Shaft Sink Share Discussion Threads

[muckshifter] 08/5/2013 14:35

mrwhits1,
Sorry but I don't remember any posts about pea harvesters on TMF. My only knowledge of such things would have been gained on a walk round his pea fields with one of the biggest pea farmers in the UK, while discussing reinstatement of a big borrow pit in his land, so I think you've probably got the wrong man for that post.

But, my tmf name and elsewhere remains the same.
Regards.

[technofiend] 08/5/2013 13:16

"How somebody can defend a stock with a chart like this ,is beyond me"

Your point about the platinum mining industry is valid but this point isn't.

I look exclusively at stocks with "horrible" charts like this, which have been beaten up to within an inch of their lives. It's where the most value is found.

[mrwhits1] 08/5/2013 11:06

well I for one believe muckshifter entirely, if......this muckshifter is the same TMF Muckshifter that knew his stuff about pea harvesters on a thread some years ago on TMF.

buyer beware........he knows his peas!

regards

mrwhits.

[buywell2] 08/5/2013 07:54

How somebody can defend a stock with a chart like this ,is beyond me

Especially when the PLAT market in SA is in crisis and half their order book is with PLAT miners



I wouldn't unless I was being paid

[hedgehog 100] 07/5/2013 19:49

Muckshifter,

First of all, thanks for telling us that we're naive to invest in SHFT based on profits and earnings rather than stay out based on your anonymous bulletin board speculation - we never knew that.


Moving on to the issue of repetitive posting. I did complain here recently about repetitive mendacious posting on this thread:

Hedgehog 100 30 Apr'13 - 21:10 - 1912 of 1939
"...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'!!..."

But the key trait is the mendacious part.

Such posting is entirely different from honest and accurate posting, and I've never complained about repeat posting per se.

Obviously you may repeat yourself if you are responding to the same or similar points.

And posting the same thing on different threads is also appropriate, because no one reads all the threads on ADVFN.

Note that on 'general threads' which are set up to invite investment ideas, many ideas don't get a response. Anyone interested tends to go to the company threads concerned. I wouldn't expect or even particularly want a response. But no responses also means no complaints, and none of my posts have been moderated.


I, and I imagine most investors, have often looked at a really successful investment - a multi-bagger - and thought "If only I'd been told about that share - I would definitely have invested". But with thousands of shares to choose from, its easy not to find out about opportunities.

That's why I read such general threads, for potential ideas. And what I like is a concise, accurate summary so that I can easily decide whether it's worth a further look or not. No one is forced to read such posts, investigate further, or buy in.

It would be completely wrong to read such threads for ideas, but not put anything back in return. That is why when I encounter such a stunning investment opportunity as Shaft Sinkers - potentially one of the shares of the decade - that I feel a duty to share it.


As regards the smears and innuendos: I was thinking of your apparent suggestion two days ago that SHFT had been guilty of corrupt behaviour, despite having no evidence whatsoever. You also try to smear by association: i.e. SHFT works in what you call corrupt countries, ergo SHFT itself is corrupt you seem to be suggesting.

What kind of person tries to smear a fine old company like this with no evidence whatsoever? It is just plain WRONG.

To be honest, I think there's a good case for SHFT to look at the legal situation regarding your posting about the EuroChem claim, as it appears to me to be libellous.

And now you follow it by suggesting that SHFT's 'numbers' are 'made up'! Well, the accounts pass the first test of whether the profits are 'real' or not: over a million pounds of taxation payable from the 2012 profits. It's also a main-listed company rather than AIM, which gives added reassurance. Your accusation that the profits aren't 'real' just isn't credible.

As someone once said, 'it's deja vu all over again': remember the humiliation of your 'SHFT sub 10p by end April 2013' prediction ... which rest assured I will 'repeat post' as I when I feel fit! One ludicrous prediction made, which has been shown to have failed miserably, = second ludicrous 'prediction' has no credibility.


My conclusion: you, and your posting, should be treated with CAUTION! Though I still wouldn't call you a troll, because you are at least intelligent, and I am therefore quite willing to engage and debate with you whenever you wish, as there is some point, (as opposed to responding to the mindless and moronic postings of trolls).

You do though come across as rather hypocritical regarding trolls. You recently posted this on the IOF thread:
muckshifter 1 May'13 - 11:12 - 22538 of 23940 4 0
"I find it very sad that decent posters allow themselves to be driven from a forum by trolls. ..."
But when our resident troll posts this:
simonh88 6 May'13 - 23:46 - 1932 of 1939 0 0
"... Hedgehog!... AKA scumbags, idiots, con-artists"
You make no criticism of it, but have previously used foul language just because I said that in my opinion you were a wolf in sheep's clothing.


P.S. Some ADVFN info. on muckshifter: Profile Created 12 Nov 2000, Total Posts 1182, No threads found!
From his postings, Muckshifter is a self-proclaimed (repeatedly!) industry 'expert' with 40 years of experience of it.
You might think therefore that he would have been able to parlay that self-claimed inside knowledge and experience into introducing ADVFN investors to the best mining services investments in the last decade or so. There are after all many mining services companies listed on the ASX and TSX-V. I would imagine that there have been some stellar performers.
Would it not be better if he directed his intelligence and energy into a more positive direction: I would welcome any good mining services sector tips to complement SHFT.

[wylecoyote] 07/5/2013 17:15

HH, recovery stories? I suggest you look at tcg and (ocdo) and find the common denominator...still I missed the rally in ocdo simply because I am not convinced in the business model.

[hedgehog 100] 07/5/2013 15:49

Sorry Muckshifter, I hadn't realised that I needed your permission to post SHFT's results on a public bulletin board. Perhaps you would like me to switch to snide smears and libellous innuendos like you.


When I invest in a recovery play - a turnaround story - I base that decision on the 'numbers' improving, or the likelihood of them doing so. What do other people base such a decision on?

Of course, if recoveries - turnarounds - are not your cup of tea, then fine ... though in my opinion you're missing out, because such situations can be so very rewarding (e.g. 100-baggers like Next from its early 1990s low and Apple from its low around the turn of the millenium).

And in that respect, I will let the 'numbers' do the talking, so here they are again (with minor comments by myself):


The directors decided to take a prudent view and not pay a final dividend, which caused some disappointment.

But the results themselves were as forecast:-

13/02/2013 07:00 UKREG Shaft Sinkers Holdings Plc Trading Update
"Profit before taxation is expected to be in the range of GBP3 million - GBP4 million (2011: GBP13.5 million)."

29/04/2013 07:01 UKREG Shaft Sinkers Holdings Plc Final Results
"Profit before tax down by 75% to GBP3.4 million (2011: GBP13.5 million)"

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

If, in an 'annus horribilis', the company is still making millions of pounds of profit, then that shows that it's pretty sound.

Earnings per share decreased to 4.88 pence. At 38.5p, that puts the share on a historice P/E of 7.89.


But the real story is in the second half recovery.

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's half 2 eps of 3.28p equates on an annualised basis to eps of 6.56p. At SHFT's current share price of 38.5p, that would put it on a 'rolling' P/E of just 5.87.


The company's operational turnaround combined with its long-term growth story is a real attraction here.

[muckshifter] 07/5/2013 08:52

Needless to say Hedgehog, you are attempting to suggest that I think something, which has absolutely nothing to do with what I actually think.

You say, hedgehog in post 1924 addressed to me:-
"The end result of what you are saying would be the same as what I am saying. I.e. EuroChem don't push the claim against SHFT.

You apparently don't disagree that EuroChem's claiming of the $800M. against a different company is a sign that they are switching strategy. After all, you can't be awarded the damages twice over against different companies: and if you pursue that route, you are undermining your case by signalling that you don't really know who is responsible."

Unfortunately, I do disagree. I expect the arbitration, which is almost certainly a right within the terms of the contract, to continue, and the court case to probably be adjourned at some stage, pending the outcome of the extremely expensive arbitration (note that shft spent, iirc, $1.3m on lawyers in 2012). It is, to me, inconceivable that shft and their largest shareholder were not working together, with full knowledge of each others actions, whatever they may or may not have been, to secure the very large Eurochem project in Russia (home of the largest shareholder team).

You then go on to post for, iirc, the tenth time, your link to the five line "tip" of a journalist called David Kempton (and I'm afraid I give little credibility to the opinion of journalists and zero where Civil Engineering is concerned). You constantly claim that your posts are factual and yet here you are repetitively (now where have I seen that word in a recent post?) trumpeting as significant, the opinion, repeat opinion, of a journalist, gained from a verbal conversation (nothing published in writing was there?) with an unspecified representative of the house broker about the house broker's opinion, which no doubt the house broker gained from his "off the record" conversations (anything in writing?) with someone from shft about the shft employee's opinion, ie. yours is an opinion based on an opinion, based on an opinion, based on an opinion.

IIRC, the contention, based on that fourth hand opinion, that you regularly quote, made early January 13, is that the arbitration would be settled very shortly.

In your post 1926, you post, for the umpteenth time, the following:-
"Here are a few points that support my belief:-

1. An extract from a 2011 EuroChem report:
"In retrospect, the delay on skip shaft #1 validated our initial decision to mitigate sinking risks by using two competing technologies. Building on our experience with freezing technology, we announced the start of active sinking at our second potash project."
The fact that EuroChem decided to proceed with two competing technologies illustrates that they didn't know in advance which one would work best. Indeed they explicity use the phrase "In retrospect". Which undermines any complaint about SHFT not knowing in advance.
Both EuroChem and SHFT knew that the traditional freezing method was used in this area, but specified the grouting method for this project in the contract. I think that EuroChem wanted to try out grouting because it potentially could have been faster.

2. Also in that 2011 report, EuroChem stated that: "Despite the delays in Phase I and the acceleration of Phase II, we have no plans to increase the projected investment." This undermines their claim both for direct costs and foregone profit - profits appear to have been simply delayed rather than lost.

3. Even if an IMR executive did bribe a EuroChem employee, and that can be proven, that's different from saying that SHFT themselves actually did anything wrong."

From the first time you posted that, I've resisted replying with my opinion, but as you continuously and repetitively post drivel on every board you can think of in your attempts to ramp shft, here is my reply.

Your point 1 makes the rash assumption that Eurochem "specified" the use of the two technologies. That is not what the Eurochem extract says, and I doubt if that was the case. I believe it is far more likely that shft made a convincing proposal that they could do the shafts more quickly than the opposition, which was half accepted, ie. Eurochem gave them one shaft, the more critical one in terms of programme, and took the safer more usual route (mitigation of risk) with the other shaft.

Your point 2 states that Eurochem, by stating that they are not increasing investment have undermined their case. I've explained once before on this board that companies involved in this sort of dispute are careful about maintaining their position. If you are claiming back the costs incurred because a contractor fails to perform, you don't state publically that you are going to have to invest more to make up for their failure. Oh, and the projected investment, whether increased or not, would have nothing to do with, and would not be affected by, lost profit caused by delay.

Point 3 I've already stated my opinion.

It is now apparent that shft work in a very murky world – a point that I picked up on when I first looked at them, but didn't consider important. So in reality, none of us know anything in detail about the contracts they have, the arbitration they are involved in, the methods they use to obtain contracts, or anything else which would give cause for real confidence either way.
Constantly posting the improved earnings of their second half over the first half and claiming it's the result of some "road to Damascus" moment by the management and indicates the future is bright, strikes me as naïve.

It remains, imho, a year when shft need good survival skills.
Regards.

[simonh88] 06/5/2013 23:46

Sounds very much like you're talking about yourself again Hedgehog!

Anybody who posts comments about a house broker recommending the shares as a buy, can't expect to be treated seriously and deserves all the ridicule they get. I actually laughed when I read that stupid post of yours.

No matter what spin you try to put on the latest set of results, you're plain wrong - those results and the company's performance in the last 6 months is poor.

Do hope you haven't lost too much dosh - you could always try wonga I suppose.

ramper:

Someone who tries to biggup a stock so as to encourage naive buyers to make the price go up, and the ramper sells at a profit or cuts his losses. AKA scumbags, idiots, con-artists

[simonh88] 06/5/2013 19:04

Give it a rest Hedgehog, you're a boring know-it-all. I'm sure we all get the message that SHFT isn't in a mess and that the price will be back to £1 in a matter of weeks and everyone else is so wrong. The Eurochem business, the dreadful performance as per the results, lack of new contracts and the ongoing issues with the SA mines is just a temporary 'blip' in your eyes.

But wait, what's this? you posted that the house broker has recommended buying the shares!! Are you really that stupid to post something like that as a reason to buy/not to sell?- they're hardly going to say 'sell' are they?

You're turning into another pathetic, desperate ramper like those incompetent crooks Hectorp(ants) & John09 who both came out with drivel after drivel in a vain attempt to stop the rot. They were both made to look very stupid indeed. It's not surprising they don't seem to be around much, but now there appears to be a new ramper on the block :(

[hedgehog 100] 06/5/2013 15:13

Thanks TF.

A falling wedge is a bullish reversal signal:

"The wedge chart pattern signals a reverse of the trend that is currently formed within the wedge itself. Wedges are similar in construction to a symmetrical triangle in that there are two trendlines - support and resistance - which band the price of a security.

The wedge pattern differs in that it is generally a longer-term pattern, usually lasting three to six months. It also has converging trendlines that slant in an either upward or downward direction, which differs from the more uniform trendlines of triangles.

There are two main types of wedges – falling and rising – which differ on the overall slant of the pattern. A falling wedge slopes downward, while a rising wedge slants upward.

Falling Wedge
The falling wedge is a generally bullish pattern signaling that one will likely see the price break upwards through the wedge and move into an uptrend. The trendlines of this pattern converge, with both being slanted in a downward direction as the price is trading in a downtrend."






I identified a similar pattern in PVCS last year when the share price was 7.58p, and it worked a treat (in January the share price hit 13.5p):

Hedgehog 100 2 Nov'12 - 18:58 - 55 of 170
"...In fact the PVCS share price since then looks to me like a variant of a gently falling wedge, which is a bullish reversal signal:..."

[technofiend] 06/5/2013 11:33

buywell2, but doesn't the descending wedge pattern also signify that the price is due to break out to the upside once it fills the wedge?

[buywell2] 06/5/2013 07:27

The market seems not to agree however




Chart ie Mr Market ... decending wedge and previous low looks like it will be revisited

dyor

[hedgehog 100] 05/5/2013 21:51

Chin up, TF.

One dividend has been missed, but SHFT has a policy to pay out 33.33% to 40% of its earnings as dividends (over the entirety of the investment cycle), and the company's second half 2012 eps of 3.28p equates on an annualised basis to eps of 6.56p, and growing nicely.

And oregano reported two days ago that SHFT was out marketing post the results. Presumably the company was giving an indication of current trading, and as the shares rose for three consecutive days at the end of last week those indications should have been good.

SHFT issue a late spring / early summer IMS, which could give us a nice fillip:
19/05/2011 07:00 UKREG Interim Management Statement
01/06/2012 07:00 UKREG AGM & IMS Statement


I also stand by my view that EuroChem's claim against SHFT is without merit.

Here are a few points that support my belief:-

1. An extract from a 2011 EuroChem report:
"In retrospect, the delay on skip shaft #1 validated our initial decision to mitigate sinking risks by using two competing technologies. Building on our experience with freezing technology, we announced the start of active sinking at our second potash project."
The fact that EuroChem decided to proceed with two competing technologies illustrates that they didn't know in advance which one would work best. Indeed they explicity use the phrase "In retrospect". Which undermines any complaint about SHFT not knowing in advance.
Both EuroChem and SHFT knew that the traditional freezing method was used in this area, but specified the grouting method for this project in the contract. I think that EuroChem wanted to try out grouting because it potentially could have been faster.

2. Also in that 2011 report, EuroChem stated that: "Despite the delays in Phase I and the acceleration of Phase II, we have no plans to increase the projected investment." This undermines their claim both for direct costs and foregone profit - profits appear to have been simply delayed rather than lost.

3. Even if an IMR executive did bribe a EuroChem employee, and that can be proven, that's different from saying that SHFT themselves actually did anything wrong.

[technofiend] 05/5/2013 21:14

I'll be honest I don't know if the new information about the Eurochem claim is a good or bad.

I sense it could be good for SHFT for the simple reason that once again Eurochem are launching a $0.8 Billion claim against a related party. This smacks of overkill.

If they tried to claim a sum of 1/20th what they are claiming against SHFT and IMR I'd be inclined to think they weren't over-claiming in order to hide something.

But that is just what my instincts tell me. I could be completely wrong. Hopefully this is all resolved by summer time as we don't even have any more fat dividends to compensate us for holding this share.

[hedgehog 100] 05/5/2013 21:04

Muckshifter,

The end result of what you are saying would be the same as what I am saying. I.e. EuroChem don't push the claim against SHFT.

You apparently don't disagree that EuroChem's claiming of the $800M. against a different company is a sign that they are switching strategy. After all, you can't be awarded the damages twice over against different companies: and if you pursue that route, you are undermining your case by signalling that you don't really know who is responsible.

Your difference to me is that you are saying is that in your opinion EuroChem's reasons for such a change of strategy aren't because they don't think they could win, but because they think that they would win but know they could only get from SHFT a small proportion of what they would be awarded - and they'd have their costs on top.

But the benefits to SHFT - and SHFT shareholders - of such a EuroChem change in strategy are the same either way. The fact that IMR is a large shareholder in SHFT is irrelevant - any award against IMR would be a liability upon that company, and not upon SHFT.

So, if SHFT were guilty, they could count themselves lucky that they would in effect have 'gotten away with it' through being too small!


This news about EuroChem's claiming against IMR is consistent with previous indications of possible early settlement of their claim against SHFT:

1. A Citywire New Year tip of SHFT revealed that SHFT's broker believed that the dispute with EuroChem could be settled early:
"Shaft Sinkers Holdings (SHFT:L) is a shaft sinking and underground excavation company with half its operations in South African platinum. It doesn't get much riskier than that! However, it is going well there now and with an order book of £350 million on a P/E of six for 2012 falling to 3 in 2013, I have bought some, convinced by the broker's highlighting a yield of 11.8% and words of comfort on early settlement of their litigation issue."

'Early' is obviously a relative term because legal disputes do tend to take time, but over four months on I think that settlement at any point is now possible.

2. EuroChem's third quarter results for 2012, of 14 November 2012, said that they were seeking US$800 million, for direct costs and foregone profits, but didn't say that the claim had any merit or supporting legal advice.

EuroChem's final results for 2012, of 7 February 2013, had a paragraph on the claim against SHFT, but it still didn't say the claim had any merit or supporting legal advice, and it now didn't even mention the amount of the claim - almost as if they were backtracking.

Conversely, SHFT has stated that they believe the EuroChem claim against them to be without merit, a position backed by legal advice (see the following extracts):
15/11/2012 07:01 UKREG Shaft Sinkers Holdings Plc Interim Management Statement
"The Company has reviewed the arbitration claims, and after consultation with legal counsel, continues to believe that the claims are without merit, and will contest them robustly."

13/02/2013 07:00 UKREG Shaft Sinkers Holdings Plc Trading Update
"The Company has reviewed the arbitration claims, and after consultation with legal counsel, continues to believe that the claims are without merit, and is contesting them robustly."

29/04/2013 07:01 UKREG Shaft Sinkers Holdings Plc Final Results
"We have reviewed the arbitration claims, and after extensive consultation with legal counsel, continue to believe that the claims are without merit, and are contesting them robustly."



In addition, even if there are some legitimate liabilities from SHFT to EuroChem, then presumably SHFT is allowing for these in the US$15 million net amount that it is claiming from EuroChem. (According to EuroChem's third quarter results for 2012, SHFT's interim claim in October 2012 was for US$45 million.)


I think that this could be the beginning of the end of EuroChem's claim against SHFT.

[muckshifter] 05/5/2013 16:38

Funnily enough, Technofiend's post had me thinking the opposite to you Hedgehog.

My take on it was that Eurochem thought they had shft bang to rights in terms of hiding consultancy reports which predicted that their method was unsuitable, and bribery. If they were extremely confident on that score they would know that they had no chance of getting adequate compensation out of shft - they would bankrupt the company, so if they could tie in the main shareholder they stood a chance of getting something substantial.

Strange how things work out. In an early post here, about 800 posts ago, I explained that one of the things that struck me about shft, when I first looked at them properly in 2011, was the fact that they worked almost exclusively in extremely corrupt countries.

Regards.

[hedgehog 100] 05/5/2013 15:41

Back to the discussion on SHFT, which is the subject of this thread. (Anybody wishing to discuss other subjects please start a separate thread as appropriate and link to it.)


Thanks to TF for this EuroChem update, which is fascinating, and very encouraging:

TechnoFiend 3 May'13 - 18:04 - 1919 of 1921 0 0
"Eurochem update:
"

The article suggests to me that EuroChem have realised that their claim against SHFT is a no-goer, and so are going to go after IMR for the damages instead. If so, the claim against SHFT should be settled beforehand on terms favourable to SHFT.