"Further to the announcement made on 28 October 2024, the Company expects to announce further details regarding the Fundraising on 11 November 2024."
well they have just under an hour left..... |
No it'll come. |
It's 11th November today. Am I missing something? |
SRT has committed to issuing further details of the fund raise on 11 November. I am expecting this is when we will know how to apply for the 35p shares |
Some at 40p and keep half for 30p because if you buy all at 40p, sods law kicks in. |
I did as you suggested C5 and contacted Cavendish FAO J F Adams yesterday. Gave details of our holdings and where located. Have not had any response. Not contactable this afternoon so looks like open market is only option. Hardly satisfactory tbh. |
I suspect that 35p shares will primarily be allocated to larger shareholders because of time and administration limitations. If you have not been contacted yet your best option for locking in might be to access shares in the open market.
Kuwait coastguard is pushing hard. First milestone might be over the line by year end? Kuwait Project Manager might already be in location? |
I suspect that 35p shares will primarily be allocated to larger shareholders because of time and administration limitations. If you have not been contacted yet your best option for locking in might be to access shares in the open market.
Kuwait coastguard is pushing hard. First milestone might be over the line by year end? Kuwait Project Manager might already be in location? |
The funding for these vessels will come from official development assistance provided by the French government. This decision highlights the growing defence collaboration between the Philippines and France, which is increasingly focused on addressing maritime security in the region. The National Economic and Development Authority Board, led by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., has approved this critical purchase.
Yes, but will they know where to send them, without some kind of Maritime Domain Awareness system ?
Shome mishtake, Shirley!
GLA |
Hope the next problem isn't a skills shortage. |
No bathbuoy they have been looking for a while. I still don't know why they might need one. |
Program Manager Philippines posted on the website - is this new? |
Thanks YY. They must have had some initial success, as they are now hiring a bunch of project admin people, accountants, compliance etc, to be based in the UK. |
LaValmy, that is what I was told yesterday by Cavendish but I think the process of a book build ordering process has already started, so I suppose it could end this week or next. |
YumYum
I think you mentioned that the placing would be next week. Is that so? |
Correction to my previous post. ISA shares can qualify I now understand. Cavendish making a good effort. |
others may find this link useful in contacting Cavendish. |
AE and others. If you are looking for shares at 35 p and your holdings are in SIPP or ISA, where you cannot fund purchase but have cash elsewhere, I suggest that you write to Cavendish FAO of Jonny Franklin-Adams and explain your total holding and where the cash will be available. He will probably be grateful. |
I suppose the geopolitical situation has become murkier still, which I imagine will have an impact on SRT in certain countries.
Expecting the US to pay for anything in the Philippines would seem to be out. Tariffs against China may well be balanced by a laissez-faire attitude on the nine-dash-line, except if it impinges on chip supply from Taiwan - who may have to pay up for protection.
Longer term, I see some decoupling by traditional US allies both in Europe and Asia as they see the need to reinvigorate their own capabilities. That could bode well for SRT in Asia. But conversely, some Asian countries might bow to the inevitable and seek accomodation with China, again the Philippines if a Duterte comes back. Indonesia ploughs its own furrow but might become more active doing so. Vietnam even more so.
As for the ME, well anyone's guess. |
None taken. Trusts are settled by individuals, so most of the tax rules are based upon personal tax rules. As I said you need to look at the rules of the structure, which you have done for trusts. There is no mention of aim to be found under pension legislation because there is no exemption. Pension rules apply to the wrapper - what is underneath the wrapper is irrelevant - it's either an allowable asset or it's not. Anyway I understand you logic, empathise with your frustration and wish you well in your continued investigations. |
 hp: With no disrespect, no the AIM [IHT] rules are not for individuals alone, they also apply to trusts. As a retired tax practitioner, I write from professional knowledge and experience as well as personal. As has been pointed out, pension funds are typically structured as trusts, and certainly have more in common generally with trusts than with limited companies.
Time will tell, but I suspect you're mistaken in suggesting the new AIM/IHT rules won't apply to pension funds. If they did, I firmly believe it would be manifestly inequitable and unjust and that there would be a total outcry. And in any case I can find absolutely no hard evidence that the Government supports your view. If there is any, please show me.
However, by way of belt and braces, I will pick the brains of a friend who is a senior private client partner in a leading firm of accountants. Watch this space.
Edit: I found this -
"Periodic charges
Trustees will have to satisfy the two year ownership period on any business assets within the trust before they qualify for relief. Business relief reduces the value of the business property for the purpose of the ten yearly periodic charge calculation. Therefore, if the only assets in the trust at the ten year anniversary are assets which qualify for 100% business relief, there will be no periodic charge."
Further edit, this time from the horse's mouth: |
pidazzle
I don't want to go too far with this, but if you look at 2.10 in the document you linked you can see the current position, i.e. executors pay the IHT and can recover it from the beneficiary who may not have the funds so may have to draw down on the pension thereby creating an income tax liability for themselves. The paper seems to suggest that they will be doing them a favour by getting the tax directly from the pension/SIPP rather than any unfairness in the potential dual IHT/IT charges. That would seem to be the limit of their generosity. The Treasury will be keen to point out that the funds in a SIPP will have entered with a tax credit (20-40%) rolled up without any tax and that a large portion of the value is due to those tax breaks. And given that the intention was to enable people to provide for their own old age, I wouldn't be surprised if they do not try to go back towards a use-it-or-lose-it model. So I doubt if any concession will be given to any assets held in a SIPP. |
It's what I've done for the last 30 years. You're trying to apply personal tax rules to a pension scheme. Take the example of a private limited company where I am the 100% shareholder. The company doesn't trade, and only holds investments. If it owned, say, 10% in AIM shares there was, and remains, no exemption from IHT for any aim shares owned. The whole investment company would be assessed for IHT purposes.You need to look at the structure and then the tax rules that apply to that Structure.The AIM rules you refer to are for individuals and individuals alone. |
hp #15137 - Your source please? I stand to be corrected, but I have searched through the Govt consultation document
and can find no mention of what you suggest. Furthermore, and obviously, your suggestion would result in pension funds being not merely put on a level footing with the deceased beneficiary, but positively worse off: that would be astonishing. |
Edit: Placing looks like next week and somehow ISA holding seems actually does count. |
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
Hot Features
Premium
