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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
"Why does one needs to analyze every word, comma, fullstop etc in the issued RNS's"
Might I suggest that at this critical juncture it is the only information that small shareholders are privy to.
There is an old sales and advertising adage which says "say what you like about me but make sure you spell my name correctly".
There is no doubt Providence is getting great coverage over the money in the Irish papers. I think at least one if not two papers have had a statement every day. Again today there is another article about and this one seems a bit better in the positive stakes.
We now know that the money is on the way and lets hope that the DCCAE will not be the future stumbling block. Let's get on with the survey.
Why does one needs to analyze every word, comma, fullstop etc in the issued RNS's
We now know that the money is on the way and lets hope that the DCCAE will not the future stumbling block. Let's get on with the survey.
think about it the 5th was a Friday it isn't only going to take 2 working days to clear is it?
Mamms maybe the payment date could of been set up like a standing order starting the the 9th July which in effect if we use working days as banks do is only 4 days into the process.
Looks like today's RNS has steadied the ship a bit. DCCAE need to get their act together now and we should see this start to appreciate SP wise.
There is not necessarily a contradiction in the two statements being issued.
As I pointed out last week, which perhaps you missed, remittances between HSBC and recipient for international transfers goes through two stages. HSBC1 remits to HSBC2 in the recipients country - so for example, HSBC Hong Kong to HSBC Ireland. Then HSBC2 remits the money to the recipient - HSBC Ireland to Providence and obviously both do not take place on the same day.
So the two statements could be totally compatible.
I think Mamms is right - the two remittance advice notifications can hardly be reconciled.
I don't know what the explanation is, but the money does seem to be on its way.
Then all we need is regulatory approval and we shall be on our way.
Maybe Mamms needs to take antidepressants!
Perhaps it got both.
I wonder did you ever work in the real world.
Nobody is going to make those kinds of statements in RNS messages as they are legal statements to prevent insider trading whether negative or positive.
You seem to be the epitome of the famous "doubting Thomas"
Mamms, I know the payments weren't contingent on the survey approval, but I still imagine it went something like this:
To'R, January: Where's our money?
APEC: Where's our survey approval?
To'R, February: Where's our money?
APEC: Where's our survey approval?
To'R, March: Where's our money? We're running up expenses, er, I mean costs already.
APEC: You expect us to trust your rancid little country? Where's our survey approval?
To'R, May: Where's our money? As much as we'd like to, we can't legally keep shareholders in the dark forever.
APEC: Yeah, so tell us about this Bríd Smith. And btw, where's our survey approval?
To'R, June: Heaven spare my bronzed fizzog! Ok you guys, this is impinging on sunbathing time.
APEC: Yeah, we're just getting the funds together now. Gives you a bit more time for the SURVEY APPROVAL.
I just noticed this now - in the RNS dated 8 July it is stated 'Providence has received a HSBC remittance notification dated July 5, 2019 from APEC’s funder for the transfer of US$ 10 million in favour of Providence’s bank account in Dublin with a payment date of July 9, 2019.'
Then in the RNS of this morning it is stated 'The Company can confirm that it has received a letter from the legal representatives of APEC’s funder advising that on July 9, 2019, the funder arranged for the remittance of $US 10 million from HSBC to Providence’s account.'
SO did the remittance take place of 5 July (payment on 9) or did the remittance happen on 9 July. Far from giving assurance, these RNS are highlighting inconsistencies. No wonder PVR are so skeptical....
"It is the first World Cup that English men have won in any sport since 1966 and he will go down in history."
Er, Rugby 2003!!
Hi Manyana, I'll give you a different perspective. First, we do not know who the funders are. We knew that the consortium was APEC energy enterprises with JIC and COSL when the FOA was signed. One would have thought COSL were supplying the technical and drilling capabilities, JIC the finance and APEC the political and co-ordination stuff. In the first RNS of this debacle we were told 'The Company understands that this delay is due, in part, to a change in the composition of APEC’s funding mechanism.' - Now we do not know who the funder is, what the funding mechanism is or whether JIC are even involved at all anymore. Second, the money was due to be paid in Q4 2018 from the same RNS 'This advance was not received during Q4 2018 as originally expected.' They then go on to say that 'The Barryroe Partners have agreed a series of amendments to the Updated FOA over recent months which provided for extensions to the date by APEC of the initial loan advance US$ 9 million, with the last extension being set at May 31, 2019.' so we are seeing APEC miss the 31 May deadline, the 14 June deadline, the 5 July deadline, the 9 July deadline, the 12 July deadline and now they are waiting to pass the 19 July deadline. These are playing out in what you rightly observe is a bizarre series of RNSs. However, what we have not seen are the assurances that the money would be paid in December, 2 deadlines in January, 3 deadlines in February, 4 deadlines missed in April, 5 deadlines in May.... What we are observing is exasperation and a complete break down in trust. Third - a remittance advice is just that, a teller receipt and is not really proof of anything - if a remittance advice was definitive that would have been the end of it. The reason we continue to get very short deadlines and more and more of them is that PVR are covering themselves in case of non-payment. I suspect PVR are already in trouble in terms of the disclosure to date - most of the press at the weekend made a point of noting how long it took them to tell shareholders that there was a problem at all. I also believe that they should have a duty to inform us of any changes to the consortium and the funding mechanism but there you go..... Believe me, nobody is hoping more for that payment to come through but it is at its very best, still a 50/50 thing.
Mamms, I read the first part of your item and then skimmed the rest. Reading it again I note your statement "Finally, it should be noted that it is unusual that they used their legal firm to give the assurances - "
I presume when you say "their legal firm" refers to APEC's funders' legal firm who presumably draew up the contracts under which the money was loaned .
Given that the funders are a major Chinese institution with $12billion assets it would be strange to get their legal representatives to tell a lie. After all, in the greater scheme of things $10m is small potatoes in that context.
Mamma confirmation is from the funders solicitors
The Company can confirm that it has received a letter from the legal representatives of APEC’s funder advising that on July 9, 2019, the funder arranged for the remittance of $US 10 million from HSBC to Providence’s account.
"I don't see how the failure to pay the money once again amounts to good news."
Answer: because HSBC says the money is on the way not APEC but its funder note "the funder arranged for the remittance of $US 10 million from HSBC to Providenceï¿½s account." I am sure Providence has been issued with a copy of the remittance from funder to HSBC to prove that it has been actioned.
As I mentioned last week I did some business in Ireland last year and I only received my CGT clearance from Irish tax last week. What I forgot to mention, for the sake of our "separated breathern" in places like the UK is that Ireland has a calendar tax year which finishes on December 31st unlike England where it finishes on 6th of April. So, this clearance was six months late. That is the sort of delays now being experienced due to "money laundering" checks. The system is grinding to a halt.
That is why the RNS states "The legal representatives further advise that the remittance is expected to be completed shortly pending compliance checks by the bank." Bureaucracy gone mad and a lot of it down to the EU, like the approval which is now way overdue.
What amazes me is why Providence did not hold their fire rather than belting off numerous RNS as surely they know from experience how long it can take to move money around and they were in the information loop that it would not take a genius to check so why the continuous drip feed of "its on its way" or "perhaps it isn't".
Laurel and Hardy once again.
Let's hope this saga is now over and DCCAE can get their finger out and give the approval.
What a game - the most exciting sporting event I have ever seen. Tension in cricket is more like stress. I knew from half way through the kiwi innings that it was going to be tight. the ups and downs are cataclysmic. I will be in Lords on Friday and Saturday next week - atmosphere should be brilliant.
Ooh and it looks like we will see this money after all
I don't see how the failure to pay the money once again amounts to good news. I also do not understand why many on this board seem to think it is legitimate for APEC to break the agreed contract and wait for approval from DCCAE. Our company, PVR, has already taken on €5.1m in liabilities for the survey (look at the accounts Note 8') - APEC signed a contract to take 50% interest in BROE and fund those liabilities. Their failure to adhere to the contract is not legitimate and leaves us, their partner, swinging in the wind. As for DCCAE, they could have issued a permit by now, they could have asked more information or they could have refused a permit. They probably won't do any of these things before August so if APEC are waiting for the approval before paying then that's going to be a problem. Finally, it should be noted that it is unusual that they used their legal firm to give the assurances - presumably that came in the form of 'the funds are in the mail, if you take any measures to terminate the contract we'll sue etc.'.. So PVR take 100% of the risk and APEC take a free punt.... That's a brilliant contract.
Two sells of 150 shares each and price drops 4.5%. Corruption.
Well said Urraca. Most posters blame TOR for everything that can possibly go wrong. I believe that the present crises is the doing of DCCAE.
Let's hope the market takes this latest RNS well.
It feels a little like a game of poker between the Chinese and DCCAE. Who will show a card first? I've said before that it beggars belief that Govt almost seems to want a project to fail, such is the red tape that's been put in its way. Will they issue the appropriate assessment determination before the 19th? Will it be positive? And, what could possibly be taking them so long given they've already issued the permit, and are only re-doing the whole thing because of some technical procedural errors - made by DCCAE. I think it's a little unfair to be abusing TOR about this snarl up. PVR are stuck in the middle, and not in the driving seat.
Man that Apec Energy website looks shady... Vice Chairman "Diana Dai Bin" doesn't actually seem to exist if you google her, and the address in Hong Kong appears to be a generic one that's used by all sorts of ropey companies. Very odd.
Indeed, all 3 RNSs are consistent. For my sins I am quite familiar with compliance operations of international banks. Such things are to be expected from time to time, unfortunately for us shareholders it happened to precisely the wrong payment. As other posters have said, it could have been worse (i.e. no deal). I for one will rest much easier once the money is in PVR's account. This equity is a magnificent example of Murphy's Law, I do hope all parties will take "admin delays" into account when the real money needs to be paid later.