My history of buying on highs and selling on lows makes me hope the price jumps rapidly whilst I am away from the computer and the company is bought out above £1 so I never have the lingering doubt of "if only I had held for longer".
If QFI went belly up and I lost all my invested money I would be about 5% down on my total investment fund, not dramatic but enough of a dissapointment.
If it multi bags then I will clip off a decent amount and reinvest in my unit trusts, safer and slow growers, the bulk of any gain I will leave invested in QFI as it is almost unlimited where it can go if marine and power come good, a truly "disruptive" technology, sky's almost the limit.
Total success or failure is not a life changing event for me but if successful it will make a big difference if it multi bags. It will buy the wife plenty of handbags and shoes (she never seems to have the right colour handbag for those dresses she owns, or they are to big or to small - so she says, or she needs a new dress which does not have matching shoes in the cupboard etc).
There are very few share holding I know which has no real ceiling on earnings, no major production or storage overheads, limits on production etc, QFI is a tight profitable company with a global reach.
TH2 has sort of opened up an interesting debate about where we as PI's might exit
As we suspect that the terms of the KSA project going commercial will probably bring in a very decent revenue stream for the company, sufficient to say support an SP of +100p, where does one choose to exit?
For me that kind of SP would provide me with an very comfortable retirement, but here's the rub, if I did sell out at that sort of level, would I regret it later, if the company was to achieve it's full potential, and the SP reach multiples of that
Fear and greed, the main drivers of the stock market
I think you missed my point, many of those 'hiding below 3%' are PIs, as are the majority of LTHS. These include the former partners in IEG, who may still be in possession of 200m+ shares, although we have no way of checking this
Every name, with the exception of Hemant T. in the significant shareholders, over 3%, list your link goes to, are also both PIs or groups of PIs and are all LTHs.
There are many, like me who never trade their core holdings, adding as funds allow. There are even investors whose children's pension funds contain them and several of those in the over 3% list have passed millions of shares over to their adult children, in excess of their current holdings.
There has also, as far as I can recall, never been a trading day on which anything other than a small percentage of the shares in public hands come to market.
It is a what price point that some of those tightly held shares will join the free float that interests me. Some of us are holding until the company is sold, others for a significant multi bagger.
The Maersk situation gets stranger and stranger - In my understanding all the available information points to scrubbers being the best 'all round' solution albeit more initial set-up expense but providing huge savings in running costs from the off.
It's hard to believe that through making the devistating losses, indicated in Th2s Hamburger-Sud post, that they decided they couldn't afford scrubbers or more significantly didn't recognise the maths for MSAR as being a solution - which is what I think Th2 is alluding to.
I'm just a punter trying to make some money from a good thing and confess I don't fully understand much of what goes on beyond simple supply & demand - for instance why the share price is so very much lower now with what we've got on the table with KSA than it was when commercialisation first became a realistic target leading up to the sea trials with Maersk.
Potential being valued more than where we are now ! I often ask myself why's that? but that's probably my ignorance showing through.
Still, although this is a common phenominum within AIM, I think there's a lot more to come in terms of explaination re this current delay and imo it's probably more to do with the David & Goliath position that QFI are in than anything else.
It's pretty obvious that the degree of the next upward share movement will depend on the degree of commercialisation indicated in the next RNS but I am starting to think that there will be something else that is or was related to QFI holding the key but with a very small hand.
These are unqualified thoughts but if it were purely contractual issues then 7 weeks has been a long time for dotting Is & crossing Ts - especially as eveything is installed and ready to go - what ever it is I'm hoping it will be a positive and worth waiting for.
Having said that I read the posts re Th2s comments re the small amount of floating stock and ToTs post with the link https://simplywall.st/news/who-are-the-major-shareholders-in-quadrise-fuels-international-plc-aimqfi/ with great interest
Can I take comfort in that 61% shares are with institutional investors, 24% with private companies, 9% insider ownership and general public has only 4.43% ?
Well if the MMs are trading only with a percentage of the 4.43% owned by the public
and as I don't think there's been any significant sell offs or reductions in QFI holdings lately - then I might of just answered my own question about the logic (or lack of) re our share price.
Looking at this week's volumes the MMs playing % is getting smaller - : )
When Hamburger-Sud were taken over by Maersk, I contacted their IR to ask "how many of their ships were scrubber equipped?" No response was forthcoming which does not surprise me having read the article below:
By Mike Wackett 21/02/2018
Hamburg Suds entry into the mainstream east west tradelanes in 2015, principally through its slot charter agreement with Middle East challenger carrier UASC, was badly timed according to its CEO.
Speaking at the Maersk Group Capital Markets Day in Copenhagen yesterday, Arnt Vespermann, chief executive of Hamburg Sud, said about the iconic companys strategy to change its focus from being a north south liner to a global carrier: I would say timing wise there was room for improvement.
Following the completion of the $4bn sale to Maersk Line at the end of last year, the Hamburg-headquartered carriers profit and loss accounts, which have been published for the first time in 147 years, show the extent of the damage to its bottom line that would have influenced the Oetker Group family in its decision to exit liner shipping.
The P&L accounts, which according to Mr Vespermann, were a closely guarded secret and not disclosed to even senior directors of the company, show that Hamburg Suds profits sharply declined from 2015.
According to the snapshot of the accounts Hamburg Sud recorded a net profit of $408m in 2013, which had declined to $238m the next year.
However, by 2015 profitability had plunged to a breakeven result and in 2016 Hamburg Sud recorded a loss of $117m on its trading.
In the global cooperation agreement it signed with UASC, the Dubai-based carrier gained entry into north south trades through slot charters on Hamburg Sud vessels, whereas the German carrier was able to break into the Asia North Europe and transpacific tradelanes through a reciprocal arrangement.
But in order to capture market share both carriers were forced to adopt an aggressive sales strategy in order to fill the slots that they were purchasing from each other.
Unsurprisingly freight rates were driven down to sub-economic levels and were not even covering the cost of the slots.
Indeed, one senior Hamburg Sud executive admitted privately to The Loadstar at the time that Hamburg Sud was losing around $400 on every box carried from Asia to Europe.
Similar loses were understood to have been incurred by UASC on Latin American trades, where the carrier invested heavily in reefer equipment.
Meanwhile, stressing the need to keep the commercial aspects of the two carriers separate after the acquisition, and the success of the personal touch approach to customers by Hamburg Sud, Mr Vespermann said, there is a reason why a customer books with Hamburg Sud.
And in the same presentation Maersks Soren Toft, who is the new COO of Hamburg Sud, confirmed that all operational functions of the two carriers would be integrated by the second quarter of this year, which he said was where the savings are.
Maersk said it is looking for synergy savings of at least $350 $400 per annum from next year.
Nevertheless, Mr Toft admitted that some of the combined market share would be lost or given up.
Rarely does 1+1 become two when you make an acquisition, and maybe there are also certain customers that we dont want in the future, when it comes to the cargo mix, said Mr Toft.
I just wish the share price had merely "marked time" instead of going to a third of my average. Mind you that is actually good going compared with some other shares of my ha ha can hardly write with a straight face...my Portfolio
"All components of exhaust gas were test and while total PM emissions were generally higher for HFO than for MGO; for the smallest size-fraction measured the opposite was observed. This finding emphasises that to minimise negative health effects of particles from ships, further regulation may be needed to reduce small-sized particles but a fuel shift to low sulphur fuel alone does not seem to accomplish this reduction.
When a scrubber is installed and in operation on a ship, the scrubbing action reduces not only SOx production but also captures most of the particulates of all sizes along with other contaminants.
Some more info on large shareholders here:https://simplywall.st/news/who-are-the-major-shareholders-in-quadrise-fuels-international-plc-aimqfi/
Not sure where they get their info from. FT tear sheets perhaps, but this list does not include known institutional holders which feature on the company's website nor Director holdings:https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/profile?s=QFI:LSE
Obviously I can't know an exact figure, but a large proportion of LTHs like me, have core holdings of millions of shares that are tightly held and are never traded. I am of course small fry compared to many LTHs.
Add in investors like you, who only add to their holdings, and that must amount to many millions more
You can see by the way the MMs go in for tree shakes and the way the sp rises (or falls) on such relatively small volumes that there are not loads of shares floating around.
Now what will be interesting is to know at what price point some of those tightly held shares would become available. Is it £2/5/7? I wishI knew.
Curious to learn how you know there's only a small amount of floating stock
For my sins I topped up again after the 'commissioning' RNS, but that will do for me now. QFI is 60% of my portfolio, which is bonkers by rational standards, but I've had an unwavering faith in it's eventual adoption, and I reckon we're almost there now with KSA, just waiting for the ink on paper
I'm also expecting JGC to announce something soon, they did say that it could be implemented rapidly, so presumably they've identified target clients and are making progress if it's to become a "significant new business stream"
Marine still has me puzzled, the case for scrubbers and HFO or MSAR seems compelling, so what do Maersk know that all else don't? And another thing, doesn't low sulphur gas oil need a LONO? Incredible that it potentially wrecks certain mechanical components yet it doesn't need a lengthy trial? Quite bizarre
Anyway, back to hibernation until the big RNS and the fireworks . . .
Ignore the headline and focus on this bit: "Reflecting our strategic approach, we are also working with Cepsa to explore expansion opportunities in our downstream business, in the UAE and overseas, that will deliver competitive returns and long term growth opportunities for both parties, and for the UAE. CEPSA can certainly speak from personal experience of working with QFI and will be looking to create a wider market for MSAR now that they have the production facilities in place.
"it is anticipated that this can be achieved by the end of Q1 2018"
when ran through the QFI dehypifier AI language converter translates to:
Personally I'm not that bothered. As long as it does happen and the trial is successful, and everything goes ahead happily ever after. All assuming QFI realise a wad of cash in the meantime and don't need to go cap in hand to the market with a depressed share price.
Following recent discussions between the KSA counterparties, an unexpected delay has resulted from one aspect of the internal approvals process relating to the boiler trial agreement. The respective parties are working hard to resolve this issue and it is anticipated that this can be achieved by the end of Q1 2018
Thinking through the above statement from yesterday.
We have been let down a number of times with both poor information, timings and communication with hindsight Im sure our expectation could have been managed better.
So maybe the above timetable is a longstop date with plenty of fat built in and just maybe we could have some good news well before March 31st??
I was chased by an EMU once
Walking across an old Manor House grounds we strayed off the path and an Emu started following us pecking at our coats
I found out that my missus could run and jump faster / higher than me as she cleared the 8ft high deer fence before I did!
Only thing I should add is that the value I quoted below is not the basis for any revenue QFI will receive, just an estimate of magnitude of benefit to Saudi. The previous forum posts docontain some QFI revenue estimates if that is what you are after though.
Members of the shareholders forum might recall I posted an estimate of the level of benefit that might accrue to Saudi (both to entities in the supply chain and to Saudi national finances).
I was asked to estimate what a short term realistic benefit might be, so have just posted that.
Short answer is in the region of $13Bn-$21Bn annually in the short to medium term, (midpoint $17Bn) with more likelihood to the upside given the assumptions and estimates I used in the absence of certain hard data points.
Longer story on the forum. More thoughts on numbers to follow.
Perhaps because it's not their MMU or novel system.
So they can't announce something they don't own. Instead they must wait until the owner - their client - makes their own announcement. If I help my neighbour fit a new bathroom shall I announce it to his family?
That timing could be very different and depend on financial, political, etc. etc. concerns of the client. The client might not want to announce only one piece, "hey folks we have an MMU!!!!" when their customers, clients, relationships may have no idea what on earth an MMU is.
Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.
The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.
The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.