We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
"Over the past 20 years, investors would have lost money in 72 per cent of all the companies ever to have listed on Aim, according to the professors, who were part of the team who designed the FTSE 100 index.
Analysing data on the 2,877 companies which have listed on Aim, they calculate that in more than 30 per cent of cases, shareholders lost at least 95 per cent of their investment.
By contrast, there are 39 companies — just 1.4 per cent of the historic total — that have given investors multiyear returns in excess of 1,000 per cent.
“While these have been superb performers, there have simply not been enough of them for Aim as a whole to generate a decent return for investors,” says Prof Dimson.
“Everyone says Aim is a stockpicker’s market, but what they mean is that there are extremes of performance — both on the downside and the upside,” adds Prof Marsh. “With more losers than winners, the people least equipped to sort the wheat from the chaff are private investors, and the people best equipped are the professional fund managers.”"
Quotes taken from the FT*
Angus is "sadly" no different to many AIM listed companies... (ie: lifestyle companies designed to generate money for founders and their chums) but it certainly supports the assessment of AIM by the Financial Times.
No, wealdpwr.
What I'm saying that it's easy to 'hide' on here behind your made up avatar and bash the company, or anyone else, or tell other people what they should do (e.g. SOMEONE should ask them when a placing is due), but not so easy for the same people to use their own personal contact details and ask the company directly themselves and get an acknowledgement and response to their question for all to see on the company website.
Maybe LL is not blind to this board, but my comment was in SPECIFIC response to a poster suggesting someone else should do something that they are perfectly able to do themselves.
As I said, it's easier to pose a question on here and answer it yourself and present that as fact, than to actually make an effort to get an official company response (which I see that without even asking them, gkb has stated 'You know very well Anguish Energy Plc would not give a straight answer to that question asked on their website').
gkb,
I have no problem with anyone presenting any opinion, and in over 3 years have never filtered anyone, and do not intend to either. When it comes to a contrarian opinion, this board is comfortably more con than pro, and if you read my posts here, I am more in the middle ground (with a modest optimism for Saltfleetby only) than anyone else (imo).
Regardless, good luck to you all
Croqman
You seem to be suggesting Lord Lucan is blind to this BB. And that a real act of character would be to directly post a question to essentially the company website’s BB. Neither of which are true.
A real act of character would be to eliminate the negative impact of JTP ‘s lifestyle position as head of business development. I’m sure all those keen to ensure JTP ‘s and Lord Lucan’s compensation will disagree no matter what is arguably common sense or happens in a real company. Let’s be honest, no one on this BB expects any real accountability from ANGs , let alone meaningful revenue anytime in the next year, if at all. No matter how much they have invested this year, lost or want to recover.
gkb,
Why don't you do just that and ask them when the next placing will be, seeing as you (and others) seem so keen to protect investors at any cost?
Their answer states that the impact of furlough would not be meaningful, and that the bulk of expenditure is expected in Q3/Q4, which would suggest there is no immediate need, it at all.
But, let's be honest, you (and others) would not believe any given response anyway, and it's better to safely bash the company here than ask the company directly on an investor forum that they have provided and promoted the use of for anyone to use.
Could we furlough (put onto half or no wages) staff during this period? Possibly one or two but the impact would not be meaningful. As stated the bulk of cash is held for capex and pipeline construction and 90% of this capex will not be expended until after Planning Approval in Sussex or Lincolnshire – or well after lockdown. In fact, even without the Covid-19 lockdown the bulk of the expenditure would be due in Q3-Q4. We are in many ways fortunate to have already allocated this time to engage in detailed planning at Saltfleetby and not be producing oil at rock-bottom prices, but instead tendering for equipment in a buyer’s market.
The work in Saltfleetby planning has moved swiftly and we do expect planning applications to be submitted shortly – these have been very slightly delayed by beneficial developments which have opened up unforeseen opportunities.
Intriguing!