Rurelec Share Discussion Threads

[giant steps] 06/6/2014 15:44

Burying results on a friday afternoon, didn't expect that

RNS 6th June 2014

[rocka999] 06/6/2014 00:35

Just like being being on LSE here really :)

[jeddicat] 05/6/2014 14:01

Yes, understood and accepted, but when I said 'capital' I was talking about pre-payment, i.e. before we actually got the cash/settlement, that was when Santiago Stock Market made noises about AIM.

Regards

[swooped] 05/6/2014 12:04

Well the Chilean listing would be more concerned about our asset value, in terms of whether Rurelec are a good bet to list there is no question, we have great assets, and no indebtedness, the majority or at least a high percentage of companies on AIM for instance run continually in debt, the question is how robust the company is, what is its shareholders register like etc. On all of these accounts Rurelec comes up trumps.

[jeddicat] 05/6/2014 09:10

I am wondering if the question of dual listing, from the Chilean side,is not so much about the regulation of AIM, but quietly more about our 'capital holdings' and what 'cash' we have behind us?

Just a thought swoop?

Regards

[swooped] 05/6/2014 08:57

Yes I agree, I would say that PE has certainly been guilty of over promising on timescales specifically the Santiago listing and this one for me is important as it is possibly a key catalyst for re-rating the shares, obviously depending on how much Sterling can sell shares into the Chilean market but I would expect they want north of NAV

[gerhart] 05/6/2014 08:40

One thing PE is very guilty of and that is being "unrealistic" (on a number of issues and timetables)

A current key on is the dueal listing. Some time back, very early in the year, he described the Chilean listing as being "imminent". But based on what he has said recently, it was never "imminent". The Chileans have never said that their AIM "problem" has being sorted. And until it is sorted, then we are nowhere near "imminent"!

Now he has added the issue of stamp duty....?

[swooped] 05/6/2014 08:31

Kinbasket was just spouting off, there are no facts in his numbers

Just to be exact on the 1st May 2010, day of nationalisation there were 205,421,505, today there are 561,387,586

[jaf1948] 04/6/2014 17:40

kinbasket,

Thanks for that - I wasn't looking that far back.

Edit: However, you said 'The share price may have been 18p on the day of nationalisation but there are 5 times as many shares now..' Even taking your 156m figure from 2009, there are 561m today which by nobody's maths is 5 times as many.

[kinbasket] 04/6/2014 17:04

Swooped,

It's not just about salaries and bonuses that appear in the report. What about all the work the directors did for IPC that got billed to RUR. That was a nice little earner. What about the sale of Cascade (a Peter Earl company) to RUR. Cascade had zero assets on the balance sheet at the end of 2012 and sold 9 months later to RUR for nearly a million dollars. The directors here have done very nicely. Have You ?

[kinbasket] 04/6/2014 16:55

JAF1948

Year end 2009 was 154m shares. there was a massive issue 200m in march 2011. plus lots of others along the way.

[gerhart] 04/6/2014 15:43

Back into the pit again we go......

[mortimer7] 04/6/2014 11:35

Interview with Peter Earl looking forward after receipt of funds

[code677] 04/6/2014 11:25

If it wasn't for Burford's PR release we'd still be none the wiser on a likely net cash position. So as to what management could've done better, clear transparent communication to shareholders would be top on the list for me. No doubt they'd have kept schtum on the position until reporting a placing in a month or two to build the balance sheet. Also the reduction of the sum was found out from local press with Rurelec's RNS confirming instead of announcing. Saying it's old news misses the point. Past behavior affects how management are seen in future and many will have gone from seeing the BoD as trustworthy to slippery.

[giant steps] 04/6/2014 11:13

Reminder 561,387,586 ords


28 JAN 2014

[jaf1948] 04/6/2014 11:12

kinbasket,

Please can you tell me where you got your figures from as today there are 561m shares in Rurelec. The total voting rights RNS of March 31st 2011 shows 421m shares.

[swooped] 04/6/2014 10:16

Well for starters we have the annual report and the prelims, which I expect to be out by Monday, possibly Friday. I would expect along with this a fairly thorough update as to the forward strategy and any upcoming deals to be signed. It would be nice to get a restatement of our NAV and an update as regards the Santiago listing, actually there is a lot going on so I hope in a few days time to be a lot wiser as to our forward position.

[m.t.glass] 04/6/2014 09:33

Views on what the company could have or should have done are something that people can chat about forever if that's what they want to do. I look forward to some postings looking at where this company is and where next - not where it's been.

Thanks in advance to anyone posting about imminent and future activity.

EDIT: Apologies. I guess I probably said that on the wrong thread - this one does clearly relate specifically to the claim, and is therefore entitled to stick to analysing the outcome of that. I should perhaps follow another RUR thread for non-claim aspects.

[ironstorm] 04/6/2014 08:48

I doubt they could have done much different on the arbitration.

These things are always a lottery. And whilst we never got what we wanted we are out of the woods.

The only fault if any was capitulation at the very end - but Bolivia played this well knew Rur weaknesses. We took the money and in the end that is not a terrible outcome from this sorry affair.

And now it's done we can judge the mgmt on how much electricity they generate and profits made.

[swooped] 04/6/2014 08:37

I think you will find that the story behind the scenes is a little different, I 'cut these guys slack' as I understand how hard it has been after what Bolivia did to the company, many CEO's would have walked away, however in the time since, there have been no huge bonus's, the salaries are actually pretty conservative to what you see in many aim companies and there has been a lot of personal investment in shares. You tell me what better could they have done? 50% of your assets stolen overnight, without warning and the income that entails lost, just gone, how many other companies would still be here after that, my guess is few.

I personally think what the team has done in the last 4 years is nothing short of remarkable, yes mistakes have been made along the way, but we are here now as a debt free company with as I stated earlier great projects and a bright future and an investor base that is supportive and thus far seem to be loyal to Rurelec.

No instead of finding it hard to believe that I would support a company like Rurelec please tell me what you think a company could have done under the circumstances?

EDIT - I would like to add that I do not want a war of rampers versus de-rampers but am genuinely interested to hear others views on how, without the knowledge of hindsight, it could have been handled better, for a starter I would say the single largest mistake must have been the terms with Burford to have put us into a position where they could make so much on such a little loan, were the terms scrutinised enough?

[kinbasket] 04/6/2014 08:23

The share price may have been 18p on the day of nationalisation but there are 5 times as many shares now..

I am amazed at your ability to cut these guys slack for the amount of shareholder value destruction they have achieved over the last few years. None of which has effected any of the directors who have all drawn their salaries and other benefits.

That's before you even consider the various related party deals that have been done.

[swooped] 04/6/2014 08:19

yep I think that's about the measure of it, but we are debt free now, nothing to do but wait and be positive, I expect the annual report and prelims will give us a clearer picture which I believe are dues either this Friday or Monday

[cheshire2] 04/6/2014 08:10

I believe bolivia knew that as well, reason for the lower settlement, they both had us by the balls.

[cheshire2] 04/6/2014 08:06

I agree re burford - lets hope the dual listing goes ahead soon. We need some good news to stop the slide.