The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
AKHM
It is "dirt cheap" for a reason - the market has long since lost patience with the jam tomorrow story with elastic target dates that somehow are never reached.
Ncikf
It's more than just communication with shareholders.
I and many others would agree with your summary points and yet QED have repeatedly failed to deliver a commercial contract over many years, hence the frustration and market concern - reflected in the SP that they ever will.
Vince 72
What?
Vince 72
I agree but other than bemoan the continuing delay and call out Jason for yet again failing to meet his own target dates what can we do or say that has not been said before?
Dusty/Fyo
"Whereas when the 100% cap is hit, IMO, brokers should consider more factors, such as how large a holder's original shareholding is, fully fill modest applications first, etc."
It is impractical to expect brokers to take several different factors such as the holder's original shareholding into consideration. In addition you are in effect asking them to overturn the decision to apply a 44.77% haircut. Whatever alternative decision the broker makes there will be some winners and losers. The losers will complain that the broker had no mandate to apply their own alternative formula. It is obvious that a straight percentage cut applied to all shareholders is the simplest solution.
Fyoz says "is it fair that we're scaled back the same percentage, so I get 144% yet he gets 276% (100% entitlement plus 4x44% excess)". Since when did the concept of fairness come into the equation? Is it fair that I was not born absurdly rich? It is the accepted, frequently used and reasonable way to apply a reduction with both parties in your example each receiving 44.77% of the excess for which that they applied.
G Butts
I have a sipp with AJ Bell, so also does my wife. We received AJB's secure message dated 19/3/24 but nothing since then. As the OO has been extended for a week there is plenty time to action. Chill
Vince
Re yours of 18:31 of 12/3/24
You say "On that I can believe JM, why would Cargill/MSC invest in a product that hasn't put in the miles and been proven and got the all precious LONO, so I dont believe that they will take a stake in QED".
PharaohRocher in his earlier post at 16:29 of 12/3/24 just gave a very good reason why they should both do so and this has been Recommended by 21 people so far. In addition you've said you "I can believe JM" but later pretty much contradict this by saying "There is no way in hell these contracts could or would have been signed in December".
I support PR's view and further believe it is a quite likely scenario and an elegant solution that benefits all parties including shareholders
Whiskyman01
Wow!
You're fairly clutching at straws there. It was clearly on the slide and presented at the AGM to shareholders. Even if I accept that it was for "guidance/aim points", which I don't, the timing was clearly incorrect - again!
Great work and thanks to all those that took the time to visit the facility and prepare the report.
Vince
I agree with ColdFishPie Shell are not that kind of company. They are a systems and procedurally bound mature company with many committees and bureaucratic layers; not a buccaneering aggressive outfit. They would rather wait till a product is proven in the marketplace to de-risk any aquisition. Plus as CFP says ED has a market cap of £35M .
Shell's is £160B. If they wanted to buy they could easily do so. In fact of course it would hardly cost them anything since QED has an £80M accumulated tax loss which I believe they could offset against profits.
I, and others, are not blaming him for the delays because as you say the reality is we are the minnow, but what I do blame him for is continually giving out timescales that are he never meets. This creating mistrust. How often has it been said he needs to learn to manage expectations. He may well be a fantastic chemical engineer but is poor at communicating and meeting his own self-imposed timelines. The stances taken on this board are frequently at one extreme or the other. Either Jason is to be applauded for giving us information i.e. a timeline or he just say nothing about timescales. In reality there is of course a mid position which he needs to learn that gives us (shareholders) the assurance that QED have done their part but acknowledges two other parties are involved hence no guarantees of when it will be signed off can be given. It's really not that difficult - unless of course your name is Jason!
SemaphorRed
For him to be proved right and to something close to the timescales he has predicted. As we all know this kind of false hope and total miss of target dates just goes on and on.... and on!
Cityfile
Why do you think it might be taken private? QED is a minnow compared to the likes of MSC and the oil major lurking in the background. Companies of their size don't like doing business with tiny companies and especially not small private companies. Any Investment bank will know this hence I think it most unlikely.
Far more likely in my view is that that we will be bought out by an oil major just as soon as the first significant container ship commercial order is received.
Cityfile
I take it as "mildly positive" since QED are limited in what they can say at this point. They have confirmed the agreement is still with the lawyers and not that some new/unforeseen issue has arisen. It is highly frustrating, and yet again Jason's guidance on timing has been proved wrong. We are in no position to dictate to the two other parties involved and so in essence we just have to wait until the others are prepared to sign. I don't see any other options and anything else is just hot air.
Eh .... that'll be tailwind.
With a cumulative tax loss of £62M and at a market cap of £12.5M my belief is that (f you could get it for the £12.5M, and I know you couldn't!) it would be free to a trade buyer.
Sorry to rain on the parade but it looks like a sell to me .
Vince 72
Completely agree. This is very worrying indeed if as the article states MAN have issued a LONO.
Fyoz
Of course not, nothing is for sure in this game! But on the balance of probabilities/ would you bet on them being kept on site if they fail a third time?
Dai
I agree there is too little info to be sure what has happened here, but QED simply cannot expect to be kept on site if they have a third equipment failure. The client simply will not tolerate it. To quote Oscar Wilde “To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”