Westminster Share Discussion Threads

[john henry] 08/8/2017 08:55

Bronco may I suggest you read the recent final results.

[broncowarrior] 08/8/2017 08:36

Moving up on no news, interesting.

[2magpies] 08/8/2017 08:16

Tks someuwin

Let's hope, for all concerned this contract is landed this time (and soon!).

[someuwin] 07/8/2017 22:02

First there was an MoU. Then the LoI. The £30m+ is based purely on the number of passengers and expected security surcharge.

Note: The contract has now been expanded to cover other Airports and services in that country so the total revenues generated will (imo) be significantly more then the now quoted £35m+ P/A. Possible they might break the contract into two or more stages?

"26 May 2016

Middle East Airport - Letter of Intent

Westminster Group Plc ('Westminster', the 'Group' or the 'Company'), the AIM listed supplier of managed services and technology based security solutions to governments and government agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and blue chip commercial organisations worldwide is pleased to announce it has now received a Letter of Intent from a Middle East Airport Authority relating to a long term airport security contract.

In March 2016 the Company announced that its aviation security subsidiary, Westminster Aviation Security Services ('WASS'), had signed a new Memorandum of Understanding ("MoU") with a Middle East Civil Aviation Authority for the provision of long term (up to 25 years) aviation security services at a significant international airport. Following the signing of the MoU, the Company undertook and completed a gap analysis review of the airport concerned and subsequently commenced contract negotiations.

The Letter of Intent now received indicates the authority's intention to enter into contract with WASS in due course for the provision of long term airport security services. Under the draft terms of the contract WASS would generate revenues in excess of GBP30m per annum based on the current PAX throughput and the currently anticipated fee per passenger.

This project represents a major growth opportunity not only for Westminster, but is also significant for the United Kingdom and consequently we are working closely in conjunction with the UK Government as it has its own specific hurdles to overcome prior to contract finalisation..."

[2magpies] 07/8/2017 21:41

Nick

You've clearly done a lot of work on this one.

What, do you think, is the reason for making the £35m p.a. figure public, before any contract has actually been signed?

[deanowls] 07/8/2017 17:34

Their getting nowhere near Cairo IMHO, be very surprised to see the military allow this. I maybe wrong, it's all so intriguing!

[nick2412] 07/8/2017 16:31

Also bear in mind that WSG are probably being somewhat conservative on the £35m per annum contract if, as the research indicates it is Egypt because :-

a) Cairo Airport has a planned expansion of 8m passenger capacity so that there is substantive capacity for growth. Sharm el-Sheikh ( probable contender for one of the regionals) is increasing capacity by 2m passengers.

b) It appears regional airports are involved in addition to the main one (Presumed Cairo) and these regional airports are tourist sun destinations. They have been hit by the Russian and UK flight ban - I think with the UK lifting the travel advisory for Tunisia they will very likely lift the Sharm el-sheikh advisory in the reasonably near future. So with the improved security which Egypt is very actively highlighting in the coming weeks, the numbers are probably on the low side as tourists will return.

Whilst increased capacity doesn't necessarily mean increased numbers - Egypt is now getting some good press for both security and an economic uplift. That can change of course and unfortunately nowhere in the world is safe as Paris and London know too well, however, if a country is deemed to have good international standards of security and a stable regime the tourists and other passengers will visit.

[nick2412] 07/8/2017 16:21

2Magpies, Westminster's agent in Egypt, National Falcon, is 80% Govt owned so the Govt may well get a slice of the passenger security surcharge.

Here's how it works :-

Customer buys ticket from either airline or travel agent

Ticket includes security fee per embarking PAX. A smaller annual number of passengers will mean a higher security fee. Also if the CAA or Govt wants a cut then the fee can be higher.

The money goes to the airlines via IATA

Westminster bills the airlines (I believe 2 x monthly for SL) based on number of embarking passengers.

Airlines pay WSG direct and therefore it's pretty much guaranteed payment otherwise the airlines wouldn't be able to use the airport facility.

A win / win for the client as they get improved security at zero cost or even a return.

[2magpies] 07/8/2017 13:21

someuwin

Tks.

Still difficult to see why the £35m p.a. figure was made public, and repeatedly trumpeted, well in advance of an agreement. What possible reason was there to make it public?

The CEO may well own shares, but did he buy before, or after the announcement of the LOI? And the share price has plummeted over the last several months, so the opportunity to buy more must surely have come many times?

Amd the Sierra Leone fee: is that for security or for the fare to get on the Ferry? (I think the latter)

.................................

JH

If they are indebted, why don't they charge the airlines themselves, and pay WSG a fee? That's an awful lot of cash and it hard to believe that the Govt (whichever it is!!) will resist the temptation to get a piece of it!

[someuwin] 07/8/2017 11:11

All these questions have been addressed loads of times before.

The BOD hold shares already so will benefit from the big rise to come (CEO holds over 5%)

It is taking so long because it is such a big contract involving multiple agencies and government departments etc. And has been expanded to other areas.

This model is in operation in Sierra Leone International Airport Freetown (FNA)

The security fee is collected by the airplines ($50 per embarking passenger?) and paid directly to the airport security operator - in this case WSG.

[john henry] 07/8/2017 11:02

Magpie This particular business model suits the client as they are heavily in debted. FFS man conduct some research.i would mind if your posts were researched and well thought out but its pure tosh.

[youkme] 07/8/2017 08:12

Graham its not Oman now lol its Egypt!! lol yeah right

[youkme] 07/8/2017 08:10

on target; you have no clue how many shares at any given time I own. All the ramping going on now does not mean that I or indeed anyone else isn't making money. As for contract coming? lol as I said I'll be here when all these new posters are well gone and there will still be no contract imo. End of August the latest set of rampers say, lets see

[2magpies] 06/8/2017 22:07

I do not think that the BOD should have trumpeted the £35m annual revenue figure before the contract had actually been awarded.

What possible reason was there to do it?

And having done that, they have sat on their collective hands and bought no shares.

Looks very odd.

Are they really so altruistic that they will sit on the sidelines, whilst a £35m p.a. contract is, supposedly, practically there? Will they just watch the so-called private 'investors' rake in huge profits, upon a contract agreement? For, to me it seems very probable that the share price will rocket on any such announcement.

Why is it taking so long? What excatly is/are the glitch(es)? After all this time, what could possibly be still an obstacle? What can possibly remain still to be discussed?

Also, first everyone was saying Oman, Oman. Now it's Egypt - definitely, don't you know.

As for the revenue coming from passengers paying a specific surcharge on their tickets: name any other airport where this model is in operation. Heathrow? Gatwick? JFK? LAX? Ben Gurion?

Doesn't it all get gobbled-up in Landing Charges (paid by Airlines, regardless of number of passengers carried per flight) - which are paid to the airport?

A nationalised airport would mean the landing charges go to the Government. Therefre, it is the Government that pays the (out-sourced?) security operator.

Will a Government (especially a Midlle Eastern one) really allow an operator to keep all of the revenue? Isn't it tantamount to a hypothecated tax?

If it looks too good to be ..........

[deanowls] 05/8/2017 11:33

I think it's fair to say they could have bought many times over the past few years. It's good research but then you're going off the word of a bloke who has been stringing PIs along for years and in terms of implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

[only1gibbo] 05/8/2017 11:11

Hi Nick, I really don't think that there was any window when they could have purchased once they entered into contract negotiations. Don't forget these have been largely complete since last July so they have had a lot of price sensitive information during this time. So far the market appears to have dismissed the chances of the contract landing. I am sure that view would have changed before now if the market knew 100% for sure where the contract is and the reasons why it hasn't been signed yet. The BoD have known that information throughout this time. They will also have had knowledge of the resources required to deliver the project and the costs involved, all of which would be gold dust in trying to determine a fair price for the shares. You only have to look at the reaction of the share price since you published your research to see how price sensitive just identifying Egypt as a very strong contender was.

Also key (if we are correct that Egypt is the place) is that this contract could have been signed at any point in the last 12 months if the government had been prepared to lift the flight ban at Sharm. What would we all have said if the BoD had bought shares at some point since the MoU landed and the contract had been signed say a month later because the government had suddenly lifted the ban? For a start, the press would have had a field day with Sir Tony Baldry alone given his background as a Tory MP.

[john henry] 05/8/2017 09:28

While they have been in contractual discussions the BOD would not be able to purchase share, simple.

[nick2412] 04/8/2017 23:36

I think it's fair comment to think that at some stage previously (months ago) there may have been a window when they could buy. All the public domain facts highlight, however, that this contract award now appears to be getting reasonably close to a conclusion so it really would make it impossible now and in the run-up to this point.

The directors will be having day to day discussions with the relevant parties and be getting much more information than the market on potential timing along with the value of the add-ons which has obviously been an evolving and value increasing process.

They can't release all the information due to confidentiality clauses or give a running commentary hence PF came across as genuinely wanting to buy and explaining with good reason why they couldn't. The good news of course is that he has plenty of skin in the game.

[john henry] 04/8/2017 22:43

Magpie for F sake do some research man, instead of coming on here embarrassing yourself.

[only1gibbo] 04/8/2017 22:41

2magpies, if they know more detail than it is a contract in excess of £30-35m per year for 15+ plus years, then of course it is price sensitive information. Surely nobody can be that dim to think otherwise? Forecast profit margins on the contract for a start would be pretty fundamental to pricing the shares, so would be the location and therefore the likelihood of whether there was to be revenue growth through increased passenger numbers over the contract, or what risks that location might bring etc. etc. etc.

Yes all listed companies are in the same situation and actually it often does prevent, not just the directors, but also senior staff, from dealing in shares for long periods of time when major deals are ongoing. Sometimes it isn't enough not to deal without having price sensitive information, you also need to be seen not to.

And as you're obviously not too bright, let me also explain how you can put a figure on annual revenue from a contract which has yet to be signed. The scope and terms of the contract have already been agreed, they have been since last July. So it is a relatively simple task if you know what the terms of the deal are.

[someuwin] 04/8/2017 21:01

The client i.e. the government of the country concerned won't be paying the £35m+ per year.

That figure is the revenue WSG will get from the contract. Mainly from the security surcharge paid by the airline passengers using the Airport(s).

That's why the client likes the deal so much and has been keen to expand the scope of the deal.

[2magpies] 04/8/2017 20:16

Could it not also be argued that they haven't been buying because they know which way it's going?

How credible is it that they are perpetual 'insiders'. There is always info that the BOD of any co is aware of which is not publicly known. The point is: whether or not that info is price sensitive.

All listed companies are in the same situation, but that doesn't stop directors from buying. Bit odd.

The fact that this potential contract (including the annual projected revenue of £35m) has been publicly announced, and repeatedly stated for so long, how can it be that there have been NO occasions when the BOD could have bought shares because of some price sensitive info they were privy too.

Anyhow, can someone explain how a Co. can put a figure on annual revenue from a contract which has yet to be signed? It hasn't been agreed. The prospective client knows that what it is expected to pay has been put into the public domain, well in advance of anything being agreed. Also this figure is therefore known to the comptetitors too. Perhaps the client wants this figure to be public in order to tweek a better offer from someone else? What other reason can there be to make this figure public knowledge?

[only1gibbo] 04/8/2017 19:26

Nick, as I recall not only did he say "believe me if we could buy shares right now we all would do." but that they were looking forward to when they could do so.