We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Assetco Plc | LSE:ASTO | London | Ordinary Share | GB00BQ2K3557 | ORD 1P |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.00 | 0.00% | 32.50 | 32.00 | 33.00 | 32.50 | 32.50 | 32.50 | 135,934 | 08:00:00 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Offices-holdng Companies,nec | 8.18M | -8.44M | -1.0018 | -0.32 | 2.74M |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
05/9/2011 13:43 | Looks like bottom reached on recent falls...up and away from here. | treacle32 | |
03/9/2011 17:12 | This is a mad punt at best... GL y`all. | ccr1958 | |
03/9/2011 15:00 | Well all I can say is GLA investors and I admire your optimism, but as the saying goes buyer beware!!!.. | grannyboy | |
03/9/2011 14:54 | Last time before the big news the price fell back the same way before the 350% rise. Next week we should know more details on the fundraising and how the preference shareholders will be satisified (only know via 3.75 million shares). The shorters will also have to close their positons at some point soon and start buying back stock. Either next week or during w/c 19th September when the SOA meetings take place we should have that massive rise again et all JJB. IMO as previously highlighted, it maybe one of those that goes up in a straight line before falling back. | treacle32 | |
02/9/2011 17:34 | Still no big sells so omens are good imo. Should have news on placing by end of next week. No more RNS's from Asset Value selling too. | treacle32 | |
02/9/2011 16:48 | EC- lol! I believe you. But do disagree though. In my best interest more greed is needed. Soon! | greedfear | |
02/9/2011 16:06 | Or what, actually. | effortless cool | |
02/9/2011 15:43 | Aye, and you are doing your best (consistantly boringly) to spread fear EC - One wonders why you should spend so much time looking after all us poor down trodden PI's !! Agenda or What !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | caledoniaman1 | |
02/9/2011 15:34 | Less greed, more fear needed. | effortless cool | |
02/9/2011 15:17 | These shares pushed up my medical bills, going to need 4p to break even (medical costs included). | greedfear | |
02/9/2011 15:12 | Oh! Where are the good old days asto was 3p? lol I've been buying all the way down, reached the bottom of my treasury yesterday. | greedfear | |
02/9/2011 15:09 | That's the spirit treacle! Alas, still sellers around, little trust in the market that this will end well. | greedfear | |
02/9/2011 14:05 | I'm in, have been, and will remain so. Still very confident. | treacle32 | |
02/9/2011 13:03 | well took a hit and reduced down to 15% of my holding...if other co. is getting out it's remaining 7 mill and some are shorting then depending on whether they allow rises...could go to previously lows? get more for your cash if going lower??? | comedy | |
02/9/2011 09:14 | Treacle32 - 1 Sep'11 - 18:08 - 2010 of 2011 What about the NAV getting a massive increase with the debt write off? I think EC is suggesting that this increase is already built into the 2p price you see today. | jockblue | |
01/9/2011 17:21 | Nabarro settles £1m unpaid fees dispute with former client 01 Sep 2011 | 00:00 Author: Friederike Heine Nabarro has settled a dispute with a former client over unpaid legal fees totalling approximately £1m. The firm settled out of court, with AssetCo agreeing to pay the outstanding fees owed to Nabarro in full. The agreement came after AssetCo raised around £16m in April this year through an emergency share placement in order to pay its creditors. Legal Week reported earlier this year that Nabarro was taking legal action against AssetCo, which manages and maintains London's fire engines. The company was a client of the City firm for more than five years, with Nabarro's head of corporate Iain Newman managing the relationship until earlier this year. The firm advised the company on a £15m fundraising in 2009, with Newman heading the firm's team on that occasion. Nabarro also advised AssetCo on the £16m emergency share placement, despite not having been paid for its advice on some previous matters. One partner at the firm commented: "These sorts of situations happen more often than you would think at City firms, but it is in the interests of both the client and the firm to settle without much fuss, ideally before the news lands in the public sphere." A number of companies have reportedly shown interest in purchasing AssetCo in recent months, including SEACOR Holdings, Bahrain-based Arcapita and Italian private equity house Investindustrial. | treacle32 | |
01/9/2011 17:08 | What about the NAV getting a massive increase with the debt write off? | treacle32 | |
01/9/2011 15:44 | 1. I know it reflects the market's view, but it's no more than that and often based on emotions (highly likely here). 2. That's assuming that the marketcap will be the same. I doubt that will be the case if the placing price differs substantially. Thanks for your reply, appreciated! | greedfear | |
01/9/2011 15:26 | Two closing points. 1. I'm not claiming the market is efficient, just that the gap between negative shareholders' funds and current market cap reflects the market's view of the value of the rescue and the probability of it happening. 2. Owning 70% of a company with a market cap of 10m priced at 10p per share is worse than owning 90% of a company with a market cap of 10m priced at 1p per share. You should do the maths on the implications of different placing prices just so that you can appreciate the risk (and opportunity) more fully. I don't think there is value here, but best of luck in any case. | effortless cool | |
01/9/2011 14:52 | Two points on market cap vs shareholders' funds: - market cap cannot go negative - market cap is forward-looking, i.e. the gap between the market cap and shareholders' funds already anticipates the potential value from the rescue package, if it goes ahead. Hence, market cap is not additive to balance sheet items. Regarding dilution, the new capital is a lot better off if the placing is at 1p per share, rather than 10p. Notwithstanding that they already own 160m of 250m shares, they end up with a much larger share of the company at the same cost at the lower placing price. The losers are the old shareholders not involved in the rescue placing. | effortless cool | |
01/9/2011 14:51 | Agree greedfear. | treacle32 | |
01/9/2011 14:50 | Well, I'll take it up the chin if this quest turns out wrong for me. I can only imagine this turning out into a loss for me if creditors give asto the finger. | greedfear | |
01/9/2011 14:46 | Effortless- Offcourse you're right that shareholders funds and market cap are not interchangable. But the value of a company can be positive although shareholders funds are negative. If the value of the company is 5 million now (given an uncertain amount of shareholders funds) then that value should -in theory- improve with the same amount the shareholders funds improve. The investors group that are taking up the new shares are the same entities that took up the 160 million shares placing at 10p march 2011. To use your terms if they're bailing out existing capital then they're largely bailing out themselves (160 million out of 250 million shares). (I think they're better off not trashing the share price by diluting the hell out of the share) | greedfear | |
01/9/2011 14:33 | greedfear re 1999, Your balance sheet sums treat market cap and shareholders' funds as interchangable - they are not. Shareholders' funds are almost certainly negative at the moment, and there is material uncertainty about how negative. When you add your 'value creators' onto an unknown negative, rather than a 5m market cap, the value post rescue is a lot more uncertain - but certainly materially lower than 41m. As to a promise made in March 2011, it's September now and much has changed with this company over the intervening period, including the share price which was over 10p in March. Why would the new capital bail out the existing capital by buying in at 10p per share? That would be moronic. | effortless cool |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
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