Interserve Share Discussion Threads

[ih_127877] 27/3/2018 08:12

The share price should end down today.. if so its to 80 quicker than I thought.. TREND!

[whoknowswhoknowswhoknows] 26/3/2018 22:38

So it stands to sense then that we should take what barenberg forecast and inverse it. If they say high TP, half it, low TP, double it. Then you're pretty much spot on.

[mayberightmaybenot] 26/3/2018 22:16

Poor Burger and their 95p target, LMAO they should stick to flipping BURGERS these dopes.

By end of the year this would be closer to 200p-250p.



Ta
MayberightMaybenot

[ih_127877] 26/3/2018 21:58

I repeat-it's all old hat now. share price is trending upwards now.

THERE IS NO TREND UPWARDS. THE TREND IS YOUR FRIEND... SHORTED TO 80p, and it will there, but then it should recover, mark my words on 80p!!

[da vinci1] 26/3/2018 19:56

Berenberg were advising Hold TP 360 on 25/aug/'17. Are they employing Mickey Mouse? All other brokers are advising STRONG BUY with much greater TP's. I think it's safe to say their forecast is spurious. At least nobody is saying sell! I'm also bullish Aendjo.

[aendjo] 26/3/2018 19:32

Of five brokers covering Interserve in March 2018, 4/5 gave a STRONG BUY rating and 1/5 a HOLD rating. Price targets ranged from 95p (hold, Berenberg), to 124p (Numis), 130p (Stifel), 140p (Peel Hunt), 180p (Liberum). The average target price for brokers covering Interserve in March 2018 is 134p. Considering these targets were set in the wake of Carillion / Capita / Mitie, I’m pretty bullish.

[brick tycoon] 26/3/2018 19:25

This is (h)old hat.

[whoknowswhoknowswhoknows] 26/3/2018 18:48

BERENBERG CUTS INTERSERVE PRICE TARGET TO 95 (120) PENCE - 'HOLD

REALLY?

[oliversanvil] 26/3/2018 17:43

50p sell sell sell if your lucky and sell first thing. ! First thing in the morning!

[brick tycoon] 26/3/2018 17:04

I repeat-it's all old hat now. share price is trending upwards now.

[cc2014] 26/3/2018 16:50

I believe I read a long time ago (so you might want to check this) that IRV took on design responsibility for EfW (which they then cascaded on to the subbie).

The design responsibility covered the performance of the plant.

So, whilst IRV cascaded the contract terms and conditions onto the subbie they are left holding the baby if the subbie goes bust.


Design and Build by the main contractor had become very fashionable in the construction industry over the last 10-15 years. The opportunity is that it saved some architects/design consultant fees. Risk is that contractor carries the can when things don't perform to specification.


For example, historically 30 years ago architect would have specified light fittings (or say 4 to choose from) and electrical contractor would have installed. If lights aren't bright enough contractor gets paid as he had delivered to specification.

Under D&B contractor is liable for light output so if they aren't bright enough contractor has to fix at own cost.

[brick tycoon] 26/3/2018 16:10

It's all old hat now. Efw was the catalyst for the slump in irv's share price However the nadir has been reached and now IRV is in recovery mode. Those who hesitate to load up will be kicking themselves in 6 months time.

[cfc1] 26/3/2018 15:27

depends on contract wording T&Cs and acceptance of penalties - its why Debbie has announced a new board level governance/legal/contact head.....was a shambled by the look of things.

[dexdringle] 26/3/2018 15:24

Re EFW subcontractor failure surely, if there was any risk whatsoever, IRV would have taken out some insurance against that or at least signed a contract with Pennon where their liability was limited should a sub contractor fail to perform ? In this case it looks like IRV accepted the contract and the fact that some was subbed out by IRV was of no consequence to Pennon as they had simply contracted IRV - and IRV were expected to deliver regardless.

What I can't understand is why IRV couldn't just get another subcontractor to pick up the whole piece rather than simply walk away and be open to unlimited compensation? That simply doesn't make sense.

[cfc1] 26/3/2018 15:04

dex read this....

hxxps://www.constructionnews.co.uk/companies/contractors/interserve/how-did-efw-bring-interserve-to-its-knees/10024490.article

[aendjo] 26/3/2018 14:09

ih, I’m not sure if you are trolling or if you are serious but I would pause before opening a short position here. The refinancing / results will be announced in the coming days / weeks and there is a significant upside here. In January (I.e. before we were told the refinancing had been agreed, the market valued IRV 123p, I would expect it to trade back to or above that sort of value even before results - over the next hours or days of trading). I would expect it closing up today.

[southernman] 26/3/2018 14:04

aendjo ..
Agree asset sales to repay debt would help if not cannibalising earning power. I was just a bit concerned at the "material debt-to-equity transfer" phrase, which would further dilute current SH stakes

[aendjo] 26/3/2018 13:56

If I understand correctly, Energos had never built systems of that size and complexity. It couldn’t deliver on the EfW projects that Interserve had started as the main contractor - production stopped and Energos went into administration. Hindsight is 20/20, but looking back Interserve should either have appointed a more appropriate subcontractor, or signed a better contract where its responsibility would be limited to the bits it could control (construction and running of the facility). So the responsibility lies with Interserve. In terms of material disposals in exchange for debt forgiveness - I see that as a perfectly viable solution (not unlike selling Haymarket to repay debt, getting a fair valuation for disposed assets will go a long way in clearing up debt and straightening the balance sheet).

[southernman] 26/3/2018 13:32

Not dead keen on the Peel Hunt commentator's final observation:

"He added there was �the potential for a material debt-to-equity transfer given the free cashflow and disposal opportunities"

[wallywoo] 26/3/2018 13:31

dex: the subcontractor that was building the furnace's for the EFW projects went bust and stuffed IRV. That's the total and only reason for the problems

[dexdringle] 26/3/2018 13:25

Stupid Question Alert but..........why did Interserve enter into EFW construction projects if they were incapable of seeing them through?

Surely they were building to the specifications of the client engaging them. If those specifications changed, or became unworkable for whatever reason, then is that Interesrve's fault? They just tried to build what the plan says? Unless Interesrve bowled up with the plans and then simply couldn't deliver their own design?

Has Interserve failed to do something that was entirely do-able and thus were plain incompetent?

Has anything been published that gets to the nub of the EFW issue, what went wrong and who is to blame and why they are to blame?

[jeffian] 26/3/2018 12:06

Yes, it related to Kidderminster (I think) but the point was that I spelt out what the consequences of contract termination could be. I'll edit it to make it clearer. Glasgow seems to have proved a case in point. I don't know how many others.

[aendjo] 26/3/2018 11:09

Unfortunately Jeffian the favorable ruling relates to a different contract.

[jeffian] 26/3/2018 10:40

#8770,

"That doesn’t sound great to me."

aendjo, it sounds exactly as it did 5-6 months ago!

"jeffian - 09 Nov 2017 - 19:24:42 - 5721 of 8775 Interserve - Awaiting A Recovery - IRV

..........the real pain in the case where a contract has been terminated by the employer is in the consequential losses that arise thereafter. In that case, the employer goes to another contractor to finish off the work and that is pretty well an open-ended blank cheque, plus IRV would also probably be on the hook for consequential losses arising from the fact that the plant is not operating on time resulting in additional costs to the Council of disposing of the waste elsewhere............"

[aendjo] 26/3/2018 09:12

Hi CFC no I haven’t sold - in fact keeping my eyes open for further buying opportunities.