Buy
Sell
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Assetco Plc LSE:ASTO London Ordinary Share GB00B42VYZ16 ORD 10P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.0% 350.00 320.00 380.00 350.00 350.00 350.00 9 01:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Support Services 5.3 -0.8 -6.3 - 4

Assetco Share Discussion Threads

Showing 2001 to 2022 of 2375 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  83  82  81  80  79  78  77  76  75  74  73  72  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
01/9/2011
18:08
What about the NAV getting a massive increase with the debt write off?
treacle32
01/9/2011
16:44
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
16:26
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
15:52
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
15:51
Agree greedfear.
treacle32
01/9/2011
15:50
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
15:46
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
15:33
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
01/9/2011
15:27
Oh dear oh dear............as you wish but you are in for a very cold hard reality check and soon. You are completely wrong in your understanding of such matters. Your fantastical dreams of instant riches are not going to happen please trust me on that one.
rorrys
01/9/2011
15:25
Rorry- they were talking significant dilution. Would you call a reorganization that leaves the old shareholders with 60% of their original holding a significant dilution? No offence, just asking.
greedfear
01/9/2011
15:22
Well, I know balance sheets as well and I can count. Current marketcap is 5 million. If the preference shareholders agree asto will have got rid of 8 million liabilities. If the creditors agree another 16 million value is added to the company (5 million final payment for 21 million debt) If the equity injection takes place an another 12.5 million of value is added. In theory the company should be worth 41 million once the financial reorganization is a fact. That leaves us with the number of shares that will be issued. I have reasons to believe that 125 million shares (or better 12.5 million new shares) will be issued at 10p: -a 10p placing price was promised in march 2011 -after the reorganization the theoretical value of the shares will be 10p (41 million / (12.5 million newly issued shares because of equity injection + 25 million shares [reverse split 250 million old shares] + 3.75 million new shares for the preference shareholders) -it looks like the investorsgroup are taking a -80% hit by taking shares at 10p while current share price is 2p (the same "loss" they're asking their creditors and the preference shareholders to take)
greedfear
01/9/2011
15:06
If the recovery package is to work it includes a very dilutive placing . How do I know that ? Well AssetCo told me ,they told you as well by the way.
rorrys
01/9/2011
15:02
I can understand people being frustrated over this share if you've been in it prices that exceeds the current level, but it's a 2p share now. It's a risky share, because if creditors do not agree you're going to lose it all. What are the chances to lose it all? No one knows. But what we do know, is that creditors have a "choice" between getting nothing if they reject the offer or getting 23%. Furthermore two banks have already stated they're willing to accept (not binding, but they've put it in writing). If I had the choice between: 0% or 23% and I was acting rational I would go for the 23%. I think the chances of creditors accepting the offer are far better then not accepting.
greedfear
01/9/2011
14:52
I will leave you to work it out . But think on this one very important point ,very important and pertinent. The market rarely gets it wrong. Many many financial analysts have gone over this co with a fine toothcomb recently. People who understand a balance sheet. If for one second the markets thought there would be a miraculous placing at 10p and all would be well then the share price would be sitting at circa 9p and it would have done so in a micro second. If a consolidated placing takes place at 10p then it will value your 2p shares at a fraction of a penny poss as low as .0020 I can absolutely guarantee you that your 2p shares will be worth much less after any successful placing. There of course remains the fact that they may not get the agreements they need and it will go into recivership At this moment in time the company is insolvent and my only surprise is that the shares have not been suspended pending clarification of their position. That could happen yet by the way.
rorrys
01/9/2011
14:42
So you're saying the market was incapable of predicting the future and therefore the 60p price wasn't right? So why should the market be right now? Doesn't make sense.
greedfear
01/9/2011
14:37
Yes you do need to learn and it seems you will learn the hard way. By the way when the shares were at 60p there had not been a vast gaping chasm discovered in the accounts ,a sacked CEO and an emergency placing to keep the co afloat ,which as it turned out was nowhere near enough. Its along the lines of all is good until it is proven otherwise but you would know that wouldnt you .
rorrys
01/9/2011
14:33
Rorry- How come the market was right at 60p a year ago and now we're quoting 2p? I like to learn. Explain please. Cheers!
greedfear
01/9/2011
14:31
Oh I can read sunshine and so can the market , I suggest you take lessons.
rorrys
01/9/2011
14:29
We're going to have a good laugh within a week treacle! This is as close as you can get to "stealing" money the legal way.
greedfear
01/9/2011
14:26
Don't know about treacle, but I'm expecting a 10p placing it's all in the documents to read if you have an eye for it. Markets know nothing, there's no such thing as an efficient market. Was the market right valuing this at 60p a year ago? Obviously not as we're 2p today. So why should the market be right today? It sure did a sh#t job in the past!
greedfear
01/9/2011
14:22
Yes I do thanks.
treacle32
01/9/2011
14:00
You're very quiet today, Treacle32. Still expecting 10p? The market tells a different story.
effortless cool
Chat Pages: Latest  83  82  81  80  79  78  77  76  75  74  73  72  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
ASTO
Assetco
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20200706 22:47:18