The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Your family won't be destroyed by loss of money.
However it might very well be destroyed by loss of you.
It would be an insult to your family to suppose that they would be incapable of forgiving you for mere loss of money.
People around my area have "lost everything" when the flood waters came last week... many feel "too old to recover". Perhaps they feel like "absolute idiots" for buying those houses, and naively believing in a future where they could enjoy a rural life next to a river. Stuff like this just happens in your life... we all get sold on dreams... But then at such crisis times, humanity prevails, and gives you the opportunity to realise that your actual wealth lies in your relationship to other people.
...and yes, I do actually know how to spell 'ideological'...
but it's late - need to sleep.
Goodnight all.
Yes it's an interesting debate... we might perhaps have been saved from this disaster here by an interventionist Heseltine - but is your devotion to the Thatcher non-interventionist dogma so strong that you prefer the present outcome over that... on idealogical grounds?
Not picking political fights (I have no appetite for that... today of all days... this is more of a rueful rumination...)
but my only point really is that in the wider historical sense, this is a very recent dogma, and by no means fully proven as our one true route to national glory... ;) They'll discuss that in another 100 years, probably.
>> Why is the Government's job to underwrite private enterprises? Did you invest on that basis?
There was a lot of "mood music" and optimism around at the time, that this was likely to happen. I felt that SXX had been given a tacit nod and wink to that effect by the Govt at that time, and yes, that did influence my decision to hold... I should have cut out as soon as it became apparent that that was not going to happen. Eye not on the ball at that time. Mea culpa.
>> Why is the Government's job to underwrite private enterprises?
The "government's job" (in theory) is whatever they are elected to do... we get what we vote for (or in theory we should). it's only a relatively recent political dogma that government should adopt a fully "hands off" approach to such things, allowing the markets "red in tooth and claw" to operate unfettered. That seems to be an unquestionable religion days... but nothing is unquestionable and nothing is forever.
I'm old enough to remember Heseltine "I will intervene before breakfast, before lunch and before supper if it helps to support British jobs and British industry". Not so very long ago really.
Well - this share (and the discussion around it) has been my everyday life since 2009.
So many ups and downs along the way... but I really never thought to see it end like this.
Any old-timers from the iii board days still watching here... secretsqu, hezzhogg, philwad, talk2dubya, EndOfTime, Gavster, skintwelshboy, Revox, TrickyDickyTwo, bonobo77 (any others, would be nice to hear from you)... all the very best to all of you.
I'm taking my remaining depleted cash and investing it in Big Cannon 's hair farm, like he advised me all along.
Live and learn.
This is my problem with the whole damn situation, Casapinos... this is nothing to do with investing in potash production any more, nothing to do with crop trials and tunnel boring machines... it has become a straight gamble on the outcome of some nasty corporate takeover among the various factions of money-men (with politicians peering over their shoulders).
And (like a good Yorkshire game of cricket)... as we approach the conclusion, any outcome remains possible.
One thing's for sure though - if it turns out that we were ill-informed (in retrospect) to gauge the wisdom of investing in a ftse250 potash mining company - we are surely even more ill-equipped to second-guess the outcome of those shady corporate battles. The money guys will hold all the cards, and will know a lot more than we do.
So, depressingly, it's not for me at this point - I think I have about 20% of my holding still in here, just in case of a miracle, but not prepared to risk any more. Bearing in mind that this bid was not internally popular inside AAL itself (s.p. fell on its announcement) and given the overall craziness of the world, I would worry that a complete walk-away might be slightly more likely than an upped offer. Who knows though, really... I have no confidence to read the situation at all.
I'm afraid I have lost track (been away for a bit) -
But have AAL as yet committed to the 5.5p offer formally - or are we still waiting for that?
What doesn't quite add up for me is...
If it is strictly true that AAL is the only feasible deal in town (as the BoD would have us believe) then why would they need to offer even 5.5p? No credible competition - why not drop the offer?
Or does the fact that they have not done that... to date... tell us anything?
All just a stressful guessing game right now, I'm afraid.
>> As I said, it appears to be a one way bet, but as to the upside I have no clues.
>> I guess it could just be a bet on an improved offer.
That's certainly a possibility - a potentially positive low-risk bet.
The same one that led me to retain a proportion of my own holding.
If 5.5p is "nailed on", then what's to lose by holding the shares for the moment on the chance of a better counter-bid?
But I do also worry (maybe I've become cynical over all this!) - that *IF* Polygon's shares do carry voting rights, then the moment any predatory third party such as Polygon were to approach 25% (or collude with another one to achieve that level)… they then have the ability to scupper the AAL bid, if they choose to. Door open for another predator to pick up the company on very different terms (with Polygon's support that time). Shady - and Polygon might make a paper loss on that deal - but doubtless rewarded in other ways.
Hence I would very much like to know for certain whether or not P's holdings carry voting rights.
Yes that's an ominous phrase - If they were voting shares, I had wondered if they might be hoping to force a no vote and then try to pick the company up even cheaper. But previous opinion seemed uncertain whether these were voting shares or CFDs.
I don't think AAL makes direct political donations to parties - I tried to look that up and saw no evidence for that. However it's a very astute point, Wenglishboy, in the light of this thing that I shared here previously: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbwcUUBrCjg
I'm afraid you get the government that you vote for. Only one political candidate at the last election went on TV and explicitly pledged support for the Sirius project...
Are you quite sure they have no voting rights? How so?
(apologies if that was explained already - too much to follow here)
I had wondered if they might be intending to try and influence the vote, for their own purposes
(...obviously I was assuming they did have voting rights).
Many thanks ffc :)
I have tried twice now to register as a sharesoc user, and not received the confirmation email either time... just me, or anybody else finding that? (I have checked my spam folder, made sure that I submitted the correct email address, and all that obvious stuff.)
There was a discussion piece on this situation on the R4 Today programme this morning - featuring an interview with the boss of AAL - (sorry I was half-asleep so can't remember whether it was chairman or chief exec) - sounding very enthusiastic about the value of SSX to them... probably about 3 minutes long, sometime between 6 and 7am I think. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000dfnz
Well I must say I have not much enjoyed watching AAL's share price rising today -
it feels like rubbing salt into the wounds somehow
(though rationally I do know it's nothing much to do with sxx - the gut feeling is still a little irrational at the moment).
I was interested to think about a modest buy-in to AAL (irrespective of the SXX bid) - but disciplining myself at the moment not to jump at anything from a reactive position.
Have a good weekend all.
>> I actually think their 'Bean Counters' will be all over this, it's not exactly certain what they will endorse all,
I'm still swayed by our earlier political discussion too: if sxx has known about AA's interest for x months, then obviously so too will have the Govt known about it. If it's an ostensibly British(ish) company in the frame to take this thing over, secure the jobs, pay some taxes etc., what's not to like, from their point of view? Fanfares, northern powerhouses, Brit company saves the day.
Especially if it were to turn out that there might be any past-or-future business association between AA directors and any government figures. (Which I am not stating here to be the case, for the record.)
They'll probably not want to see the whole show getting grabbed by a Chinese / Qatari / wherever overseas counter-bid, for the way that would look politically. Which is not to say there won't be such a bid, but...
Those politics might perhaps help to explain the BoD's rather easy endorsement of AA, despite it being the first thing to come along and not even a proper bid yet. Might even help to explain AA making the not-yet-bid despite seemingly their internal bean-counters perhaps thinking it's a bit generous, given the associated baggage of Gina/bonds etc.
If there is higher political will for the AA takeover, then perhaps there is some prospect of a slightly higher price prevailing, if the current holders play hardball. But I also still think there is a small-ish but still present risk of AA's proposed bid vanishing, or coming in a lowered price as explicitly warned - if their internal bean-counters win the day (I'm not fully convinced by previous Takeover Rules posts in here... it seems to me there's always a way around the supposed rules if you're big enough).
Stacking that risk up against the unknown probability of another player making a counter-bid... but perhaps not an amazingly higher one...
I'm about 80% out of this stock now (very painful doing that, I can tell you) because I think the damage from the former would be worse than the benefit from the latter, to my residual rump of an investment. But it's so hard to gauge... gambling really.
So I dunno - off to bed I think.
Good discussions today - cheers all.
Yeah - agreed - he does talk some complete ****
Just made me think though - from a Govt perspective - what would be the most convenient and politically pleasing outcome? Perhaps no wonder we didn't see BoJo to the rescue at the 11th hour with a bunch of loan guarantees...
> Thanks trims. What a surprise. Stuffed us from the top down. :-(
"Get funding done" ?
I think the guy being interviewed says some clearly idiotic things along the way,
but the central question... puts a new perspective on things that I had not previously considered.