Member Info for TruroTrader

Hi Richie, What made you think Reach would be enforceable? This was an aspiration against two of the biggest companies in the world by a governmental good intention. Doomed to fail.

HDD has no real production capacity to accommodate any one of these companies anyway. Only 5 reactors now, Plus another one in a month or so. Hey! only a years lead time for another reactor.

The above is a little cynical but is also factual. Hey Ho - on I go.

Neither long or short - AIM gives me enough excitement anyway!

Several recent buys including my 7K this morning but no price rise - just my luck!

Hallo Max. The note clearly gives a figure of £22.6 Mill over 8 years which implies a series of stage payments.

The issue I took up with you was the point you made about payments only being made after successful sea trials. Clearly not so in this case

Re Your statement "Someone at the Admiralty had to propose the negotiation to provide the equipment" If it is a fact you should know who it was. If it's an opinion you should flag it as such.

Which is it?

Hallo Max, Well more books than dinners eh! You possibly have a very large library as I must have had a couple of thousand school dinners alone. When I did my Sea Time both the evening and midday meals were hot with several courses so I think they should both qualify - 700 or so a year. With out doing the sums it is many thousands so if you feel you need to do a bit of catching up could I recommend the 'Hornblower' series by C.S. Forester - I'm sure you'll enjoy them.

Yes Indeed. while the revenue for the 1st half was excellent set against last year's 1st half it was a little disappointing set against the 2nd half. However this is a minor quibble considering the brilliant all-round progress and bodes well for the full year with a reasonable profit to boot. We might even make an acquisition!!

More like something down methinks!!

I did have a forlorn hope that we could keep the 2p price until the next RNS which one would think would be a positive update - but not to be. Couple of late buys so perhaps a small recovery tomorrow.

Hi Max, I've looked at the RNSs for the 30th April and the 2nd of May. They are for ancillary systems. You would think that providing on completion the testing was satisfactory then the contract would call for payment.

Ditto the 2 for the 9th Jan 18 and the 14th December 17. These are sub-contracts with main contractors. Again you would not wait for the completion as the main contractor would have stage payments built into their contract with the MoD.

Naval Captains are four ringers and typically command seagoing vessels or shore stations. I don't think they will have much of a procurement budget but perhaps a small petty-cash operational one.

The framework contract of the 27th of June and will probably have fixed prices previously agreed.

It take years to build a Boat and refits have a habit of being extended. Everybody can't just wait for final completion.

Hallo Max, I an little concerned about your mentions of the 'Naval Captains in the Admiralty' on a couple of occasions. You have postulated that they have control of the purse strings and will only pay on completion. .

I am unaware of their existence and would be grateful if you could say who they exactly are. The reason I ask is because I believed that TPG's contracts are with the MoD on a stage payment basis which is as the RNS's have stated.

are.This is worrying

Hi ABLE, re your concern about cancelled government contracts Please look at my post of the 30th July.

The current sub fleet is on it's last legs. The Astute program is over the halfway mark and the Trident program has to be completed if we are to have a continuous nuclear retaliation capability. They are both almost impossible to cancel in the real world.

President Trump has created so much uncertainty that many defence companies are getting quite busy. Australia ordering 12 boats is an indication although it was mooted before he got in. The more inflammatory the rhetoric - the more defense business there is! Ye Har!

Lets hope the interim's explain satisfactorily the failure of the fund raising to deliver acquisitions.

Due on Tuesday according to the relevant RNS. Would like to see £17/18 Mill revenue and maybe at long last a profit! The last 2nd half-year was £15.6 so not an impossible target.

Re the acquisitions (or more properly the lack of them). In the main market a fund raising for acquisitions which was subsequently spent differently on other things may possibly give rise to a miss-leading the market charge. AIM is less tightly governed but as this fundraising would probably have been discussed by the BoD some 18 months or so ago and they would have to have the targets to get the II's on board this lack of info is not a good thing, particularly as the fund raising targeted July 18 as the final purchase.

Lets hope oldbadger is right about something interesting being forthcoming!

What particularly frustrates me is that in the last 5 years or so we have had revenues of about 20 Mill or so (excepting last years at 29) and that in spite of continuous losses the company was cash generative and made a range of acquisitions. How they did that sure beat the hell out of me kid! Now we've got some real money we've just sat on our hands - it seems totally irrational. Time will tell.

Hi oldbadger, yes the sp might well react to a favourable acquisition(s) but it will not have that much effect on this years figures and so make £90/100 harder to reach. Surely both the II's and PI's who were in the fundraising are due some explanation?

I didn't take up the PI's offer last year - did anybody else? If you did do you have any inside info?

Hallo Claton, While investment in machinery may be an easy and safe option I don't see how this typifies TPG. If you look at the recent framework agreement with Naval Group and the recent Micropore partnership surely you see potential sales and growth opportunities there and they have a history of other takeovers/tie-ups.

You say the whole philosophy should change. I believe the BoD should give an update on last years fundraising. but just what is the whole philosophy that should change?

Hi Justdeez. As far as I understand it the EU has no regulations on plastic degradation. This of course contributes to the environmental problem.

I'm unsure where any vehement opposition comes from, indifference yes, but I've not heard of any opposition to us?

Exactly right oldbadger. The July 17 circular was quite clear. By rights if the use of the fund raising was going to change then A) the investors should be consulted and agree and B) the markets should be told. It should not be up to the BoD or senior management to spend it how they like.

The BoD should really give an official update on the situation.

Indeed he did niky - but he volunteered no solution!

From that presentation a new reactor costs E600k and is capable of £I Mill annual revenue at full tilt but is preferred to deliver some £.75 Mill. Allowing for site, operating and admin costs a 2 year payback would seem achievable for any new reactor.

So if we can afford a new site complete with reactors (and the site could be anywhere - including the actual customers operating under licence who could actually pay for the reactor) then there does seem to be a path towards growth.

I don't think anybody, including the board, knows the twists and turns that HDD will go through to achieve market dominance but we just seem to be technically advanced beyond our competitors and then:- Hey - we can improve things anyway!

I just hope the patents are strong!!

Hi niky, There is no current facility in Houston - poor grammar on my part!

We did have one but the Oil price collapse in 2008 caused it to be hibernated and eventually the reactor went back to Bicester and the site was disposed of.

My thinking is based on the new American Business Development Engineer appointed last month in Houston to concentrate developing the O & G and energy markets. Any new Houston facility would not need NADCAD and so be easier to run and free up both Bicester and Martinsville to concentrate on aerospace. Just a thought on my part.

I'm not aware of any current production bottlenecks. Future ones may occur if large orders come in but only because of the reactor build time which appears to be about a year.

A new one will come on stream at Martinsville in a couple of months or so and a prototype larger model is apparently being built/designed but there appears to be little news about it.

I've posted before that there may be merit in reopening a production facility in Houston for O & G and allow Martinsville to be primarily for aerospace. Time will tell.

Mixed feelings. The 2nd project should increase the number of substrates so a definite advantage.

However unless the 2nd project is particularly specialised and because airbus is a supporter of it then it may be that they wait for the outcome before they become customers!

More jam tomorrow!

Hi John, giving the situation more thought I hadn't realised the high MK in relation to the revenue and also bearing in mind low profits and miniscule divi.

There could be a pause in the sp until new trade figures come in unless of course rivaldo has a point with a take-over. You might well be able to come back, if you've a mind to of course, and not have to pay to much. Best of luck anyway.

Hi Dar-,

Well actually yes I have some thoughts and they are negative., we haven't delivered! The July 17 investors who put in 20 Mill, would ,you would think, have had an inside track on future plans.

I'm not saying we are not progressing - what I think is that we haven't done what the fund raising prospective said we would do.

If the best we can do with 20 Mill is to bank it for a year then you can see why the sp is so low!