Shaft Sink Share Discussion Threads

[buywell2] 28/5/2013 17:04

Oversold ? .... technicals say no


SHFT TA is now catastrophic with ZERO bullish events and the closest bearish event being 18p

Highlights
Technical Events
0 bullish
9 bearish - closest target 14.00-18.00

EVENT DATE.....EVENT....................................OPPORTUNITY TYPE

24 May 2013 Intermediate-term KST.............. Intermediate-Term Bearish
24 May 2013 MACDW ................................Intermediate-Term Bearish
03 May 2013 Gap Down W.............................. Other
03 May 2013 Price X's Moving Av(21-week)W ..Intermediate-Term Bearish
01 May 2013 Short-term KST.................. Short-Term Bearish
29 Apr 2013 Price X's Moving Av(50-day) ........Intermediate-Term Bearish
29 Apr 2013 Symmetrical Cont'n Triangle.... (Bearish) Long-Term Bearish
19 Apr 2013 3ple Moving Av Xover(4wk 9wk 18wk)W Intermediate-Term Bearish
10 Sep 2012 Descending Continuation Triangle........... Long-Term Bearish
30 Aug 2012 Symmetrical Cont'n Triangle...... (Bearish)Long-Term Bearish

[mega_trader] 28/5/2013 14:32

Looks technically oversold here now, some news that should help ...

S. Africa Won't Allow Mine Anarchy in Pay Talks, Shabangu Says

"Shabangu and Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan agreed on an action plan with mining executives after a May 24 meeting as part of efforts to "restore calm and confidence" in the industry, she told lawmakers in parliament in Cape Town today."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-28/s-dot-africa-won-t-allow-mine-anarchy-in-pay-talks-shabangu-says

[wylecoyote] 28/5/2013 12:43

buywell,

Thank you. I like people who do their research rather than pick out facts and figures to support their own view. Since they have listed, the directors have benefitted from a massive IPO bonus(one director left as soon as the qualifying period ended). In spite of the rediculous valuation, the directors never had the confidence to invest substantially, even when the yield was in 8-9% territory. Since listing they have not generated anything of any interest and the performance since has been dire...

[buywell2] 28/5/2013 09:43

Keep on shifting Hedgehogs muck

.... I also try to save the less gifted on advfn

it is not easy as pink spectacles abound and hope springs eternal rather than facts and numbers



Another thing advfn newbes might like to know

Directors of this company , that has just had to stop paying a dividend as their market and margins deteriorate, ..... have not stopped paying themselves HUGE salaries that companies many times bigger dont even get

3 of them pay themselves a total of £1.5 million

http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Directors-and-dealings?s=SHFT:LSE


Plus the company has now gone into a NET DEBT position, from the finals in april

Net debt of GBP2.1 million (2011: net cash GBP6.1 million)



From the latest update

Financial position

As at 31 March 2013 the Group had gross cash of around £3 million and interest bearing debt of around £10 million. To date the major portion of outstanding variation orders from 2012 have been collected with approximately £3 million remaining to be collected. Management anticipates this should be fully collected by the end of the first half. Discussions with Standard Bank are ongoing about a renewal of the Group's banking facilities.

So I make that net debt of £7 million then

[john09] 28/5/2013 09:22

Double yawn

[muckshifter] 27/5/2013 19:27

Hedgehog, misquoting and attempting to twist as usual in post 1992:-

"'Muck-smearer' last week 'interpreted' SHFT's 17/05/2013 IMS as suggesting that SHFT was at risk of going bust! A fairly unique interpretation, as SHFT's share price ROSE on the day of the IMS.

And it seems rather silly to even address that smear, considering that SHFT has recently announced that it made £3.4M. of pre-tax profit in 2012, and that the IMS revealed that the company is well on course to meet the 2013 forecast - which is for a whopping increase to £6M. pre-tax profit ... with £8.4M. forecasted for next year.

And in fact, the sentence in the IMS that excited 'Muck-smearer's' imagination so much was simply this: "Discussions with Standard Bank are ongoing about a renewal of the Group's banking facilities." I.e. no statement that the company was running out of money, had breached banking covenants, of that there was any problem."

Whereas my points were, firstly that shft had received £53m in payments other than normal monthly income from contracts since last August but net debt had increased, which didn't seem good. I posted this in post 1957.

"The shuffling of cash /costs/ liabilities etc. related to Eurochem is also difficult to understand. But, assuming the shft "claim" of £15m against Eurochem represents the full outstanding cost, with profit added, for the Eurochem work after unilaterally taking the advance payment as part payment of outstanding amounts (it was a loan supposed to be deducted progressively as the job was done), the debt position over the last year looks quite dangerous. They have the £15m booked against Euro as an unpaid debt which presumably was incurred in or mostly well before the first half of 2012 , as opposed to £30m of advanced payments on new jobs between August 12 and year end and £23m of "claims" paid since November 12, but net debt is still shown as £7m on 17th May 13 (although I don't think that takes into account the escrow £1.9 – which if anything makes it worse)."

And this, which you will notice quotes an entirely different sentence from the AR from the one Hedgehog "selects" and attributes to me:

"The overall impression I get from the accounts reinforces my long stated opinion that it is now a matter of survival for shft. This extract from the year end accounts seems to indicate that without new bank arrangements shft are likely to breach covenants at end of June: "In line with the circumstances during the current financial year the Group will likely require the continued support of its bankers with regard to relaxation of covenant requirements should renegotiation of facilities not be finalised prior to the next measurement date. Based on experience to date, Management have concluded that this is likely."
Regards.

[muckshifter] 27/5/2013 19:03

Hedghog, hedging his bets here in post 1987, can't make up his mind whether I'm projecting my own failings onto others, or trying to buy shft shares cheaply I believe he infers, when he posts his usual poisonous drivel aimed at me:

"I'm always very suspicious of those that do engage in such bilious attacks, because I get the feeling that they are projecting their own failings onto other people or groups.


With regard to Muckshifter specifically, I have recently noticed this 2006 answer from him on another website: \"\"If you must own just one share and had to place all your savings in one basket until your retirement date which company would you select?\"
Hardman."
In the same post, he claims that his best ever investment was a turnaround play.

I.e. Muckshifter likes resource(-related) companies (of which SHFT is one), and he likes turnaround plays (of which SHFT is also one).

So it really isn't too difficult to work out what his interest in Shaft Sinkers is."


Well it must be the former then, because I have explained several times here and elsewhere that I would be highly unlikely to ever buy shft shares because of the inherently extremely risky nature of their part of the heavy civils industry, regardless of other considerations. He regularly goes on about shft being a long established successful company with a proud history, ignoring, as usual, reality.
As I've read lots of documents concerning shft in my original look into them, quite a while ago now, I'll explain from my old notes why I wouldn't invest in them then, or now.

Shft, were a subsidiary of Anglo American, the big mining conglomerate and after owning them for 40 years, they were sold to a fund for about £2.5 million in 2002, so it doesn't look like much of a company at that time, and it certainly hadn't had to stand on its own feet financially up to then.

The "fund" owned them for about five years and then sold them for an undisclosed sum to, effectively, IMR and friends in 2007. The shft results for the preceding year were turnover £40m, loss £1.1m, I believe, so I don't suppose the price was much more than the first sale.

The next year, this little company, with a previous turnover of £40m, suddenly were awarded two large international contracts, on just one of which, Eurochem, the annual turnover looked likely to be as big as their previous yearly t/o. In the major contracts world in which I've spent my working life that looks to me like a unique event. Normally clients are very wary of awarding a contract worth annually more than about 15% of your latest t/o. But of course, at that time shft were effectively still a subsidiary, of IMR. Eurochem are of course engaging shft in a major arbitration, and IMR in a court action alleging corruption, and it has always been my belief that shft & IMR did whatever they did, together.

Within two years the flotation came. Although the Eurochem job was the only contract given a specific mention in the flotation risk register, the brown stuff had clearly not hit the fan by then, but it must have been visible in the distance. Up to that time, the Eurochem contract would have been a hell of a moneyspinner, as it was cost plus and they were clearly using huge, and probably unexpected, amounts of cement etc in efforts to overcome water. A well timed flotation then.

Since flotation the bad news has kept coming, following fairly consistently the pattern of events that commonly befall "underground" companies, that I outlined in my first post about shft, before looking at them properly, in late 2011. That post, I think, made my views clear on the probable future of shft as I saw it. And the shares have gone from about 150 pence to the current 35 ish.

So good luck to those who hold knowing the risks, but I won't be joining you, and be careful to those who know little about this industry.
Regards.

[muckshifter] 27/5/2013 18:43

OK hedgehog, guilty again, I used the word mining instead of contract, not that it makes much difference - so did you select and post that extract knowing it was drivel, or not? As usual, I see that you don't accept that your positive spin comes from you, it's always from someone else isn't it.
Regards.

[hedgehog 100] 27/5/2013 17:29

Noirua 17 May'13 - 09:05 - 37 of 42 0 0
"Directors appear to have covered all the contracts in basic terms. Looks very marginally bullish ..."


Noirua,

I agree. At an operational level, things in the IMS look more positive than negative. And it was good to see that half two is expected to be particularly good, as that would equate to a third consecutive half-year of improvement, which is what you hope for in a turnaround.

Here are some operational extracts that look particularly positive:
"The Karee 3 shaft and ore development project has been converted to an Agreed Target Cost contract.The new contract, which has commenced in the second quarter provides for a reduced risk profile and will result in improved profitability for the balance of the year.
At AngloGold Ashanti's Moab Khotsong project, work continues to progress well with revenues and margins ahead of management's expectations. Costs associated with the previous strike action were recovered in line with the terms of the contract.
... we have successfully converted the Lonmin's Karee 3 project from a loss making project to a profitable one."


But what is particularly exciting short-term is that news on the award of contracts appears to be imminent:
"The Group continues to pursue new projects and is awaiting client adjudication on several tenders and proposals in South Africa, Europe and FSU."


Imminent contract success would certainly be consistent with the frequency of such announcements since the start of last year:

20/11/2012 07:09 UKREG Shaft Sinkers Holdings Plc Additional Work Awarded - Afplats
"...The additional work commences immediately, is scheduled to be completed in May 2013, and has a total value of GBP7 million...."


12/11/2012 07:05 UKREG Shaft Sinkers Holdings Plc New Kibali Gold Mine Contract
"... The combined mobilisation and vertical shaft contracts have an estimated total value of GBP82.3 million...."


30/10/2012 15:18 UKREG Shaft Sinkers Holdings Plc Additional Work Awarded
"...At 17 Shaft the Company will carry out additional underground development work to increase the excavation size of the mining levels including additional support and construction requirements, these works combined with additional costs, add GBP10.35 million to the order book...."


08/05/2012 07:01 UKREG Re Contract
"...The US Dollar based contract, which commences immediately, is scheduled to be completed in 2017. The contract is in line with management expectations for new works to be secured during the year.
After taking into consideration the total revenue from this contract award the Company's order book now stands at GBP401 million...."


11/04/2012 07:00 UKREG Contract Award
"...The contract commences immediately and is scheduled to be completed in September 2012 with a total value of GBP11.05 million (R134.7 million)...."


28/03/2012 07:00 UKREG Contract Award
"...The contract is scheduled to be completed in June 2013 with a total value of GBP28.6 million (R348.2 million).
The Company is also pleased to announce the award of the shaft services contract for the Impala 16 ventilation shaft, scheduled to be completed in June 2013, which has a total value of GBP12.5 million (R148 million).
Finally, the Group has also been awarded an amendment to the existing contract for additional work in the equipping of the Impala 16 main shaft for a total value of GBP6.7 million (R81.9 million)...."



And indeed consistent with these extracts from SHFT's final results presentation:

" Target is 8-10 new contracts over five years
• 1-2 major new contracts this year"

"Typical shaft sinking project
Tendering process
Pre-qualification (1 month)
Tender process (5 months)
Contract negotiation(3 months)"

[hedgehog 100] 27/5/2013 16:51

'Muck-smearer' last week 'interpreted' SHFT's 17/05/2013 IMS as suggesting that SHFT was at risk of going bust! A fairly unique interpretation, as SHFT's share price ROSE on the day of the IMS.

And it seems rather silly to even address that smear, considering that SHFT has recently announced that it made £3.4M. of pre-tax profit in 2012, and that the IMS revealed that the company is well on course to meet the 2013 forecast - which is for a whopping increase to £6M. pre-tax profit ... with £8.4M. forecasted for next year.

And in fact, the sentence in the IMS that excited 'Muck-smearer's' imagination so much was simply this: "Discussions with Standard Bank are ongoing about a renewal of the Group's banking facilities." I.e. no statement that the company was running out of money, had breached banking covenants, of that there was any problem.

The reality is, the statement revealed that SHFT had gross cash of about £3M., with about £3M. coming in. That would equate to net debt of about £4M.
That for a company with £192.5M. of revenues in 2012: i.e. barely 2 per cent of turnover.

To put that in perspective, that would be similar to net debt of £40K. for a company with turnover of about £2M.
Or debt of about £400 for someone on a salary of about £20K.

And Shaft Sinkers is a substantial, highly-profitable, and long-established company with about 7,500 employees, long-term contracts with secure revenue streams, a good turnaround now well underway as proven by last month's results, and fantastic growth prospects.

In short, the sort of company that banks would be only to keen to do business with - if anything, competing to do so.
(It is also 48% owned by mega-wealthy Russian oligarchs.)


But although Shaft Sinkers is relatively big, its market cap. is relatively small (just £14.37 million at 30.25p), and its shares are relatively illiquid. And in a market currently nervous of small mining stocks, even a support services stock like SHFT that is mining-related can be hit noticeably (even if just temporarily) by a determined and articulate smear-merchant scaring a few weak retail holders.

But once that market realises that the 'Mucksmearer'-induced mini-panic last week was simply a case of a few sheep being fleeced by one of ADVFN's arch confidence posters, then the price should return swiftly back to the mid 30s where it was before.


Compare SHFT to Lamprell. In 2012 LAMP reported pre-tax losses of US$110.5M., but its share price has still recovered to 152.5p, about two and a half times its Autumn 2012 low.
So if SHFT in 2012, when it was hit by some serious problems beyond its control, still made pre-tax profits of £3.4M., then that is surely a testament to the quality of the company and its management.
And with SHFT's operational recovery now well underway, it is just a question of time before the share price follows suit.

[hedgehog 100] 27/5/2013 14:32

Do the lies and deceit from 'Muck-smearer' and co. never stop?


Six days ago, cocomac0 posted this reasoned and intelligent post here:

cocomac0 21 May'13 - 19:22 - 1961 of 1990 1 1
"Yep......... totally fed up of muckshifters comments now, there's absolutely no way I believe him when he says he has no financial investment in the company. He must spend hours and hours on this company and it just is not credible what he says about no financial interest, only personal interest.
He's damaging to the share price of a company I am invested in, and it's made all the worse for the way he's tactically negative about it, not too much at once, also maybe taking a slightly different tone at the end of a post to soften the negativity, and to disguise it a little. He's also a bit of a smartypants who knows he knows more than almost anyone in the BB about mining, he uses this to his advantage by going into details nobody really understands to give his opinions more weight, and to make it hard for anyone to take on his arguements with any real authority.
Come on mate........ put your cards on the table and show your true colours, or just get lost please. Stop bashing a share price I'm invested in. Your comments regarding this year being a question of survival are really over egging it.
Cheers. Peace out."


In a typically duplicitous and dishonest reply, 'Muck-smearer' made the following statement:

muckshifter 22 May'13 - 19:29 - 1971 of 1990 0 0
"... I'm surprised that you think my posts have the slightest influence on the share price – I know it's a regular claim here on advfn, but imho, anyone who thinks they can really influence a share price by posts is completely wrong. ..."


Since then, I have noticed from the same muckshifter on a different website in an answer to 'question 6':

"6. "What, who or which event has been the biggest negative to investing for you personally?"
Reading some of the boards on ADVFN, and realising that plenty of investors, who collectively influence share prices in the short term ..."


What does the word "con" in the term 'con man' mean?: it means of course "confidence".

Hence 'Muck-smearer's' relentless 'trust me - I'm a miner' undertones or more that permeate his postings, to try to buttress his bashing with a credibility that it would otherwise lack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick

[simonh88] 26/5/2013 17:43

Hedgehog, you really are an imbecile! People only have to look at the latest results to realize that SHFT is a disaster of a company, run by clueless fools.

Some people can't or won't see the wood for the trees and Hedgehog is totally biased, can not be trusted with anything he says regarding SHFT and is just looking to cut his losses. Next stop 25p

[hedgehog 100] 26/5/2013 15:46

Honest investors might have a 'watch-&-wait' list.

Dishonest investors, on the other hand, would instead have a 'troll-&-wait' list.


For an example from the first type of list, I posted this last weekend on a CDC thread:

Hedgehog 100 18 May'13 - 18:32 - 862 of 962 1 0 edit
"I've bought into CDC this week.
It's been on my 'watch-&-wait' list for a while, since it was featured in February in an "Investors Chronicle" list of cash-rich AIM mining sector companies: ...
I had a target mid price of about 2p ...
I was able to buy in at not much more that 2p, which I think is a decent price. ... "


I was fortunate with my timing, as CDC is now 2.75p, having risen 0.5p over the last four trading day.

But the real point of this example is that my 18 May post was my first on the company.

I.e. I did not aggressively bash-deramp-smear-troll the company from February to May, I was just happy to let events pan out.


Partly that's because I set myself very high moral standards (unlike some others on ADVFN).

But it's also because I don't have the sort of bile, negativity, and spite within my soul to relentlessly and spitefully attack something/someone else. And I'm glad about that, because I don't think you can be a very happy soul if you do. (Legitimate and reasonably-expressed criticisms are different of course.)

I'm always very suspicious of those that do engage in such bilious attacks, because I get the feeling that they are projecting their own failings onto other people or groups.


With regard to Muckshifter specifically, I have recently noticed this 2006 answer from him on another website: ""If you must own just one share and had to place all your savings in one basket until your retirement date which company would you select?"
Hardman."
In the same post, he claims that his best ever investment was a turnaround play.

I.e. Muckshifter likes resource(-related) companies (of which SHFT is one), and he likes turnaround plays (of which SHFT is also one).

So it really isn't too difficult to work out what his interest in Shaft Sinkers is.


And yet he resolutely denies such investment interest, despite what must be the vast amount of time he has expended on posting on SHFT boards.

This is important, because it means that he isn't being honest about his motives (unlike for example WyleCoyote). And this isn't a 'white lie': it's done to try to increase his credibility. So if he can be dishonest about that, he can be dishonest about other things.


His other tactic is the relentless 'trust me - I'm a miner' undertones or more that permeate his postings, to try to buttress his bashing with a credibility that it would otherwise lack. But in my long experience, real experts with no agenda tend to wear their knowledge lightly, not go boasting about it and belittling others on that basis.


But the real irony is this: Muckshifter DOES NOT like it when posters bash one of his own companies, referring to them as "trolls", or more recently "nutters".
(muckshifter 23 May'13 - 08:16 - 1976 of 1986
"...PPS. No they didn't - just had a look at Iofina and it looks like nearly all the sensible people have abandoned the board to the nutters.")
And yet he complains robustly about the (quite justified and reasonable) pejorative questioning and views regarding his own incessant and extreme bashing of SHFT.

This guy must be the King Hypocrite of ADVFN.


Rest assured (in my opinion), Muckshifter cannot be relied upon to give an honest view on anything to do with Shaft Sinkers, be it its operational activities, its finances, or the EuroChem case.

[wylecoyote] 24/5/2013 21:09

Simonh88, haven't heard from you either... Still I was thinking the same thing....l;-)

[hectorp] 24/5/2013 13:06

Bicker, bicker. SHFT is not doing well as the implications of the cost of mining is affecting miner sentiment.

[hectorp] 24/5/2013 13:02

Platinum miners are on a hiding to nothing - which does sadly make SHFT a poor investment now.
Amplats are losing $300 an ounce on each ounce produced.
Hence, there will be a growing shortage of plat produced.
PLAT itself looks a good long play.