for more information about stanelco click on the links.

driver's research page link
http://www.moneyam.com/InvestorsRoom/posts.php?tid=7681#lastread
website link
http://www.stanelco.co.uk/index.htm

the tooling problem was sent of to engineers at birmingham university where they have resolved the issue, and it is now working correctly under tested conditions.
sorry to see eric unload but understandable when the price broke 14, but someone mopped all the loose stock up today and it was not me!

Thanks, oblomov. I'll take a closer look at the financials. But they went through msot of the funds raised and the revenues hardly picked up which was the background to my concern. My view that there people costs are far too low in relation to the size of the opportunities remains a concern. But i will come back to you.

Thanks too, ssanebs. That's good, substantiated news. If I'd known. I might have constrained the sell finger! But I retain half my holding. I don't have a problem in reducing defensively as I can easily make good, whilst, with CFDs, you can't risk the sort of fall many of us experienced last year. The news does, in my view, sharply reduce the risk of a significant break S.

Eric

Thanks ssanebs...clears that up nicely....hopefully.

EWR, I'm not sure SEO borrowed to cover the Biotec deal, as PapalPower stated, they extended their debt facility around the time of the Biotec deal. This was approved at the EGM along with the issue of a certain number of shares etc.

The Biotec deal was funded by the 9m raised, that was in addition to the $1.23m paid upfront.

SEO only needed to pay $6.25m for Biotec last year. $3.125m later on this year, and a similar amount 12 months from then.

EWR,

The annual results only accounts for 2 months of Biotec income. The SPhere agreement for 10k tonnes of material initially resulted in a plan to increase production to 12k tonnes pa, a potential revenue in excess of Euro 24m. At the EGM the proposal was increased to 24k tonnes pa for a reduced investment of Euro 2m. The annual results stated that both parties have so far paid Euro 1.5m for the capacity increase.

Eric
Completely sound strategy to reduce on CFD's. I held my overweight position - just - since we did not actaully breach 13.75p bid (not that I saw anyway!) and am relieved to see us back above the tested 14p mid price today.

You can always wait and buy in on first real movement north - even if you lose the first 1p or so, it's a much lower risk approach given the stagnant share price with it's current inherent capacity to head south on any bad news.

I am trying to time switching out of a trading account into an ISA account for some of my holding without losing on the spread before end of the tax year. It will give me great joy to also crystallise a capital gain within the CGT allowance at the same time from my earliest purchases - alas not so from my later bragadaccio trades.

Discussion of cashflow is most relevant - have not done my own figures on this yet, but it is a classical malaise in companies at a point of fast growth or gear change to underestimate the amount of cash they need to throw at jumping onto the moving conveyor belt of their chosen market.

sd

sd: like your comments and agree with them. Of course, i accept their prophertic value as I have been espousing on the DGT thread. I think I have learnt the lesson to take action to reduce the risk. Unfortunately, with SEO, I have tended to buy when they appear ready to break North and sell when they appear to be breaking south - the opposite of common sense. Having said that, it is a risk averse prophecy, although, as you say, better to wait until the break-out N has occurred even if you lose an odd penny or two. I believe that the news from ssanebs that the tools problem is solved diminishes the downside risk. Its only a matter of time before they break north. I suspect our common view is that, if they had invested properly in this phase of products coming to market, they could have moved more quickly and with less hiccoughs. Are they learning or is this two step forward, one back (or the inverse) going to continue?

ssanebs - thanks for your update. I still have a substantial holding in these plus cfd's which I hld for long term and have not traded these for a long while now preferring to hold for the long term. As always - appreciate yours and others comments and debate.

baza

baza: you remind me of my daughter, Sally, who describes herself as 'the loyal one', her two sisters being abroad in Thailand and Vancouver respectively. I am quite aware of what my problems ar with cfd's. If you leave a margin to allow for short term vagaries you can relax and absorb the price fluctuations. I set out on 1st february with 10K to invest in CFDs which I split between AZM, ASC and SEO: after 7 weeks I am plus about 800 but that is made up of plus 2K at least on AZM and ASC plus a decent negative on SEO. What happens is that AZM, say, go up, I but some SEO: then SEO fall, I go negative and have to sell, goodbye SEO. Its a good way of getting rid of profits. That's the lesson of hindsight. But I will be there when (not if) they do go decisively north. Its just a matter of time. In the meantime, i will just concentrate on building up the other two places which have, in my view, got past this immature stage.

I am fairly sure that SEO is a good buy at the present price BUT they have spent so long promising jam tomorrow that the punters have got a little fed up, cynical and jaundiced about company statements. The recent Walmart announcement was only 4 days before some not very good results and seems to have been timed to help soften the blow. The punters are not impressed by such things.

At the moment it's just a case of the impatient selling to the patient and it's patience that makes you wealthy.

Biscuit,

Well said. Your post, short as it is, say's it all.
Also the posts of the last couple of days have been excellent reading.
Cheers Greek

Hi Eric - if my post inferred criticism of your strategy - none was intended - apologies. I have the utmost repect for your commentaries. If it were not for you and Bosley and Ssanebs and one or two others - I would never have found nor invested in this share - which I also beleive has an excellent future.
I tried trading this share - and always seemed to make the wrong decision at the wrong time (or is it the right decision at the wrong time). Called one or two correctly - but more often than not got it wrong. So I now just hold for long term. Hindsight says I should have sold at 30+ plus - but as you say - perhaps I am like Sally - and whilst fundamentals and risk remain acceptable - will probably stay loyal to SEO for a while. Thats not to say I have blind loyalty.

Regards

Some interesting buys!

Weren't those two 1m trades rollovers?

The oily one

Could be, I never trust the Trades chart, just hoping that some heavy interest is in the background!

Almost certainly a rollover

Yep, 'fraid so - still, increases the number of shares dealt!

God you lot are so garrulous, loquacious and verbose a body can 'ardly get a word in wedgeways.

Anyone hear that Tom Bulford of RHPS is saying that SEO's new bean counter had better be very good to keep track of all the income he is expecting to be generated by the company. Hell I hope that he is right!

The oily one

PS Eric, Ob, ssanebs, Alan, bosley, garyble, and bazza keep up the good posts. Very interesting and thought provoking

Oily,

There's not much to say that hasn't been said already is there?! I like Tom Bulford's sentiment and you aint the only one hoping he's right!

After the results were announced I was in the middle of composing an angry, then not so angry, then more inquisitive letter to SEO but before I had changed my mind yet again fell in a heap with the worst attack of pneumonia any human being has EVER had to endure; just ask my wife, it's true! Glad I didn't write it now, I see via the BB's that most of my questions have already been answered, though there are more questions to be asked if there is no reassuring news in the near future. For now, I think it best to leave the management in peace to get on with their jobs, which is to get more manufacturing support for their, undoubtedly, much needed products. This company has always appeared to be a one step forwards two back type but that is due to the inovative type of product that they have. Whilst I know there is no real comparison to the pharmaceutical industry, the element of trial and error is high in SEOs case so the similarity is there and no lesser care is needed before their products are fully processed in the open market.

How's that for a load of drivel?!!

Best get m'coat.
kim

Oily,
I cant compete with the incisiveness of Eric et al, but I hope Tom Bulford knows what he is talking about (for a change).
I don't think he'll be having to upgrade his calculator in the near future, but I was wondering (very quietly to myself) whether this has anything to do with our friends at WM.
WM have a well known philosophy, of teaming up with a company who have an innovative product or technology, and seeding them to be able to go from back street chancers to a supplier big enough to deal with quickly.
Don't get me wrong. WM are as capitalist as they come, not liberal charities at all, but if they have done the cost benefit analysis for Starpol, and find it in their favour, they will mentor SEO, and even provide financing arrangements and finance specialists, as well as operational consultants to make it happen as swiftly as is possible.
Could it be that WM have analysed the top flight staff and said the FD was not of the calibre necessary? Is it possible he will not be the last to be pushed, in order that people of the right ilk can be sourced and put in place? Perhaps even to the point where WM feel they have people at the helm who think the WM way?
Flight of fancy? Maybe.
If I were WM, and I wanted something badly, and I had their clout. If the supplier I was dealing with was a tiddler, but a tiddler with a patent, I would want to ensure any commitment I made to the tiddler was going to produce the goods. Especially if I had watched the tiddler fail with a much smaller contract. It would be in my interests.
I don't do bean counting, Oily. I can hardly count and I certainly don't understand balance sheets, but i am a businessman, and I know what companies have done to me when i was smaller than they and I know what I do now.
Probably all only exists in my twisted imagination, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Alan