Member Info for Yuri.F

Does it? apart from sp I wouldn't ignore trade volume, number of trades and spread..

IMV one of top actual reasons is clearly mentioned in this update, check expected PBIT for 2024 - it's better than for 2023 (which was negative) nonetheless clearly is not sufficient to support even current m-cap at existing global interest rate. They do mention a lot of activities in update but the bigger picture - final outcome (net financial result) is relatively poor.

Re: ...This share needs to get moving...

Why it needs to get moving?

IMV people investing hard earned life savings should do their own due diligence and take responsibility for their actions with finances (presumably making an "informed decision" as per at least standard investment checklist) instead of relying on someone else to do the job for them and then looking for someone to blame. Regulators do look for formal compliance with legality of actions but don't have to spoon-feed every gambler out there.

Re:...to stop this free fall...

Are they profitable yet? M-cap is already multiples of their equity/NAV like they're making gold from a thin air

but in reality they are only making loses..

Situation will only improve with another wave of hopeful hype or actually (and more justified) when they can positively show money flowing in annual accounts (not just nice rosy-glasses marketing and CEO statements)..

Re: ...I 100% NO skin the game. ...

Yep, similarly here, have been watching dozens of companies going under here on LSE, mostly for educational and experience purposes (e.g. what to watch to avoid losing capital as per generic investment checklist), it all looks the same - negative financial developments and emotional environment on those threads have very closely matching trends, shareholders losing capital, forming action groups, blaming and barking on each other, etc.

Practically not posting on tickers I'm invested in and often participating on discussions about shares I'm not having financial interest (for reasons mentioned above).

But why would consistently loss-making company already valued above NAV need more rampers if you're already here?

Email - unfortunately over the years I've seen too many RNSes with positive outlooks where BoDs were presenting better future .. from companies what are still struggling or went under in the end (generally things didn't go well for capital of shareholders).. to take this IR/CEO marketing seriously.

... If they sold their entire holdings at 92%...

IMV it's a very dangerous fallacy, they sell assets they will have the least loss/discount on in this market, further down they go - heavier discount will be (which can easily go to 50% in some cases or even worse). Another issue - only third of their assets are actual direct investment into tangible property - majority of other assets (two thirds) are joint ventures/associates (which aren't doing very good either in this harsh environment, therefore recovery from such sale might be even worse than 90% too). Add to this troubles not full recovery on invoices (delinquencies/impairments although some of those still can be sold at material discount to recovery agencies) and outgoing cash flow of costs to run office - all of this will land shareholders value well below NAV (which is 1.8x, not 2.5x as per equity in last report) and quite likely even below current sp. Recent years have shown that HMSO isn't profitable healthy business, they're actually in decline and slowly bleeding out, without clearly showing that they can stabilize situation and even turn it around into profitability to stay self-sustainable - this will only lead to further deterioration (although since asset conversion does happen and liquidity situation is fine because of asset sales - death won't be as fast as with INTU).

Any refinancing under current harsh global high-rates conditions costs much more money in the end.

do they actually already have profits to cover it?

Liquidity never was real a problem as long as they have assets to be secured to back this loan/bonds with (and secured bonds tent to accept collateral at material discount)

But the profitability to ensure long-term sustainability (and survivability) is the real issue here.

Of course we all seen lots of businesses printing shares like there's no tomorrow for years to finance promise-land (and given AML' industry they inevitably do need physical capital renewal, high innovation costs hence high demand for significant financial inflows, plus given a bit longer production cycle between building plant until sales are materializing at right scale), but most of those endeavors don't end up very well for capital preservation it there's no tangible results delivered (to ensure organic growth).

AML over more than last 5 years couldn't get any profits (actually was making heavy losses) to justify valuation anywhere near this sp target. Unless BoA has changed valuation methodology from intrinsic approach to hype or monkey lottery of course.

Re:... This won't go bust,...

Despite short-term liquidity being fine, last time I've checked the balance sheet - their equity was negative which is a state of technical insolvency. To get out of this mess they do need material profitability - that's the major problem right now.

Re: ...should de-suspend the shares...

If company requests suspension with justifiable reason - LSE does.

Plus given this: ...The Company believes there is little prospect for a return to shareholders or bond holders...

and this: ...proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the district of Delaware...

- there's clear technical insolvency and formal administration (restructure) process without any tangible prospects for shareholders, therefore trading these shares on stock exchange makes no sense (apart of someone willing to pull whatever penny-worth capital is left in those just to clear the books and materialize losses for tax purposes).

In my experience for more lending there's should be adequate backing, equity does matter quite a lot, is already negative therefore it quite a puzzle what they can offer as collateral (there's no spare assets left for sure).

Isn't this offer being pushed at significant discount as half of their NAV?

Examining the financial facts has been a way more reliable path than just blindly accepting promises.

I don't think it's worth putting an effort into explaining someone's hopes or dreams.

So let's see the actual results (although some here are turning a blind eye on those).

Re:...so Hammerson will always pay a dividend as it is running quite profitably...

Not sure what imaginary alternative universe this came from but in here (the real world) net profits were consistently showing loss for 6 consecutive years. Matched with range of asset value write-offs - equity has drastically deteriorated from 6 Billions at the end of 2017.

It's not as disastrous as in office space segment (hugely leveraged lending and corps cancelling rental contracts because their workers say at home) but nonetheless property market won't be in a very good shape in near term and consequently any disposal to maintain healthy liquidity - might be a very painful process.

Re: ...What could it mean by ... seems a very strange choice of words...

Remedies are normally part of rights protection measures (e.g. secured creditor taking over the company assets to minimize loss).

Re: ...and it’s just down down down down...

Why would it be up on a first place? They are consistently making annual losses and balance sheet shows negative equity.

....So BoD turned down 62p knwoing they were expecting...

They know what new owner will kick them out and they will lose jobs, cury/dixons hardly had profits for years (last time they had something sensible in 2018) to justify even current valuation (and taking seriously balance sheet equity would be ridiculous considering it's all is goodwill/intangibles).