Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
This scaremongering outcry rather displays worry about losing salaries and bonuses,
a weak attempt to protect it at all cost despite running the company into the ground,
there's no true "care about shareholders", this is being only used as argument,
just effort to keep position and fat money flowing into the pockets,
these battles for power happening all around across many boards in various loss-making companies,
I've seen controlling shareholders being ousted by rogue boards so many times..
Hmmmm, company is consistently making deep loses 5 years in a row including materially high general/admin costs than their gross profit..
The only reason they do survive is by printing more and more shares..
By the looks of it it's not even sustainable business if people stop throwing money to fuel this furnace via new equity raises and debt buildup (especially considering much higher base interest rates and accordingly higher required return on investment).
RE: "....It will be 1p plus if not today it will be tomorrow..."
Based on what? Following was known and clearly stated since a long time ago:
"...Under the orderly wind down of the Amigo Loans Ltd business there is no expected residual value for shareholders..."
Any new investor doesn't give a toss about previous shareholders either.
Re: ...In THG beauty, our online retail platforms have focussed on profitable sales in markets where our localised infrastructure can deliver economies of scale...
Hmm, I haven't seen much of this "promise land" profitability for 3 years already?
Re:...For Metro to remain at this sp it will need to continue making a loss...
No, sp will go down materially if it's going to make further loses.
Re: ...but its making a profit now, the market is waiting for how much...
There's no audited evidence of this, there are speculations, forecasts, promises, expectations and hopes.
As a matter of fact - there's no public information about positive net profits at this point.
Re:...Metro "can" be valued at 4-10 x profit...
Before "risk-free" interest rate increase MTRO debt was costing nearly 10%, these days both: base rate and risk premium are much higher. Conservatively/optimistically it possibly might be 15% discount factor (net profit 6.6 multiple) but with other options on a market I would rather put it at 20-25% as required return for mtro (or between 5x and 4x)
IMV your upper bound of 10x is something really abnormal.
Not really, IMV only A$29.7 is attributable to LIT or £15.9 (then net of internal costs of course), fund investors get their slice first.
Also A$15.1 of that amount (almost a half) is actually performance fee paid by fund, not direct investment case gain.
Obviously much less with be left (attributable to shareholders) after cost accounting.
It is a very good outcome (congrats) but not that crazy as other posts are trying to show taking numbers out of context.
People listening others on forums to base their investment decisions (e.g. bias ramping, investment fallacies, asymmetric information, or battle informed vs uninformed investor, etc.) are most likely to lose their capital one way or another (therefore it doesn't matter if this happens on this ticker or a different one). Statistics clearly shows this is inevitable outcome for majority of uninformed investors (punters) anyways, especially considering historic distribution of outcomes on AIM, it is a very expensive learning curve before DYOR is taken seriously with onboarding of relevant competences and vigorously following investment checklist.
Ohh, sure, since all property funds are clearly in a best health these days and will get even better with interest rates raising practically permanently and recession looming, hmso becoming a hot cookie stock with best prospects on a market because of that with valuations skyrocketing next year, right?
How are technicals looking right now after fundamentals are released?
3.4 million net loss is a new record.
Hmm, not sure how a consistently share-printing and loss-making company (losses were accelerating by the way over last 5 years reaching £8m+/pa{or weird 18m period} or 0.7m monthly) having below £12m of equity (as per last annual report ending Sep-2022 and even worse considering recent placements of 0.3m in march and 0.5m in may net of monthly loss) majority of which are intangibles or other illiquid assets (hence will turn into dust if things go south) is suddenly valued at £10m? Well, world is full of unlikely surprises. Have they discovered a time travel or something?
Re: ...I really hope the BoE/PRA have the balls to reject Revolut's banking license application though...
The moment they become compliant (which is merely a question of doing some proper housekeeping) and looking at authorizations/approvals history (BoE/PRA/FCA..)- there are hardly any obstacle to get banking license, UK counts those in hundreds, it is not something rare/scarce.
Here's list to BoE authorized banks as of May-2023: https://tinyurl.com/2dtm2khz
hxxps://tinyurl.com/2dtm2khz
Re: ...Giving them an even stronger hold of the upcoming vote...
Hold? Existing shareholders have nothing to do with any future of CINE, it's wholly in lenders hands and it's been like that for a while.
Re: ...Worded correctly, and spot on. Everything that Duffers has done made the company worse each time...
Assessment on governance, BoD reputation/credibility (history, etc.) and project viability are on a top of the due diligence checklist of any sensible investor.
You say each his action was only evidently putting another nail in a coffin - but then why on earth would anyone stay invested and passively watching their capital burn in flames despite red flags hanging all around it before this sad outcome?
RE: #thehareraiser - ...clearly every word said here was a load of bs...
BODs in majority of companies trying to raise a capital talk tinted-glass $%it on these events, whoever trusts it - is their own enemy (and of their capital), but this is understandable, you can't expect BoD to say "situation is terrible, it's game over unless you give us more money", that would be a very bad sales pitch with very predictable outcome (and only accelerating it).
Re: ...Insiders who probably knew what was going on and managed to get out on this mornings spike...
Today's volume (pre-suspension) is relatively low to generate material profits, probably only enough for some lunch money throughout they year, unless there are derivatives of course (then someone on other side of the deal might get hit but they would be the first in line to expose insiders).
IMV they're not only servicing cheap flights but also have to service planes as per regulation standards and other safety&compliance (which gets stricter every year, including this enforced "green" commitment). Service and compliance costs of older crafts are sky-rocketing over time inevitably making replacement for new models the only cost-efficient option. This order is not an investment out of good heart or high demand expectations, this is rather airline specifics in order to survive and keep going. Air industry has shorter asset lifespan if compared with say Seafarers, e.g. CCL - they have to replace ships too (despite $27+ billion loss and $8B capital raise over recent years) but not every 5y, this is inevitability and the way fixed assets work (wear&tear / depreciate).
Given manufacturing recession (aircraft pricing) and scale effect (volume discount + same plane service lines are cheaper) - cost of those new/upgraded 737s is better than keeping their old fleet afloat (on a longer-term cashflow basis) and keep industry economics going.
With the way things are going (economy, recession, cost of capital, debt and industry in general and TUI' quarterly loss) - I'm not sure TUI has sorted their negative equity issue for long, still overvalued (again - much higher risk-free rate from now on for decade and higher risk premium required in general) , especially taking into account they don't have much of a prospects to get profitable and break-even this year (thus nearest negative cashflow items having quite a weight on discounting math).
Even though a bit more data was disclosed in Q3 update last year (incl. NIM)- at the same time similar Q1-22 report was limiting these details as well, therefore it's quite consistent I would say, not like they suddenly become secretive...
MTRO has more than half of their lending tied to mortgages, newly collapsed US "First Republic Bank" had liquidity crisis induced by bank-run based on the fear of their large mortgage portfolio having long maturity (similarly to recent collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank which happened because of weaknesses on an asset side of long-term treasury maturity acquired before FED started interest rate marathon).