Good thoughts. That scenario of preparing for retirement is quite possible. It occurred to me that Norrhydro’s balance sheet is very weak, and in my opinion, it’s not a far-fetched scenario that a rights issue will be needed next year or in 2027. In that case, it would be good if the largest owner has money to participate.
This scenario is unlikely to be very good for current owners. At least it wasn’t for the owners of Exel or Duell. In my opinion, Eezy’s share price was already pushed down by the mere fear of an issue, even if it doesn’t seem to be coming.
I listed a few alternatives that come to mind and how I see them from a minority owner’s perspective.
++Very good, +=good, *=neutral, -=bad, - - = very bad
Preparing for early retirement *
Preparing for a rights issue - -
A new summer cottage or similar lifestyle upgrade or debt repayment. + +
If there’s an absolutely enormous pile of low-volume shares, is it possible that one is forced to offload them onto the market even at a worse price? This, of course, doesn’t remove the blemish in the “surprise positive earnings report” (yllätysposari).
The company has likely seen an opportunity to release information about Q3’s strong performance compared to the reference period. There have undoubtedly been grounds for releasing the announcement, as sales have indeed grown commendably, especially considering what the market has expected from growth. However, the cynic in me says that this communication could have been exploited at least to enable Trög’s planned stock sales and perhaps even to raise the share price, because with normal daily trading volume, Trög would not have been able to sell his shares without the price taking a significant dive.
Trög has sold his shares even at bottom prices, so clearly he had a plan to sell off his shares. Although there might be an acceptable reason for this given Trög’s age, this does not, however, inspire particular confidence in the management, if this were the case. I’m not claiming this is the case, but that’s just how it looks to me.
The principal owner’s sales right now are strange. All signs point to the stock being just about to start an upward trend. Regardless of one’s age, it generally wouldn’t be advisable to sell in such a situation. I have two theories in mind: 1) The risk of needing a rights issue to finance growth has increased, and the principal owner wants to sell some shares to finance their own participation in the issue.
The principal owner’s holding company or the principal owner themselves has some personal financing needs that are in no way related to the company’s business development. I checked customer information and saw that the principal owner’s company’s financial situation is not incredibly strong, so it would be quite possible that now that the company is not receiving dividends from the listed company, it finances, for example, its own financing costs by selling shares. These small sales have happened from time to time, which would fit this narrative.
What do people think about Norrhydro’s financing needs? The market seems to be turning, but can Norrhydro still finance growth with retained earnings with such a balance sheet? Is a rights issue even necessary to finance growth? Slow growth would probably work, but if it wants to grow fast, will liquidity run out?
Just a reminder that the sales by the company’s CEO and main owner have been discussed earlier in this thread.
At that time, a fairly clear answer was received from the CEO himself:
I personally don’t see that any significant change has occurred in the situation, meaning he still owns a very significant portion of the company despite all the sales.
No one has certainly claimed that commitment is not in order. Surely everything is done for the company. The same certainly applied to Pekka Perä and many other entrepreneurs. Some succeed and some don’t. Some get rich even if the company fails.
This “clear answer” does not, in my opinion, eliminate any of these possible scenarios.
It must be remembered that company CEOs practically never say out loud that the company’s stock is too expensive (option 4), that a surprise issue would be coming in the next few years (option 2), or that a breakthrough would not be coming at all (option 6). These should not even be discussed on a forum. Someone might even interpret sharing that risk with others as meaning that future times are uncertain and risky.
One could interpret that the sales are due to retirement plans, diversification, or something else, but I cannot interpret that from this. From this, one can easily interpret that sales have occurred and there is still a lot left. More of these have been sold after the message, always at a lower price. It is unlikely that the main reason for the sale is to increase the free float.
At the end of 2021, there were 4,260,970 shares, and now at the end of October, 3,864,694. Probably the latest sales should be removed from that end-of-October figure, as the announcement only came on 3.11. One could probably say that just over 400k (approx. 10%) of the shares have been sold in about four years. The stock is not very liquid, so a large number cannot be disposed of quickly, nor is it likely intended to sell several million shares anyway.
Thanks for this, good point. I don’t think I’ve seen this myself. I’m almost a little ashamed of my own speculation in light of this new information. On the other hand, it’s our job as investors to speculate on things.
I Googled that in this project, Stora Enso is using a Volvo L120 Electric wheel loader. I also found a brochure about the loader’s technical specifications, and there is no mention of NorrDigi there.
Someone wiser might comment on whether NorrDigi is even a potential system for this type of loader. At least the energy saving wouldn’t be very significant, because with wheel loaders, the loader’s movement from one place to another probably consumes most of the energy? And NorrDigi wouldn’t save time here (=increase efficiency), because the bucket’s movement is simple and fast even with ordinary cylinders?
This is also how I understand the benefits of NorrDig. If the largest energy consumption comes from horizontal movement (driving with a wheel loader, forest tractor, etc.), NorrDig will not achieve sufficient savings relative to the investment. However, if the movement involves digging or loading up, down, and sideways (excavator, material handling, ship loading, etc.), then the benefit is clearly evident.
Regarding these sales by Yrjö, I would like to state that the man should now be allowed to enjoy the results of his work.
It’s good that there’s enough cash.
For investors, those sales have no earthly significance. Yrjö (as the main owner) has quite enough capital invested in the company and its development.
It depends on the investor’s investment horizon. If the current owner intends to hold the shares for the next 10+ years or even never sell, then it doesn’t really matter. If one intends to hold for 0-2 years, then it starts to matter if there is continuous selling pressure. One can speculate what the price would be if the sales had not been made. I don’t claim to know the exact answer to this, but I estimate that the price would be higher than it is now.
Furthermore, if one plans to buy shares, isn’t it more reasonable, in light of probabilities, to buy when the main owner’s selling pressure begins to ease?
Well, actually, those sales figures are what I’m thinking about, and on the other hand, Yrjö’s shareholding. In addition, his statement about the history… “making shares more liquid”. Well, everyone thinks according to their own thoughts. My thoughts on the matter are in my previous message.
Revenue (and other income) grew by €3,376k (Q3 2025 vs Q3 2024)
Expenses (materials and services, personnel expenses, other operating expenses) grew by €3,306k
The cost / sales ratio is thus 98%, meaning that for every new euro sold, 98 cents of costs were created. This is without 4.1% financing costs (compared to revenue)!
The company includes the change in inventory of finished and work-in-progress products in its income statement. More inventory thus means more profit. The inventory of finished and work-in-progress products has grown by €909k annually. For comparison: operating profit grew by €1,008k during the same period.
So the current situation is as follows:
sales grew based on the published figures but hardly profitably
the company’s management / main owner is selling their ownership
the company’s largest customer Ponsse (at least according to the analyst) is conducting co-determination negotiations due to a weak market, affecting 1086 people in Finland
the company guides for a weakening Q4 (vs Q3 2025)
You overlooked here the increase in inventories of finished and work-in-progress products (€0.9 million difference compared to the reference period), which naturally is also reflected in the operating profit line (an increase of €1 million). So, the growth has been profitable, and approximately 30% of the revenue growth has dropped to the operating profit line as a positive change.
So isn’t it true that increasing inventory was reflected in increased revenue and better operating profit? I.e., if the change in inventory had been at the same level as a year ago, then revenue and especially operating profit would have been weaker? A large part of the better operating profit came from rising inventory levels?
So you did mention it, I somehow missed that. But my interpretation of the situation is different.
I.e., if the change in inventory had been at the same level as a year ago, would revenue and especially operating profit have been weaker?
The change in inventories is particularly related to purchases made (materials and services). If the change in inventory had been smaller, then purchases would likely also have been smaller. And the profit would have increased, just as it did now. An increased inventory balance most likely indicates a positive growth outlook, as the company prepares for future deliveries by purchasing more materials.
Now we are only talking about the inventory of finished and work-in-progress products, not materials, according to the company.
In any case, if (in a theoretical situation) the change in inventory value were replaced with the same value as a year ago, the operating profit would drop sharply into the red.
Isn’t it generally a bit questionable to include the change in inventory in the income statement?
