We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surface Transforms Plc | SCE | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.07 | -28.57% | 0.175 | 13:47:15 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.225 | 0.17 | 0.225 | 0.175 | 0.245 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| AUTOMOBILES & PARTS |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 06/11/2024 10:02 by mr macgregor I agree SCE looked the most promising company of the two. The comparison I was drawing is that failing directors were allowed to remain in place during repeated rescue fundings, the companies continued to slide, Sneller sold down then administration for TWD and SCE highly likely to follow. The similarity is uncanny imo. |
Posted at 27/10/2024 15:35 by tomtrudgian So thiopia, you feel SCE is strategic to OEM’s, the UK government and also to China. Where is your evidence? I do not mean that rudely, it’s a question.The CEO’s pay was £334k pa in the audited Y/E 23 results, plus his pension and NI contributions. What will be his pay off be after 13 years as CEO? Or the redundancy of his staff? Finally an easy one. bagpuss67 suggests we Who would dream of supporting SCE any further, unless after administration? Oh, and I see you have increased the order book to over £400m. Why not £600m? That, or frankly any figure, might be true based on multi year estimates of global sale volumes with unknown prices and profitability. However if there were any contracted orders at all, would they not appear as debtors or if paid, as sales in the results? Finally bagpuss67, there is no legal requirement for a further RNS before pre-close and I cannot see any incentive for SCE to provide one. I hope I am entirely wrong. Tom Trudgian |
Posted at 27/10/2024 09:29 by gclark I think Brembo taking over sce in any way is the last thing that the OEMs would want. They want enough suppliers in a market for competition to exist, to keep suppliers efficient and to have price competition. You don't want to be stuck with one supplier, in this case of carbon-ceramic braking.This will be a motive for them to make payment terms more viable for sce and get it through to what should be large output gains in the second half of 2025 when the key furnace comes on stream, in my view. |
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 11/10/2024 08:53 by tomtrudgian Good question, Bagpuss67 and I have long thought about that. It seems quite impossible to believe that OEM’s have not, for at least a year, thought hard about dual or single alternative sourcing of discs. The retailing and commercial risks to the OEM’s of either disc poor performance, or the unreliability or expense of SCE’s supply seem too high.Just how difficult are the changes needed for the OEM’s to change to the chopped Brembo carbon ceramic discs and callipers already available? Just how much more, or quite possibly less, expense would that involve? And just why should OEM’s consider dual supply at all? Is the offer of marketing a choice of discs commercially viable, however well they work? Shareholders have not seen the OEM contracts, but the auditors did. If the SEC’s development costs, already paid by the OEM’s, were not refundable (however unlikely), the auditors would never have disallowed them from being treated as SCE income under IFRS 15 rules. SCE were warned about this possibility in the audited accounts in 2022, and the 2022 and 23 accounts had to be restated to comply. OK that money is in practice lost to the OEMs, but what is the much trumpeted multi-year contract order book £millions actually worth? |
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 01/10/2024 10:12 by joe say A lot of talk about how the customers may help SCE out but if you were a supplier to SCE what would you do now?I for one would potentially be looking at upfront payments and at the very least an insistence that SCE pays to terms. The idea that further credit would be extended would be ridiculous imo |
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. |
Posted at 04/7/2024 15:09 by quemaster If someone was to try and takeover SCE the order book, the many years of getting a safety critical product accepted, the amount of money it has cost to get SCE to this point which doesn't include the initial development cost spent by ICI would become much more relevant.There is no other alternative for a competitor to get it's place in the market with a superior product with one competitor in a rapidly growing market without buying SCE, they know they would have to pay many multiples of today's valuation. Having SCE in the market has also helped Brembo, the OEMs have said that having only one supplier had restricted the adoption of ceramic brakes in the past so Brembo would be harming themselves by buying SCE. |
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
