We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agcert Regs | AGC | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.65 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.65 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 21/2/2008 16:59 by smcl XL TechGroup, Inc.("XL TechGroup" or "the Company") XL TechGroup enters into loan note agreement with Laurus and receives US$9.9 million cash in AgCert related transactions XL TechGroup (AIM: XLT), the creator of companies that solve identified, global unmet market needs, advises that in order to facilitate negotiations between AgCert International plc ("AgCert") and its creditors, it has entered into a loan note agreement with Laurus Master Fund Ltd. ("Laurus") under which XL TechGroup has agreed to pay US$17.8 million plus interest to Laurus in May 2009. In return, XL TechGroup has received US$9.9 million in cash from one of AgCert's creditors. The new loan note carries a current interest rate of 10% and, consistent with previous borrowings from Laurus, is secured against the general assets of XL TechGroup. The effect of this agreement has been to remove a matching amount of debt owed to Laurus by AgCert from the latter's balance sheet, to add US$9.9 million in cash to XL TechGroup's balance sheet (in addition to the US$11.4 million cash that the Company started 2008 with), and to leave XL TechGroup with a balancing US$7.9 million participation right from an AgCert creditor under the original debt owed by AgCert, which remains secured. XL TechGroup's previous commitment to provide a loan of up to Euro5 million to AgCert in the second quarter of 2008 no longer exists and has been replaced by the secured participation right for a similar amount. The intent of this agreement was to simplify AgCert's relationships with its senior creditors, resulting in AgCert having only one secured creditor, thereby enabling AgCert to attempt to negotiate directly with its other creditors and customers. However, despite extensive negotiations, AgCert has been unable to reach agreement with all its creditors and customers regarding the renegotiation of contracts, and has today proposed to file a petition for examinership in Ireland. This entails a process whereby AgCert is put under the protection of the High Court in Ireland with a view to allowing a court appointed examiner to formulate and put forward for approval a scheme of arrangement with its creditors and members. The objective in petitioning for examinership is to address AgCert's obligations while maintaining an ongoing business. This action by AgCert has no impact on any XL TechGroup borrowing covenants. John Scott, CEO of XL TechGroup, commented: "We directly involved ourselves in AgCert's negotiations with its creditors at the end of 2007, with the single aim of looking to maximise value for all of AgCert's shareholders. It is therefore disappointing that they have not yet reached an agreement with all their creditors and customers. However, there is now only one secured creditor and this gives us reason to continue to be optimistic that an AgCert business with value will be preserved, whether through the examinership process or otherwise." Ends - For further information: XL TechGroup Inc. John Scott / Harold Gubnitsky Tel: +1 321 409 7403 hgubnitsky@xltg.com Chris Munden, Director of Investor Relations Tel: +44 (0) 20 7398 7720 cmunden@xltg.com www.xltechgroup.com Nomura Code Securities Chris Collins, Corporate Finance Tel: +44 (0) 20 7776 1200 Richard Potts, Corporate Finance www.nomuracode.com XL TechGroup media enquiries: Abchurch Communications Heather Salmond / Gareth Mead Tel: +44 (0) 20 7398 7700 heather.salmond@abch NOTES TO EDITORS About XL TechGroup XL TechGroup is in the business of significant value creation. Working with major international corporate and technology partners such as Procter & Gamble and leading universities, XL TechGroup first identifies global unmet market needs and then targets and exploits these by the systematic creation of successful, disruptive technology businesses. These new companies are built from scratch, and are then managed, developed and funded by XL TechGroup through to the point of a trade sale or a stock market listing. XL TechGroup's unique and proven methodology selects the best opportunities in order to create one-to-two new companies annually, where each company is expected to achieve a realisable valuation of at least US$400 million within four years from its creation. It is XL TechGroup's aim to deliver significant shareholder distributions at the final exit from each company or from other liquidity events. XL TechGroup's companies to date are: PETROALGAE LLC (WWW.PETROALGAE.COM) TYRATECH INC. (AIM: TYR, WWW.TYRATECH.COM) DXTECH LLC (WWW.DXTECH.COM) QUONOVA LLC (WWW.QUONOVA.COM) AGCERT INTERNATIONAL PLC (LSE: AGC, WWW.AGCERT.COM) XL TechGroup has also established GenXL LLC as a joint venture to capture the value of those prospects that do not fully meet XL TechGroup's US$400 million, four year criteria but still demonstrate considerable potential worth. Over and above XL TechGroup's core business model, GenXL is reviewing a significant flow of opportunities from both XL TechGroup and GEN3 in order to generate new companies, standalone product lines and technology licensing opportunities or an appropriate mix of these. For further information, see www.xltechgroup.com. This information is provided by RNS The company news service from the London Stock Exchange |
Posted at 01/2/2008 13:03 by svendid Anthony Parker said this morning that there might be theprospect of a trading update before the next results due. He could'nt guarauntee it but said it might happen.... his number 2074572020....I was referred by the Sandyford office to him. I hope the management team is still intact!!! Last half year was 27th September reported in December... so next half year if to 27th March, which if the timing stays the same would have been due in May. Does that mean that a trading update, if they decide to keep their hard suffering investors informed, should be expected, assuming they give it and "no guarauntee", some time soon....say end of this month, maybe before Cheltenham...... He did say that he "knew of no reason for the share price movement today" which I reported to him!!! Caveat Emptor! |
Posted at 05/12/2007 11:04 by silkcut5 ALITTLE ABOUT THE INDUSTRYEmissions Trading What is Emissions Trading? Emissions trading, under a cap and trade policy, is an approach to controlling large amounts of emissions from a group of emitters. Emissions trading uses market forces to allow emitters to reduce emissions at costs that are lowest for each emitter's individual circumstance. In a cap-and-trade system, the government sets the total amount of a pollutant that can be put into the environment by an entire industry or class of emitters. The government establishes emission allowances, which can be bought and sold among companies in the industry. The only requirements are that emitters completely and accurately measure and report all emissions and then turn in the same number of allowances as emissions at the end of the compliance period. For example: Companies A and B both emit 100,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. In their national allocation plans their governments give each of them emission allowances for 95,000 tonnes, leaving them to find ways to cover the shortfall of 5,000 allowances. This gives them 3 choices: Reduce their emissions by 5,000 tonnes Purchase 5,000 allowances in the market Take a position somewhere in between. Before deciding which option to pursue they compare the costs of each. In this example, the market price of an allowance at that moment is 10 per tonne of CO2e. Company A calculates that cutting its emissions will cost 5 per tonne, and so decides to do this because it is cheaper than buying the necessary allowances. Company A even decides to take the opportunity to reduce its emissions not by 5,000 tonnes but by 10,000, to ensure that it will have no difficulty holding within its emission limit for the next few years. Company B is in a different situation. Its reduction costs are 15 per tonne, i.e. higher than the market price, so it decides to buy allowances instead of reducing emissions. Company A spends 50,000 on cutting its emissions by 10,000 tonnes at a cost of 5 per tonne, but then receives 50,000 from selling the 5,000 allowances it no longer needs at the market price of 10 each. This means it fully offsets its emission reduction costs by selling allowances, whereas without the Emissions Trading Scheme it would have had a net cost of 25,000 to bear (assuming that it cut emissions by only the 5,000 tonnes necessary). Company B spends 50,000 on buying 5,000 allowances at a price of 10 each. In the absence of the flexibility provided by the ETS, it would have had to cut its emissions by 5,000 tonnes at a cost of 75,000. In this example, emissions trading brings a total cost-saving of 50,000 for the companies involved. Since Company A chose to cut its emissions (because this was the cheaper option in its case), the allowances that Company B purchased represent a real reduction in emissions, even though Company B did not reduce its own emissions. Why are cost savings so significant? Cost savings are significant because the government does not impose specific reductions on each emitter. Instead, individual emitters choose whether to reduce emissions or purchase allowances. Some may be able to reduce emissions below the market price for allowances, while others may be able to purchase allowances for less than it would cost to reduce their emissions. Why is cap and trade effective? Cap and trade is effective because: The cap always protects the environment. As the economy grows, sources must find ways to keep emissions beneath the cap. Complete and consistent emissions measurement and reporting by all sources guarantees that total emissions do not exceed the cap. The design and operation of the program is relatively simple which helps keep compliance and administrative costs low. When is it appropriate to use this policy approach? This approach is best used when: The problem occurs over a relatively large area There are a significant number of emitters responsible for the problem The cost of controls varies from emitter to emitter Emissions can be consistently and accurately measured Has this approach been used successfully? Cap and trade was first tried in the U.S. to control emissions that were causing severe acid rain problems over very large areas of the country. Legislation was passed in 1990 and the first compliance period was 1995. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions have fallen significantly, and costs have been even lower than the designers of the program expected. In a short time, the U.S. Acid Rain Program has achieved greater emission reductions than any other single program to control air pollution. A cap and trade program also is being used to control SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the Los Angeles, California area. The Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program began in 1994. Finally, states in the northeast U.S. cooperatively designed a regional NOx cap and trade program to control transport of ground-level ozone. Reductions began in 1999. EPA is expanding the NOx control effort to include more sources and states. Greenhouse Gas Cap & Trade In the greenhouse gas market, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is a cap and trade program that went into effect January 1, 2005 for the 25 EU member states. More than 12,000 installations now have a cap on CO2 emissions, and trading of allowances has begun. The second phase will be in effect from 2008 2012 to coincide with the Kyoto Protocol. Subsequent 5 year phases are expected. The Kyoto Protocol is another greenhouse gas cap and trade program that specifies the level of emission reductions, the deadlines, and methodologies that signatory countries (countries who have signed the Kyoto Protocol) are to achieve. The first phase of the Kyoto Protocol is 2008 2012. Flexible mechanisms have been introduced to help address the reduction needs of participating countries. Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) The CDM is a mechanism established by Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol for project-based emission reduction activities in developing countries. The CDM is designed to meet two main objectives: to address the sustainable development needs of the host country, and to increase the opportunities available to Parties to meet their reduction commitments. CDM reductions are called Certified Emission Reductions (CERs). Joint Implementation (JI) JI is a project-based mechanism developed under the Kyoto Protocol, designed to assist Annex 1 countries in meeting their emission reduction targets through joint projects with other Annex 1 countries, meaning that JI projects can only be implemented between capped industrialised countries. One or more investors (governments, companies, funds, etc.) will agree with partners in a host country to participate in project activities which generate Emission Reduction Units (ERUs), in order to use them for compliance with targets under the Kyoto Protocol. How Does AgCert Participate? AgCert develops projects in developing countries to participate in CDM. AgCert offers CERs from our CDM projects as an option to emitters to meet their caps. Each CER is 1 metric tonne of CO2e reduction. In the EU ETS or Kyoto schemes, CERs can be used for compliance purposes. In addition, CERs can be banked to the second phase of the EU ETS (2008 2012), although EUAs (government allowances) cannot. AgCert will also participate in JI. JI ERUs cannot be used for compliance until 2008. Home | About Us | Projects | Our Industry | Agriculture |
Posted at 03/12/2007 11:47 by charlie11908 Any serious investors in Agcert here?Anyone who wants to talk about the company who is'nt interested only in litte gambles on79% price fall being over done. They have 14 cents cash in the bank, but a lot of staff, many of which will now be out of a job. But what sort of staff are they? |
Posted at 12/11/2007 17:21 by utwiq I suppose I'm breaking my own rule by posting here, but... (if I understand your post correctly) how do you make NAV three times MCap and cash twice MCap? That is not cash net of debt I presume as the company raised funds partly by way of what was then a dilutive share issue (and now looks wildly expensive!) and partly by way of expensive debt. If you're right and you are effectively buying discounted cash then fantastic. But I'd be surprised.I can understand you averaging down when it is 6p rather than 100p, but it's not a good plan in general in my view. That is, you should be buying more just because it's cheap and you want as much as you can get not because the price is now lower and you want to lower the price at which you can exit gracefully. That way is costly. Not sure I agree with your assumptions re failure to report material changes. First, and probably most importantly, the company was in pretty awful shape at the last reported results (in my view). The strategy had failed and they were flailing about for alternatives (consulting...). So the absence of news saying disaster has struck does not mean all is well. Second, these guys have form. Specifically, their business model had failed (per the Merril Lynch analyst, who did know his stuff) and they didn't tell the market. When finally pushed, by a rapid share price collapse (from 150p to 100p) they said, fear not there is no operational reason for the share price movement. Except there was. And then in the next results they pulled a blinder, announcing the abandonment of the previous direction and a new strategy. None of this is new to you I know. Indeed, you may have better information (re cash, debt, etc.). So it may be worth buying a stake at this depressed level. But apart from the cash shell possibilities, there have been no signs, in my view, that this company is worth owning. It looked like a failed business a ways back. The collapse from 45p (last results, when I sold) to 6.5p just seems to indicate that a lot of other investors agree. I'm sceptical of letting share price movements convince one of the value of an investment (the two are largely unrelated), but certainly here it indicats poor sentiment. |
Posted at 29/10/2007 15:09 by utwiq Well, I still haven't had an answer to anything I said earlier in the month.I said thid on 1 Oct: Explain to me please why this company is worth even £25m. I bought in at 100p and again at 80p before selling (in disgust and anger) at 45p after the results earlier in the year when, after explicitly saying that there was no operational reason for the fall from 160p (wrong, they were not getting the results needed and the business model was totally flawed), they came out and said "and now we shall totally change our approach and become consultants". Perhaps they have some marketable expertise in the sector. Perhaps. But they are virtually asset free and so I think it is no surprise that this is slumping towards zero. A pity (I didn't relish my 50% loss, but I'm very glad I took it!) as I'm quite keen on AGC's parent, XLT, but I'm waiting for the implosion here to lower the share price there. And I have to say that the woeful performance of this company does make me look less favourably on the XLT Group as a whole... And then on 2 Oct: charlie - I think you're right re XLT's continued support for AGC, they felt bound to support it (perhaps in part to ensure that the Tyratech float went ahead without AGC putting off investors?) but are keen to minimse continued involvement and exposure. Hence their own presentations predict only a modest contribution from AGC to overall NAV, and that may itself be an exaggeration. To be fair, however, the private group funding AGC and XLT do seem to be willing to take AGC stock (from XLT) as interest payment. So maybe they are a little keener on AGC's prospects than are we. Having said that, this may be the consequence of XLT having signed a shrewd agreement back when AGC looked good... I may be being much too harsh on managment (especially of XLT; that of AGC, well... I am still quite put out!). Sometimes business models fail, especially when you are applying new technology in the real world, with the overlay of a complicated and uncertain regulatory environment. I'd be interested to hear from any present holders of the stock to understand the present investing logic. Trading is a different matter. Maybe they will pull back from this. Certainly on MCap alone they are one of the cheaper carbon trading outfits. But then they don't have the assets (cash or carbon) that others have. |
Posted at 02/10/2007 13:37 by utwiq charlie - I think you're right re XLT's continued support for AGC, they felt bound to support it (perhaps in part to ensure that the Tyratech float went ahead without AGC putting off investors?) but are keen to minimse continued involvement and exposure. Hence their own presentations predict only a modest contribution from AGC to overall NAV, and that may itself be an exaggeration. To be fair, however, the private group funding AGC and XLT do seem to be willing to take AGC stock (from XLT) as interest payment. So maybe they are a little keener on AGC's prospects than are we. Having said that, this may be the consequence of XLT having signed a shrewd agreement back when AGC looked good... I may be being much too harsh on managment (especially of XLT; that of AGC, well... I am still quite put out!). Sometimes business models fail, especially when you are applying new technology in the real world, with the overlay of a complicated and uncertain regulatory environment. I'd be interested to hear from any present holders of the stock to understand the present investing logic. Trading is a different matter. Maybe they will pull back from this. Certainly on MCap alone they are one of the cheaper carbon trading outfits. But then they don't have the assets (cash or carbon) that others have. |
Posted at 14/9/2007 12:49 by rammellzee cyclingnut - it looks as though the investors are beyond caring what Bill does... |
Posted at 21/6/2007 18:17 by rammellzee Kalmar - thanks. I agree with you. I am very interested in buying some but my gut feeling - and that's all it is - is that this could slip a bit further over the normally quiet summer investment period. It could be argued, what does it matter if SCSW are correct that it could jump 20p quickly? But, I am a bit concerned about whether investors are dubious of AGC's management and what impact this will have, combined with the summer months, on the share price. I have been tracking AGC for a while now and this is the second time that they have fallen significantly. The first time was when they had problems installing the digesters in south america. They recovered quickly and I was kicking myself for not riding that recovery wave. I do think that there will be another recovery wave but I think it could start at between 25 to 30p instead of the current price. But, WTF do I know?! Good luck! Ramm |
Posted at 12/3/2007 17:30 by asparks 12.03.07 Shares in Agcert rise 40 per cent on possible takeoverShares In Agcert, a London-listed company that generates carbon credits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions at livestock farms, were trading around 40 per cent higher on Monday in response to a possible takeover of the company. Agcert is currently trading at 80p, up from 55.5p on Friday morning, with the gains coming on around midday on Friday amid market speculation that the company would be bought. This prompted Agcert to give notice that it was in talks with a potential buyer. The statement, which was released to the London Stock Exchange early on Friday afternoon, said: "The Board of Agcert notes the recent rise in the Company's share price and confirms that it is in early stage discussions with a party that may or may not lead to an offer being made for the entire issued share capital of Agcert." Agcert has refused to disclose the identity of the potential buyer but market speculation suggested that Ecosecurities, a London-listed developer of clean development mechanism projects and an aggregator of carbon credits, was planning to make a bid. Ecosecurities shares rose around 17 per cent, but equity analysts said this was unconnected with speculation that the company wishes to buy Agcert. Ecosecurities generates certified emissions reductions (CERs) from a wide range of sectors including livestock projects similar to those who supply Agcert. But some equity analysts who cover the carbon finance sector doubted that Ecosecurities was a likely buyer. "Ecosecurities already has a diverse portfolio of CERs but unlikely to want the distraction that would be involved in buying Agcert," said one commentator who requested anonymity. Agcert has struggled to generate CERs to the timeline outlined at the time of the company's float in the middle of 2005, and the company has endured setbacks with greenhouse gas reduction technology at some of the farms where it has installed equipment to capture methane from animal waste. Agcert has also been issued with fewer carbon credits from the numbers outlined in project design documents, and in early February the company's share price lost almost half its volume in response to an analyst note from Morgan Stanley, which highlighted the uncertainty on the yield of CERs from methane capture projects. Agcert attempted recently to raise 100 million to fund expansion beyond Latin America. Last month, the company lowered that target and is now trying to raise between 40m and 50m. Some analysts who cover Agcert said an existing shareholder was most likely to be buying the company, and AES, the US power utility that owns around eight per cent of the project developer, was cited as having the cash to back up any interest in a takeover. No-one from AES was available at press time to confirm whether the company was preparing a bid for Agcert. Besides its stake in Agcert, AES is involved in a joint venture with London-listed company. The tie-up, which is known as AES Agriverde, will roll out the London-listed company's technology in eastern Europe, Asia and Africa. Last year, AES committed to fund all of the US$325 million (247 million) required to fund the joint venture. AES owns power plants in the UK and the Czech Republic that are participants in the European emissions trading scheme, and operates power stations that will covered by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), an emissions trading scheme in the north-eastern US that aims to get underway in 2009. AES said last year it would use CERs from Agcert's projects for compliance and for sale on the secondary market. Analysts also suggested that a bid by private equity investors for Agcert could not be ruled out as interest from such firms was increasing in the carbon finance and greenhouse gas reduction sector. London |
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
