Capital Raising Services

Real Estate Credit Investments NAV rises to EUR1.69 per ordinary share

May 10th, 2011

Real Estate Credit Investments NAV rises to EUR1.69 per ordinary share

Real Estate Credit Investments, the Cheyne Capital managed investment company formerly known as Queen’s Walk, has reported an increase in net asset value from EUR1.59 to EUR1.69 per ordinary share since its recent fundraising.

The company’s net profit was EUR3.1m for the quarter ended 30 September 2010, compared to a net profit of EUR2.8m for the quarter ended 30 June 2010. This represents the fifth consecutive quarter the company has recorded a profit.

The investment portfolio generated gross cash flows of EUR4.5m in the quarter compared with an estimate of EUR3.5m and EUR6.1m received in the previous quarter.

Subsequent to the extraordinary dividend of 14.5 cents per share already paid for the period 1 April 2010 to 15 September 2010, the company has not declared an ordinary dividend for the second quarter. The company has announced a preference dividend of 2.3p for the period 16 September 2010 to 31 December 2010 and currently intends to declare a second interim ordinary dividend in due course.

RECI is delivering on the objectives it laid out in September 2010. The EUR26.6m capital raising that was completed on 15 September 2010 has put the company in a position to invest in undervalued real estate debt.

As at 30 September, the real estate debt portfolio was valued at EUR37.4m, or 37 per cent of the investment portfolio, up from 31 per cent three months earlier.

RECI made EUR9.8m of new bond purchases in the three months to 30 September. From 1 October to 15 November 2010, the company has purchased a further EUR15.4m of bonds, increasing the overall fair value of the real estate debt portfolio to EUR52.9m or 45 per cent of the investment portfolio.

Tom Chandos, chairman of Real Estate Credit Investments, says: “It is a sign of the growing strength of Real Estate Credit Investments that it has delivered a fifth consecutive quarter of profit while laying the foundations for future growth with fresh investments in the real estate debt portfolio.”

Real Estate Credit Investments Limited (RECI) is a Guernsey-incorporated investment company listed on the main market of the London Stock Exchange.

Article from articlesbase.com

Posted in Capital Raising | Tags: Credit, Estate, EUR1.69, investments, ordinary, Real, rises, Share | No Comments »

Octane Rating

May 9th, 2011

Octane Rating

Measurement methods

Research Octane Number (RON)

The most common type of octane rating worldwide is the Research Octane Number (RON). RON is determined by running the fuel in a test engine with a variable compression ratio under controlled conditions, and comparing the results with those for mixtures of iso-octane and n-heptane.

Motor Octane Number (MON)

There is another type of octane rating, called Motor Octane Number (MON), or the aviation lean octane rating, which is a better measure of how the fuel behaves when under load as it is done at 900 rpm instead of the 600 rpm of the RON. MON testing uses a similar test engine to that used in RON testing, but with a preheated fuel mixture, a higher engine speed, and variable ignition timing to further stress the fuel’s knock resistance. Depending on the composition of the fuel, the MON of a modern gasoline will be about 8 to 10 points lower than the RON. Normally, fuel specifications require both a minimum RON and a minimum MON.[citation needed]

Anti-Knock Index (AKI)

In most countries, including all of those of Australia and Europe the “headline” octane rating shown on the pump is the RON, but in Canada, the United States and some other countries,[which?] the headline number is the average of the RON and the MON, called the Anti-Knock Index (AKI). It may also sometimes be called the Road Octane Number (RdON), Pump Octane Number (PON), or (R+M)/2.

Difference between RON and AKI

Because of the 8 to 10 point difference noted above, the octane rating shown in the United States is 4 to 5 points lower than the rating shown elsewhere in the world for the same fuel. See the table in the following section for a comparison.

Examples of octane ratings

The MON of n-heptane and iso-octane are exactly 0 and 100, by definition. The following table lists octane ratings for various other fuels.

Fuel

RON

MON

AKI

hexadecane

< -30

n-octane

-10

n-heptane (MON 0 by definition)

diesel fuel

1525

2-methylheptane

n-hexane

2-methylhexane

1-heptene

n-pentane

requirement for a typical two-stroke outboard engine

1-pentene

n-butanol

n-butane

“regular” gasoline in Canada and the US

9192

8283

“EuroSuper” or “EuroPremium”

8586

9091

“premium” gasoline in Indonesia

“premium” gasoline in the US

97-98

8889

“SuperPlus” in Germany, Great Britain and Slovenia

8990

9394

iso-octane (MON 100 by definition)

100

benzene

101

“BP Ultimate 102″

102

9394

9798

t-butanol

103

ethane

108

propane

110

toluene

111

103

E85 gasoline

100-105

xylene

117

isopropanol

118

108

ethanol

129

102

116

methanol

133

105

119

methane

135

122

129

hydrogen*

> 130

very low

*Hydrogen does not fit well into the normal definitions of octane number. It has a very high RON and a low MON, so that it has low knock resistance in practice, due to its low ignition energy (primarily due to its low dissociation energy) and extremely high flame speed. These traits are highly desirable in rocket engines, but undesirable in Otto-cycle engines. However, as a minor blending component (e.g. in a bi-fuel vehicle), hydrogen raises overall knock resistance. Flame speed is limited by the rest of the component species; hydrogen may reduce knock by contributing its high thermal conductivity[citation needed]

Effects of octane rating

It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since August 2007.

It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards. Tagged since August 2008.

Higher octane ratings correlate to higher activation energies. Activation energy is the amount of energy necessary to start a chemical reaction. Since higher octane fuels have higher activation energies, it is less likely that a given compression will cause autoignition.

It might seem odd that fuels with higher octane ratings are used in more powerful engines, since such fuels ignite less easily. However, an uncontrolled ignition is not desired in an internal combustion engine. The fuel must be fired at a precise time. An ignition too early will cause the resulting forces to try to turn the crankshaft in the reverse direction. This will not cause the engine to rotate in the reverse direction because of the kinetic energy in the rotating assemblies and the flywheel, but will strain the crankshaft. This strain is the source of the characteristic ‘ping’ noise heard during detonation. This reduces power output, because much of the energy is absorbed as strain and heat in parts of the engine,[citation needed] rather than being converted to torque at the crankshaft.

A fuel with a higher octane rating can be run at a higher compression ratio without causing detonation. Compression is directly related to power (see engine tuning), so engines that require higher octane usually deliver more motive power. Engine power is a function of the fuel, as well as the engine design, and is related to octane rating of the fuel. Power is limited by the maximum amount of fuel-air mixture that can be forced into the combustion chamber. When the throttle is partially open, only a small fraction of the total available power is produced because the manifold is operating at pressures far below atmospheric. In this case, the octane requirement is far lower than when the throttle is opened fully and the manifold pressure increases to atmospheric pressure, or higher in the case of supercharged or turbocharged engines.

Many high-performance engines are designed to operate with a high maximum compression, and thus demand high-octane premium gasoline. A common misconception is that power output or fuel mileage can be improved by burning higher octane fuel than a particular engine was designed for. The power output of an engine depends in part on the energy density of its fuel, but similar fuels with different octane ratings have similar density. Since switching to a higher octane fuel does not add any more hydrocarbon content or oxygen, the engine cannot produce more power.

However, burning fuel with a lower octane rating than required by the engine often reduces power output and efficiency one way or another. If the engine begins to detonate (knock), that reduces power and efficiency for the reasons stated above. Many modern car engines feature a knock sensor a small piezoelectric microphone which detects knock, and then sends a signal to the engine control unit to retard the ignition timing. Retarding the ignition timing reduces the tendency to detonate, but also reduces power output and fuel efficiency.

Most fuel stations have two storage tanks (even those offering 3 or 4 octane levels), and you are given a mixture of the higher and lower octane fuel. Purchasing premium simply means more fuel from the higher octane tank. The detergents in the fuel are the same.

The octane rating was developed by chemist Russell Marker at the Ethyl Corporation c1926. The selection of n-heptane as the zero point of the scale was due to the availability of very high purity n-heptane, not mixed with other isomers of heptane or octane, distilled from the resin of the Jeffrey Pine. Other sources of heptane produced from crude oil contain a mixture of different isomers with greatly differing ratings, which would not give a precise zero point.

Regional variations

The selection of octane ratings available at the pump can vary greatly from region to region.

Australia, “regular” unleaded fuel is 91 RON, “premium” unleaded with 95 RON is widely available, and 98 RON fuel is also reasonably common. Shell used to sell 100 RON petrol from a small number of service stations, most of which are located in capital cities (stopped in August 2008).

Germany, big suppliers like Shell or Aral offer 100 RON gasoline (Shell V-Power, Aral Ultimate) at almost every fuel station.

Italy, 95 RON is the only compulsory gasoline offered (verde), only few fuel stations (Agip, IP, IES, OMV) offer 98 RON as the premium type, many Shell and Tamoil stations close to the cities offer also V-Power Gasoline rated at 100 RON

Indonesia Indonesia’s “premium” petrol has 88 RON which is the most consumed petrol as it is cheap (around 50 cents each liter). Other choices are “Pertamax” with RON 92 and the “Pertamax Plus” variant has RON 95, which is the highest octane in Indonesia.

Malaysia, the “regular” unleaded fuel is 95 RON, “premium” fuel is rated at 97 RON, and Shell’s V-Power is rated at 97 RON.

Netherlands, Shell V-Power is a 97 RON (labelled as 95 due to the legalities of only using 95 or 98 labelling), whereas in neighbouring Germany Shell V-Power consists of the regular 100 RON fuel.

New Zealand; 91 RON “Regular” and 95 RON “Premium” are both widely available. 98 RON is available instead of 95 RON at some service stations in larger urban areas.

Ireland, 95 RON “unleaded” is the only petrol type available through stations, although E5 (99 RON) is becoming more commonplace.

Russia and CIS countries, 80 RON (76 MON) is the minimum available, the standard is 92 RON, however, the most used type is 95 RON.[citation needed]

South Africa, “regular” unleaded fuel is 95 RON in coastal areas with most fuel stations optionally offering 97 RON. Inland (higher altitude) “regular” unleaded fuel is 93 RON, once again most fuel stations optionally offer 95 RON.

United Kingdom, ‘regular’ petrol has an octane rating of 95 RON, with 97 RON fuel being widely available as the Super Unleaded. Tesco and Shell both offer 99 RON fuel. BP is currently trialling the public selling of the super-high octane petrol BP Ultimate Unleaded 102, which as the name suggests, has an octane rating of 102 RON. Although BP Ultimate Unleaded (with an octane rating of 97 RON) and BP Ultimate Diesel are both widely available throughout the UK, BP Ultimate Unleaded 102 is (as of October 2007) only available throughout the UK in 10 filling stations, and is priced at about two and half times more than their 97 RON fuel. Also offered Shell V-Power, but in a 99 RON octane rating, and Tesco fuel stations also supply the Greenergy produced 99 RON “Tesco 99″.

United States, in the Rocky Mountain (high altitude) states, 85 AKI is the minimum octane, and 91 AKI is the maximum octane available in fuel. The reason for this is that in higher-altitude areas, a typical naturally-aspirated engine draws in less air mass per cycle due to the reduced density of the atmosphere. This directly translates to less fuel and reduced absolute compression in the cylinder, therefore deterring knock. It is safe to fill up a carbureted car that normally takes 87 AKI fuel at sea level with 85 AKI fuel in the mountains, but at sea level the fuel may cause damage to the engine. A disadvantage to this strategy is that most turbocharged vehicles are unable to produce full power, even when using the “premium” 91 AKI fuel. In some east coast states, up to 94 AKI is available . In parts of the Midwest (primarily Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois and Missouri) ethanol based E-85 fuel with 105 AKI is available . Often, filling stations near US racing tracks will offer higher octane levels such as 100 AKI. California fuel stations will offer 87, 89, and 91 AKI octane fuels, and at some stations, 100 AKI or higher octane, sold as racing fuel. Until summer 2001 before the phase-out of methyl tert-butyl ether aka MTBE as an octane enhancer additive, 92 AKI was offered in lieu of 91.

Generally, octane ratings are higher in Europe than they are in North America and most other parts of the world. This is especially true when comparing the lowest available octane level in each country. In many parts of Europe, 95 RON (90-91 AKI) is the minimum available standard, with 97/98 RON being higher specification (being called Super Unleaded). The higher rating seen in Europe is an artifact of a different underlying measuring procedure. In most countries (including all of Europe and Australia) the “headline” octane that would be shown on the pump is the RON, but in Canada, the United States and some other countries the headline number is the average of the RON and the MON, sometimes called the Anti-Knock Index (AKI), Road Octane Number (RdON), Pump Octane Number (PON), or (R+M)/2. Because of the 8 to 10 point difference noted above, this means that the octane in the United States will be about 4 to 5 points lower than the same fuel elsewhere: 87 octane fuel, the “regular” gasoline in Canada and the US, would be 91-92 in Europe. However most European pumps deliver 95 (RON) as “regular”, equivalent to 9091 US AKI=(R+M)/2, and deliver 98, 99 or 100 (RON) (93-94 AKI) labeled as Super Unleaded – thus regular petrol sold in much of Europe corresponds to premium sold in the United States.

In other countries “regular” unleaded gasoline, when available, is sometimes as low as 85 RON (still with the more regular fuel, 95, and premium, around 98, available).

Speculators May Cause Hikes in Uranium Prices

May 9th, 2011

Speculators May Cause Hikes in Uranium Prices

Summary: TradeTech LLC Chief Executive Gene Clark talked with StockInterview about the uranium bull market, where his price models show uranium prices heading and when to expect the peak of the current upward cycle of the bull market. When will “hard” times again hit the uranium market, and how long will the trough last? And what does the future hold for the uranium price? An industry insider gives us his insights.

StockInterview: When the uranium bull market began, did you foresee /pound uranium, now that the spot price has risen above this level?

Gene Clark:
I don’t think any of us saw per pound coming. We had price projections at the time that indicated probably per pound, which would be a long term equilibrium price in constant dollar terms. But, I think it was a surprise the price went up so high. I think what’s going, the biggest factor right now, is the advent of the so called hedge funds or speculator fund and groups of people. The price started to go up, and they came into the market with the express purpose of buying for holding and then selling into the market later to realize the trading profit. In 2005, the hedge funds were responsible for purchasing about 10 million pounds of the 29 million pounds purchased. I think the market is now finally adjusting to the realities of primary supply and demand. It’s been a depressed market for 20 or 30 years, primarily from the draw down of excess inventories, and what we call secondary supply.

StockInterview: Will the speculators remain active in driving the spot uranium price higher?

Gene Clark:
I think there is still some room for further speculation activity. Uranium Participation Corporation, for example, is rumored to be about to come to the equities market again to raise funds for another purchase. They’re asking for authority to buy UF6, as well as U308, and different forms of uranium than they were locked into before. Whether it be at the 10 million pound level (size of purchase), I think it kind of depends on where the market goes. If it tends to flatten out, then I think there’s going to be obviously less interest on their part. When they were active in the market, they, of course, wanted the price to go up. Therefore, they weren’t too careful about what they paid for uranium. I think that’s a part of it. In the long run, it was due for a readjustment to reflect prices of the cost of new production facilities. But, the hedge funds came in and kind of overdrove the market. Eventually, what it’s going to wind up doing is, if they sell off, it could have the impact of driving prices back down below where they would otherwise have gone.

StockInterview: Did the speculators interfere with the trading efficiency of the uranium market?

Gene Clark:
In theory, speculators come in, tend to take the risk and smooth out market prices. But, it never really works out that way. They always come in and only take the risk, if there’s an opportunity to make money. So some people make a lot of money. It does tend to upset the market. If you get away from the primary users of uranium and primary producers of uranium as your market participants, then you tend to introduce more noise than you would like.

StockInterview: With that in mind, in which direction are your price projections going?

Gene Clark:
We’re actually updating our uranium price forecast right now. We haven’t decided on a reference case yet. The reference cases we’re looking at will peak at about to per pound in about three years, and will then drop off pretty drastically. It has to do with a selling of the speculator reserves, the uranium that’s being held (for speculative purposes). I can see it coming back down to , maybe below per pound. Then, in the long run – out through 2020 – getting easily back up over per pound.

StockInterview: Are you predicting a down cycle during the course of the uranium bull market?

Gene Clark:
Yes. It’s pretty consistent with everything we’re doing with the changes in requirements, in different cases of high, low, and medium demand. Our modeling system is projecting this. It has to do with the supply and demand balance and the cost on the margin. The way to describe it is that prices have come to a point now of higher than we would have projected them to be, such that the supply is going to evolve. The large low cost projects will reach a point where supply then overshoots demand for a few years, which causes the price to come back down. Then demand growth, in the long run, picks up and puts a lot of pressure on the supply market to be able to meet the demand. So you wind up with pressure toward the end of the period.
StockInterview: But the markets are finicky, filled with variables, and can frequently trick price models.

Gene Clark:
Here’s what it would take to shoot that down: We have a problem with small numbers, and there are some very large projects – Cigar Lake, for example. The expansion of Olympic Dam in Australia would be going from about 12 million pounds of production to over 30 million pounds, if they finish. If you shift that out by four or five years, or if the owner decides, “No, we’re not going to expand at all,” you have a drastic effect. Then you would wind up with 0 per pound uranium, I think.

StockInterview: What are your estimates on the peak price years and the bottom years?

Gene Clark:
A lot of things could change, but here is what we’re looking at. In one case scenario, the speculators are really going to stay out of the market and holding onto their stuff for a long time. If so, then we’re going to be at the peak by the end of this year. If they stay active in the market and buying, then that stretches it out further. Depending on the scenario, we see the peak possibly at 2008 or so. I would say we’re looking at a trough around the timeframe of 20011 to 2013. Then back up after that.

StockInterview: How do you arrive at your weekly numbers for the spot uranium price?

Gene Clark:
We get our data from all of the key sources: the utility fuel managers, sales staff and management of uranium producers and processors, and uranium traders, brokers and asset managers. Some are, of course, more cooperative than others, and whom we call depends on the type of information we are seeking. Since our price indicators are a judgment call, we often focus on the losers in particular recent transactions, as those will be the next to make offers in the market.

StockInterview: Let’s back up a bit. Why has uranium gone up past the levels of the “cost of production,” which would place the spot price between and /pound?

Gene Clark:
The biggest factor, in signaling the market, was when utilities went out for long term bid requests. They found they reached a period in which producers would have to build new facilities. Producers building those facilities felt, “I have to make at least enough profit to cover the construction costs for those facilities.” That was much higher than the market at the time. Basically, you reached a point where the chief stuff has been sold. Now, we have to actually spend some money, some capital, to build new facilities, new mines and new mills. That was, I think, the earliest signal of the price needing to adjust.

StockInterview: Isn’t there a ton of hype across all media channels about the “nuclear renaissance” and the demand for more nuclear energy?

Gene Clark:
First of all, all the hype about nuclear renaissance is really in the United States. The Chinese have had plans to expand for a long time. The Japanese have been steadily adding new capacity. Koreans have been adding new capacity. Indians have been adding new capacity all along, all the way through this, even before we started this discussion on nuclear renaissance. I think that phrase is really focused more in the United States., which really hasn’t ordered a plant since 1976 or something like that. There is a boom. Maybe it’s the uranium renaissance.

StockInterview: Is all of what we’ve been reading just plain hype?

Gene Clark:
There is some hype, but there is also some substance. A part of it is certainly a change in public attitude about nuclear power. If I was riding on an airplane, ten years ago, and someone asked me what I did for a living, I was guaranteed to have a lousy trip, arguing about nuclear power. When I mention it now, I get a positive response. There’s been a market shift in public attitude about nuclear power. From the standpoint of the utilities that would be ordering nuclear plants. To the extent that they need new capacity, looking at nuclear now is not off the drawing boards, partly because of public attitude. The industry has been moving through this trough period, preparing itself for a new era. It remains to be seen when the first order comes. But when the first actual order of a nuclear power plant, along with the license application does come, I think you’ll see several U.S. utilities following, probably five utilities very actively involved.

StockInterview: When will that actually happen?

Gene Clark:
I think it will come within the next five years, the ordering process. Of course it will be probably another eight years before we actually see the first power plant from that process. We’re talking probably about 13 years. That’s how long it takes. You can actually construct one in 48 months, but you have to have been through the licensing. If you don’t believe the anti-nuclear people are going to be psyched up to fight the first plant coming through, then you’d be very naïve. The first one is going to be more difficult and take more time, I think.

StockInterview: One anti-nuclear group told us they do not believe we’ll have more nuclear power plants in the United States.

Gene Clark:
That’s possible, but given the current circumstances, my guess is we will have more nuclear plants. We need the capacities, whether we’re going to build coal plants (or other types of power generating plants). I just came from California, moved here (to North Carolina) six months ago. They were talking about building gas-fired plants for base load generation, which is the most ridiculous thing you can imagine. The plants are cheap to build, but the fuel cost is exorbitant. I did a speech a couple of years ago, having looked at the Energy Information Administration’s projections of gas demand. All the growth and natural gas demand is going to be in the electric utility sector. We are going to be importing 60 percent of our gas supplies by 2020. Does that make any sense? No. We have a lot of coal, but there are lots of complaints about coal burning. In our state of North Carolina, the attorney general is actually suing the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for the damage from coal burning of the TVA’s power plants in the adjacent state, in Tennessee. There’s going to be continued pressure on coal burning. I think nuclear has as good a shot as any in terms of new capacity.

StockInterview: Some critics have argued China and India will not be able to afford the massive nuclear power plant build up they’ve envisioned.

Gene Clark:
If you think the Chinese are going to have any problem financing things, you’d better think twice. Let’s focus on India. India is a clear case where, and it is a good rule of thumb, one percent growth in gross domestic product requires one percent growth in electricity requirement. For India to grow economically, it needs electric power. Where are they going to get it? They have coal plants there, as well. Once you use up all your hydro capacity, you really don’t have much to choose from, except coal, natural gas, and nuclear. To the extent that they can have economic growth and income, coming into their country, they would be able to finance nuclear power plants. My guess is they’re going to get the vendors of the nuclear plant to finance them.

StockInterview: Are you talking about the French?

Gene Clark:
Cogema and Primaton – the companies that construct the nuclear plants. Financing is generally part of the package. The first plants in China were basically financed by the French government. If the French go into India, you’ll see the same thing. The Russians have financed plants for developing countries. That’s not unusual for them to do. The United States may, or may not, get involved. I think there have been some types of guarantees in the past, but not at the same level as the Russians and French do it. I think those are the big choices. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the South Koreans involved in the reactor export market. They’ve pretty much developed their own technology now. They have the capability of building 100 percent of a nuclear power plant in South Korea: the pressure vessels, all the steel requirements. They can do it all. We really haven’t seen them export yet, because they’ve used up all their manufacturing capacity for their own program. At some stage, I wouldn’t be surprised to see that happen. And I think they would be able to finance reactor export sales.

StockInterview: How are the U.S. utilities going to fare in getting their “share” of uranium to fuel our domestic nuclear power plants in the context of the apparent overwhelming Asian demand?

Gene Clark:
In reality, the U.S. utilities, which tend to wait longer to contract, are going to be the ones on the losing end because the Chinese and the Indians will contract early. The implication is the Chinese and Indians are not going to be able to find enough uranium for their new plants. They are committing for supplies way out into the future. When the U.S. guys come to the market, they’re going to look around say, “Oh blankety- blank, what happened? Where’s the uranium?” They’ll be the ones that sat around. I think that is what’s going to happen unless things really change in the way contracting is done in the United States.

To read about honeysuckle flower and honeysuckle shrub, visit the Honeysuckle Plant site.

Article from articlesbase.com

Claim Your FREE E-Book

"How To Create A Business Plan
That Investors Will Read"

Learn exactly how to create a top quality business plan that will make your potential investors sit up and take notice!

Inside in our free e-book you will find lots of great information about creating a business plan with impact including why a business plan is necessary for any capital raising project and the four critical factors to presenting your business plan to investors.

Simply Enter Your Email Address Below And Click The Instant Access Button

Name:

Email:

Posted in Capital Raising | Tags: Cause, Hikes, Prices, Speculators, Uranium | No Comments »

When Should a Company Start Raising Venture Capital?

May 8th, 2011

When Should a Company Start Raising Venture Capital?

Most entrepreneurs often feel that venture capital should be raised prior to or immediately at the onset of a business. However, this is not often the case. Venture capital, as discussed in previous articles, can be raised in several different stages. In order to finance your growing business, you can skip the steps regarding startup/seed capital and move directly into mezzanine capital. This is especially true if you business is operational, profitable, and has an extensive operating history.

When looking for venture capital it is often difficult to determine when and what type of capital is required. Again, the most advanced your business (and the more profitable) the easier it will be to secure an investment from a venture capital firm. In some instances, it may be appropriate to raise capital only when your business intends to undergo an aggressive expansion. This will not only ensure that you will have an easier time raising capital, but your business will also meet the growth criteria required by venture capitalists. However, this is not only the case. In regards to companies that have proprietary technology or a highly unique business model, it may be appropriate for you to being to raise venture capital prior to the onset of operations.

As has been a common theme throughout these articles, there is difficulty in obtaining private capital – and by having either an established business that is growing, proprietary technology, or a highly unique business plan – you will be in a much better position to acquire funding from private investment firms.

When determining when to raise capital, you may want to consult with your certified public accountant prior to entering this process. In our next article, we will discuss the general costs of raising capital.

Looking For Venture Capital is a specially designed website for entrepreneurs that are seeking to raise capital for their startups, small businesses, and expanding existing businesses. The focus of the site is on Venture Capital.

Article from articlesbase.com

Orchard Growth CEO challenges Shadow Minister John Penrose at London Stock Exchange AIM conference

May 7th, 2011

Orchard Growth CEO challenges Shadow Minister John Penrose at London Stock Exchange AIM conference

Ash Mehta attended the recent AIM conference held at the London Stock Exchange with a keynote address from John Penrose, Shadow Minister for Business, providing the opportunity to challenge the opposition’s plans for small business regulation.

Orchard Growth’s CEO, Ash Mehta, recently attended the AIM conference held at the London Stock Exchange, during which keynote addresses were presented by Lord Drayson, Minister of State for Science and Innovation, and John Penrose, Shadow Minister for Business. Penrose outlined his concerns regarding the cost of complying with business regulation for SMEs, quoting a figure of £76 billion spent annually. In order to reduce this amount, the Shadow Minister for Business described plans to involve small businesses in a process of evaluating and ultimately voting for business regulations that should be kept in place. This idea prompted a challenge when questions were invited from the floor from Orchard Growth’s CEO that put Penrose on the spot. For more information, call 0845 3700 303 or visit www.orchardgrowth.com.

“When I listened to his ideas about how to improve the state of business regulation, I was rather shocked. It sounded like he wanted to create a bizarre kind of popularity contest, and I couldn’t let that go unchallenged,” explained Ash. “I asked him if he was aware that he was advocating reforming business regulation by turning it into an X-Factor style vote. I think that Her Majesty’s opposition should be producing greater challenge to the government and a more coherent vision for Britain’s future.” When asked how the Shadow Minister responded, Ash replied; “He was very uncomfortable, I genuinely think that the parallels between his proposed solution and a Saturday night entertainment show had never occurred to him.”

“I do think that the cost incurred by small businesses to comply with regulations is a serious issue, although I am curious about the source of the huge figure that was quoted in the speech,” Ash continued. “However, there are other factors that are also seriously damaging small businesses, and those changes in regulation have seriously reduced investment in small businesses. I would like to see a data-driven approach to creating the right business climate, akin to the way a financial director would examine performance in a company and how it is affected by changes in company policy and activity. A financial director would never change the direction of a company without examining the impact of that change, and then constantly evaluating results. As long as business policy is determined by party agendas,” Ash added, “I simply don’t see how the foundations of our business climate can be improved in any meaningful or sustainable fashion.”

Orchard Growth Partners provides extensive help to growing businesses that are seeking venture capital funding, or other types of small business fund raising. We have extensive connections with the business angel network and provide tailored help for growth businesses at all stages of the capital fund raising process. Our financial director services also assist owners with planning their business exit strategy and also prepare for initial public offerings. Orchard Growth Partners pride themselves upon providing the financial expertise to guide a business owner through the growing pains of business expansion, freeing them to concentrate on running their business.

Article from articlesbase.com

More Venture Capital Raising Regulations Articles

Posted in Capital Raising | Tags: challenges, Conference, Exchange, growth, John, London, Minister, Orchard, Penrose, Shadow, Stock | No Comments »

Steel Enterprises Overseas Exploration Must “see Quasi”

May 7th, 2011

Steel Enterprises Overseas Exploration Must “see Quasi”

Widespread financial crisis, domestic steel companies are also increasing the pressure, but it seems they can not stop

Iron ore Enthusiasm for the acquisition of resources.

Steel enterprises into overseas M & A boom

12 18, Wuhan Iron and Steel Company has agreed to 180 million Australian dollars (about 127 million U.S. dollars) price, purchase CentrexMetals iron ore project in Australia 50% of the shares. Centrex said, according to the agreement, Wuhan Iron and Steel will be the implementation of a formal agreement to pay 59.5 million Australian dollars a week, a formal agreement is expected in the March 17 execution. And then again in March 2010 to pay 30 million Australian dollars, and in the production target has been achieved, to pay the remaining funds. Centrex also said that Wuhan Steel to 9.7 million Australian dollars will buy 15% stake in the company Centrex. The two sides agreed to Eyre Peninsula in South Australia

Cooperation Construction of a deep water export port.

“From the Wuhan Iron and the contract term, until some time after 2010 can be achieved, which is good, there are bad places.” Productivity in the business distribution center, said steel analyst Rong-Liang, Wuhan Iron and Steel As an enterprise, in itself need cash flow. Under the pressure of the financial crisis, many businesses face cash flow problems. Of course, long-term view of the steel industry, this time a contract can not be good, can not say bad, because the global

Iron ore price Still lacks a clear direction. But what is certain is that with next year’s International

Iron ore talks Prices decline, followed by a period of time is the acquisition time for the international iron ore resources better, low cost.

Fact, apart from Wuhan, China in recent years, many steel companies have set off a wave of overseas acquisitions. The most classic is the joint Alcoa Aluminum, spending huge sums to buy Australian iron ore giant Rio Tinto produced 12% of the shares. Not long ago, China Steel Group to offer access to 1.36 billion Australian dollars of Australian iron ore producer Midwest Corporation’s absolutely controlling. Statistical, said Chinese companies to acquire the global mineral resources within the capital has reached 18 billion U.S. dollars.

China should study the Japanese experience

Present, due to the financial crisis, falling commodity prices of iron ore, Rio Tinto shares plunged Chalco billions of dollars in the acquisition of Fukui. While statistics say Chinese companies overseas acquisitions in recent years has been loss of as much as much as 200 billion yuan, a huge lesson.

“I am now more inclined to buy domestic iron and steel mines abroad.” He Rong Liang said the Chinese steel companies to acquire overseas iron ore was a trend, but China should, like Japan, there are policies that support it. The strength of iron and steel enterprises in China is relatively small, overseas acquisitions bloated.

He Rong Liang analysis, coke and iron ore prices to China’s influence is different. China’s comparative lack of iron ore, so a global scale, iron ore prices rose a greater impact on China. From the current major steel producing countries in the world, China, Japan, South Korea Dengjun are relatively high dependence on foreign countries. Japan and South Korea’s external dependence were higher than China, Japan, 85% rely on overseas iron ore market, but international

Iron ore prices Situation, but iron and steel enterprises in China are more affected.

He Rong Liang said that the Japanese steel companies produced more high value-added products, high technology content, in pricing these products is very strong, by the iron ore prices have less effect. Meanwhile, as technology advanced, the utilization of Japan’s iron ore highest in the world. In this case, the iron ore price rise will be weakened or even squeeze some Chinese steel companies, the Japanese steel companies raise prices for steel and for huge profits.

“Actively promote overseas mineral exploration subsidy scheme to encourage foreign mining is the core of Japan’s strategy of global resources.” He Rong Liang said that the Japanese strategy of global resources is the main long-term, a large number of imports, and a planned reserve.

I am a professional writer from Frbiz Site, which contains a great deal of information about coach athletic shoes , louis vuitton multicolor, welcome to visit!

Article from articlesbase.com

Cap, Auction, and Trade: Auctions and Revenue Recycling Under Carbon Cap and Trade – Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming – 2008-01-23 – Going Once, Going Twice . . . Select Committee to Examine Auction System in Climate Cap-and-Trade Bill. On Wednesday, January 23rd 2008, Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing entitled “Cap, Auction, and Trade: Auctions and Revenue Recycling Under Carbon Cap and Trade.” This hearing examined the potential role of auctioning tradable pollution allowances under a cap-and-trade system to reduce global warming pollution, instead of giving them away for free to polluters – and potential uses for the tens of billions of dollars that could be generated through such auctions. PANEL: Hon. Ian Bowles, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Peter Zapfel, Coordinator for Carbon Markets and Energy Policy, European Commission – Environment Directorate General; Dallas Burtraw, Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future; John Podesta, President and Chief Executive Officer, Center for American Progress; Robert Greenstein, Executive Director, Center on Budget Policies and Priorities. Video provided by the US House of Representatives.
Video Rating: 1 / 5

Posted in Capital Raising | Tags: Enterprises, Exploration, Must, Overseas, Quasi, Steel | No Comments »