Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video 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.
Here's a great example of fca incompetence, which i shall be using appropriately , once i finally get an answer. In summary, about 18 months ago , I wrote to them and complained about the activities of an institution , which had been the subject of a journalist's expose about 12 months earlier. I asked had they read the article and if so what had they done about it? they first replied , yes they had, they later worte no they had not and finally closed my complaint without an answer that was relevant. The complaints ombudsman told them about 1 year ago to re investigate and reply properly. Every 3 moths they write and say, we are making progress will update you again soon. FFS how hard can it be to answer my question? Just waiting for a new government to take it further. So I amsurprised at their prompt reply but I do not think they will do much to arcm , imv they should be forced to close their short within 24 hrs.
They obviously think they know something. Could a clause in the debt contract be used by them to drive the SP down? But amassing the short position would have alerted people? So they do this without notifying and plan that the fine will be significantly less than the profits??
Shame they cant pay back this shorting lender their cash with zama proceeds and tell them to enjoy closing their short.
That reply from the FCA
What a load of waffle - It should have started off by saying - Thank you, we read the weekend press, and we ARE ALL OVER THIS.
What is the point of having DISCLOSURE RULES, well it’s to enforce DISCLOSURES.
Try telling HMRC you forgot to complete your tax return on time. You broke the rules you get FINED and FINED further as you continue fail to comply.
Some serious ARXE KICKING is needed at the FCA or it should be replaced - DISGRACEFUL
Good point Col.
My hypothesis is the GS/MS CFDs have been taken to protect themselves and or their clients in the short taken by ACRM who are also probably their client. These bankers find ways to have it all ways. They are proabably involved in the debt discussions as well. All supposition of course..
They are however wary of the press.
They know they can bring about the termination of their comfortable career.
Yes, standard BS replies from FCA. Basically now they have replied and said they will investigate, they basically telling you to get lost and leave them to get on with it and they will do whatever they think is best.
In a year or so you may hear a little whisper that something has happened and as it is a first offence and they think it was a genuine mistake they have given them a slap on the wrist. Makes you laugh, these clowns are investigating such serious crime and fraud, as that's what it is. Taking money by unscrupulous methods.
Chocolate teapots all of them.
Nothing will be done.
This from my experience covers the vast majority of regulatory bodies.
Overpaid beurocrats who are weak and ineffective.
It must constitute " serious" misconduct....and who determines the seriousness of the misconduct? ....A) Fraud office. B) Serious Fraud office C) Totthless Trish and the Unicorns.
Reply from FCA
Thank you for your email of 8 December 2019 regarding Asia Research & Capital Management Ltd (ARCM). We have noted your concerns around the disclosure of ARCM's short position in Premier Oil PLC.
This matter has been received by the Market Integrity Unit in the Market Oversight Directorate (MO) of the FCA. MO is responsible among other things for monitoring compliance with Short Selling Regulation and the Market Abuse Regulation.
We are currently reviewing this matter with a view to determining whether it is appropriate for us to exercise any of our statutory powers. As part of such reviews we may use the information gathering powers available to us to seek further information from the subjects of the enquiry and reach out to other agencies as appropriate.
Once we have completed our review, we will consider whether it is appropriate for the FCA to launch a formal investigation via its Enforcement Division, whether some other form of intervention is required or whether the case should be closed with no action. In particular, an important part of our consideration is the potential seriousness of the misconduct.
As noted in our Approach to Enforcement, not all breaches of our rules or requirements constitute serious misconduct, however, where we suspect serious misconduct, we will start an enforcement investigation. We use our experience and judgement to ascertain whether this suspicion exists and there are a number of considerations we take into account when doing so. Chapter 2 of our Approach to Enforcement document provides further detail on these considerations, which include the nature of the actual and potential harm involved; the extent to which the suspected misconduct has or may affect consumers, markets or firms if we do not take action; and the public interest in investigating the matter.
As a matter of policy, we do not provide details to members of the public about the content of our assessments (including where we decide that there are no grounds for further action). Unless our work results in a public disciplinary outcome, the FCA does not comment on these matters. We understand that this can sometimes be frustrating but you can find further information on why we take this approach here.
Please be assured that we take all complaints raised against those subject to our rules seriously and we are considering the concerns that you have raised. We will contact you if we have any questions regarding the issues that you have raised and apologise for being unable to provide you with any further details, but we trust that you will understand the reasons for this.
We thank you for taking the time to contact us and we hope that our response to your concerns has been helpful. If however you find that our response has been unsatisfactory and you feel you have grounds to make a complaint against the FCA on this matter, you may wish to refer to our website on how to do so.
Excellent post Colonel, I hope you forward something along those words to the FCA. I know they have a reputation for being toothless, but let’s hope they surprise.
standard practice, buy company’s bonds - short the shares. Debt for equity or cash call is the way to go for PMO before 2021. Bond market is tight for small oil companies with no green credentials, banks are being pressured to stop loaning oil companies too.
If GS only got fined 30-odd mill for 220million breaches of law, we can't expect ARCM fine (IF happens) to be much... Given that ARCM have such a big stake here, a few million quid is peanuts for them. And if a junior exec gets a ban on trading in UK as a punishment (worst case) then so be it.
I also view this whole incident as timely attempt to influence the market and force down the SP. Also note that they're shorting since 2017 has been at 70's SP. So they won't want this rising more... Rights issue is best thing for them and they'll put all their weight into forcing TD down that direction.
TD may need to make some difficult decision. Play down debt and secure a safe refinancing, hopefully via alternative source of finance which would allow repayment of HF. I'd take that!! However, if ARCM keep up the pressure, it could result in inability to act on new investments such as Sea Lion... Personally, I'm for playing down debt at the moment and seeing a cleaner balance sheet before taking on more debt for Sea Lion. I recognise that oil price in 1 year from now may be higher, costs of development may rise, and first oil could be delayed... But, I admit that I'm looking at SP 1-2 years down the line, not only at 10+ years later
Irrespective of any fine to be charged for failing to report this short, the FCA should also investigate whether ARCM has attempted to manipulate the market by announcing that it won't be renewing its loans when they mature in 2021. The implication here, in my opinion, is that PMO will be riskier by 2021 than it was in 2017 when the loans were drawn down. Given that significant improvements in PMO's fortunes have already been made and, without a crystal ball, further progress is not yet known, ARCM's announcement only serves one purpose, in my opinion, which is to undermine confidence in the company and its share price.
ARCM's conduct is highly unusual to say the least and hopefully the FCA will investigate fully. Apart from a suitable fine, it would be nice to see ARCM forced to close their short.