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

Why in UK? Why not in Germany? Could it be the green lobby is a might stronger over there than here?

Comment on news programme that the so-called 'genetic modification' was essentially applying the genetic make-up of a wild potato. Obviously this is a very emotive subject, but I can't see the essential difference between this and a hybrid domestic/wild potato developed by 'breeding'/'crossing' or what have you.

Dawall, You are right on the button - both MW's should go because they both lack what it takes to run a large plc and that is what we have been hoping SEO will become. SEO's product range, if it is that good, deserves much better mgt. than is currently there. I am amazed that so many posters, many of whom I have met and I would reckon would be shrewd judges of ability, seem prepared to be convinced that these two are of a high enough calibre. I don't like being negative and I hope that this assessment by what seems to be a minority is proved wrong. Meanwhile I am comfortable being in that minority.

Sharesure,

It would be good if you could substiate your comment re: the recently appointed FD. I fail to see how he could in any way be responsible for the state of SEO.

I also believe he was FD of a company with over 220m T/O, and his replacement only appears to have been appointed in September. This indicates to me that he jumped ship.

Sharesure,

My take on the management is that many have proven themselves to be failures. None have proved themselves, to be otherwise (not counting any previous management positions).
As to the newer board members, I will not make judgment as yet.
The board will be judged as a whole on where SEO are this time next year at the latest.
With this time spread, even the most optimistic among us will be saying, no more excuses.
My own opinion is that SEO will have to prove themselves well before then.

79 posts since I last looked at this thread and all of them sum up the same thing, very grim!!

Re the management issue, I once again return to the Schroders factor. CW clearly master-minded the capital raising exercise and one suspects that Schroders were a major player all along; if they were it would explain why they were actually able to raise the cash. That suggests in turn that CW is their man. MW did get rid of the previous FD and bring CW in, although I do wonder whether his ASDA background prepared him for the hot seat. But, again, on the Schroders assumption, they do need some continuity so MW could be in for the long or just short term.

Explosive: that could be your general impression but all is not lost! My posts on the Schroder dimension are positive in the sense that an organisation for whom I have immense respect have taken a direct interest, including their clients pension funds. They will have done their own due diligence before this level of commitment. That implies they see the prospects both in terms of the clients and potential contracts are real. That says nothing about timescales. Nor does it say that the present real value is any more than the market cap of around 35m. But I think it does imply that the 0.8p is a real support level and that the potential is, at the least, significant. I would welcome your acknowledgement of this point (because holders should not depair!).

Eric

Eric,
A good summing up of the situation.

The 'support level' could hardly be much lower than 0.8p.

'Significant potential' from 0.8p. What do you mean by that, Eric? 3p, 6p, 8p? Any of these SP's give Schroders an excellent profit but dont do much for long standing investors.

Back in September when TB moved to 'sell' he said 'The lower the share price falls, of course, the worse any new investment will hurt existing shareholders like us. Our interests will come a distant second to those big investors who might elect to put new money into the company at this stage. '

I agree with him - thats what we're seeing now. I need to see around a 10 fold increase in the SP to move into profit - Schroders need nothing like that and can sell (and probably will) way before the SP gets to anything like that level.

I think in relation to the new management team, the jury is out. What they desperately need is a top flight Sales & Marketing Director - a role which is currently being undertaken by Martin W.

Oblo - your last few posts are rightly sceptical. You have saved me some typing and given me more wine drinking time.

Oblo, agree with a lot of your comments today although I hope we are proved wrong and we see a new dawn!

greekman - 01 Dec 2006 14:41 - 22767 of 22780

I dont agree with you even 1% on that post. It is irrelevant to the market until SEO sell the stuff. That is how SEO hit 30p, telling us all the dross when in actual fact, and I continually said it on FYB, that it is and only that need an RNS. Once they sell, tell.

Q.

Page 8 Financial Mail today, big 2 page article on ASDA stating that Andy Bond wants to make it the greenest grocer and talks about recycling, sustainability, lower energy costs etc, no mention of precisely what or how though.

but of course that means diddly-squat as far as SEO is concerned, other than a tiny straw in the wind

qtheman,

It IS relevant. If Starpol 3000 is approved or not, either way it will have a significant effect on the sp. How can it not be so.
Are you saying that the result will not effect the sp significantly.
But I do agree they still have to sell it for any long term sp effect.
You state that telling us all the dross caused the sp to reach 30p.
That statement alone shows that no substance news (dross) can effect the sp, so with that in mind the results of approval or none approval, being a fact of substance would obviously effect the said sp, so an RNS would be obligatory.

Greek.

Is this new news or old news ?

" Stanelco Plc (www.stanelco.co.uk) announced its jointly owned subsidiary Biotec will commence commercialization of STARPOL 3000, a multi-layer, biodegradable, rigid, starch-based packing material marketed as an environmentally friendly, cost effective alternative to APET and Polypropylene.

Emphasis on the ..."Start commercialisation ........"

Nope, FDA approval would have no other effect on the SP other than a day of maybe 0.2p increase at most and would go by the following day so no need to tell the market IMO.

EDIT:- and from another poster on here who touted timings some time back I believe that FDA approval was granted for Starpol3000 up to a month ago but again IMO SEO will not issue a RNS and will only tell us when they sell the stuff. I believe if nothing else SEO have learnt to only tell the market hard facts.

PS, while recognising that a 0.2 increase is pretty drastic, the point being it wont be sustained on the back of news that yet another product has gained FDA approval when they have sold jack shit 1000, 2000, frogpack et al.

The FTSE all share index is re ranking at the close of business this Tuesday the 5th. Tracker funds will be buying and selling based on market cap..Is seo going to get relegated at it's current cap ? And if so will it be in the management's interests to release a RNS prior to this to prevent relegation or has the sp dropped too far to make any difference?

Falco,

It made no difference to the sp when it entered the FTSE smallcaps, so I assume the same effect when it drops out of it!

Q,

Starpol 3000 had not been approved by end of Sep 2006. When the FDA page is next updated we shall see what has been approved up to end of Nov 2006.

I seem to keep banging the drum about Schroders but I will amplify my comments in response to oblo. I am very confident indeed that Schroders is not just as a short term investment. This comes partly from a direct knowledge as to how Schroders operate. My reading of the situation is that Warner (probably plus Wagner) went to Schroders some months back when the scale of SEO's funding problem became apparent. By the time we get to the share launch on 9th Octoner, Schroders will have done a due diligence and will have approved, if not authored, the terms of the offer; the fact that Schroders were behind the offer would bring other institutions in. The success of the offer was quickly followed with the announcement of Schroders holding, directly and via funds under their management. Schroders will have an active investment, directly via the board, thus the courage to sack the two directors directly blamed for the fiasco, possibly also via consultancy as the act is put together. I can't see any other valid explanation: (a) for a sensible formulation of fundraising; (b) for institutional support; (c) for the sacking of the directors. If it wasn't Schroders it would have to be another such organisation but, if so, who? and there are not many parallel firms with the technology background.

Schroders should therefore be in for the medium term, clearly partly to make money from shares, but also to bring the company to profitability and stablility. Their involvement could lead to a sale or a management buyout but could also leave a profitable public company. They are not primarily concerned with the sp but could well have a market cap. in mind which ends up being the same thing. Remember that an sp of 10p is equivalent to an old sp of 30p.

This is why I raised the comment about averaging down. Its partly to correct the mindset: if you have, say, 100K shares which were worth 10K at 10p they are now worth 1200. Triple the holding to 300,000 then they will be worth 10K again at 3.3p. The cap will be the same as it was when you held at 10p (adjusted by subsequent dealing costs). The benefit of doing this is really psychological, but it does mean that you have a much more realistic chance of breaking even and moving into profit.

Let me say it again: new era, no RNS that is not substantive, Schroders in for the medium term, share to be re-rated as credible for institutional investment, but still: - potential for major movement on announcement of contract wins in the new year.

Eric