Sharesmagazine
 Home   Log In   Register   Our Services   My Account   Contact   Help 
 Stockwatch   Level 2   Portfolio   Charts   Share Price   Awards   Market Scan   Videos   Broker Notes   Director Deals   Traders' Room 
 Funds   Trades   Terminal   Alerts   Heatmaps   News   Indices   Forward Diary   Forex Prices   Shares Magazine   Investors' Room 
 CFDs   Shares   SIPPs   ISAs   Forex   ETFs   Comparison Tables   Spread Betting 
You are NOT currently logged in
 
Register now or login to post to this thread.

stanelco .......a new thread (SEO)     

bosley - 20 Feb 2004 09:34

Chart.aspx?Provider=EODIntra&Code=SEO&SiChart.aspx?Provider=EODIntra&Code=SEO&Si

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


automatic - 10 Oct 2006 20:35 - 21213 of 27111

anyone know if Warner & Wagner will be buying any shares?

Tonyrelaxes - 11 Oct 2006 00:29 - 21214 of 27111

Automatic
I don't see that they can. They had no shareholding on the Record date (6 November) on which to take up the Open Offer entitlements of 3 for 5 - and there is no public offer. Possibly they fall within the category of "Institutions and certain investors" that have already paid 11m although they were not already investors at the time.

hewittalan6 - 11 Oct 2006 07:30 - 21215 of 27111

Actually, that 11m may be why the issue is not underwritten.
Thinking about it (and this is only guesswork) underwriting costs and SEO may have taken the decision that with the 11m of firm orders and the other ones that are subject to clawback, they have enough to do as they would like. The rest is just to ensure we all vote in favour and get an opportunity to share in whatever the future holds, good or bad. No point underwriting an offer that already has sufficient sales.
Just a thought.
Alan

WOODIE - 11 Oct 2006 07:36 - 21216 of 27111

alan that is the most logical reason so far that has been put forward

greekman - 11 Oct 2006 07:38 - 21217 of 27111

Stockdog,

Yes, thanks. I agree with you (re the X trade) it's just that I am still looking for a very simple explanation of what it means and why, not just the bland bit put out by the LSE.
This is not a dig at anyone who has put their four pennyworth in but dig at the LSE, who think we all understand the market speak.

Woodie,

As to the bit, To ensure that Martin Wagner and Clive Warner are appropriately
rewarded if the Company achieves certain goals. I fully agree that they should be appropriately rewarded. Appropriate being the operative word.
If we do achieve success big style, their reward should reflect this, the same rule being that if things sink totally they should receive zilch.
If they are so confident, why don't they agree to receive numeration built on results only, that might be the kick up the backside they need.

Re them buying shres. If contracts are as near as they keep telling us, they can't buy shares now as it would be insider dealing.

WOODIE - 11 Oct 2006 07:46 - 21218 of 27111

greekman agree with above but what you find with most companies they will not let shareholders know what targets they have set, as this has only been put into the public domain we will wait and see.

greekman - 11 Oct 2006 08:06 - 21219 of 27111

Yes but if targets were set they would have to publish them either in the results or at the AGM when it comes to remuneration. But as you say, it's wait and see.

alfalfa - 11 Oct 2006 08:46 - 21220 of 27111

greekman - X trades are often done between closely-related parties, e.g. husband and wife, one fund to another within an institution's portfolio of OEICs or pension funds etc.

In the case of the former, they're not always massive lumps of stock but in the case of the latter, they can be.

Because it's a guaranteed transfer, there's no risk to the intermediary of being left holding a lump and so there is likely to be only a nominal charge made for the transaction, if any.

Not sure if this is any clearer.

Alfa.


pinnacle - 11 Oct 2006 09:20 - 21221 of 27111

Times Rumour.

Sphere will make an offer for Stanelco once financing is in place!

Quite possible as Age of Reason may NOT have the block in the new set-up AND we do not know at this time how much of the new share capital Sphere may have bought!!

This would work for Sphere - not us private shareholders.

Also could have already being agreed behind the scenes so as to enable the contracts to proceed.

The question is how Much?

Me thinks max 5p - sadly.

dawall - 11 Oct 2006 09:27 - 21222 of 27111

Alan post 21215 that was exactly my thought but then I discarded at getting down the too hopeful or optimistic line!

hewittalan6 - 11 Oct 2006 09:33 - 21223 of 27111

It was only a thought, dawall. No basis in any facts, its just I could not see the point in underwriting a 15m placing where 11m is accounted for and over 1m is costs, especially when half of it appears to be desirable, but not critical. It simply doesn't add up.
Alan

robinhood - 11 Oct 2006 09:38 - 21224 of 27111

Have not seen the article , but could it be that Sphere may want to buy SEO's Biotec share?

pinnacle - 11 Oct 2006 09:52 - 21225 of 27111

If there is no biotec then there is no Stanelco!!

Sphere will want all of Stanelco as agreements and patents are in their name.

This is rumoured to happen AFTER the financing and before the MMF's get into production.

IF they get into production Sphere would have to pay more - so let's hope that happens.

greekman - 11 Oct 2006 10:19 - 21226 of 27111

Alfalfa,

Yes, it's much clearer now. Like most things when simply explained, it makes sense. Ta much.
Greek.

Tonyrelaxes - 11 Oct 2006 10:22 - 21227 of 27111

I have always comforted myself that the size of AgeofR. and Directors holdings were an effective takeover block. And they have a greater insight (sic) into the real worth of the company and it's prospects.
This percentage holding will be reduced by 46% or 66%, unless they are part of the Firm Placing, and removes that blocking minority status.

alfalfa - 11 Oct 2006 10:27 - 21228 of 27111

Tony - That reduction of holding by AoR / Directors can of course be lessened if they subscribe for their entitlement and especially if, as you say, they have already subscribed as part of the "Firm Placing".

Tonyrelaxes - 11 Oct 2006 10:43 - 21229 of 27111

Alf

Even if they take up the entitlement their holding will be diluted be 46%. AoR then will only have a holding of around 13%. Considerably less if thay do not take up.

Unless, as we say, they are part of the Firm Placing and already paid.

Tonyrelaxes - 11 Oct 2006 10:47 - 21230 of 27111

The Prospectus should be on our doormats tomorrow morning.
That will keep me quiet for a good while!

ths - 11 Oct 2006 10:47 - 21231 of 27111

You would think that the control issue had already been addresses by AoR/Directors. Seems to me this particular financing deal we ended up with was a result of them not wanting to give up more control. Thats seems to be alluded to in the financing release.

alfalfa - 11 Oct 2006 10:48 - 21232 of 27111

Agreed, Tony.

Alfa.
Register now or login to post to this thread.