The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I came in at low p years ago. Sold around 26p years ago s I concluded AFC did not have anything the market wanted to buy.I now look in from time to time to see if anything has changed. Everything except sales. To have failed so spectactularly to sell anything over so many years surely indicates that there must be something fundamentally wrong with AFC's business model?
This is going nowhere as it's like shouting at the wall.......Do you agree that, even though you haven't (in your world) "made a loss" because you haven't sold, do you agree that there is nonetheless still a contingent loss?
So what you're saying is that if your pension fund had spunked £100,000,000 of your contributions, (that was due to pay for your retirement) on shares in a company and you saw that those shares were worth only £50,000,000, you would be quite happy for the pension fund to carry on showing the shares in their accounts at the higher value?
On that basis, no fund manager would ever sell a share, just simply say "nope we haven't made a loss because we haven't sold" absolutely bloody ridiculous logic!
So yet again, it's ignore the difficult question because it doesn't fit the narrative and try to skew reality to get it to fit the false narrative. If you want to believe you haven't made a loss then that's your perogative, but please don't force your wrong interpretations on others in order to support your own agenda.
Aim 27 pence
Are you stupid or what? You can lose money without chrystalising it. I note that you choose to not respond to my request for a link to the accounting treatment of a dimunition of value on an investment when reporting under GAAR and FRS102. Show me the evidence or just admit you're wrong and shut up.
By the way, what was the point of all of you uber confidents setting up your radical splinter group in the happy place if you still frequent this board and post (based on your understanding of the nature of a loss) utter *******s?
Aim I lost a lot of money and sold out in mid 30s. I still check in every week. It is a wonderful product with a huge market but for some reason its always next year or the year after or the...
I wonder if he’s ever bought shares in a fundraiser or just bought them on the open market.
And no, I’m not going to let it drop because you’re plain wrong…..apologise to Garonne for your disingenuous spin on economic reality to put him down in order to support you’re false narrative.
Aim 27
Still waiting for the link to the parallel universe accounting standards that you have adopted.
Alt, it’s like talking to a wall.
AFC and some on here have probably driven me mad Cheek! Anyway, I'll take you're advice and sign off. Let's just pray Bond gets the Power Tower out to Acciona and Keltbray PDQ to try to stop the rot! I was told once that shares can go up as well as down so fingers crossed!
Garonne, seriously, what the heck are you talking about?
You have been on here all day rambling nonstop.
You’re not coming across as a full shilling mate.
Git, Aim doesn't deal in facts and he probably doesn't own any shares either. Certainly not the 1.7 million he claims to have!
"You could argue your asset value is down. You cant though, say it is lost"
Nobody said it was lost, it's jus that the impairment needs to be recognised, and this is a debit to the profit and loss account, erg. the contingent loss is acknowledged.....
Aim
Do you understand the concept of double entry book keeping and accounting standards? If you do, then please enlighten me, if you don't, then please button it as you are speaking from a position of ignorance, which might work in the world of spin, but not where facts are concerned.
Please tell me where to read up on your parallel universe accounting policy....
Please explain Aim
Read the thing properly. In grown up world, when dealing with big boy numbers, when you are accountable, if an asset falls in value, you have to account for the impairment, not actually sell off the bloody asset and chrystalise the gain! You simply have to acknowledge the downward shift in value, which is the thing you seem unable to do because it is at odds with your narrative. Feel free to9 stick with your strategy, it's actually totally in line with mine, it's just that my acknowledgement of the fact that the share is sat in the portfolio at a loss accords with the correct treatment for corporate entities. I'm simply not a fan of spin being used to support a false narrative.
Aim 27 pence
Might possibly be relevant at your level, but in my world, the balance sheet value is key, and I'm not going to be deluded by carrying an asset at cost when it's value is significantly less.
You seem to have lost sight of the fact that the loss has been incurred, but simply not chrystalised. This misinterpretation of grown up economics does of course suit your narrative.....
Aim
Any comments on the imposition of FRS102?
Thought you'd done with me? Still trying to censor the board Cheek? Give it up, your ramping is pathetic and if you take anything Aim says as being anything other than rubbish then you're either very gullible or maybe just playing a game. Funny how you only see rubbish when you want to. Also, I believe that as the rampers pretend to migrate to another platform, it's proof that none were actually invested but we're on here in a desperate attempt to keep folks buying and the SP up, for whose benefit we may never know! There have been very sinister goings on here for a longtime with haggis et al and of course you too Cheek.
Looks like the Aim 27 pence family balance sheet might need to be re stated to recognise the loss that he hasn't made.
Aim 27 pence.......
How does a balance sheet work?
If you buy an asset for X and the value then shifts, then you have to account for the movement in order to show the correct value. An upward increase will be a revaluation surplus, and a downward movement will be an impairment. In either case, the opposite side of the entry is to the profit and loss account, ergo. no matter whether you have sold, or are still holding, a any point in time, you will be sat on a surplus / deficit that needs to be accounted for. I agree that the loss may not actually be chrystalised until the asset is sold, but nonetheless there is still a loss, which MUST be accounted for.
Using your logic, the banking crisis would not have existed, as the whole liquidity issue only came about as a result of a crack test based on a theoretical write down of the value of all housing stock in the UK. The difference here is that we actually have a real and significant diminution of value, as opposed to a theoretical one.
Basically, your argument is flawed in the real world of accountancy and banking, but probably fully acceptable in the new fluffy domain.............
He’s only answering to your repetitive rubbish.
People say I post repetitive stuff but to be fair I think Aim beats me hands down. You've been saying the same thing since 60 odd p Aim. I do admire your dogged consistency even though you might be exaggerating a tad about the number of shares you own!