Shaft Sink Share Discussion Threads

[hedgehog 100] 11/6/2013 21:49

TechnoFiend 10 Jun'13 - 19:10 - 2019 of 2024 0 0
"Excellent stuff Hedgehog, thanks very much for posting.
If the Eurochem claim is settled in advance, I assume that would mean SHFT taking a small hit in order to rid themselves of the thing? ..."


Thanks TF, and Ivyhuang.

I think that a relatively small hit would be the most that would be countenanced by SHFT for early settlement.

Having met SHFT's Chief Financial Officer Chris Hall, I don't think that he's the sort of person to let EuroChem off £9 million that they owe SHFT, especially as his interests are very well-aligned with SHFT's. And nor would I want him to.

But it probably makes sense to offer some sort of token compromise, e.g. on some of SHFT's legal costs, to allow EuroChem to save face, and to let SHFT move on.


But if things do drag on until the end of 2014, then a cash sum award to SHFT then could be similar to SHFT's current market cap. (£15.2M. at 32p), i.e. £9M. plus most of over two years of legal costs. I would hope and expect that a lot of that would be paid out as a special dividend.

And from the end of 2014 onwards, SHFT's legal costs for the EuroChem dispute, which are allowed for in the 2013 and 2014 forecasts of £6M. and £8.4M. of pre-tax profit respectively, should drop out. Which should mean that 2015 pre-tax profit could also be similar to the current maket cap., with continued recovery and growth.

This would be to be expected in view of SHFT's pre-tax profit for the three years prior to 2012:-
2009: £12.46M.;
2010: £16.71M. (incl. exceptional £3.8M.: £12.91M. after this);
2011: £13.51M.


And for more risk-averse investors, the news that EuroChem's $800M. claim against SHFT is ring-fenced should provide the reassurance they need to allow them to buy in. The worse-case scenario for SHFT in the event of EuroChem winning (albeit that doesn't seem at all plausible) would therefore appear to be losing the £9M. that SHFT are claiming, plus their legal costs. But these aren't allowed for in SHFT's current lowly rating anyway, and the rest of the business would continue.


In my opinion SHFT may now perhaps be the safest and best value share on the market - certainly that I am aware of. It is in effect a support services company with an exciting technology angle (i.e. the SightPower shaft scanning technology), but being treated like a risky mining or mining explo. company facing declining commodity prices and funding problems.


Thanks also TF for the useful EuroChem 'stuff'. I agree with your analysis. I didn't notice John Helmer at the AGM, so the timing of his article may just be a coincidence.

[hedgehog 100] 11/6/2013 20:46

HEDGEHOG 100'S 2013 SHFT AGM (7.6.13) REPORT, PART C

[N.B. This is the third and final part of a 'trilogy' being posted over three consecutive evenings.
Parts A & B are exclusively from the formal meeting itself, but Part C also contains some reportage from discussion afterwards (which is identified as such).
This report (all parts) is only of things that were actually said, i.e. no thoughts from myself are added into the report.
I have generally tried to make the wording as 'verbatim' as possible, but to aid clarity I have sometimes substituted "SHFT" for personal pronouns or otherwise changed personal pronouns.
All the statements in the report are either from SHFT management, or (in respect of some of the discussion after the formal meeting) a SHFT advisor, and all the questions are from outside retail shareholders (these questions have been placed in inverted commas to further distinguish them).]


6. WINNING NEW CONTRACTS

Alon Davidov, SHFT CEO, said: "That's all I live for".
Especially as SHFT needs to continue diversifying away from South Africa.
SHFT are awaiting contract news, but it's out of their hands.

There's plenty of work for everyone. There's not too much competition; it's not like construction.


N.B. SECTIONS 7 & 8 ARE REPORTAGE FROM DISCUSSION AFTER THE FORMAL MEETING ITSELF:


7. OPERATIONAL ISSUES WITH PROJECTS

"You often seem to have operational issues with your projects: is this normal?"
Yes. SHFT will drill down a narrow section in advance, but the shaft itself is far wider, therefore until they work downwards they can't be sure what they'll encounter, e.g. an underground stream they may miss. – Which they'd use grouting for.

And SHFT get client variations, e.g. clients may want the shaft deeper or wider.
Last year SHFT had a lot of variations: it's complicated to collect the money.


8. MINING SERVICES; OPEN-CAST/UNDERGROUND MINING

There is no proper mining services sector in London, unlike Australia.
Apart from SHFT there is only really CAPD, but CAPD are riskier, because of their exposure to exploration.
CAPD are also linked to Centamin; Centamin is a good company, but is being hit by legal uncertainties and the gold price.

SHFT's competitors are all subsidiaries of larger companies.
It used to be similar in the oil services sector.
The mining sector tends to follow the oil sector a decade or so later, so maybe these companies will be spun-out.

A Rio Tinto open-cast copper mine in North America collapsed two months ago. You can only go so deep with open-cast mining.
There are opportunities for SHFT in Australia - it's mainly open-cast at the moment.

[buywell2] 11/6/2013 08:15

US$ 30.6m down the swanee




In December 2012 Shaft Sinkers filed a counterclaim against the Group, seeking US$ 44 million without Russian VAT of 18% or US$ 52 million with VAT under the construction contract. In its counterclaim Shaft Sinkers admits that it will give credit, in respect of any sums awarded to it, for a deduction of US$ 30.6 million in respect of advance payments made by the Group.





A better rated stock I think would be SBS

[ivyhuang] 11/6/2013 07:22

Thanks both TF and HH, very informative.

[technofiend] 10/6/2013 23:02

That last paragraph actually makes a lot of sense. I always felt this claim had a strong element of gamesmanship and ulterior motives.

Perhaps Eurochem aren't playing to win the claim outright, they are using the claim as a smokescreen with the intent to stall production at their loss making Potash plant until the market makes the plant economical again?

If true, it is time to double up on SHFT holdings.

[technofiend] 10/6/2013 22:47

Just found this:

Low Prices Force Fertilizer Giant Eurochem Into A Corner

hxxp://www.businessinsider.com/eurochem-suffers-from-low-prices-2013-6

Very detailed. I guess this guy was at the AGM as well?

"It took several more months before it was disclosed publicly that Eurochem was raising the amount of its claim to $800 million to include purported lost profits because of the production delay. This amount appears in a Shaftsinkers report on February 13, this year. Russian courts don't accept this type of damage claim. Whether it will be allowed by the two arbitration tribunals in Zurich and Paris, to which Eurochem has applied, remains to be seen, not least of all because Eurochem claims lost profits when the price of potash is still below the cost of mining and selling it."

"Is there another reason why Melnichenko has stopped one of the mine shafts, and ordered his lawyers to pursue Shaft Sinkers on the technical claim?

Since the potash price is well below where the miners would like it to be, mining less potash is one way of putting a bottom under the price. Eurochem's Russian potash rival Uralkali implemented a production cut in 2012 of 8%. In the first quarter of this year, Uralkali said it is cutting by another 40%. The Russian cuts match those of Canada's Potash Corporation, the largest producer in the world, which has taken 1 million tonnes off the market since last year. For Eurochem to hurry a fresh 2.3 million tonnes from Gremyachinskoye on to the market would be folly, as the price it would fetch would probably be lossmaking. Mining the law courts may look a better bet to Melnichenko, especially if he must pay his lawyers less than the $15 million in overdue invoices from Shaft Sinkers for the work done but not paid for when the contract was halted...."

Read more: hxxp://johnhelmer.net/?p=9129#more-9129#ixzz2VqvwrAXS

[technofiend] 10/6/2013 19:10

Excellent stuff Hedgehog, thanks very much for posting.

If the Eurochem claim is settled in advance, I assume that would mean SHFT taking a small hit in order to rid themselves of the thing?

Unless something arises which makes Eurochem realize their claim is genuinely without merit.

I have a sense that Eurochem's claim was launched so that management at Eurochem can save face and avert responsibility for things going wrong(whether it was their fault or not). Perhaps if SHFT admit some culpablity and pay a token fine Eurochem will be happy and the problem goes away.

[hedgehog 100] 10/6/2013 18:37

HEDGEHOG 100'S 2013 SHFT AGM (7.6.13) REPORT, PART B

[N.B. This is the second part of a 'trilogy' being posted over three consecutive evenings.
Parts A & B are exclusively from the formal meeting itself, but Part C also contains some reportage from discussion afterwards (which will be identified as such).
This report (all parts) is only of things that were actually said, i.e. no thoughts from myself are added into the report.
I have generally tried to make the wording as 'verbatim' as possible, but to aid clarity I have sometimes substituted "SHFT" for personal pronouns or otherwise changed personal pronouns.
All the statements in the report are either from SHFT management, or (in respect of some of the discussion after the formal meeting) a SHFT advisor, and all the questions are from outside retail shareholders (these questions have been placed in inverted commas to further distinguish them).]


3. PLATINUM PROJECTS

Impala Platinum No. 17 Shaft Project: they have stopped work on one of three shafts, but it is not at this stage a material impact on SHFT.
And it is balanced by the fact that the Impala 16 Shaft Project, which had reached the end of contract, has been renewed; SHFT will make an announcement about this renewal if necessary.

The rest of the work, with Anglo Platinum / Royal Bafokeng Resources, and Lonmin, is continuing as expected.
SHFT's platinum clients NEED shafts to get platinum out of the ground to make them money.


4. EMPLOYEE PAY RISES

"Your prospectus suggests that your employee pay rises are passed on to your clients. Is that the case?"
That is still very much the case.
SHFT's contracts allow for costs escalation.
They agree pay rises with clients first, and make sure that they can pass them on.


5. BROKER FORECASTS AND COVERAGE

SHFT are still on-track to meet the forecasts.
No half one / half two split has been published by their broker.
SHFT have engaged with a second broker, but they haven't started coverage yet.
SHFT can't comment upon the level of an interim dividend: it depends upon earnings.

[hedgehog 100] 09/6/2013 21:45

HEDGEHOG 100'S 2013 SHFT AGM (7.6.13) REPORT, PART A

[N.B. This is the first part of a 'trilogy': parts B & C will be posted over the next two evenings.
Parts A & B are exclusively from the formal meeting itself, but Part C also contains some reportage from discussion afterwards (which will be identified as such).
This report (all parts) is only of things that were actually said, i.e. no thoughts from myself are added into the report.
I have generally tried to make the wording as 'verbatim' as possible, but to aid clarity I have sometimes substituted "SHFT" for personal pronouns or otherwise changed personal pronouns.
All the statements in the report are either from SHFT management, or (in respect of some of the discussion after the formal meeting) a SHFT advisor, and all the questions are from outside retail shareholders (these questions have been placed in inverted commas to further distinguish them).]


1. EUROCHEM CLAIM & COUNTERCLAIM

No provision has been made for it in SHFT's accounts, because they believe EuroChem's claim is totally without merit.
"But EuroChem must believe it has merit, to have brought the claim?"
SHFT are restricted on what they can say because of the terms of the arbitration.
But people have different motives for bringing claims.
There are people round the world who like to do this; to hurt other people by doing this.
SHFT's auditors KPMG have had to study the claim very deeply, and say that no provision is required.
EuroChem's claim is against a subsidiary company of SHFT, not against the group as whole; if this subsidiary goes bust, then the rest of the group continues as a going concern.

£9M. is due to SHFT from EuroChem that SHFT haven't written off.
Under contractural obligations, EuroChem DO owe them the money.
SHFT cancelled the contract in April 2012, but after EuroChem suspended operations in December 2011.
SHFT took view that it wasn't in their interests to let the company continue in a suspended contract.

If the dispute isn't resolved in advance, it's likely to be resolved by the end of 2014.
It costs a lot in legal fees; if SHFT win the arbitration claim, they're likely to get a large proportion of those back.
These legal costs are accounted for in full in SHFT's forecasts, as near as they can estimate them.
"How much are these lawyers' fees?"
SHFT can't say how much it's costing in legal costs because of arbitration confidentiality.
Early settlement is always possible, and discussions are ongoing with EuroChem, but they're not very active at the moment.

"EuroChem are also claiming $800 million against International Mineral Resources?"
SHFT are aware of that and don't think that claim has any merit either.
"It seems strange that EuroChem should try to claim the same money against two different companies?"
SHFT agreed.

"What are the implications of EuroChem's claim on the due diligence on Shaft Sinkers by potential clients?"
The Rangold Resources contract was signed after the EuroChem claim was announced.
Rangold studied the claim closely beforehand, because they wouldn't want their project being hit by their shaft contractor going bust and not fulfilling their contract.


2. BANKING FACILITIES

SHFT are still in discussions with Standard Bank; they're trying to get best deal for SHFT; they'll sort it out over next couple of months.
"Do you have a fallback position if you can't reach acceptable terms with Standard Bank?"
SHFT are talking to several other banks, who are showing keen interest; they're trying to get best deal for SHFT.

[hedgehog 100] 08/6/2013 18:08

Muckshifter,

Thank you for asking.

I attended SHFT's AGM yesterday myself, actually. It was a bit of a last-minute decision on my part as I couldn't really afford the time, but I'm now very glad that I did as it was extremely useful.

I was one of four retail shareholders (excluding SHFT insiders obviously) who attended the event. All four of us were very well-informed, and plenty of good questions were asked during the formal meeting itself, with further useful discussion afterwards as we mingled over coffee. Understandably, the EuroChem dispute was top of the questions agenda. And the answers were very enlightening and very satisfactory. (There was no presentation.)

I met both Alon Davidov the CEO and Chris Hall the Chief Financial Officer, and was hugely impressed by both.
At one point when talking about winning new contracts for SHFT, Alon said "That's all I live for". - What greater commitment could you ask for in a CEO?
Both he and Chris exuded energy, dynamism, and capability, and they were both also very likeable, friendly, and down-to-Earth.

A quality CEO-CFO pairing is very important for driving a business forward for long-term growth, and I feel that SHFT's Davidov-Hall partnership has all of the attributes to successfully grow SHFT for many years to come.


I intend to type up and post a report on the AGM over the next few days (possibly in stages), as time permits.

For now though, here is a snippet on the EuroChem dispute:
EuroChem's claim is actually against a subsidiary company of SHFT, not against the group as a whole. If this subsidiary company goes bust, then the rest of the group continues as a going concern.


P.S. Not really. You were apparently confusing "results" with "report", so I made a minor edit to avoid potentially confusing anyone else. Why not make a material point instead of trying to nit-pick?

[muckshifter] 07/6/2013 18:04

Sorry Hedgehog,
but i think you missed this bit from Eurochem's results:

In October 2012 the Group filed a claim against Shaft Sinkers, the contractor involved in the construction of the mining shafts at the Gremaychinskoe potash deposit, seeking US$ 800 million compensation for the direct costs and substantial lost profits arising from the delay in commencing potash production, due to the inability of that construction company to fulfill its contractual obligations. In December 2012 Shaft Sinkers filed a counterclaim against the Group, seeking US$ 44 million without Russian VAT of 18% or US$ 52 million with VAT under the construction contract. In its counterclaim Shaft Sinkers admits that it will give credit, in respect of any sums awarded to it, for a deduction of US$ 30.6 million in respect of advance payments made by the Group. Management believes that this counterclaim is without merit. The above disputes are subject to arbitration as specified in the contract.

I should think they put the penultimate sentence in specially for you Hedgehog!

So did none of the holders here attend the AGM then? We didn't get the expected IMS, so perhaps they gave a presentation and it would be interesting to hear what was said about the dispute in particular.
Regards.
PS. Sneaky bit of editing there after my post Hedgehog!

[hedgehog 100] 06/6/2013 18:35

TechnoFiend,

Interestingly, EuroChem's first quarter results for 2013, of 22 May 2013, don't mention their claim against IMR (International Mineral Resources), although they did include this:
"Corporate developments
In March 2013 "Reverta AS" filed a claim against LLC "NK Severneft" and LLC "Severneft-Urengoy" contesting the real estate purchase and sale transactions made between these two entities in 2011, prior to the acquisition of LLC "Severneft-Urengoy" by the Group. As part of the proceeding, the court has issued an injunctive relief. As this injunction only applies to the disposal of certain property; these proceedings have no bearing on Severneft Urengoy's ongoing activity. We believe that the Group has no relation to the subject of the proceedings between "Reverta AS" and LLC "NK Severneft" and/or any third persons and the claims of "Reverta AS" against assets of our Severneft Urengoy subsidiary to be without merit and are contesting the injunction."
hxxp://www.eurochem.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2013_05_22-EuroChem-Reports-IFRS-Financial-Information-for-Q1-2013.pdf


And indeed EuroChem hasn't actually announced their claim against IMR anywhere else, or mentioned it in quarterly or final results.


Conversely, EuroChem announced their claim against Shaft Sinkers last October, and mentioned it in their third quarter results for 2012 (of 14 November 2012), and their final results for 2012 (of 7 February 2013).


So why the differential treatment by EuroChem regarding their claims against IMR and SHFT? One can only speculate, but it is a fact that whereas IMR is privately-owned and huge, SHFT is publicly-listed and relatively small - and on 5 October 2012, the day that EuroChem's claim against SHFT was announced, SHFT fell from 59p to 41.25p in a single day.

Please note the following very relevant extract from a post by citymohawk on his thread "VALUE INVESTMENT THREAD (VALU)":
citymohawk 10 Apr'13 - 14:39 - 395 of 435
"...The legal case makes this risky but common sense tells me that the claims can't be that credible. Furthermore, remember – these eurchem are Russian dudes so I wouldn't be surprised if a little shorting has been going on here or there...."



The fact that EuroChem's 22nd. May first quarter results don't even mention their claim against IMR makes it seem even less credible in my eyes. And I now wouldn't be at all surprised if EuroChem's claims against both IMR and SHFT are both quietly dropped by them at some point - which will be easier and less embarassing for EuroChem the less publicity that they have given to them.

[technofiend] 06/6/2013 13:25

"May 17 2013

It is reported that claims lodged in the Dutch courts indicate that International Mineral Resources (IMR) has been accused of "blatant fraud, exacerbated by bribery" by EuroChem, a Russian fertilizer group.

Reports state that the case relates to claims that an IMR executive bribed an employee of EuroChem with hundreds of thousands of Russian Rubles to cover up the alleged ineffectiveness of work carried out by its 48% owned subsidiary, Shaft Sinkers. It is further reported that there is another limb to the claim, relating to IMR facilitating the concealment of a report questioning whether Shaft Sinkers' technology could be effective on a $2 billion potash project.

A spokesperson for IMR is reported to have stated that, "The suggestion IMR was somehow involved in the legitimate arrangement [a consultancy agreement] between Shaft Sinkers and a EuroChem employee is a fabrication." A spokesperson for Shaft Sinkers added that they understand that "IMR has instructed lawyers and intends to vigorously defend such proceedings."

The owners of IMR also own a 44% stake in Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation, which faces a separate inquiry into allegations of corruption, as reported under the entry for Kazakhstan in this edition of The Digest."

hxxp://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fcc6621f-0725-4b9b-b163-2434a17b9282

[technofiend] 06/6/2013 13:24

"May 17 2013

It is reported that claims lodged in the Dutch courts indicate that International Mineral Resources (IMR) has been accused of "blatant fraud, exacerbated by bribery" by EuroChem, a Russian fertilizer group.

Reports state that the case relates to claims that an IMR executive bribed an employee of EuroChem with hundreds of thousands of Russian Rubles to cover up the alleged ineffectiveness of work carried out by its 48% owned subsidiary, Shaft Sinkers. It is further reported that there is another limb to the claim, relating to IMR facilitating the concealment of a report questioning whether Shaft Sinkers' technology could be effective on a $2 billion potash project.

A spokesperson for IMR is reported to have stated that, "The suggestion IMR was somehow involved in the legitimate arrangement [a consultancy agreement] between Shaft Sinkers and a EuroChem employee is a fabrication." A spokesperson for Shaft Sinkers added that they understand that "IMR has instructed lawyers and intends to vigorously defend such proceedings."

The owners of IMR also own a 44% stake in Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation, which faces a separate inquiry into allegations of corruption, as reported under the entry for Kazakhstan in this edition of The Digest."

hxxp://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fcc6621f-0725-4b9b-b163-2434a17b9282

[hedgehog 100] 05/6/2013 18:24

Some useful extracts from SHFT's prospectus dated 20th. December 2010:

"The long-term nature of the Group's projects provides considerable visibility over the Group's future revenues and a degree of resilience to short-term movements in commodity prices."

"3.8.3 Market drivers
The Directors believe that global demand for shaft sinking will continue to grow as a result of the depletion of surface and shallow mineral ore bodies, growing environmental pressures and growth in alternative end-market applications.
3.8.3.1 Depletion of surface and shallow mineral ore bodies
As the more easily accessible surface and shallow mineral ore bodies are depleted and the depth of available reserves increases, the Directors believe that demand will increase for shafts capable of providing access to such deeper ore bodies. This effect is already being seen in South Africa, where platinum deposits, previously accessible from the surface through open-pit mining only a few years ago, are now expected to be mined at depths of 2,000 metres from the surface.
3.8.3.2 Growth in alternative end-market applications
Environmental and other considerations may also lead to a rise in end-market applications requiring the sinking of shafts. Examples include the rising demand for hydro-electric power worldwide which could lead to a need for the construction of pressure and surge shafts. Other applications include the construction of deep, purpose-built underground caverns to store nuclear waste.
3.8.3.3 Environmental considerations
As environmental pressures increase, the Directors believe this will lead to additional pressure for underground rather than open-pit mining for shallower reserves despite the possible greater cost of such operations. This is expected to lead to an increase in the number of decline and vertical shafts that will need to be sunk globally."

"4.1.1 Shaft sinking
The Group specialises in sinking particularly deep (over 500 metres) and/or wide (5–20 metre diameter) shafts. Shafts are either vertical or inclined, with a decision made on which type dependent on depth and cost. For mining purposes a vertical shaft is generally more expensive to sink than a decline but becomesm cheaper to operate as the depth increases and the cost of hoisting ore and raw material to the surface undercuts the cost of conveying it by vehicle or belt system. The Directors believe that in South Africa the current break even point normally lies at a depth of around 350 metres but this will vary depending on the type of mineral, the cost of fuel and other factors.
As the depth of a shaft increases, the degree of specialisation required rises. Ambient rock temperature and rock pressure increase and, as such, larger winders are required at the surface to provide the necessary access and facilitate waste rock removal. The predictability of water or gas occurrence from prior core sampling reduces and the techniques necessary to contain them are more likely to be required. The need for rigorous standard operating procedures to ensure safe operation is crucial at any depth but the consequence of error can be more serious at greater depths. Greater precision is also required as the length of a shaft increases and the Group regularly works to tolerances of less than 100 millimetres of linear drift per 1,000 vertical metres."

"4.3 Contracting philosophy
4.3.1 Background
The tendering process for contracts varies between clients but will normally involve at least a two-stage process with binding tenders and contracts awarded on the basis of the second tender. A typical shaft sinking contract specifies the depth and diameter of the shaft, the surface infrastructure required, the expected duration of the project, facilities and services provided as well as shaft infrastructure and funding arrangements. The Group's shaft sinking contracts are typically for the full duration of the project.
The nature of the Group's work is inherently unpredictable, depending on ground conditions and other factors beyond the control either of the Group or the client. Where the Group is not confident of such factors, it seeks to ensure that its contracts contain escalation clauses as well as adjustments for unforeseen or abnormal ground conditions or features so as to pass on any unexpected costs to the client. In addition, both sides typically recognise their mutual inter-dependence and the likelihood that discussions may be required at some stage during a project to resolve any issues which arise."

"4.6.2 Recent developments
Following annual wage negotiations during July and August 2010, the Group and NUM have agreed an effective 9.9 per cent. increase in total cost to the Group for Category 3–8 employees and 6.1 per cent. for Category A employees. This is broadly in line with wage settlements negotiated in other South African industries. These increases will be passed through to the Group's customers in accordance with the terms of individual contracts."

[mega_trader] 05/6/2013 13:47

South African miners talks look set or this month, should settle things. Its in all of their interests to talk.

AGM could reveal a new out of africa contract.

[hedgehog 100] 01/6/2013 21:25

The large stake in the SightPower technology held by Shaft Sinkers, a mining services company, can't but help remind me of oil services company Plexus and its oil services technology:


Masurenguy 21 Apr'08 - 12:57 0 0

"Plexus is an established oil & gas engineering and service business that has developed and patented a proprietary method of engineering for oil and gas field wellheads and connectors, designated POS-GRIP(TM), which involves deforming one tubular member against another to effect gripping and sealing. The company believes that this technology has particular advantages in High Pressure/High Temperature (HP/HT) oil and gas environments for which there is increasing demand throughout the world. The company is seeking to make POS-GRIP a new industry wellhead standard, recognised for its technical performance, safety benefits and time savings...."




And it would be nice if some of the rating and share price performance of Plexus could rub off on SHFT.

POS is a company that actually made less pre-tax profit in its last full year than SHFT did, and had revenues of barely a tenth of SHFT's, but whose current market cap. is over ten times as high as SHFT's at present!
(SHFT currently 35.25p, market cap. £16.74M.)


Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE ratio Mkt Cap (m)
OIL EQUIPMENT SERVICES & DISTRIBUTION 19.7 2.4 2.99 69.398 171.7

Price Price Change [%] Bid Offer Open High Low Volume
207.50 0.0 [0.00] 200.00 215.00 - - - 2,450
Market Cap. [m] Shares In Issue [m] Beta EPS DPS PE Ratio Yield 52-Wks-Range
171.70 82.75 0.58 2.99 0.89 69.40 0.43 298.00 - -





P.S. Perhaps any shareholder attending SHFT's AGM on Friday could please suggest that the company considers updating the market more regularly on SightPower's progress.

[mega_trader] 31/5/2013 12:58

Looks like a new contract well overdue too, should add to the momentum.

[noirua] 31/5/2013 12:04

Interest continues today in SHFT on thoughts of improvements in current years prospects.

[baner] 30/5/2013 15:34

ebt forecast - "market expectations confirmed" in recent update - imply an eps of ca 9p in the current FY. 2014 predictions are for eps of ca 12p. IF delivered, shares should no doubt fly north substantially in the coming years - unless a predator grab the company on the cheap before that.

IF the eurochem debtor is cashed in, SS will be in a net cash position again - no doubt there will be a dividend paid again - 3p/year appear as being a minimum.

[hedgehog 100] 29/5/2013 18:36

The 2,051,556 SHFT shares traded today is the highest daily volume for nearly four months, and equates to about 4.3% of the shares in issue.

Could this have been a final climactic sell-off before recovery? Certainly, huge volume spikes such as this in SHFT chart troughs have previously been a prelude to a good share price advance.

The value traded would have been about £620K. at the mid price of 30.25p, which certainly suggests institutional investors. While there would have been both big selling and big buying, people sell for many reasons, but only tend to buy because they think it's a good investment. And I would think that risk-averse institutional investors would satisfy themselves as to a company's current situation before buying in big time. Which provides reassurance regarding SHFT's position, and is encouraging regarding its prospects.

Technically, there looks to be a firm support level at current levels, as noted recently by ADVFN's charting expert Melfaraj.

And SHFT last hit the low 30s in October 2012 when some work stopped at two of its projects. (At Moab (AngloGold Ashanti), 5.10 - 30.10. And at Saffy (Lonmin), 17.10 - 30.10.) The labour relations situation in South Africa since then has improved greatly.

[hedgehog 100] 29/5/2013 16:48

Two more huge trades late on as well, to give total share volume for the day of over two million (out of just 47.5 million SHFT shares in issue) -

Price +/- Var % Volume Last close
30.25 0.00 +0.00% 2,051,556 30.25 on 28-May-2013

Last 5 tradesMORE REFRESH Time/Date Price Volume Trade value Type
16:19:51 30.25 500,000 151,250.00 O
16:19:36 30.25 507,405 153,490.01 O
15:27:01 30.18 400 120.72 O
11:26:12 30.05 928 278.86 O
11:23:51 30.25 495,000 149,737.50 O

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/summary/company-summary.html?fourWayKey=IM00B690ZP24JEGBXSSQ3

[hedgehog 100] 29/5/2013 15:00

Big volume today! -

Price +/- Var % Volume Last close
30.25 0.00 +0.00% 1,043,751 30.25 on 28-May-2013

Last 5 tradesMORE REFRESH Time/Date Price Volume Trade value Type
11:26:12 30.05 928 278.86 O
11:23:51 30.25 495,000 149,737.50 O
11:23:44 30.25 500,000 151,250.00 O
10:53:37 30.50 5,000 1,525.00 O
08:18:09 30.00 10,000 3,000.00 O

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/summary/company-summary.html?fourWayKey=IM00B690ZP24JEGBXSSQ3