Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
SQN Asset Finance Income Fund LSE:SQN London Ordinary Share GG00BN56JF17 ORD NPV
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 92.20p 91.40p 92.80p - - - 136,177 12:39:43
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Equity Investment Instruments 31.4 -0.5 8.6 10.7 165.02

SQN Share Discussion Threads

Showing 101 to 125 of 125 messages
Chat Pages: 5  4  3  2  1
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
19/1/2018
17:27
No factsheet published today? Normally its the same day as SSIF. Maybe postponed pending announcement in US?
makinbuks
15/1/2018
08:24
Surely they have to take a prudent approach - it'll be in one of the FRS's - and it needn't signal to the defaulters what level of recovery they're expecting, since it's a figure derived from a number of loans in default. ie we all agree 100% recovery is unlikely, but hey, still possible. The prudent approach in the accounts (by which I mean how it relates to the NAV) is to estimate the probabilities. So there might be eg a 10% chance of getting 100% back on all the loans, and a very high chance of getting eg at least 50% back. What there clearly isn't is a 100% chance of getting 100% back. So they should have provided for eg a 25% hit on the defaulted loans, as a group. That's not saying they expect only 75% back on any one loan. It's not even saying 75% as either minimum or maximum. But what it is doing is taking a prudent approach to the NAV by taking a best guess, such that anyone coming fresh to SQN can see a NAV that has a basis in reality. All IMO. Can see it being done at RDL, with a steady increase in provisions for the Princeton fiasco as the fiasco unfolds.
spectoacc
15/1/2018
08:08
Its a bit complicated. They will get recovery of some sort because they have charge over the equipment. If they were to write that down then it might hamper any discussions re if they had to dispose of the assets. Not as straightforward as some of you are arguing.
horndean eagle
12/1/2018
22:31
Horndean In either of the scenarios you suggest do you think SQN will get 100% recovery? Of course they will not. So why is the company not writing this asset down already?
belgraviaboy
12/1/2018
20:31
The report was actually positive for SQN. They have reported it accurately. I imagine Trump comes in harsher than what the ITC recommended. They then have options re what to do. Either sell the company on to an overseas buyer or re-start production.
horndean eagle
12/1/2018
18:00
Was it likely that a company that has taken no provision for this debt would regard this as anything other than good news? Having worked within commercial lending, this would almost certainly have had a 100% provision (i.e. been valued at zero) much earlier. This company's failure to adequetly value its portfolio is the biggest reason not to invest. What are the Snoozebox assets worth? Highly unlikely to be 100% recovery there either.
belgraviaboy
12/1/2018
17:30
They seem to have put a very positive spin on the government delaying the report. Maybe they are in the know. Certainly you would expect this "America first" whitehouse to act in a protectionist manner but will that actually mean the business restarts and generates enough cash to repay in full?
makinbuks
07/12/2017
13:45
RDL is something like 40% down in a year and the discount looks to be around 30% currently. I guess that's not helping sentiment in the sector although to be fair they are very different to SQN
makinbuks
06/12/2017
06:49
@Horndean - inclined to agree, though Suniva also relies on unreliable political moves. RDL's Princeton is a shocker - supposedly been in arbitration since 20th Nov but whole thing looks a massive con. Still - RDL's discount would seem to reflect it being zero.
spectoacc
05/12/2017
19:51
There is a little sympathy re Suniva. When they invested Suniva was doing ok. Solar prices then crashed. The market cap of the parent company that provided a guarantee on the Suniva loan was over £1b. Its now worth about £170m. Therefore difficult to enforce. They still have the charge over assets which must be worth something. If they can get 50% recovery or so I think sentiment might change. Unlike RDL (Dodgy unauthorised loans) and the p2p I think market will be more forgiving about the issues they have had
horndean eagle
05/12/2017
15:55
Agreed re provisioning - not sure how they can get away with that. To be fair - they may yet recover quite a bit of capital - I guess that's the whole point of "asset-backed". But it's an unknown and as you say, isn't in the NAV.
spectoacc
05/12/2017
14:42
Yes I agree the rate is high in these low interest rate times which is an indication of the level of risk. And indeed the managers value is in having a strong credit process that minimizes bad deals in the first place and then being fleet of foot and flexible enough to create a solution for those that beat the system. What I question is their continuing reporting of NAV without any provision for these known issues and a general reserve for those they don't know of but experience says will be there. I hadn't picked up on the ship issue. Is that resolved?
makinbuks
05/12/2017
09:50
I'd agree that 9% allows for some losses/recovery costs. But IMO too many loans are going bad in boom times. Only time will tell tho.
spectoacc
05/12/2017
09:44
They are putting the loans out there at c9%. What is the right price for asset backed finance. If they are skilled then 9% looks great. If they aren’t then less great, but that is probably more a function of asset/project selection than rate. All about the competence of the team here and the repositioning of snoozebox is a key test. If I remember rightly there is also a problematic shipping loan where the asset is being sold and full recovery expected. Again the proof in actually achieving this is another good test of the model. The level of problematic loans is of concern, but at 9+% they are always going to be relatively risky and the question is how they perform on the ones that have problems which is key. As yet this is unproven.
scburbs
05/12/2017
07:24
And I can't help making the point I've made many times above - this is a raging bull market, and yet the business model is still looking shaky? What will it look like in the next recession, let alone credit crunch, let alone all-out crash.. (Or put another way - govnts rescue banks, but they don't rescue asset finance investment trusts. Are we being paid enough to take that risk?).
spectoacc
04/12/2017
17:31
Why did Snoozebox fail? I have no idea but clearly the model didn't work. What would a new operator of the assets do differently? I'm certainly not convinced they'll get out without a write down. On Suniva, yes I can imagine there are a lot of hedge funds would take that on for 20p in the £1 but that would represent a significant hit to NAV not to mention the unpaid interest and costs incurred. You do begin to wonder now that there have been two problem deals how good the rest of the book is. I've noticed quite a few of the challenger banks reducing their exposure to this area Still watching with interest
makinbuks
01/12/2017
20:04
SQN likely to recover value in both cases. Their debt is secured on assets. What they are worth is a different matter. Chatter online that parties have approached them on Suniva. Mentioned offers too low but if they could get par or even between 50-75% they would probably bite their hands off. Snoozebox should be decent recovery as they own the units and other parties likely to be interested.
horndean eagle
01/12/2017
16:06
I'm assuming Snoozebox is the company that provides temporary hotel like accommodation at events like Silverstone? Presumably the loans are secured on the portacabin like structures. Do we know the value that is at stake here? On the Solar side I would imagine the protectionists currently occupying the Whitehouse will look favourably on the request for protection but whether they can create enough value with that protection to repay all the loan, interest and recover their costs seems unlikely. Unless I can quantify the Snoozebox value I won't be investing
makinbuks
10/11/2017
15:09
SQN has two bad loans now - solar and Snoozebox. Got to be about 9p of NAV plus I can't see them being able to maintain the dividend.
belgraviaboy
10/11/2017
14:41
Ranger Direct Losses (or is it Lending). Is on a c.5% NAV discount if you write off its bad loan. SQN has a solar bad loan on the books it hasn't taken a write-down for yet.
spectoacc
10/11/2017
13:41
What is rdl ? Tia
biggcl
10/11/2017
10:46
Looks to be about another £8m? Not sure what the 'assets' will be worth, if anything?
belgraviaboy
09/11/2017
17:32
Thank goodness I sold out of this when still close to par, albeit at minor loss. I can see further bad news on this one, and with the likes of RDL on a 30% discount to nav, these type of funds can fall a long way.
riverman77
09/11/2017
15:58
They are going to lose money on Snoozebox as well? You could not make this up!! Bargepole
belgraviaboy
08/11/2017
16:09
Again the question raises its head - how will SQN (& its ilk) fair in the next recession? Financial crisis? Depression? Because none of them seem to be doing that well in boom times.
spectoacc
Chat Pages: 5  4  3  2  1
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:42 V: D:20180122 14:16:16