Buy British Energy
argues Evil Knievil of www.t1ps.com

British Energy has paid for many a lunch over the past couple of years. I have been shorting it aggressively Convinced that it was going bust I regarded it as the quickest way of making money since Cherie Blair and her ghastly husband turned freeloading into an art form. But, while the liar-in-chief and the wicked witch continue will continue to carry on sponging forever, other things have changed and I am now aggressively long of British Energy to the tune of five million shares. I admit my timing was not perfect - I am only running at break-even at this stage but I am expecting to trouser it in a big way over the next six months. In putting together this bull case I am most indebted to the publication Utilities Week - a must read in every household and whose words I have cribbed liberally.

The Bail Out

British Energy runs nuclear power stations. As such it has high fixed costs and always has a potential liability for decommissioning its plants when they come to the end of their useful lives. Its problems started when a slump in electricity prices meant that it was not covering those fixed costs which exposed the fact that its borrowings were unsupportable. It was this that allowed me to profit so greatly on the short tack.

Then the Government stepped in with a "rescue" plan. Surprisingly for a body which shows an ability to waste taxpayers' cash of unmatched proportions this did not involve a huge bail out. Instead it involves the Government, bond-holders, BNFL, other creditors and an array of vastly overpaid parasites (i.e. advisors on a success only fee) reconstructing the business such that equity holders will be diluted to obliteration. This motley crew are determined that their proposed reconstruction goes ahead and the board seems happy to play ball but any such proposal must be agreed by shareholders and I think that the times they are a changin'.

If the reconstruction proceeds, existing shareholders will be diluted to 2.5% of the equity plus warrants to buy a further 5%. Since 65% of free cash flow will be diverted to the Nuclear Liabilities Fund (i.e. decommissioning), this 7.5% becomes an economic interest of just 2.6%. This is clearly not an attractive proposition and if it goes through the shares, at 7.65p may be overvalued. However, I think that even on the current reconstruction terms, 15p-25p will prove to be the eventual outturn.

In the interim results, announced in December, and again with the latest quarterlies British Energy warned shareholders that if they did not support the proposed reconstruction by approving either a scheme of arrangement or the disposal of the company, the shares would be de-listed and the reconstruction completed anyway. But if it can be shown that the company is a going concern without the reconstruction, Turkey's won't vote for Christmas and shareholders (who have to approve any deal) will block it.

The Upside from a No Vote

The disposal of British Energy's 50% interest in Amergen, netted 160 million pounds. This repaid the 94 million owed to the Government so removing its ability to force insolvency by calling in its loan. It leaves three groups of creditors to be satisfied from the remaining 66 million pounds, the 20 million pounds of other cash, any cash flow from trading since 12th December and any cash that can be released from the 359 million pounds tied up in trading collateral.

Group one are the bondholders, owed 408 million. The 2003 bonds have matured, but British Energy can probably pay the 110 million pounds owed to the holders from its cash. The 2006 and 2016 bonds may be in default even though their interest continues to be paid. They are very generously treated in the proposed reconstruction, as a result of which the bonds are trading well above par. They may have the right to put British Energy into receivership if the reconstruction is voted down, but it would not be in their interest to do so. In a liquidation, they would receive very little, whereas, if British Energy continues to trade, they will continue to receive interest and can be repaid in full on redemption.

The second group of creditors are the Banks who lent 475 million pounds to finance the purchase of the 2000 MW coal-fired Eggborough power station. They are being offered 150 million pounds in new bonds and 14% of the new shares being issued, worth some 150 million pounds at 5p each. The value of Eggborough has risen significantly in the last year. It is half the size of the Drax power station, and, like Drax, is being fitted with a Flue Gas Desulphurisation plant, due for completion this year. In December, Drax's creditors rejected an offer by International Power to buy up to 36% of its equity and 15% of its debt. Since then, the value of Drax's debt in the secondary market has continued to rise, and Drax is now valued in the market at about 1.25 billion pounds . This suggests that Eggborough is worth closer to 600 million pounds than the 300 million pounds it is valued at in the secondary debt market. If the reconstruction fails, the Eggborough banks will be significantly better off whether or not the power station is sold.

The third group of creditors are the three parties claiming 316 million pounds in relation to onerous trading contracts. Two of the contracts, accounting for half the total, were terminated in 2003, making their claims payable. The third contract, with Teeside Power, may be renegotiable. The sharp rise in electricity prices makes this contract to buy high-priced electricity no longer a financial liability, but 158 million pounds must still be found to satisfy the other two.



In the short term, British Energy would struggle to satisfy these creditors, but given time, the prospects look better. 75 million pounds was absorbed into working capital in the first half of 2003/4, which may be reversible. The Board is "exploring initiatives to reduce the demand for trading collateral," which should diminish as the forward sales run out. Halving the collateral would release 180 million pounds.

And Critically...

The strength of electricity prices means that British Energy will be highly cash-generative when it can take advantage of current prices, and only half of output for the year to 31st March 2005 has been sold forward at low prices. Implementation of the Emission Trading Scheme, due to start on January 1st, 2005, could add a further 10% to electricity prices, increasing profits and cash flow by 160 million pounds per annum. What British Energy's shareholders need is time.

Fortunately, the bureaucracy and delays of the European Union are working in our favour. The EU is not expected to reach a decision on the restructuring until the middle of 2004, delaying a shareholder vote until the Autumn. With luck, if it runs true to form the EU will take longer, postponing the vote until 2005. This gives more time for cash flow to build up and for the prospects to look more secure. It also gives larger shareholders time to prepare an alternative plan. This is necessary because British Energy is firmly committed to the restructuring. Shareholders cannot look to their Board to safeguard their interests and indeed should think about handing out P45s liberally to the top table.

While negotiating with the creditors is the short-term priority of such a plan, there are other considerations. If the reconstruction is voted down, it is quite possible that the government will force the reconstruction through by Act of Parliament, leaving shareholders with nothing. But does this sordid little Government really want to repeat its Railtrack fiasco with an election looming?

The key to this gamble - and I admit it is such - is that electricity prices are increasing which makes a big difference to cashflow. If shareholders are given time to work out an alternative plan, British Energy will still need to raise cash via a rights issue but it is not ludicrous to suggest that current investors will be left owning 65% of the company rather than 2.5%. In other words the shares would be worth 150p each and possibly rather more.

There are obvious risks. The board might steamroller shareholders into accepting a deal that is patently not in the interests of shareholders. Electricity prices might fall. Big shareholders might cave in cravenly. The EU might whizz through approval giving shareholders no time to organise. Okay, there is no risk of the EU being efficient that was my little joke. But there are risks. If I am wrong these shares could conceivably be overvalued but could even in this scenario head up towards 20p. But if I am right 150p here we come. On a risk reward basis that looks good to me.

Key Data

EPIC: BGY
NMS: 150,000
Market Cap: 47 million pounds
Market: Full
Spread: 7.6-7.7p

RNS Number:1395W
British Energy PLC
04 March 2004


BRITISH ENERGY plc - OUTPUT STATEMENT

The statement below replaces the announcement today made at 11:00 (RNS 1324W)
which contained an error relating to timing of the return of service of thereactors
at Heysham 1. A corrected version is given below.

A summary of net output from British Energy's power stations in February is
given in the table below, together with comparative data for the previous
financial year.2002/03 2003/04

February Year to DateFebruary
Year to Date
Output Load Output Load Output Load
Output Load
(TWh) Factor (%) (TWh) Factor (%) (TWh)
Factor(TWh) Factor

(%) (%)
UK Nuclear 5.79 90 58.17 76 5.34 80
59.05 77UK Other 0.53 41 5.23 34 1.15
85 6.94 45




Planned Outages

* A refuelling outage was completed on one reactor at Hartlepool and another
carried out on one reactor at Dungeness B
* Low load refuelling was carried out on one reactor each at Hinkley Point B
and Hunterston B.

Unplanned Outages

* Both reactors at Heysham 1 returned to service following the seawater
cooling pipe failure outage
* Onereactor at Torness was shutdown as a precautionary measure for an
exchange of a potentially defective fuel assembly before returning to
service late February.








Contact:
Andrew Dowler 020 7831 3113(Media Enquiries)
Paul Heward 013552 62201 (Investor Relations)

Find this News Release on our web-site: www.british-energy.com


This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange
END

(Repeating for technical reasons)
LONDON (AFX) - British Energy PLC said nuclear output in February was 5.34
TWh, down from 5.79 TWh a year earlier. The load factor for February was 80 pct,
against 90 pct last year.
The company saida refuelling outage was completed on one reactor at
Hartlepool and another carried out on one reactor at Dungeness B. Low load
refuelling was also carried out on one reactor, each at Hinkley Point B and
Hunterston B as part of the company's planned outages.
It added that both reactors at Heysham 1 returned to service following an
unplanned seawater cooling pipe failure outage.
In addition, one reactor at Torness was shutdown as a precautionary measure
for an exchange of a potentially defective fuel assembly before returning to
service late February.
bam/ak

RNS Number:1669W
British Energy PLC
04 March 2004

A Price Monitoring Extension has been activated in this security.

END

RNS Number:1679W
British Energy PLC
04 March 2004

A second Price Monitoring Extension has been activated in this security.

END

Sue Helen

Sorry to be dense but what is a 'Price Monitoring Extension?'

Regards

PTH

What is a price-monitoring extension. I often see this as part of an RNS news story?


Price-monitoring extensions (PME's) are an inbuilt function of the Stock Exchange's order book and are designed to prevent price volatility in the opening and closing auctions by suspending automatic trading in a security for a period of time if its price moves sharply in either direction.

Mmeber firms are still allowed to submit orders to and delete orders from the order book should such a suspension take place.

In the opening auction, the PME (5 minutes plus a random 30-second end period) occurs when a price is 10% or more away from the last automated order book trade. The random end period is designed to prevent market manipulation by traders pushing through an order in the dying seconds of the day which they know will distort the market. Because the end point is random, no-one knows exactly when the period will end.

In the closing auction, the PME (5 minutes plus random 30-second end period) occurs when a price moves more than 3% (for FTSE 100 securities) and 5% (for securities outside the FTSE 100 that are traded on SETS) from the VWAP (Volume Weighted Average Price period), which is calculated on the trading between 16:20 and 16:30.

Below is an article which appeared in Shares Magazine a couple of weeks ago. I am sure it will be ready differently depending on if you are a Bond Holder, Share Holder etc.

For as a Shareholder, it means hold on, do not bail out, as it's not over for us shareholders.

Wild hopes to zap BEs restructure

The battle of British Energy (BE) continues apace, with investors hoping to overturn the restructuring agreed last autumn.

Investors are hoping to call the bluff of bondholders, who stand to scoop 92.5% of the shares. BEs bonds are changing hands at 15% above their face value strange for a company supposedly in dire straits.

A predicted rise in power prices next year would mean a turnaround for BE. It worked out business plans based on low power prices, giving it a tiny valuation.

Rebels would like to see Eggborough, BEs only non-nuclear station, sold to pay off the bondholders. Eggborough cost over 600 million but has been written down to 150 million. Offers for Drax suggest 600 million is nearer the mark.

Supporters were dismayed last week when US hedge fund Appaloosa announced it no longer had a disclosable stake in BE and the shares crashed on the news.

Last years rescue deal came in two parts: a share for debt swap by bondholders, and a conversion of 3.9 billion of reprocessing and power station closure provisions into a 65% dividend sweep to the government.

BEs reprocessing contract with state-owned BNFL expires in 2006. Rebels argue that reprocessing is costly and unnecessary. Without the contract, BNFLs Sellafield plant would become an even bigger headache for taxpayers.

BNFL has agreed to slash its prices, so BE is cash neutral at 14 per megawatt hour (MWh). Beyond 21, the production cost is flat at 16.4 per MWh. These details are crucial to BEs valuation.

Wholesale prices collapsed after regulators forced generators to sell stations and introduced a commodity trading system favouring generators which could switch plants on and off. It penalised BE, whose reactors need to run steadily.

Based on the restructuring, our graph estimates BEs valuation at different power prices. It assumes a PE of 10.

Power prices are set to rise next year with the carbon emissions trading system. Tom Delay, chief executive of the government-owned Carbon Trust, expects a 5% to 15% rise in wholesale prices. BE would be a big winner.

BE needs the approval of the European Commission before the restructuring can be submitted to shareholders. A verdict is expected in midsummer. You may think it is all over but the affair still casts a sinister glow over the shares and the behaviour of the board.

Shares says: This saga is strange and unsatisfactory.

Investtech Analysis:

Positive Candidate (Medium term) - Mar 4, 2004
Has fallen 91% since the peak on 30 Aug 2002 at 84.50. Is within an approximate horizontal trend, which indicates further development in the same direction. Has given positive signal from a rectangle formation by a break up through the resistance at 6.28. Further rise to 12.48 or more is signaled. The volume balance is positive and strengthens the stock further in the short term. The stock has broken up through the resistance at p 6.80. This predicts a further rise. High risk.

Positive Candidate (Long term) - Mar 4, 2004
Has fallen 99% since the peak on 20 Jan 1999 at 730. Is within a falling trend, which indicates a continued decline. It, however, gave a positive signal from a rectangle formation at the break up through the resistance at 6.28. Further rise to 12.48 or more is signaled. The volume balance is positive and strengthens the stock further in the short term. The stock has support at p 3.50 and resistance at p 255. High risk with a difference between the lowest and the highest price of an average month of 129%.

Price very stable at 7.5-7.9 pence as it has been over the last few days. We have seen constant big buys going through and not many sells at all have gone through this week.

Price bouncing off the ten day moving average, 7.50-7.95 pence.

still sitting on that ten day ma Sue, perhaps bgy and pmd will do the double act and rocket together ;o)

Could happen soon erenr, need higher volumes.

SueHelen

Clearly this is a long shot, but interestingly, further increases in electricity prices were part of the news today. I wonder if BGY will benefit and if this will be reflected in the share price.

Regards

PTH

is still picking up sue helen

RNS Number:4891W
British Energy PLC
12 March 2004

12 March 2004

BRITISH ENERGY plc

THIRD QUARTER RESULTS - EBITDA, CONTINGENT ASSET AND NUCLEAR FUEL COSTS

Following the announcement of its third quarter results on 26 February 2004 and
the related results presentation, British Energy has recently become aware, as a
result of enquiries by investors, that the accounting for the fuel payments
under the new fuel services contracts with British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) and
the implications for earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortisation (EBITDA) post restructuring requires clarification.

The Company's results presentation included a statement of EBITDA. This showed
EBITDA for continuing activities of #42m for the 9 month period ended 31
December 2003 and #26m for the 3 month period ended 31 December 2003 in
accordance with UK GAAP as set out in Slide 10 of the presentation (see
Appendix). However, as stated in the presentation, to produce an adjusted
EBITDA on a post restructured basis, it would be necessary to make a number of
adjustments which would not be in accordance with UK GAAP. Such adjustments
would include the profit and loss difference between the BNFL contracts in place
prior to the restructuring (historic contracts) and those that will be in place
after the restructuring (new contracts). This adjustment would involve an
addition of #37m to EBITDA for the 9 month period and an addition of #6m for the
3 month period which compares with the cash benefits between the historic and
new back end contracts of #137m and #33m (see note 3 Table 1) respectively.

In order to present EBITDA for the 3 and 9 month periods on a post restructured
basis, thetable below is provided for illustrative purposes. It is not in
accordance with UK GAAP and does not constitute a forecast.


3 months
9 monthsended ended
31 December
31 December
20032003

#m
#m

EBITDA continuing activities in accordance with UK GAAP 26
42
Benefit of new contracts (1)6 37
Adjusted EBITDA 32
79


(1) The financial benefit to the Group of the new contracts in any financial period
will depend, in
part, on the prevailing average electricity market price during that period


No other adjustment has been made which may be required to take account of the
potential impact on EBITDA of any restructuring related adjustments nor any
other changes which may impact the business.

Slide 10 of the presentation included a reference to capex included in operating
costs. As disclosed in the results, capital investment expenditure of #13m for
the 3 month period and #60m for the 9 month period has been expensed in the
profit and loss account. These amounts have been expensed to the profit and
loss account as a result of the significant fixed asset impairment at 31 March
2003. The Company will review the economic assumptions underlying the
calculation of fixed asset carrying values at 31 March 2004, in line with FRS11.
The amount that would be capitalised will be determined in accordance with FRS
15. There is no certainty that expenditure previously treated as fixed asset
additions will be capitalised in the future. In view of the foregoing it is not
possible to estimate the future impact on EBITDA.

During the third quarter there were extended outages at Heysham 1 and Sizewell B
with a lost profit contribution estimated at #50m.Due to the uncertainty about
the recurrence of unplanned outage this amount has not been included within
adjusted EBITDA.

The foregoing has dealt with the EBITDA implications. More details about the
differences between the historic and new contracts are set out below. The
accounting for nuclear fuel costs for the 3 and 9 month periods was drawn up on
the basis that the historic back end fuel contracts continued in existence. The
new contracts are conditional on, inter alia, completion of the proposed
restructuring. However, cash payments are being made to BNFL as if the new
contracts had become effective on 1 April 2003. This gave rise to a creditor
balance in the accounts which will be released, as part of other restructuring
adjustments, upon implementation of the proposed restructuring. The cumulative
balance of #259m at 31 December 2003 was disclosed as a contingent asset in the
results. The contingent asset has not yet been recognised in its financial
accounts and its recognition will occur only on the successful completion of the
restructuring.

Table 1 below shows the nuclear fuel profit and loss and cash costs under both
the historic and the new contracts for the 3 month and 9 month ended 31 December
2003. Thefuel costs comprise front end (fabrication, uranics and ancillary
costs) and back end (spent fuel services) costs.



Table 1 - Summary of Nuclear Fuel Costs (P&L) for 3 and 9 Month ended 31
December 2003 and associated cash payments


3 months
9 months
ended
ended31 December 2003 31 December 2003
P&L effect Cash P&L
effect Cash effect
effect#m
#m #m #m

Nuclear fuel cost under historic contracts 78(1) 98
233(1) 336

Nuclear fuel costs under new contracts 72(2) 65196(2)
199

Savings under new contracts 6 33 (3) 37
137(1) (3)

(1) As disclosed in the unaudited third quarter results to 31 December 2003.

(2) Includes back end fuel costs assuming an average electricity market price
of #17.8/MWh
as applicable under the new contracts

(3) Excludes stoodstill interest of #6m for 3 month period and #9m for 9
months period


As can be seen from the above table the cash savings from the new BNFL contracts
are #33m for the 3 month period and #137m for the 9 month period, whereas the
profit and loss saving is #6m and #37m respectively. This is due to the
difference between cash payments and amounts charged to the profit and loss
account under the structure of the historic BNFL contracts. Since the profile
of cash payments over the life of the historic BNFL contracts is weighted
towards current years the actual total cash payments for front and back end
costsfor the 9 month period would have been #336m, #103m higher than the profit
and loss account charge for the period of #233m.

To illustrate the impact of differing average electricity market prices Table 2
shows the total fuel costs for a 12 month period at market prices for
electricity of #16/MWh and #21/MWh (2002/03 money values) with an assumed total
nuclear output level of 67TWh, of which AGR output represents 58TWh. These
figures are illustrative only and do not constitute a forecast.Table 2 - Indicative
Nuclear Fuel Operating Costs (P&L)
for 12 Month Period


Average electricity market price as applicable under new #16/MWh(1)
#21/MWh(1)
contracts#m #m

Nuclear fuel costs under historic contracts (3) 319
329
Nuclear fuel costs under new contracts 225
351

Cost impact 94
(22)(2)



(1) The #16/MWh and #21/MWh price level quoted above are stated in 2002/03 money
values.

(2) The cost impact is cappedat #(22)m at average electricity market prices above
#21/MWh and at
prices above this level total fuel costs are unchanged on the basis of 2002/03
money values.

(3) Calculated using 2002/03 money values


British Energy's Proposed Restructuring remains subject to a large number of
significant uncertainties and important conditions, including receipt by the
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (the Secretary of State) of a
satisfactory notification from the European Commission thatin so far as the
proposals involve the grant of State Aid by the UK Government, such aid is
compatible with the common market. The Secretary of State expects to receive
this notification by mid 2004. Furthermore, the Secretary of State is entitlednot
to proceed with the Proposed Restructuring if, in her opinion, the Group
will not be viable in all reasonably foreseeable conditions without access to
additional financing beyond that which is committed and will continue to be
available when required.

If for any reason British Energy is unable to implement the Proposed
Restructuring it may be unable to meet its financial obligations as they fall
due in which case it may have to take appropriate insolvency proceedings. If
British Energywere to commence insolvency proceedings, distributions, if any,
to unsecured creditors may represent only a small fraction of their unsecured
liabilities and it is highly unlikely that there would be any return to
shareholders. Even if the ProposedRestructuring is completed, the return, if
any, for shareholders will represent a very significant dilution of their
existing interests.

This document contains certain "forward-looking" statements as defined in
Section 21E of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including statements with
respect to British Energy's business plans, the performance of its stations,
electricity prices and other matters that are not historical facts concerning
the business operations, financial condition andresults of operations of
British Energy. These forward-looking statements typically contain words such
as "intends", "expects", "anticipates", "estimates", "aim", "believe", "assume",
"should" and words of similar import, which are predictions of orindicate
future events or future trends. These forward-looking statements involve known
and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which are in some cases
beyond the control of British Energy and may cause actual results or performance
todiffer materially from those expressed or implied from such forward-looking
statements. British Energy has identified some important factors that may cause
such differences in British Energy's Form 20-F annual report for the year ended
31 March 2003 filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.


Appendix

Slide 10 of Presentation on third quarter results
Financial Performance - EBITDA - Analysis3 months ended 31 9 months ended 31
December 2003
December 2003#m #m

Loss after tax and exceptional items (3)
(82)
Interest 29
54
Revalorisation 40
139
Tax (7)
1
Depreciation11 36
Gain on sale (37)
(37)
AmerGen loss/(profit) 21
(22)
Net exceptional credits(28) (47)
EBITDA continuing activities 26
42

Capex included in operating costs 1360



Note: This table does not take account of the impact of the revised BNFL
contracts, which would be one of the financial adjustments to be made on
Restructuring.


Net cash flow from operating activities27 1




Management will host a conference call for analysts and investors today - 12
March 2004 - at 1600 UK time (1100 - Eastern Standard time).

The conference call can be accessed by dialling, UK dial in: 0845 146 2004,
International dial in: + 44 (0) 1452 569 393, US dial in: 1 866 434 1089.

For further information please contact:

Paul Heward British Energy 01355 262201
Andrew Dowler Financial Dynamics 020 7831 3113


This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange
END

QRTUUSSRSRROAAR

LONDON (AFX) - British Energy PLC has set an indicative target for nuclear
output for 2004/05 of 64.5 TWh which takes into account an estimated loss of 2.5
TWh resulting from work required to carry out cast iron pipework replacement at
its stations.
The move follows a review of the implications for further cast iron pipework
replacement after the recent unplanned outage at Heysham 1.
The cost of the replacement work will be absorbed within the company's
normal plant expenditureplans, British Energy said.
newsdesk@afxnews.com

British Energy sets nuclear output target of 64.5 TWh for 2004/05 - UPDATE

(Adds details) LONDON (AFX) - British Energy PLC has set an indicative target for nuclear output for 2004/05 of 64.5 TWh which takes into account an estimated loss of 2.5 TWh resulting from work required to carry out cast iron pipeworkreplacement at its stations.

The move follows a review of the implications for further cast iron pipework replacement after the recent unplanned outage at Heysham 1. The cost of the replacement work will be absorbed within the company's
normal plant expenditure plans, British Energy said.

The anticipated level of nuclear output in subsequent years is not affected by the work.

The measures are unlikely to materially impact results for the current year, but may exceed the levelof budgeted investments in the future. British Energy plans to give an further update with its full year results.

British Energy reiterated, that, if it is unable to implement the proposed estructuring, insolvency remains a possibility, leavingshareholders with little hope of seeing any cash and unsecured creditors receiving only a small proportion of what they are owed.

newsdesk@afxnews.com

Neutral (Short term) - Mar 19, 2004
Has risen 64% since the bottom on 17 Dec 2003 at 4.03. Is within a falling trend and continued decline within the current trend is indicated. On reactions back, there is resistance against the ceiling of the trend channel. The stock is approaching the support at p 6.20, which may give a positive reaction. The average difference between the lowest and highest price of an average month is 89%. The risk is therefore high.

Weak Positive Candidate (Medium term) - Mar 19, 2004
Has fallen 92% since the peak on 30 Aug 2002 at 84.50. Is within an approximate horizontal trend, which indicates further development in the same direction. Has reacted back after the break of the rectangle formation. There is support around 6.28, which now indicates good buying opportunities. An established break through this support will neutralize the positive signal. The stock has marginally broken down through the support at p 6.80. An established break predicts a further decline. The average difference between the lowest and highest price of an average month is 89%. The risk is therefore high.