Member Info for Wiggly

@mylastchance

Also from Feb update;

Following provisional indications from the Review, the Company is evaluating the extent of prior year adjustments which the Company expects will be required in relation to the Projects business unit and their impact on previously reported adjusted EBITDA for FY23 and any prior periods

No mention of ebita for 2024

@mylastchance

Would like to think there is no material change to the FY24 and 2025 guidance reported following months of Deloitte review.

Continued improvements in operating cash flow, which has improved from $(66) million in FY22 to approximately $275 million in FY24, helped by working capital improvements, including the absence of the 2025 working capital unwind (approximately $70 million).

* Growth in adjusted EBITDA and adjusted EBIT from underlying business growth.

* Incremental benefit of cost savings in FY26 (approximately $25 million).

* Reduction in cash exceptionals from approximately $100 million in FY25 (consisting of asbestos, restructuring costs, and advisor fees) to approximately $40 million in FY26 (only asbestos).

Note that legacy claims cash payments are expected to be broadly similar in FY25 and FY26 and will be reported separately from exceptional cash costs.

Thoughts?

Market crash at moment. Wood performing no worse than the majority

I'd take 65p right now.

1. Key Valuation Numbers (Approximate)

Market Cap: $225M

Net Debt: ~$1.26B

Enterprise Value (EV) = Market Cap + Net Debt = ~$1.49B

EBITDA Guidance: $420M–450M

2. EV/EBITDA Multiple

At the midpoint ($435M EBITDA), EV/EBITDA = $1.49B / $435M = ~3.4x

That’s incredibly low — distressed or bankruptcy-level valuation.

---

3. What This Implies

This tells us the market is pricing in one or more of the following:

Massive dilution risk (e.g., equity raise or debt-for-equity swap)

A high chance of asset fire sales below fair value

Ongoing free cash flow losses

Governance and transparency risks, especially after Deloitte’s audit findings

Potential for default or covenant breaches

The equity is priced as a deep out-of-the-money call option — basically, the market doesn’t believe in the turnaround yet, or expects a recapitalization that wipes or massively dilutes current shareholders.

---

4. Takeover Premium

Sidara’s indicative bid of £1.5B market cap**, so the current market cap is ~88% below that — a massive spread. Either:

The market thinks a deal won’t happen, or

It assumes a major haircut or restructuring comes first.

---

Conclusion

At an EV/EBITDA of 3.4x, the current valuation is not justified by fundamentals — it’s justified by fear, lack of confidence, and financial risk.

This could be a massive upside play if:

The company stabilizes

Avoids dilutive equity raises

Restores credibility

Good post but 150p not likely.

60-85p likely I'm afraid.

Perhaps the Sidara offer (proposal) was xx of validated 2024 Ebita?

Pat

Wood subsequently received a non-binding, conditional proposal from Sidara related to a possible cash offer for the Company. Following this, Wood provided Sidara with access to due diligence information and entered into discussions with Sidara.

Financial restatements are relatively common, especially among large, complex companies. However, the severity and impact of restatements can vary widely.

How Common Are Restatements?

In the U.S. (SEC-registered companies):

Between 5% and 10% of public companies restate their financials each year.

The annual number of restatements peaked in the mid-2000s (due to Sarbanes-Oxley Act reforms) and has since declined.

Most restatements are not catastrophic, but some trigger major consequences (e.g., Enron, Toshiba, Hertz).

In the UK & Europe:

IFRS standards emphasize fair-value accounting, which can lead to adjustments in revenue recognition, impairments, or contract accounting changes.

Restatements are less frequent than in the U.S. but still occur when audit reviews uncover errors.

Why Do Companies Restate?

1. Accounting Errors (misapplications of standards, revenue recognition mistakes).

2. Control Weaknesses (inadequate internal monitoring, as seen in Wood Group’s Projects division).

3. Regulatory Changes (IFRS or GAAP adjustments requiring retroactive changes).

4. Fraud or Misconduct (less common but serious if intentional misstatements occur).

How Risky is Wood Group’s Restatement?

If the issues are isolated to specific LSTK contracts and balance sheet errors, the risk is moderate.

If the problems reflect systemic control weaknesses, investor and lender confidence could weaken.

Perhaps not quite as high as 10-20% of the offer, as there still would be increased risk due to review etc. So potential for 60p+ is real imo

No doubt this is a very unique situation but, I'd assume some 'insiders' drove the price to a xx% of what Sidara had on the table.

Shares rose to 45p.

Can we assume this was 10–20% off the offer price?

If Sidara follows through, perhaps we can see a run to 50–55p.

After the latest rns, would this be acceptable?

Jo

But the only difference between what was previously audited and what is likely now relates to certain contracts within projects.

Sidara identified the issues during their previous due diligence, thus should have a solid understanding of what they are dealing with. While not disclosed in the last update, the figures for the restatements were likely also published in the draft review.

Jo

Why has price not been disclosed ?

Thanks

Even with all current challenges, WG should be able to refinance quite easily. Will Sidara wait until WG refinance? I doubt

A ploy to weaken Sidara's interest. I very much doubt that will work!

Or to support their ability to make recommendation to accept a 60p

If Sidara does not act by April 17th, they will risk losing the deal completely.

Rock bottom again. The reality that Sidara may be about to 'steal' WG for sub 100p, might entice some new bidders

The company does not currently expect any material impact from the review on the group's ability to generate cash in the future

1. "The company does not currently expect..."

This is a forward-looking statement, meaning Wood believes that future cash flow will not be materially impacted.

2. "Any material impact from the review..."

The review focused on past financial misstatements, particularly related to accounting treatments, contract reporting, and internal controls.

These are primarily non-cash adjustments, meaning they affect reported profits but not necessarily the actual cash moving in or out of the company.

3. "On the group's ability to generate cash in the future"

Cash flow comes from ongoing operations, project execution, and business performance.

Wood is effectively saying that the core business remains intact and that these accounting issues do not affect future earnings potential or cash flow generation.

Zero chance of 200p.

Very surprised at the reaction today as there was no new material news.