The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
Well Angina, not surreyscot so much then! (Oops!)
Why would I know who "Paul" is SC ?
I have no idea who he is .
****eye ( who is actually OM63 and his niece Sarah ) knows him personally , so ask them.
Thanks Scat ...... I was wondering if anyone knows what % of overall shareholders do we insignificant PIs make up ?
Did we ever manage to form an action group - in an attempt to get treated as real people by our BoD ??
Found this snippet on Linkedin from JF's own pen:
"I am particularly motivated by; the need for sustainable investments in energy, value creation and the need to restore public confidence and interest in new talent. Success will come to companies with a clear sense of purpose and a strong set of values. My role in such companies is to lead the identification of opportunities, develop the investment case/business rationale rooted in a clear understanding of the assets and a plan to add value - and create trust in relevant stakeholders."
He really isn't living up to his own goals for us minor, irrelevant , insignificant "stakeholders" now is he ?
He appears to treat different classes of stakeholders differently then.
Don't know much about him Angina. He posts daily on Twitter and has been around for about a year.
Think C0ckeye or surreyscot might know more.
Who's Paul ?
BD,
The trouble with Paul.
Paul is pretty keen on the idea that GKP is sold. It underpins his tweets and he occasionally supports his assertions with ‘legal extracts’ from The Bermuda Companies Act 1981 as amended.
He habitually tailors his analysis from the Act, and elsewhere, to suit his relentless argument that GKP is effectively sold and that the sale announcement is imminent.
On this occasion we are discussing whether GKP should be including treasury shares in its dividend calculation. Paul’s argument would appear to be that if the shares are no longer in treasury and have been vested early, then those shares should be included in the calculation.
In this case the relevant section is The Bermuda Companies Act 1981(amended) PART 1V Section 42B (12,) the full text of which is as follows;
‘(12) Nothing in this section shall prevent a company from -
(a) making an allotment of shares as fully paid up bonus shares in respect of shares held by the company as treasury shares; or
(b) paying any amount payable on the redemption of shares held by the company as treasury shares (if they are redeemable shares).’
Nowhere in the Act is there any reference to Paul’s example that this section applies in the case of employee share option plans or share dividends. He’s just extrapolated that to suit his sale proposition.
In my opinion 42B (12) refers only to an allotment of ‘fully paid up bonus shares’. In GKP’s case this would only relate to nil cost staff options that had vested, not those that had merely been granted. And since they don’t naturally vest until 2021/2022 they should be excluded from dividend calculations while they remain in treasury.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
Because, if my interpretation is correct then it follows that GKP have understated the second tranche dividend which should more properly be stated as 14.965214 cents per share. This on the basis that they used the wrong number of Common shares in issue at the time the second tranche dividend was declared.
And if Paul’s right then my understanding is that, under the staff option plan rules, those options can only vest early if the Company is subject to ‘a change of control’. That is its sale.
Or maybe I’m simply confused?
Anyone else got any ideas on this?
Ever - Yes, I am quite sure the BoD will leave GKP with eye-watering wealth. Sodden and Sami will have secured their share of the pot 'free for all' before resigning too.
When they look back on their lucrative time at GKP they will not have much t be proud of - minimal achievements on the ground, missed deadlines, no growth..... a sad storey (but at least they will be leaving as millionaires - several times over in some cases).
Nice work if you can get it then.
Does it mean that they plan to issue more options or bonus and to whom?
----------------------------------
What have the BODs done to warrant anymore bonuses ? A child could sell the most sought after oil field after all . Anyone with enough cash could have some production wells drilled and ESPs fitted. This BODs are a joke.
@shandypants2
They wanted the price up in 2018 and for that purpose managed to be included in MSCI Indexes. This attracted some institutions. To keep the II, they decided to give back money to shareholders, first with a dividend, then with a buyback. But this buyback is to have the shares in treasury in case the cy is sold. If no shares in treasury, no incentive for the management to get a good deal.
I think they don’t want the price up either, as it would attract active hedge funds able to blackmail them.
@Straycat
Normally we should be right, but Paul posted something interesting:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Paul47293202/status/1176067134054707201
Does it mean that they plan to issue more options or bonus and to whom?
Don’t forget we have not only ordinary shares, but also non-voting shares of 0.01$, preferred shares of 1000$ and Serie A prefered shares of 1000$. In case of TO, what do they get?
I think all this is being settled in Beijing where many Iraqis minister are spending a week. BRI advancing quickly.
BD,
So you agree that no dividends are attributable to GKP shares bought back into treasury up to and including 20/9/2019.
And yet that is exactly what they’ve done.
The declared second tranche dividend payable on 4/10/2019 is 14.528787 cents per share. That is;
$33,333,333 / 229,429,566 shares (all the Common shares in issue prior to commencement of buyback).
But if we’re right, then the second tranche dividend payment should more properly have been 14.965214 cents per share. That is;
$33,333,333 / 222738759 shares (6690807 shares having been bought back into treasury by 20/9/2019).
Either we’ve been short changed or those treasury shares have vested early.
Or we’re both wrong!!
N’est pas?
Bravedog - is Board are trying to keep shire price down why have a maiden divi and share buy back - both of which should give the share price a boost?
Not saying you are 100% wrong, just seems a strange approach
Straycat,
As I wrote it on another bb, I am shareholder in a private cy that bought back shares from a leaving partner. When a dividend was paid, the shares owned by the cy where not entitled to receive the dividend.
If they had bought back 50% of the equity, they would pay dividend for only 114.7 mio shares.
This implies that they could never pay out an announced amount allocated to shareholders as they always keep half for themselves.
In case of closing down the cy, ie paying out money to shareholders, they would keep half for themselves which is illogical.
You have another accounting problem. Dividend is money going out from the cy. One half goes out to shareholders. Does the accountant treat the other half as a financial income which could be taxable in a normal country? Of course this income would more than offset the interest charges of debt!
All this is part of the deal made when they hired these clowns: you’ll be very rich if you keep the price down as long as possible. And the way to do it is to have investors lose faith in the cy, never disclose anything positive and never meet the announced production targets that each year are delayed. Add to that several mistakes which convince any II that the management isn’t reliable and the cy not investment grade.
This is an asset play, not a growth story. To have an idea of its value, I suggest that you look at the deals China seems to be doing with Iran and with Iraq which were summarized recently on zerohedge.com in two separate links, one last week.
I’m confused.
To the best of my knowledge shares bought back and held in treasury carry neither voting nor dividend rights.
So the options are;
1) I’m wrong;
2) It’s an error in which case we should see a corrective RNS in short order;
3) They’re no longer held in treasury, in which case they’ve either vested before time or they’ve been cancelled.
If they’ve been cancelled then the reasons for buyback in the first place have changed.
If they’ve vested early then on my understanding this can only happen on a ‘ change of control’.
Someone please correct me.
I have never known a dividend to be taken for shares held in treasury. I am very surprised that the remaining 2/3 was not split between the shares not in treasury.
Still a nice dividend but surely this isn’t correct?
"What will happen to the Dividend Payment attributed to the 4,278,176 ordinary shares are held in Treasury remains to be seen, but I doubt it will be split between the rest of the "issued voting share capital"
More likely it will be taken by the new owners . . the Treasury"
I did warn you
I was under the impression shares in treasury do not get dividends.
You specifically stated you were selling in July, whatever the outcome of GKP. I am detecting a poor prediction...
"the reduced number of shares in issue the upcoming dividend will be approx. 12p not too shabby"
Please note :- it says in every Buy Back RNS.
Following the repurchase of the shares set out above, the Company's issued share capital consists of 229,429,566 ordinary shares. 4,278,176 ordinary shares are held in Treasury. For reporting under the FCA's Disclosure and Transparency Rules, shareholders should exclude any shares held in Treasury and should use the figure of 225,151,390 ordinary shares (the issued voting share capital) when determining if they are required to notify their interest, or a change of their interest in the Company.
In plain English there are "still" 229,429,566 Share in Issue
There are 4,278,176 ordinary shares are held in Treasury and by being held in Treasury their Shares Voting rights are null & void
So GKP Share Holders should use the figure of 225,151,390 ordinary shares **(the issued voting share capital)** when determining if they are required to notify their interest
What will happen to the Dividend Payment attributed to the 4,278,176 ordinary shares are held in Treasury remains to be seen, but I doubt it will be split between the rest of the "issued voting share capital"
More likely it will be taken by the new owners . . the Treasury
The Correct Figures from ValueSeeker8 on ii
Latest Figures:
Bought back today . . . 161,490 shares for £407,762.25 vwap = 252.5 p
Total So Far . . . 4,278,176 shares for £9,942,211.60; vwap = 232.3937 p
The figures do not include the costs of the Buy Back
Given the share buyback and the reduced number of shares in issue the upcoming dividend will be approx. 12p not too shabby :)
I would estimate there is approx another $3-4m left of the initial $15m released for the buyback and notice the larger buys since Peel are doing the buying instead of Cancord. I would assume that the other $10m set aside for the buyback would be released soon to support a rising SP.
Another payment should arrive shortly too....:)