We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harland & Wolff Group Holdings Plc | LSE:HARL | London | Ordinary Share | GB00BLPJ1272 | ORD 1P |
| Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 8.375 | 0.00 | 01:00:00 |
| Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural Gas Transmis & Distr | 27.97M | -70.36M | -0.4066 | -0.21 | 14.49M |
| Last Trade Time | Trade Type | Trade Size | Trade Price | Currency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | O | 0 | 8.375 | GBX |
| Date | Time | Source | Headline |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22/7/2024 | 14:36 | ALNC |  Financial support to Harland & Wolff risked public money - UK minister |
| 19/7/2024 | 17:51 | ALNC | Harland & Wolff denied UK funding, chief executive Wood steps down |
| 19/7/2024 | 13:07 | UK RNS | Harland & Wolff Group Holdings PLC UKEF EDG Facility Update and Board.. |
| 17/7/2024 | 10:30 | UK RNS | Harland & Wolff Group Holdings PLC Management Response to Financial Times.. |
| 15/7/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Harland & Wolff Group Holdings PLC Accounts Update |
| 01/7/2024 | 10:26 | ALNC | TRADING UPDATES: Harland & Wolff expects to post 2023 revenue climb |
| 01/7/2024 | 07:30 | UK RNS | AIM Suspension - Harland & Wolff Group Holdings plc |
| 01/7/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Harland & Wolff Group Holdings PLC Unaudited Preliminary Results |
| 01/7/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Harland & Wolff Group Holdings PLC Accounts Update & Suspension |
| 18/6/2024 | 11:15 | ALNC | IN BRIEF: Harland & Wolff suffers legal setback to gas storage project |
Harland & Wolff (HARL) Share Charts1 Year Harland & Wolff Chart |
|
1 Month Harland & Wolff Chart |
Intraday Harland & Wolff Chart |
| Date | Time | Title | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25/7/2024 | 10:49 | H&W...PIONEERING TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY OFFSHORE AND MARITIME ENGINEERING | 5,295 |
| 13/3/2024 | 15:53 | Skeppy | 10 |
| Trade Time | Trade Price | Trade Size | Trade Value | Trade Type |
|---|
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 26/7/2024 09:20 by Harland & Wolff Daily Update Harland & Wolff Group Holdings Plc is listed in the Natural Gas Transmis & Distr sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker HARL. The last closing price for Harland & Wolff was 8.38p.Harland & Wolff currently has 173,047,211 shares in issue. The market capitalisation of Harland & Wolff is £14,484,052. Harland & Wolff has a price to earnings ratio (PE ratio) of -0.21. This morning HARL shares opened at - |
Posted at 17/7/2024 14:54 by tomtrudgian Comments from a retired auditor, not a shareholder:1/ It was always difficult to judge figures auditors were given, but did we care more about our fees and not being sued? Family companies wanted the lowest profits to reduce tax. PLC’s the highest to justify their share price. 2/ Different now with companies that can only be assessed over several years, like litigation funders and H&W. 3/ There are still a ludicrous number of auditing bodies, and in some jurisdictions none. The main ones are the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and the Generally Agreed Accounting Principles (GAAP). The former have required IFRS 15 since 1918. The US GAAP do not, but their SEC require quarterly accounts. 3/ So what is IFRS 15? Well it hstandard |
Posted at 03/6/2024 12:41 by jaknife seagreen,"yawn .........the company is crucial to the UK shipping industry and the economy no billionaires in sight" *IF* Harland & Wolff is "crucial" then let's save H&W. But the Government saving H&W isn't the same as the Government bailing out shareholders and bailing out Riverstone. And yes, the two founders of Riverstone are billionaires, here's one of them selling his $72.5m New York mansion: The founders of Riverstone would be the biggest beneficiaries of the Government lending £200m to HARL since £100m would immediately leave HARL to pay them off! JakNife |
Posted at 15/5/2024 15:09 by loglorry1 Let's also look at what The Times article said and the RNS did not refute:"Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, is expected to block a financial support package designed to keep the Harland & Wolff shipbuilding company in Belfast afloat, and government insiders have voiced serious fears that the 162-year-old firm could collapse as a result, marking the end of centuries of shipbuilding in the city." (my bold) The RNS could have said "The company has no knowledge of any steps taken by the Chancellor to block the financing and it proceeds as expected". Instead, we are told they are comfortable. "Harland & Wolff is in possession of a £1.6 billion contract to construct Royal Navy ships. Its demise would mean that navy vessels could be built in the Spanish port of Cadiz." I'd agree that this part is silly. The demise of H&W and I'm not sure if they mean wiping out the current shareholders or something else would not mean the ships are built in Cadiz. "The loan guarantee was conditional on the company passing state-aid checks. However, a defence source said Hunt had given the go-ahead to officials this week to reject the company’s application. It was disputed by a government spokesman and the company, both of which said discussions were continuing on the export development guarantee." Sort of agrees with the RNS that discussions are ongoing except for the part about Hunt's intention to block it but that's discussed above. "Hunt and Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, have been in discussions over the future of the company in recent days, with one source saying there was a “row” between government departments." I guess its the sort of row that makes HARL management remain "comfortable"? "A Whitehall source insisted that the chancellor had “not blocked it yet” and the final decision was still to be made. " Again agrees with the RNS. Then goes on to say all the ships will still be built in the UK regardless using some other method. No comment on that in the RNS. |
Posted at 04/5/2024 21:22 by xenor If I didn't think this company had the potential to generate big profits in the coming years I wouldn't stay invested.I don't mind early stage loss making companies with debt if A) the debt is manageable and B) there's a clear route to profitability.Whilst there is uncertainty around A until the new financing is announced, I see plenty evidence of B. I expect 2023 losses to be a lot less than 2022, and 2024 to be a lot less than 2023 and close to breaking even. I then expect profits from 2025. If that doesn't happen then the investment case here changes in my view.One thing is for sure, is that when HARL does post its first profit the share price is going to be nowhere near 13p. The risk is priced in currently. |
Posted at 04/5/2024 10:18 by xenor IM was shovel ready years ago, JW clearly didn't know that protestors would stall it for years in red tape. Let's say that didn't happen... How do you think INFA would have funded this with no revenue, without massive dilution? Have you seen how junior miner/oilers fund their projects? That's what would have happened here. You got ramped in on a big spike as is common with oil, gas and mining stocks.Clearly even the HARL incarnation hasn't been great so far given the debt and losses, but I doubt you would be complaining if the company was profitable and the share price was going up. Should be profitable in 2025 with added FFS revenue, if it isn't then even I will start having doubts. |
Posted at 22/4/2024 11:36 by jaknife Xenor,"I don't have a problem with the debt. What matters to me is whether thst debt can be serviced." What do you think that it means to "service" a debt? I would offer two sensible options: 1. Repay the interest as it falls due and an element of the capital, such that the entire loan is repaid by the maturity date. 2. Repay the interest as it falls due and the entire capital on the maturity date. HARL meets neither definition, in particular HARL can't even pay the interest and hence has to add the interest to the principal (aka "PIK" the interest, where "PIK" means Pay in Kind). Hence the debt just gets bigger (at 15% per annum I believe). If you search online you will find that there is an investment concept known as the "debt-service coverage ratio", eg: In the case of HARL this is a negative number, implying that HARL cannot service its debt. I write the above because I thought that it was accepted common ground that HARL CANNOT "service" its debts!? Indeed HARL needs another lender to lend money to it so that HARL can then pay off Riverstone. That is nothing like "servicing" the debt! I have yet to convince you that lending money to a client so that the client can then to pay off another bank is a complete anathema to the sensible banker. But I live in hope! JakNife |
Posted at 22/4/2024 09:50 by jaknife Keepdigging,"Simple maths, yards cost over £14MM, investment from FSS contract £77MM, equip bought by Harl to conduct BAU unknown,five vessels, new Marine arm costs unknown, Aqua Jet renamed Atlantic Wolff, costs unknown,Island Magee value estimated minimum £30MM without marine licence, win this appeal and end of the road for FOE & assest price flies North." I invite you to actually look at the accounts (it's a novelty I know!): The total fixed assets are £56.8m of which £12.6m are intangibles and £17.6m are subject to lease; hence, whilst you write the above, the accounts only actually show £26.7m of "investment". Indeed, if you look really closely you will find the "Shareholders' funds" section and see that "total equity" (ie that amount that the accounts suggest would be left over for shareholders after all the liabilities are repaid) is negative to the tune of £79.9m. So the point is that you claim lots of "investment" but the reality of the matter is that the accounts show an immaterial number for "investment" and then show a surfeit of liabilities relative to assets. So fundamentally there is a black hole at the centre of HARL's balance sheet equal to £80m. And that black hole keeps on getting bigger because HARL is (a) making losses, and (b) forecast to continue to make losses. * HARL's own broker (and nomad), Cavendish, forecast that HARL made a further loss in H2 of 2023 of £14m (full-year forecast loss is £45.5m - H1 loss was £31.5m) and hence the blackhole was c. £94m at the end of 2023. * And Cavendish forecast that HARL will make further losses in the current 2024 year of £23.5m! Hence at the end of 2024 the blackhole will have grown to c. £117m! Pray tell us, what exactly is the "rosy picture" that you want us to see, when we look at HARL's accounts, other than a huge vacuous deep black hole?! JakNife |
Posted at 12/3/2024 09:57 by jaknife millennialinvestor,"JakNife would you say the financial situation here is similar to that of Cineworld?" It's certainly on a par with Cineworld. Cineworld needed a material debt for equity swap in order to free itself from the burden of the excessive debt that it had. There was no sensible scenario under which Cineworld could ever have repaid its debt. But CINE completely wiped out existing shareholders to achieve that and a "New Cineworld" was created where only the former lenders were shareholders. HARL needs a debt for equity swap as well. There's no hope that it might generate the profits/cash to repay the debt and instead management intend to replace the debt burden with an even greater debt burden that HARL still won't be able to repay. That doesn't make sense, what HARL really needs is a debt for equity swap to remove the burden of its excessive debt. However, I can't imagine a scenario where Riverstone would want to completely eliminate existing shareholders and remove HARL from the UK market in the same manner that CINE did. JakNife |
Posted at 05/3/2024 12:08 by jaknife seagreen,"BEN did me proud then the price of coal colapsed no position" And yet you defended BEN and attacked me here: When the BEN share price was a mere 15p. Are you now saying that our BEN debate has finished? That you've changed your mind from what you (rudely) wrote on 1 October? "HZM I had £100 worth and bailed after the last RNS" Let us remove HZM from the scoreboard, I don't like even numbers, this leaves just the three. "The other two are similar in that they have excellent order books and it should not be beyond the bankers to come up with a solution to provide liquidity they are fundamentally good businesses that need tight cost control. In return in all seriousness why are they both winning mega contracts of size if there was a real posibility of them struggling to make ends meet ...just does not make sense to me. I would have thought the risk reward lies with the patient small long position where as if either provides they have liquidity solutions you could lose a packet You seem to be basing a lot of your judgement that the CEO's are not honest and/or the clients are stupid and have not done their DD." Petrofac What is it about Petrofac's $1bn of losses accumulated over the last nine years and the losses that are forecast for 2024 that makes you think that its order book is "excellent"? What is it about the negative tangible book value, looming April bank debt repayment and the company's admission (this am) that it is in negotiations with its banks and bondholders that makes you think that their balance sheet is anything other than a disaster zone? HARL What is it about HARL's track record of losses every year that it's been listed AND the expected losses for 2023 AND the forecast losses for 2024 that makes you think that its order book is "excellent"? What is it about the huge gaping blackhole in HARL's balance sheet, and the fact that it has been in discussions with various banks since November 2022 about refinancing its debt and still hasn't been able to achieve that, which makes you think that HARL's balance sheet is anything other than a nuclear disaster area? I sometimes find it quite incredible that shareholders can't see what is plainly right in front of their eyes! For the moment I will accept that you have conceded defeat on BEN and mark the scorecard at 1-0 with the Petrofac and HARL games yet to finish. JakNife |
Posted at 15/1/2024 10:44 by jaknife The issue with the banks was that they were too big to fail so they couldn't be left to descend into insolvency. But did the government really "bail out" shareholders? Government put fresh money in at super low share prices, which recapitalised the businesses but shareholders were still sat on thumping losses (and still are to this day).*IF* the government did the same here then the equivalent would be to put fresh equity in at say 10p a share. But HARL is technically insolvent as at 31 Dec 2023 by about £95m (it was c. £80m at 30 June 2023 and they were forecast to lose £15m in H2). To repair the balance sheet the government would need to subscribe for at least 950m shares at 10p each! And that would make the Government an 85% shareholder! But the day after that money arrived HARL are proposing to send all of it to Riverstone to pay them off! So it would be Riverstone that would be getting bailed out! And then where's the cash that HARL would need for working capital? If the best case scenario for shareholders is a 10p bail out by the Government then that's not exactly a compelling investment story! JakNife |
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
Hot Features
Premium
