Anglo Pacific Share Discussion Threads

[exmooroil] 17/9/2013 15:54

haydock,

APF's compounded scrip dividends over the entire period would have changed the picture (rather more than) considerably to the positive. Have you worked it out?

[nielsc] 17/9/2013 14:24

Haydock,

Around 10% gain per annum for APF.

MML doing a bit better at 19% per annum.

Cheers,
Niels

[haydock] 17/9/2013 10:36

With thanks to Chip, who has made a little list, not inc divi.
An interesting one for some on here, if not for others.

chipperfrd
14 Sep'13 - 18:14 - 5369 of 5376 0 0


Some time ago BAM BAM Rubble suggested that I might substitute for the now redundant ISA y/n column with an IPO listing price. This has seemed like a good idea but as it is a static value I thought it might justify a separate table that could also reflect the loss or gain in shareholder value since that first listing - so here is the resulting table.

Since first listing in London

EPIC ... IPO ...... share price . Change% . Listed . Comment
ASMP .. 44.0 .... 0.00 . -100.0% . 2009
GMA . 8000.0 ... 11.50 .. -99.9% . 2003 . now KEM
TPJ .. 345.0 .... 0.53 .. -99.8% . 1999
EUA .. 297.0 .... 0.75 .. -99.7% . 1996
CSS .. 213.0 .... 0.63 .. -99.7% . 2000 . now STG
STG .. 213.0 .... 0.63 .. -99.7% . 2000
ECR ... 81.0 .... 0.25 .. -99.7% . 2004
BZT . 2500.0 ... 18.75 .. -99.3% . 1995
OSU .. 355.0 .... 4.25 .. -98.8% . 2004
SRB .. 316.0 .... 5.63 .. -98.2% . 2005
MWA ... 72.0 .... 1.65 .. -97.7% . 1995
ANGM .. 22.0 .... 0.54 .. -97.5% . 2001
NYO ... 21.6 .... 0.69 .. -96.8% . 2003
AFE .... 6.3 .... 0.30 .. -95.2% . 2003
AUR ... 56.0 .... 2.75 .. -95.1% . 2004
GRL ... 28.5 .... 1.48 .. -94.8% . 2004
VGM .. 138.0 .... 7.33 .. -94.7% . 2004
OTC .... 6.0 .... 0.35 .. -94.2% . 2007
OMI .. 218.0 ... 13.88 .. -93.6% . 2004
AVM .. 243.0 ... 15.75 .. -93.5% . 1996
ORE .... 5.8 .... 0.38 .. -93.4% . 2005
TGL ... 29.5 .... 2.05 .. -93.1% . 2011
AAU ... 13.5 .... 0.95 .. -93.0% . 2005
CGNR .. 26.6 .... 1.88 .. -93.0% . 2000
OVG .. 133.0 .... 9.75 .. -92.7% . 1994
OXS ... 24.0 .... 1.88 .. -92.2% . 2001
NGL ... 31.3 .... 2.50 .. -92.0% . 2006 . delisted
FML ... 16.0 .... 1.35 .. -91.6% . 2004
CRND .. 74.0 .... 7.25 .. -90.2% . 2007
RGM .... 5.5 .... 0.65 .. -88.3% . 2005
KGLD .. 33.5 .... 4.25 .. -87.3% . 2011
GAL ... 11.3 .... 1.75 .. -84.5% . 2006
HER .... 3.0 .... 0.50 .. -83.5% . 2005
MARL .. 21.5 .... 3.55 .. -83.5% . 2006
SOLG .. 51.3 .... 8.75 .. -82.9% . 2006
TSG .. 137.5 ... 23.50 .. -82.9% . 2003
NMG .... 6.1 .... 1.08 .. -82.5% . 2010
AGQ .. 285.0 ... 51.00 .. -82.1% . 2006
GGP .... 2.3 .... 0.41 .. -81.9% . 2006
AFCR .. 13.0 .... 2.38 .. -81.7% . 2006
HZM ... 35.0 .... 7.38 .. -78.9% . 2006
CGH ... 65.0 ... 14.25 .. -78.1% . 2007
KLG ... 14.5 .... 3.38 .. -76.7% . 2006
HUM .. 179.0 ... 42.00 .. -76.5% . 2010
PGL ... 61.0 ... 14.63 .. -76.0% . 2005
AMC ... 32.8 .... 7.88 .. -76.0% . 2006
SGZ .... 6.1 .... 1.60 .. -73.9% . 2010
BGL ... 14.6 .... 3.88 .. -73.5% . 2005
JLP ... 20.0 .... 5.38 .. -73.1% . 2002
SRES ... 2.4 .... 0.65 .. -72.9% . 2005
AME ... 12.3 .... 3.38 .. -72.5% . 2010
OBT ... 24.0 .... 6.75 .. -71.9% . 2008
ABG .. 575.0 .. 164.20 .. -71.4% . 2010
AMA ... 63.0 ... 18.00 .. -71.4% . 2004
HMB .... 7.0 .... 2.03 .. -71.1% . 2004
MIRL .. 48.6 ... 14.50 .. -70.2% . 2007
MIO ... 12.0 .... 3.88 .. -67.7% . 2001
AUE .. 116.0 ... 38.38 .. -66.9% . 2011
RMM ... 65.0 ... 23.50 .. -63.8% . 2005
HGM .. 200.0 ... 73.00 .. -63.5% . 2002
LND .... 7.5 .... 2.75 .. -63.3% . 2005
AAZ ... 88.0 ... 33.00 .. -62.5% . 2005
POLY .. 58.0 ... 23.00 .. -60.3% . 2007
BMZ ... 17.5 .... 7.63 .. -56.4% . 2012
SHG ... 27.4 ... 14.13 .. -48.4% . 2005
RRR .... 2.5 .... 1.30 .. -48.0% . 2005
CNR .. 246.0 .. 133.50 .. -45.7% . 2006
POG .. 138.0 ... 79.50 .. -42.4% . 2002
POLY . 920.0 .. 709.50 .. -22.9% . 2011
KEFI ... 3.9 .... 3.00 .. -22.7% . 2006
HOC .. 355.0 .. 276.00 .. -22.3% . 2006
STI .... 6.7 .... 5.38 .. -20.3% . 2006
CMCL .. 63.0 ... 51.00 .. -19.0% . 2005
PGD ... 14.5 ... 12.00 .. -17.2% . 2003
LRL ... 11.0 ... 10.63 ... -3.4% . 2005
PML ... 49.5 ... 50.00 .... 1.0% . 2012
GDP .... 8.0 .... 8.63 .... 7.8% . 2006
KGI .. 164.0 .. 219.00 ... 33.5% . 2004
MTL .... 3.8 .... 6.38 ... 67.8% . 2004
AR .... 27.6 ... 47.25 ... 71.2% . 2003
KIBO ... 2.8 .... 5.13 ... 85.7% . 2010
KYS ... 15.0 ... 29.25 ... 95.0% . 2004
AMI ... 77.0 .. 158.50 .. 105.8% . 2005
FRES . 519.0 . 1198.00 .. 130.8% . 2008
PAF .... 4.3 ... 13.50 .. 212.5% . 2000
YAU .. 164.0 .. 698.25 .. 325.8% . 2003
MML ... 27.8 .. 124.00 .. 346.0% . 2006
CEY .... 7.8 ... 44.50 .. 472.0% . 2001
APF ... 29.0 .. 203.00 .. 600.0% . 1994
RRS .. 250.0 . 4504.00 . 1701.6% . 1999


'IPO' in my table is actually the listing price as shown on Sharescope (it would have taken too long to hunt down the IPO documentation for all 90 stocks!)

Some stocks (notably GMA) are shown with extremely high first listing prices. This is due to Sharescope having accounted for (numerous) dilutions and consolidations - a pretty fair warning about what may well occur in the future!

I have sorted the stocks in 'worst-case' order - ie biggest losers at the top. It is quite remarkable how only 15 stocks have actually provided a capital gain to holders since first listing in London.

[quepassa] 15/9/2013 14:19

ps.

re post6356 ( and 6355) :-Japan's shutting down of nuclear "that does what for the demand for coking coal?"

I guess the answer is effectively nothing.

you don't use coking coal for making electricity.



ALL IMO. DYOR.

QP

[quepassa] 15/9/2013 13:56

Coking Coal - Oversupply, according to two undoubted sources, BHP Billiton and Bloomberg. The following is an extract:-

BHP Billiton, the world's biggest exporter of coking coal, said the market for the fuel used to make steel remains " challenging " because of muted demand in some markets and oversupply from rivals.

If you don't believe BHP Billiton when it comes to coal-mining , who can you believe?

Link to full article:-





When it comes to thermal coal, the following 4th. Sept article from The FT says it all:-




ALL IMO. DYOR.

QP

[noslien] 15/9/2013 13:29

"Japan has been forced to import huge amounts of coal..."

and that does what for the demand for coking coal?

[danieldruff2] 15/9/2013 12:16

Japan is shutting down its last functioning nuclear reactor, with no timetable for a restart...Since the Fukushima disaster, Japan has been forced to import huge amounts of coal...

[quepassa] 13/9/2013 10:01

I have some sympathy with the I/C article.

Personally, not totally convinced about the sustainability of the dividend at current levels at APF in the current downturn.

There must still be possibilities for further revaluations, more likely downwards than upwards, in my opinion only, on their investments side.

And the demand for coal is reducing whilst at the same time, several major new coal resources in Asia which were developed a few years ago are now coming on stream big time. This means that much greater local supplies of coal in the developing world will put further price and demand pressures on sea-borne coal from Oz.

And yet the Board are paying away 100% of operating profit in dividend whilst at the same time reporting a £30m loss.

I ask myself if that is really a sound strategy.

ALL IMO. DYOR.

QP

[haydock] 11/9/2013 10:26

Steady as she goes: HZM.

[shavian] 10/9/2013 17:56

Fortunately no one was paying them much heed today!

[haydock] 10/9/2013 15:31

I/C last week had APF for the first time ever as a sell ?

Very negative view point, as we know good divi, but not well covered.

Negative because they looked in detail at the problems the past has thrown up & totally failed to write up the company, as they so often would, as a recovery play, with a great divi & cash on tap for the next few years.

No credit at all for the BOD quality & of course no one has heard of the CDN. coal.
I/C glass 7/8 empty.

[piedro] 02/9/2013 15:09

Interesting discussion ...

For those concerned re:the investment portfolio, I would suggest going to the wiki thread (see header) and looking up the mentioned investments.

Involves some research but allows for making a more precise evaluation of the situation and personally 'derisking' your investment.

- AIMHO, DYOR and GLA

[topvest] 02/9/2013 14:25

haydock - I agree with you. That's how I look at APF.

There is a valid question in my mind with APF - they may be better served by just passing money back to shareholders and retain the core Kestrel asset. This asset cost them virtually nothing, is pretty much the sole contributor to the dividend and has generated most of the shareholder value. All the other investments have been more marginal.

[haydock] 02/9/2013 10:42

Not looking at the actual figs, just making a bald statement.

I am the person who looks at APF as an Investment Trust & one which as a long term holding has compared very well, with the huge £2b Rothschild RIT.

RiT has failed to perform over the last 5 years, but has made significant future off mkt investments.
During that period the value of the fund has been lower, on a regular basis, but they have increased the value of the dividend significantly, to compensate.

Not looking at the figs, they can be found, but APF have clearly decided to pursue a dividend policy to the advantage of the investor, along a similar Investment Trust path.

Generalised rubbish, but just an observation.

[quepassa] 02/9/2013 10:24

They just lost £30million.

That's a lot.

You cannot ignore that the net worth of the company has just fallen significantly.

The net asset value per share has gone down greatly.

Any company cannot just be valued on its Operating Profit and yield in my opinion.

You need also to look at its asset base. If it falls, that's not good.

There is no certainty that the assets won't fall further in value. And in time, they may indeed rise again. As is the nature of any company which owns financial assets. And indeed any company which is involved in the mining-related indusries which are known to be highly cyclical and where many commentators have said that the mining "Super Cycle" is over.

In my view , it would be a sign of maturity to try to bolster the balance sheet in adverse market conditions by hanging on to cash at a time when asset valuations are under the cosh which gets reflected in losses such as the £30million we have all just witnessed.

Several on this board say that APF need to find new royalty investments. Well wouldn't it be better from a corporate strategic point of view to take part of the Operating Profit and find new royalties rather than paying it all away dividends?

Someone on this board said that they look at APF as if it were an Investment Trust - which is not a bad comparison in my view.

But with an Investment Trust, any investor needs not just to look at the yield but also at the falls and rises in NAV.

But paying out 100% of Operating Profit when they made a £30m Loss is in my opinion and experience not mainstream corporate behaviour.

ALL IMO. DYOR.

QP

[topvest] 01/9/2013 21:21

QP - the Board have a great long term record. Why would they ruin their dividend record based upon a poor 6m, if medium term it is still affordable with Kestrel looking very solid for the future?

[haywards26] 01/9/2013 20:40

QP,

The reason I would put forward for the divi being maintained at current levels is that of a signal by the bod to the market. They are signalling their thoughts that the worst is now behind them. The expansion to the main producing asset (i.e Kestrel) should drive the bottom line and cashflows from here.

Kestrel had a poor 12 months due to several factors highlighted. With the addition of poor sentiment and environment for the mining sector acted as a double hit to the APF results.

I agree that if the bod knew the results were going to continue at the current levels then maintaining the current divi would be a poor decision. One would hope the board have a better idea as to the likely future performance and are managing the business on this basis for the benefit of all shareholders (of which they are also).

[quepassa] 01/9/2013 18:52

This Company just reported a Loss of £30million, being a loss of 27.57p per share attributable to shareholders.

Taking into account other adjustments to the Balance Sheet accounting methodologies, Total Equity has actually fallen by more than the Reported Loss of £30million. Total Equity has fallen by £51million.

The Operating Profit was £4.75million and yet they maintain a dividend of 4.45p per share, which at 109million shares in issue is about £4.8million.

They are paying out about 100% of Operating Profit in divi's. In my experience, companies normally don't pay out 100% of Operating Profit whilst at the same time reporting a Loss of £30million. One may or may not ask oneself how wise and/or sustainable this may or may not be.

One notes that this is the first time in more than a decade that divi's have not been increased. In my view only, I am unused to seeing a 100% divi payout ratio versus Operating profit when such a noteable loss is reported.

Why do they do that when fundamentally it would in my view be beneficial to the business in the long-term to bolster the balance sheet by retaining earnings rather than splashing them out on divis? Recent history is littered with examples of many companies reducing dividends when losses are to the fore.

Cash and Receivables has fallen noteably in 6 months since December from £26m to £21.5million, of which Hard Cash is down a lot from some £24million to around £16.5million.

For my personal liking there are too many Restatements to the Accounts which make things hard to follow. The Consolidated Balance Sheet was Restated for June last year and now again the Balance Sheet has been Restated as at December 2012.

Given the uncertainties in the sector, recent falls in mining valuations across the board and especially in the junior/unlisted sub-group and combined with uncertainties in the near and mid-term outlook for coal demand and therefore coal royalties, it is interesting to compare:-

1. The Net Asset Value per share, with
2. The Current share price, and with
3. The Dividend payout ratio compared to Operating Profit


ALL IMO. DYOR.

QP

[haydock] 30/8/2013 08:38

How do you know that those write downs will reverse?

Any mining investments in a market downturn have every chance of further deteriorating.

A hasty comment & I stand corrected.

However there has been of late some progress in the values of the small miners, which may or may not continue.

The progress of British,Columbia, the infasructure & the coal deposits in that region owned for nowt by APF. is a little more tangible, & still hidden to the mkt.

[haywards26] 29/8/2013 22:15

A snippet from today's proactive market comment;

Anglo Pacific (LON:APF) – Coal Production from Kestrel gives good read across

• Rio's interims show that coal production from the Kestrel Mine expansion has started and ramp up to full capacity is expected by the end of 2014.

• An average of 5.7 Mta is expected over the next 20 years.

• This is the largest royalty stream for Anglo Pac and should be good news for the company.

[noslien] 29/8/2013 21:44

The royalty area does not cover all of the Kestrel site

[topvest] 29/8/2013 20:57

Well things are tough in the mining sector at the moment. They seem to be holding together pretty well though.

Anyone understand this comment on Kestrel South: "This will benefit the Group when production moves into its private royalty land." I had assumed that the royalties start when production starts, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

[haywards26] 29/8/2013 12:59

Well said danieldruff2,

The key turning point here short/medium term will be proof that the Kestral production is back up to the previous high levels and beyond following the expansion of the mine.

This will then flow through to both the bottom line and cashflow of APF. The results have been poor over the last year, but I expect/hope this is now the low point.

Work is required to diversify and add additional significant royalties to their portfolio. The bod have attempted this over the last few years with limited or no success. Partly due to the current mining environment.

[mozy123] 29/8/2013 10:31

Equity fallen by 51 mil quepassa but the market cap is down 1/3rd.

Outstanding value here imo dyor

[danieldruff2] 29/8/2013 10:02

The story is not about the Total Equity, which remains above the current market cap. It's about the performance of the Kestrel royalty and how can the company replace that income stream in a decade or so. The results today are a reminder why investing in a single company in the mining sector is risky, with damaged shafts, explosions in a port, and political issues... but APF sails on with its royalty income stream.

This will rebound on Kestrel profits in due course but they have plenty of work to do to diversify away from it.