We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surface Transforms Plc | SCE | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.335 | 08:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.335 | 0.335 | 0.335 | 0.335 | 0.335 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| AUTOMOBILES & PARTS |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 06/3/2025 11:15 by bagpuss67 Maybe a bit small and unprofitable for them but they may see a rapid path to SCE meeting their investment criteria.... And they are fairly adjacent to GM geographically..Just idle speculation of course |
Posted at 06/3/2025 07:29 by bones698 Fft surely if that was the case it would have been done sooner . Discussions if ongoing have been going on some time so to depart now before announced seems off to me . Just another unanswered question of which there are many ATM with sce |
Posted at 11/2/2025 03:06 by bones698 69 and Ethiopia ,obviously you never bothered to look how those stocks performed . Typical amateurs.Back to sce ,Quazie that's very much my point of view . They seem to come up with endless excuses but very little real progress . Next rns won't be long now and the usual options remain favourite . Let's see how long the management BS can drag it out . Quemaster I think that more to do with manufacturing timescales . A redesign of axles to change discs etc would not take anywhere near that length of time . |
Posted at 12/1/2025 03:11 by bones698 China is running the world's economy and are leaving most manufacturing countries for dead ,hence the imposing of tariffs to try and protect their own manufacturing industries . The UK has virtually no car industry left anyway so why not cosy upto them as they are leading the way and far cheaper than alternatives . Plus it's the only way they stand a chance of meeting their environmental targets.As for sce i can't see them going from such a disaster of production to break even anytime soon and so cash remains the big question and on what terms . I'm sure the GM people are securing their supply to meet immediate demands and assess the situation as to wether they need to find an alternative solution or if sce can actually meet it's targets and demand in reality . Still a pretty binary bet but no news is good news as it keeps ticking along somehow |
Posted at 05/1/2025 12:10 by cyberbub I think the issue is that we don't know what method would be used to ensure the company's survival without bankruptcy, or a pre-pack admin. I suggested some time ago that a big advance on orders from the customers (who want the product) is feasible. A director loan is also an option although I don't know whether the SCE directors have the means to loan say £3-5m. I don't think SCE would accept an equity investment or convertible loan from a customer as that would knacker their independence in the eyes of the other customers. Of course one of the larger customers could just buy SCE out, it's chump change for them, and use the technology as theirs exclusively, giving them a competitive/marketin |
Posted at 07/11/2024 12:08 by tomtrudgian Bagpuss67, the names of the OEMs and the terms of their contracts have never been disclosed. That is quite normal for commercial reasons. However you believe it difficult for OEMs to pull their contracts because the discs are designed into their cars.How so? Any SCE discs must have had the same standard thickness, diameter, bolt spacings etc to fit callipers in all OEM cars surely? For any after sale retrofits too. There is, Joe say, no AIM RNS requirement to announce a pulled contract. So what happens if an OEM contract has been pulled? It is bog standard that the development costs already paid to SCE are refundable, if SCE were unable to comply with the contracts. The auditors had of course required sight of the contracts. They reported on the failure of compliance with IFRS 15 in both 2021 and 22. In FY 23 they restated both the 22 and 23 results. So what’s next? Inevitably claims from secured creditors like employees and the loans from Liverpool City and River Capital. The OEM’s, landlord, unsecured creditors or shareholders will get nothing back. |
Posted at 11/10/2024 18:32 by bones698 The problem are the headaches with producing the discs at volume . Brembo don't have such issues so supplying them is easy unlike sce . Sure teething problems are expected but what sce have been guilty of is being totally inexperienced of manufacturing and not recruited quality personnel early on . That has led to issues throughout the process and even on purchasing the correct equipment for the process . It is beyond teething problems and lols to be a systemic issue ,one created by very poor management .The product works and is very good and that is why the OEMs want to use it m,however if sce can't supply it they will have to change to brembo regardless . If sce survives they will use them ,if not it's game over for ace and the OEMs will change . For me the odds of sce surviving are minimal ,they are years away from even achieving break even and the poor management have now created a situation that is almost impossible to recover from . As for shareholders they have been wiped out pretty much already ,the market and share price say it's likely to fail completely and time keeps moving while sce flounder . I fear the worst possibly around q1 next year could be the end . I think the new chair was fed BS and had no idea just how bad things were and will now find out for himself . No blame on him even if this fails as he was handed a live grenade . Wether he can quickly raise capital and completely change their fortunes remains to be seen but the odds are heavily against him at this point . |
Posted at 02/10/2024 02:53 by gclark I had an order to buy sce at certain prices which j forgot about on the day if the results. Ugh, already sold some at 50% loss. UghA lot of negative vibes, and I share the view that things aren't great. But, the order book is what could save things. The customers, some big manufacturers, want the product and I understand have designed aspects of new cars around sce braking. They won't want sce to fail. If they see that there is a route to profitability, they must be considering funding sce through, most likely taking a stake in the company. It may be more expensive for them to change car designs, loose usps they were relying on than putting in funds. That's why I'm still holding some. |
Posted at 31/8/2024 12:20 by tomtrudgian What I actually said on 30 Aug was: “I have no evidence that the capex loan has yet been drawn down, or is affordable”. The capital repayments plus interest, on a total of some £10m would be kill SCE, so I hope I am right. That does not mean I am.fft replied saying (for the first time as far as I am aware): that people have had emails from management confirming that part of the capex loan had been drawn down. I hope not, but show me copies and I will apologise. LV apparently believes: “Using other people’s money is better than using one’s own!” I replied on 28 Aug: “The only AFFORDABLE solution is a further substantial share offer”. Ok, so what actual facts do we know? 1/ No part of the capex loan was drawn down before 31 Dec 23 (FY 23 accounts page 20, Loans). 2/ The interest (Note 15, Future Loan Funding, in the financial statements) is now just under doubled to 12.15% if drawn down in 2024. Some four times inflation, plus undisclosed capital repayments. Why nearly doubled? The European Regional Development Fund’s (ERDF) subsidised support finally ended on 31 Dec 23, following the European Union (withdrawal) Act 1918. SCE had plenty of time to organise a subsidised capex loan. 3/ The socialist Liverpool Combined Authority (LCA) is now the sole provider of a capex loan. In the LCA’s first Covenant Test Point of 2024, SCE was found to be in breach of the capex covenants(Financial Statements page 54, paragraph 4). The terms of the capex loan were accordingly formally revised. What the new terms are is not disclosed. 4/ In the 19 July 24 Operational Update, nothing about any draw down or revised capex terms was disclosed. Perhaps the partial drawdown was very recent. So, what’s the good news? The management are certain SCE will succeed, as we all hope. They are also well incentivised through bonuses and share options to do so. I do understand the vitriol levied against me, but why shoot the messenger? Or call me a liar? I well understand that shareholders think my posts may not help the short term share price, but is not reducing cost more important to SCE’s survival? The waste of £500k (Financial Review, Other Non-recurring Costs, page 19) due to “allowing the fixed price electricity contract to lapse” was quite disgraceful. How onerous the new capex terms are is not known. Neither is how expensive paying for sales invoices to be paid early will be. However shouldn’t shareholders actually PREFER a further share offer instead, in their own interests? |
Posted at 11/8/2024 09:08 by tomtrudgian In short bagpuss67, Yes. That does not mean that I do, or do not, believe SCE have a current practical ability to succeed in accessing further capex funding from the Liverpool City Region (LCR).I never said that “some Europeans Fund” had lent (or frankly would lend) to SCE at a discount rate. The belatedly reason given by SCE for the 2023 application refusal, namely that the capex was not pre-approved, may not have been the only one. I now need to be really restrained in what I write. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting any fraud, illegality or misleading by anyone. You will remember that the FY 23 audit was forecast for mid April 24, then end May, and was finally signed by the auditors at the last time (end of June) before the AIM listing would have had to be suspended under the six month LSE rule. The arguments were lengthy and the audit fee was doubled. The auditors’ FY 23 report included a schematic graph indicating “management override of controls” as a principal audit concern. They also wrote of a “significant risk of material error due to fraud and error”. Now the curious one: A new (24 Jan 24) PDF charge at Companies House shows that the charger (SCE) had opened a blocked (ie charged) Nat West (SCE’s bankers) deposit account that they “should have delivered to the chargee(LCR)”. The audited SCE cash and cash equivalent was given as £6.06m at 31 Dec 23. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
