeJBY8R%2BZcEVz%2B%2FQLEGWQ7ADugprdcDSVHSAJ6TP4bqSFfkeg21CXMwT%2FopLIHkXSpGXvc2%2Bp1P5AT%2BeWP4HTCvu4TGBjqxAZGjZTipm0bb%2B1ZJs3HkK42o59Yr4NZfRsRwCaFAFdovZaC8bx5LcF6KJZc8HTbzfcWoDQVBqYKQKs5PdjB3z4VNcsqF5MiDOvipUtkUffhRjexF47AcuLz5imMfFaW08Ki5S3%2Bxzfr1idrfdFRzRaCad8IRWdq4m1Yh%2F%2FwnnAmW7WVmc2W23lALupt%2FN5iBVs%2B9rOvAa35%2FuKxw5jypWmIvx%2BUaXiQB1X7gkkQ051gGcA%3D%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D%2208121977_cs01_2025-06-30.pdf%22&X-Amz-Signature=1ef7101021cb717edb7024fbb92f2ae520457a5a3a7474ce680650d71e018829

You will find the accounts here:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08772178/filing-history

According to Companies House, Pulsiv filed accounts today. They are being processed and will be available in 10 (presumably working) days. They will not be full accounts but hopefully they will give some idea of how the company is progressing.

Thank you, NicetoMichu, for your informative comments. My ire was directed at ST, who recommended many companies that turned out to be very poor investments. While he clearly did not put a gun to my head and any decisions to invest were mine, I had hoped that someone who gave recommendations in the IC would have been more reliable than my experience showed. Rather than rely on ST's views, therefore, investors might be advised to consider information that is provided by other people, such as you. As you say, dyor.

Given the recent improvement in lithium prices, I was hoping the share price would rise.

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium

Maybe it will.......but not yet.