Stanelco Share Discussion Threads

[the_doctor] 12/5/2010 13:39

Yeah, so what are the details?

[antline] 12/5/2010 13:18

P. Mines word of mouth, Doc

[wolterix] 12/5/2010 12:50

Herman Hesse, Doc

[antline] 12/5/2010 12:48

· Loss from operations reduced to £2.6m (2008: loss £2.8m), despite £0.7m of additional legal costs incurred in Biotec in defending the Novamont S.p.A legal action


- Last Year was reported: loss £2.8m and the share price went above 0.6p
- This Year was reported: loss £2.6m (despite £0.7m of additional legal costs) and the share price is at 0.2p

[runnett] 12/5/2010 12:28

At the moment SEO's growth is on the back of cash burn and small reduction in losses (edit). The share price is a barometer on sentiment at the moment, it'll sort itself out. I don't have too much interest in the share price unless i'm preparing a buy or sell.

Growth in SEO (like a number of small caps)is misleading, a small cap can look very viable with revenue growth at 20%. Remember growth is also a hungry beast needs regular feeding. Aquisitions are a good example of showing high growth at a cost with little organic growth from the core structure.

I've been considering investing more in SEO, but i cannot get past the hurdle of how much growth and for how long? Where is the tipping point between revenue and profit? This is where the uncertainty lies.

[the_doctor] 12/5/2010 11:54

antline - everyone new the placing was coming and everyone knew it would almost certainly be at a discount. There was nothing to stop you shorting it.

I love the way the directors get blamed.
Nobody commending them on the strong growth reported.
It cant be that anyone here invested in a struggling company that suffered as things slowed during the crunch. No.... got to blame directors.

[antline] 12/5/2010 11:50

That would be a real turning point

[grax] 12/5/2010 11:47

Personally I believe those big funds that PM thought were his allies [not sure how he can have misunderstood what they were saying to him so massively]will have a bit of the action,take up some options,look to get a quick return and then get rid of Mines.
He has cost them dear on all their existing investments and they won't forget that.

[antline] 12/5/2010 11:45

IF THE ABOVE MENTIONED DETAILS ARE NOT RELEASED IT LOOKS LIKE THE INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE COMMITTED TO SUBSCRIBE THE INCREASE OF CAPITAL ARE SHORTING IT AT THE SAME TIME BECAUSE OF THE COMPLICIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE BOARD.
EVERYONE WHO KNOWS WHAT PRICE WILL SUBSCRIBE THE NEW SHARES, AND WHEN THE INCREASE WILL HAPPEN COULD PLAY THAT DIRTY GAME.

[sirmark] 12/5/2010 11:39

The price doesn't really matter to him at all the lower the better in all honesty not great for those that don't want a piece of the pie but great if you want to average down.


Just my opinion of course we could be here again in another 12 months but you pays your money and take your chances.

[antline] 12/5/2010 11:25

The FSA should scrutinise the fact the management is taking up to 5% of the increase capital but not details of discount, price and what date have been released.

[grax] 12/5/2010 11:20

You'd think wouldn't you?

If you accept that SEO have cast aside all existing shareholders and are concentrating on courting the new ones [who will be old ones next time they need funds because they haven't been able to close a deal] then there is no rush to provide any details.

The share price is irrelevant to the company.The management are taking up 5% if hey get it away.They will be happy if it is .005.

[antline] 12/5/2010 11:19

Yes grax is 100% right! What is this discount? on what price? on what date?
Why han't Paul Mines answered the above questions?

[bulgarianpropertydoteudotcom] 12/5/2010 11:14

Got to get an rns SOON re details

[grax] 12/5/2010 11:12

doc
Yet again you are talking about something you don't understand.

What is this discount? on what price? on what date?

None of this has been announced which is one of the reasons the share price is under immense pressure.

You appear to be trying to make points about something but goodness knows what.

[bulgarianpropertydoteudotcom] 12/5/2010 11:11

law of averages says he has to get it right sometimes

[grax] 12/5/2010 11:08

SM
You know better than to put any store whatsoever by what maestro says!

[bulgarianpropertydoteudotcom] 12/5/2010 11:08

cheers wolt i googled it.

[the_doctor] 12/5/2010 11:08

'which is why they have had to tap PI's'

It's funny. A co. gives a discounted placing all to insts and PIs moan of the dilution.
Give PIs a chance via an open offer/rights issue and they moan that insts dont want to invest.

'Co's WERE NOT prepared to fund SEO alone'

I didnt say 'the whole lot' grax. The context was SEO alone, not insts alone.


wolterix
'I think PM has tried to play a glass bead game, and has found out he can't swim'
I dont know the phrase
However, surely one can only comment to that extent if you knew the situation, as per my points above. Can you shed any further light on the supposed acquisition plan?
It may have been worth them trying.

[bulgarianpropertydoteudotcom] 12/5/2010 11:01

Stanelco plans a GBP 3.5m (EUR 4.0) fund-raising from investors later this month.

mark where was this article from? link if you have one please

edit ok found it


This month aye bring it on

[grax] 12/5/2010 11:01

the_doctor - 12 May'10 - 10:55 - 21270 of 21271


'If co.s are willing to fund SEO alone'

read IF as 'in the event that the placing is done' grax


That's why I said ideology and not reality!

I'll say this clearly for you

Co's WERE NOT prepared to fund SEO alone which is why they have had to tap PI's.Which is why they haven't announced strike price,ratio etc

Do you genuinely not understand that or are you just being mischeivous?