ADVFN Logo ADVFN

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for alerts Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers

HARL Harland & Wolff Group Holdings Plc

9.125
-0.525 (-5.44%)
20 May 2024 - Closed
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Stock Type
Harland & Wolff Group Holdings Plc HARL London Ordinary Share
  Price Change Price Change % Share Price Last Trade
-0.525 -5.44% 9.125 12:44:59
Open Price Low Price High Price Close Price Previous Close
9.60 8.75 9.60 9.125 9.65
more quote information »
Industry Sector
GAS WATER & UTILITIES

Harland & Wolff HARL Dividends History

No dividends issued between 21 May 2014 and 21 May 2024

Top Dividend Posts

Top Posts
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 22/4/2024 12:43 by loglorry1
Forgive me for not conducting research using social media posts!

IF the £77m capex spend was being "funded" as part of the FSS deal (part of the revenue recieved?) then it would not be recorded on HARL's balance sheet improving their balance sheet position but instead it would be part of revenue received. However we know that's not the case because in the RNS it states

"the Company is evaluating a number of different financing mechanisms, including long-term asset financing..."

Since none of these financing mechanisms have been RNS'd we can only conclude that they have not happened.

If the £77m was a pre-payment as part of the contract as you suggest a) it wouldn't need financing so can't be and b) it's part of the contract value and we know even given estimated revenues HARL is loss making.

So which is it?

I have seen the odd HARL tweet here and there but I've not concluded someone has given them £77m from these photos as part of a pre-payment, grant, loan or other.
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 21/4/2024 10:05 by loglorry1
Xenon I agree Riverstone won't do anything because they can't. It doesn't help their position by putting HARL into default.

What will solicit news is HARL running out of cash. I have to admit I thought that might have happened by now but it hasn't and I can't explain why.

I'd be amazed if HARL get the refi done but it's possible.
Posted at 09/4/2024 00:15 by john mcinnes wood
The banks will be taking charge of HARL when the finance deal is announced, existing shareholders will be leaping for the lifeboats when they are diluted into oblivion.

I was checking on last year's REACH RNS's not a single update since, just a JW share pumping exercise - No great surprise there.

Navantia are offering more updates on the FSS contract than HARL, I wonder why that might be?

IM, the old shovel ready project, not worth tuppence now, the future is with renewable energy not the storage of fossil fuels, doubt very much bankers with an ounce of ESG would be getting involved in such projects. Not helped by the price of gas tumbling over the last year. The whole project is 10 years too late.


Riverstone look like a better investment, charging HARL 19% on $100m, cracking deal that turned out to be. Barclays also having a charge on assets deepens the gloom over this once mighty company.
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 06/3/2024 07:06 by skinny
Harland & Wolff Group Holdings plc (AIM: HARL), the UK quoted company focused on strategic infrastructure projects and physical asset lifecycle management, is pleased to announce that it has signed a five-year Master Services Agreement for the fabrication of large structures with a global oil services company supplying subsea infrastructure across the major hydrocarbon basins around the globe.

The Company has now received its first purchase order under that agreement to fabricate six subsea structures with a contract value of approximately £3 million. These highly specialised structures are used in oil and gas platforms and the surrounding infrastructure, capable of withstanding pressures of 430 bar (6,235 psi) and as such are mission critical parts.

These structures will be built over the next 18 months at the Company's Arnish site in a staged delivery programme with an expected completion date in H1 2025.

John Wood, CEO of Harland & Wolff Group Holdings commented:

"I am delighted that Arnish is recognised as a centre of excellence to deliver critical subsea infrastructure. This contract marks a significant step for the Company and builds on the highly technical work the yard has already undertaken on suction anchors, piles and the work it is currently performing for the Sea Rose FPSO Contract. These specialised subsea structures are a new product area for Harland & Wolff and we expect that successful delivery of this contract will open up significant opportunities for additional contracts in subsea infrastructure going forward."
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 11/1/2024 16:43 by xenor
I think it's hilarious that people like JakNife accused JW of lying. If we want to talk about integrity then let's look at the integrity of ShareProphets.It was only recently his blog was posting articles that open with:"Shorter Tim Kempster says that by his sums Harland & Wolff (HARL) runs out of money either in December or early January."I can't even find the one from "Evil Banksta" from a month or two earlier stating the company is imminently running out of cash by the end of 2023. I suspect it got deleted. Interestingly a lot of their older articles on HARL seem to have vanished.Looked at their Twitter account and filtered by the #HARL hashtag and it appears they have a history of deleting tweets (and probably articles) that they get wrong. There's only two posts about HARL between July and today. Expect the one by Tim to be removed soon.

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock