Shaft Sink Share Discussion Threads

[technofiend] 03/5/2013 18:04

Eurochem update:

[oregano] 03/5/2013 11:48

on the positive tack the company is out marketing post the results. not exactly insitutional volumes, but good news the shares are up rather than down.

[buywell2] 03/5/2013 11:47

80% drop in SHFT in the last 2 years

[wylecoyote] 03/5/2013 07:47

OMG I got is so wrong, must follow your lead and buy now....

[hedgehog 100] 02/5/2013 20:30

Publicity for the sub sector at last!

"Shares" magazine has today devoted its THIRD page to SHFT, and its final results this week.

I can imagine that there will be a few surprised readers when they see the words "Shaft Sinkers" for the first time upon opening their magazine!


The article itself doesn't make an investment recommendation for SHFT, but is instead using it as an example of how operational gearing can hit results and dividends hard on the downside.

I think that it will be helpful in drawing SHFT to the attention of a wider audience, especially forward-thinking investors who realise that operational gearing cuts both ways and makes for a good recovery play. That is a point emphasised by legendary investor Peter Lynch in one of his books ( ).


29 April 2013 2012 Full Year Results Presentation
29 April 2013 2012 Annual Report and Accounts

[muckshifter] 01/5/2013 23:00

Hedgehog,
I rarely make predictions in terms of share prices. The actual wording in the post you frequently quote, no doubt in an attempt to discredit me, was, iirc, "but I have a feeling that this will be down below 10p within the next six months." And that comment was addressed specifically to Wylie Coyote, rather than attempting to address all readers as you normally do.

That does not constitute a prediction in my book. And if you want to see what a prediction from me looks like, I'll show you one or two.

And as far as still suggesting / hoping that would be the case in a more recent exchange with you - what happens to the share price does not concern me and I think I've made that clear enough times.

In terms of changing my stance on a stock at the appropriate moment, I again would be happy to show you evidence of doing exactly that in the past on several occasions.

Now, you still seem to have evaded my point about your obscure post 1912, in which I think you make your usual insinuations, but try not to make them clearly enough, in the hope no doubt that you won't show your ignorance of the heavy civils industry and its contractual terms.
So, what did you mean by the comment "is just being silly (to put it politely). As is the suggestion that a customer could ignore a binding legal contract with SHFT, even assuming that they should want to for any reason. Or to compare the usual tiny teething challenges on a contract to the problems SHFT experienced shafting into the Siberian permafrost for EuroChem."

You made another interesting criticism of anyone who doesn't agree with you and called us liars, in post 1912, as follows:- "If SHFT isn't of interest, why are all these non-SHFT shareholders here, peddling mendacious and sometimes repetitive negativity? Apparently, it's to 'help us'!!" So I looked at posts over a 31 day period just before that post and found that, out of 13 posters, you had written more than 32% of the posts in the period, far more than any other poster, and far more repetitive.
Regards.

[hedgehog 100] 01/5/2013 18:35

muckshifter 1 May'13 - 09:11 - 1914 of 1915 0 0
"Hedgehog,
A bit of advice for you.
You clearly state that you resent the presence of those who disagree with your 100% positive view of shft.
But, you condemn every such poster by calling them "silly" "shorter" "troll" etc, or your latest "liar". ..."


Muckshifter,

One of the favoured tactics of trolls is to make ludicrously low share price precictions at a small fraction of the current share price, to try to prey on people's fears of losing money. They are also prone to foul language.

That is why your 'sub 10p by end April' prediction (which was never on the cards), raised my suspicions about you. Added to your later foul language on the Mining Services thread, and I said that I was beginning to think that you were a troll.

That's subtly different from saying you are one, and as you know, I have since acknowledged on a different thread that you are not one, and apologised for any offence caused.

I take your point that the phrase you used is acceptable where you work, but I do not choose to hear that sort of language, and as I mentioned before the exchange lead me to stop posting for two months (late January to late March, though I retained all my SHFT shares).


I didn't name every poster by name in my last post yesterday or quote the extracts I was unhappy with because the post would have been too long and unwieldy otherwise, so I was summarising.


I try to make sure facts I quote are accurate, and tend to reference them with links. I also try to make it clear if I'm posting opinion rather than fact, avoid claiming 100% certainty, and have no problem admitting when I've got it wrong.

But you still haven't explicitly acknowledged that your 'sub 10p by end April' prediction was ludicrously wrong, and indeed as late as mid April on another thread you were still suggesting/hoping that it might come good. That indicates to me that you find it difficult to change your mind, or admit when you have got it wrong.

On an annualised basis, your prediction was over 500% out (i.e. share price at least 250% higher than your prediction after 6 months). That must make it one of the worst predictions ever, in what is what really counts, which is the share price.

There's obviously a danger in people stepping out of their areas of professional expertise, e.g. a doctor taking on the role of a statistician.

And a key to investment is to know when to change stance on a stock, and to know when the investment 'story' is changing. Why do you think that I only bought into SHFT and CAPD in mid December?

[wylecoyote] 01/5/2013 12:52

Muck,

I agree with your sentiments, I've said it before (I think). HH is a 'wordsmith' and attempts to blind people to the truth. I mean this is supposed to be a recovery story according to HH, a recovery from what? According to the interims, there has been a massive improvement in the preeceeding period. Failing, to recognise that last year the profit was something like £11m to something like less than £3mill.

I have to admit, the reason that I am here is because I am interested as a potential investor, but the metrics and prospects need to improve. I will also admit to not having very much knowledge of the industry(as you clearly have and as such, your comments hold more weight to me). Also, HH has not given me anything extra that I didn't already know.

[noirua] 30/4/2013 22:02

Mining Problems "Trickle Down" Like a Tsunami on to Shaft Sinkers Holdings SHFT

[hedgehog 100] 30/4/2013 21:10

SHFT's first half eps was 1.6p, whereas half 2 eps was 3.28p, i.e. more than double. That is a tremendous improvement by any standards, and shows that the turnaround is well underway here.

And net debt at the interim stage was £8.6M., whereas at the end of H2 it had reduced to just £2.1M., a reduction of about three quarters, which is again a tremendous improvement.

SHFT made £3.4M. of pre-tax profit in a year in which it seemed that everything that could go wrong did go wrong.

And SHFT's half 2 eps of 3.28p equates on an annualised basis to eps of 6.56p. At SHFT's current share price of 35.5p, that would put it on a 'rolling' P/E of just 5.41.

The main difference to the Lamprell situation is that LAMP fell into losses, whereas SHFT hasn't, making it a lot better and safer.

To try to deny that the turnaround is underway, or that it is due to some unspecified 'seasonality' impact, is just being silly (to put it politely). As is the suggestion that a customer could ignore a binding legal contract with SHFT, even assuming that they should want to for any reason. Or to compare the usual tiny teething challenges on a contract to the problems SHFT experienced shafting into the Siberian permafrost for EuroChem.

It's also rather dishonest to post this morning about an eight month old IC article entitled "Shaft Sinkers Profit Stinker" in a way that gives the impression that it relates to the current results, instead of the interims which were far worse. (The IC "sell" rating of SHFT then at 63p, when annualised eps had fallen to 3.2p, was the right call. But at 35.5p, with H2 eps twice as good as H1, it's a different matter.)

If SHFT isn't of interest, why are all these non-SHFT shareholders here, peddling mendacious and sometimes repetitive negativity? Apparently, it's to 'help us'!!

Though in a way they are. Because I suspect that if most other small mining-related companies were attacked with this sort of mendacity, their share prices would be far less resiliant than SHFT's has been. And that shows just how good SHFT is.

[rcturner2] 30/4/2013 15:52

hh - I don't think that the turnaround of SHFT is at all a given.

[hedgehog 100] 30/4/2013 15:28

muckshifter 30 Apr'13 - 15:21 - 1908 of 1908
"...Unfortunately, my problem has always been seeing what's coming too far in advance ..."

Well if that's true then at least we do have something in common!

[muckshifter] 30/4/2013 15:21

Hedgehog,
My first slightly negative post on shft was when they were about 80p in December 2011, iirc, after thinking about posting a couple of months earlier and not bothering.

Unfortunately, my problem has always been seeing what's coming too far in advance, not hindsight, and I don't bother posting much to avoid silly arguments with such as you - that's why I didn't bother posting my interpretation of the RNS in February.

And, fwiw, I reckon my record on predictions would be as good or better than yours, but I'm not interested enough to investigate.
Regards.

[hedgehog 100] 30/4/2013 15:14

In retrospect they should probably have cancelled or reduced the interim dividend, and paid a reduced final dividend, if they did want to pay out a full 7.2p/share for the year.

I think that they gave out misleading signals, and that they could have handled it better.

But I'm sure that they will have learnt from this.


And when we look back on the story of SHFT's turnaround, this episode should just be a minor footnote, creating a minor and temporary dip downwards in the share price.

[hedgehog 100] 30/4/2013 15:10

Well the interim dividend was 2.4p, whereas first half earnings were just 1.6p.

[rcturner2] 30/4/2013 15:08

hh - I thought it quite clear that the dividend would be cut since SHFT quite clearly stated it had to be covered.

[wylecoyote] 30/4/2013 14:21

muckshifter, there are still some out there who believe in an efficient market, forgetting that there is no such thing. You have to get into human pyschology to understand why SP's move as they do.

[muckshifter] 30/4/2013 13:57

Yes, really Hedgehog. There were plenty of people like me, who read the RNSs carefully, and expected the dividend cut, but presumably there were also plenty like you, who didn't, and perhaps some of them bailing out was detrimental to the share price yesterday.
Regards.

[wylecoyote] 30/4/2013 13:54

Simple, the anticipation and hope of the dividend was maintaining the share price 20.0p? It is still possible.

[hedgehog 100] 30/4/2013 13:49

Hmmm, the bears here seem to be getting worried - and a bit desperate.

Yesterday the prediction was 20p.

Now, the best they can do is saying that a failure to rise from 37p should be a cause for worry ...

I would have thought that the flood of big buying that came in at current support levels should have told them something.

muckshifter 30 Apr'13 - 11:16 - 1898 of 1899
"The results were about what I expected, with the dividend cut well flagged before hand. ..."

Really? In that case, there should have been no surprise, and no reason for the share price fall.

[wylecoyote] 30/4/2013 12:50

Hedgehog,

yes you are right, I clearly didn't consider the iterims. I am only trying to look at the bigger picture. Also, your extrapolations based on performance since the interim statement is flawed. You fail to take in account seasonallity, etc. Yes, LAM is a good case in question, I made a nice sum on that one. It has a completely different story to this one and there is no real basis for comparison. LAM for me, was easy, the same with TCG just out of interest. Sudden and unfortunate loss of confidence due to unforseen costs, etc involving a 'paper' wright off, creating a false impression of the organisations prospects. As soon as the cash flows started to stabalise and re-negotiation of finance, they became a recovery story. Easy... Here, the long term fundamentals are not so compelling.