Member Info for TheTrotsky

Get a grip! Coutts/NWG wanted to offload NF as a customer and no other British bank wanted (he applied and was rejected by numerous other banks on his own admission). This is not just about NWG's view of NF (right or wrong).

NatWest/Coutt's treatment of Farage is just symptomatic of how our society has become in the last (say) 5-10 years. We've become increasingly intolerant and woke (just look at the treatment of JK Rowling and other women who have spoken out about women's rights).

Do I feel sorry for Farage? Not particularly. He's receiving a dose of his own medicine (intolerance) and doesn't like it!

That said, those of us who believe in tolerance are right to point out that the treatment of Farage is not acceptable. Up to a point (I do draw a line at violence in any shape or form), our society should be willing to tolerate different views (whether we agree with them or not); it's the basis of free speech (something that is often in short supply these days).

Should Coutts be obliged to keep Farage as a client? Not if he doesn't meet their wealth criteria. Should NatWest be obliged to offer Farage an alternative banking arrangement? Yes. To suggest that Farage's views do not align with NatWest's values is actually a misconstruction of NatWest's values; only being tolerant of views that you like is not being tolerant!

But it's not just NatWest/Couuts that should be ashamed. None of the other British banks that Farage approached were willing to accept him as a client. They've all got their values misconstrued!

Maybe I should have paid more attention to the Q1 update rather than the IFRS 15 adjustment. Mea culpa.

On the one hand, I can see why the Writers' Guild strike would be having an impact (it's affecting production and looks set to get worse before it gets better). This is beyond ZOO's control and will be affecting the whole industry.

As regards the wider economic problems and the consequential cost cutting measures being implemented by customers; it doesn't sound far fetched. Inflation was bound to have an impact at some point; the whole point of Central Banks raising interest rates has been to try and dampen demand.

In the short term there's not much ZOO can do other than grit its teeth are ride out the storm. In the medium to long term, if it continues, ZOO will be forced to downsize its workforce. It's a predicament. Businesses, certainly in the UK, don't like to lay off workers unless it's absolutely unavoidable because there's a degree of uncertainty about their ability to re-recruit people of equivalent talent as and when business starts to pick up again (they'd rather bare the cost for now than miss the opportunity when business pricks up; not being able to fulfill customer demand when business picks up can be lot more damaging for the company in the long run - once a contract is lost it can take a lot of time and money to re-engage, if ever).

This doesn't look like anyting other than a normal business "blip" that can happen from time to time. It's part of the normal business cycle (there will always be periods of "boom" and "bust" sprinkled in and around business as normal)

I think the market has made more of this than is warranted. It's simply a timing issue; it doesn't affect cash flow. CY EBITDA actually increases whilst PY EBITDA reduces! They were just trying to match income and expenses; IFRS will play havoc with their KPIs. Depending on the timing of when expenses are incurred you could see their gross margin and EBITDA materially changing from one period to the next without any real, underlying cause, other than simply timing - yet another thing that'll no doubt have to be explained away in the notes to the accounts.

Personally, I don't think IFRS is fit for purpose. It creates far too many wild gyrations which are more often than not taken completely out of all context and often leads to unwarranted share price movements because investors haven't got the time or the knowledge to delve into the notes ot the accounts to undertsand what's actually going on. More and more you are seeing companies providing "alternative" metrics in their accounts so that investors can better understand the underlying trends. IFRS has become a farce.

For the umpteenth time, RGL is a REIT and unless it's net rental income declines the scope to cut it's dividend is limited (it has to pay out at least 90% otherwise its profits will become subject to corporation tax). RGL has historically paid current year dividends based on prior year earnings. RGL's cost of debt is fixed at 3.5%, so its net rental income is only likely to fall if it sees a significant rise in bad debts and/or vacancy rates, neither of which is evident to date.

8-10% increase this morning. That's unusual. Hopefully it can be sustained. I think TPT is long overdue a re-rating.

Hardly. The EIR is subject to periodic review. It's yet another "benefit" of IFRS accounting.

At the outset of any new loan they are obliged to estimate the income that will be generated over the lifetime of the loan and to credit the estimated income to the profit and loss account over the period of the loan. What they are saying is that based upon current customer behaviour the furure expected customer income over the remaining lifetime of their loan book is now expected to be c£160-180m less than previously expected.

Because interest rates have been fairly benign until last year, there has been little or no change in the EIR in prior years (customers haven't been in any immediate rush to change from SVR to fixed rate products when their original fixed rate products came to an end). You've also got to factor in the likely impact of the recent agreement between the banks and the UK government which now enables customers to "book" a new fixed rate mortgage up to six months before their current deal come to an end.

You can probably expect regular EIR changes for the foreseeable future depending on how interest rates move.

CaneToad, Not sure where you get your 30% figure from. Latest interim accounts suggest 10% equity, 40% senior debt and 50% subordinated debt.

I used to hold DEC within an Interactive Investor ISA. From previous telephone conversations I had with Interactive Investor, it's my understanding that they have not elected to receive the dividend in GBP (they elect collectively; they don't elect, or not, on an individual by individual basis). The dividend would have been received by Interactive Investor in USD and been converted using their prevailing exchange rate on the date of receipt.

That should have read "AGM statement" not "ATM statement" ;-)

Bluemango, "Non-commercial" does not mean "not price sensitive". Commercial means business related. As far as Carver is concerned it's business as usual.

Accounts can be qualified for a number of reasons. I accept that going concern would be a commercial issue if the auditors were to qualify the accounts on that basis. Given the the current economic climate, auditors will be looking more carefully at going concern than they might otherwise (CASP would not be alone in this regard) and the actions CASP announced last month ought to be sufficient to alleviate any concerns that the auditors might have had (I'm sure from Carver's perspective it's just a matter of box ticking now).

However, the transaction with the Seychelles company does cause verification problems for the auditors. The RNS gave no indication of when the transaction would be completed and it's by no means certain that cleared funds will be received by CASP before the release of the accounts (assuming the accounts are released this week as the ATM statement implied). So, as it stands, it would seem likely that the auditors have a number of issues to consider:

a) In the absence of cleared funds, does CASP have a potential going concern issue. From Carver's perspective this would be just a matter of timing but the auditors can't be so blase.

b) Even if cleared funds are received, the auditors may not be able to verify the source of those funds e.g. money laundering because of the opaque nature of the Seychelles corporate structure. It's a material transaction, so the auditors can't simply ignore it.

c) Receipt of cleared funds does not resolve whether the Seychelles company is a connected party and/or whether it's an arm's length transaction.

I think the deal to sell 50% of CE is giving the auditors more than a few headaches (even if it potentially resolves any going concern issues they may have had) and some form of qualification of the post-balance sheet event does seems likely if they cannot obtain independent verification of the source of the funds and/or the share ownership. Such a qualification is not necessarily a death knell for CASP (it might be if it's a total tissue of lies but I'm not suggesting that); it's simply a statement by the auditors that they can't independently verify all aspects of the transaction (and limits their liability in the event that the transaction is later found to be a fabrication or an attempt to defraud the shareholders).

Bluemango, The issues I've raised aren't necessarily "commercial" per se.

Going concern is a 12-month look forward. The auditors will be reviewing CASP's cash flow projections and, if appropriate, considering the actions they are taking to ensure that they have sufficient cash to carry on trading for the next 12 months. I'm sure from Clive's perspective CASP have already taken the necessary actions to ensure that they have sufficient cash to meet their expected outgoings i.e. sell a 50% interest in CE and (temporarily) cancel the dividend. I therefore do not expect the accounst to be qualified on going concern but the process has to be completed by the auditors, and that can take some time (especially given that the sale of the CE interest and the cancellation of the dividend have only just been announced in the last month).

As regards the sale of the CE interest, it's not for the auditors to say whether or not that the sale should proceed. They just need to determine whether the sale is being made to a connected party and whether or not this material disposal is being made at an arm's length price. If they cannot determine that then they will qualify and leave it to the shareholders to decide whether or not the sale is in their best interests. Given the controlling interest in CASP, ordinary PIs will have no say but they will at least have been warned (by the auditors) and it will then be up to them to decide whether to hold or sell. I don't think that $22.5m is a bad price given the charter that we already know about for next year but a couple of more similar charters in the next 6-18 months might make that price tag look (very) cheap.

SmartyP1, I think the reason for the delay in the accounts is twofold.

Firstly, despite what CC may like to say, things haven't been quite as rosy since the turn of the year. The delay in repairs and the associated production decline, together with the issues CASP has encountered with its deep well drilling and the fall in oil prices, have all taken a toll on CASP's cash flow and has probably resulted in the auditors having some concerns around going concern (the cancellation of the dividend and the sale of the 50% interest in CE, the latter somewhat out of the blue, lends some credence to this narrative). I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily a big issue or likely to become a major problem but it can lead to delays in accounts being signed until the auditors have been able to satisfy themselves that they don't need to qualify the accounts (during COVID, issues surrounding going concern caused substantially most of the delays in accounts being signed).

Secondly, the sale of the 50% interest in CE. Although it may go some way towards alleviating any potential going concern issues that the auditors might have had, it also creates its own headaches for the auditors because of the opaque nature of Seychelles companies. It makes it very difficult to indepentently verify that the transactionsis not being undertaken with a connected party and/or at an arm's length price. Although CASP may not like it, I still wouldn't be wholly surprised if the auditors may end up qualifying the accounts based on this post-balance sheet event because they cannot rely on directors's representations as to whether or not it's a connected party (and independent verification may prove impossible) and, even after receipt of the money, they cannot be certain that it represents an arm's length transaction (there's not many similar ships in the Caspian, if any, on which they can independently base their assessment).

PIs will have to form their own opinions but the "issues" above are not IMHO catastrophic (assuming any short-term cash problems are managed); if the accounts were qualified on the latter issue, I suspect most PIs would be happy with a receipt of $22.5m now even if, subsequently, it proved to be (perhaps) "below par" (it really depends of how many charters are in the offing for CE).

... and suspension it is ;-)

Bejesus, it would seem that Clive is not the only one who thinks the Listing Rules don't apply and that there is no need to notify the market of price sensitive information!

It's a free country Awax. Feel free to fill yer own boots (rather than suggesting that others PIs do it for you).

CASP clearly have problems. The question, as always (it would seem), is whether they can be surmounted. In some respects CASP is back to where it was before it made last year's dividend announcement. Yes, it has made some progress on the deep wells and managed to obtain a charter for CE but a lot of uncertainties remain.

Well the news is probably as bad as could have been expected; daily production down (accentuated by longer than normal supply chain delays), no further progress on deep well exploration (again accentuated by supply chain delays), the dividend has been stopped (until there's either a significant increase in production and/or the proceeds from disposal of the interest in CE are received) and there is a reasonable probability that the shares will be suspended come Monday morning (until the signed 2022 accounts are published).

I think the delay in publishing the accounts has more to do with the potential purchaser of the 50% CE interest rather than waiting for the proceeds. As I said yesterday, I think the auditors are going to struggle to satisfy themselves that the it's an arm's length transaction (because of the secrecy surrounding Seychelles companies).

Looks as if we will be opening sub-4p based on the current bid-offer spread.

SmartyP1, CASP has only filed its accounts on, or before, the required filing date (allowing for the automatic 3-month COVID extension for its 2019 accounts) twice in the last five years and it's likely to be late filing again this year. That's pretty laconic.

Kheldar, I'm referring to late filing at CoHse rather than release to the market. I'm not aware that CASP have ever failed to release its accounts to the market before the six month deadline but they are pushing it even more than normal this year. It's not the auditors' responsibility to make the board inform the market if the accounts are delayed. It's highly unusual in my experience for the accounts to be released the morning of the AGM (I appreciate that the accounts won't be approved at the AGM) given that those shareholders who have voted by proxy won't have an opportunity to change their votes if the accounts disclose information that put the directors/auditors in a bad light. It's just another example, if one was needed, that the PIs are irrelevant to the BoD and its majority shareholders.

PS. I wouldn't be wholly surprised if the 2022 accounts were qualified, given the recent RNS regarding the disposal of a 50% interest in one of CASP's wholly owned subsidiaries. The disposal would constitute a material post balance sheet event and I'm not sure whether the auditors are going to be able to obtain sufficient information from/about the Seychelles company in the time available to be able to satisfy themselves that it's an arm's length transaction.

AIM Rule 19 anybody? They've got to publish their audited accounts tomorrow or the shares will be suspended (until the accounts are produced).

For a company that supposedly prides itself on counting the pennies (the fewer RNS the better to save costs) it seems to have a fairly laconic attitude to filing its accounts at Companies House (COVID aside, it seems to regularly file its accounts after the the normal due date - 6 months - and incur late filing penalties accordingly).

It actually says accrued expenses and DEFERRED INCOME. It generally includes goods and services received not yet invoiced and payments in advance (customers' credit balances). I would suspect that payments in advance have probably increased because of the increase in customer numbers/services during the year plus larger than normal credit balances at the end of March due to the increases in electricity and gas prices (I can't speak for everybody else but I for one have allowed my credit balance to increase more than normal because I'm expecting domestic gas and electricity prices to rise later in the year and don't want my monthly outgoings to yo-yo).