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.
Thanks Yellow. Not sure why they needed to respond to the Times in that case.
LTV - I don’t think that Sharesoc can advise otherwise - if there
is a risk That people might lose money then they cannot
endorse it.
I believe That they are looking to the longer term where people
might be looking for recompense and a way forward after the
vote.
Yes and your thong ??
Maxdoom, as I keep mentioning, they did not make EVERT REASONABLE EFFORT! At least offer bonds to test the water. If oversubscribed then sell more. And JPM were in a win win. They were shorting and knew if they said “pull the the bonds “ the share price would tank. Even an idiot like me can see that bit needs investigating.
The Board (really Fraser who ran this as if he were the 100% owner) have shown shocking judgement for months. Their opinion - and it's just an opinion - is that a no vote will result in administration. But nobody has a crystal ball. In the absence of anyone stepping in, of course administration is inevitable. But a contrary opinion is that a no vote changes the outcome for bondholders who go from full protection under AAL to wipe out. That may force them to act - to step in to save themselves and, by association us.
To my mind this is just as likely an outcome - a rescue - as administration. All just opinions at the end of the day, but let me make one thong clear I'm advocating a no vote to save my investment, not to profit from a short position and I have , on many occasions acknowledged this strategy comes with a downside risk of zero pence. It's a risk many are prepared to take to save their investment and, for different reasons, its a risk Odey are also taking and they're not shorting the share either.
You've come on here late in the day and seem very supportive of the offer and, generally Fraser. If anyone has an agenda here, it appears to be you.
Stick your 5.5p where the sun don't shine and let's get counting on the 3rd.
Pwh31 " when the BoD have been clear in legal takeover docs that there is none ?"
Just because there is not another offer on the table, it does not mean there is no other choice.
They have cash to at least the end of March and they could seek a loan
They could place $600m of bonds/offer to the markets in that time.
They previously repaid $400m of bonds in September and said they could have placed $500m if they had warrants attached - so VERY CLEARLY there is appetite for $600m of bonds - WHY DID THEY/ARE THEY NOT TRYING TO RAISE IT - they could have tried in parallel to pursuing the AA offer reality is they want the AA deal no matter what is on offer imo
Pwh31..people are struggling to believe what fraser says.last 10 months very questionable.
Let me first say that I have voted NO and I have done so for the reasons we both believe (fundamentals) Qatar ,polygon, fundsirius etc etc
But LTV they are right to point out the facts !!!
Whilst I we both believe the bod are over egging administration ? there is a real chance that if no wins we could all lose what we have left
Regards
ffc
seems to be big irony. share soc a wolf in sheeps clothing ?
from someone who has posted 10 time s a day for last 30 days trying to persuade people to vote no for another alternative , when the BoD have been clear in legal takeover docs that there is none ?
I don't have a problem with Sharesoc quoting Fraser who suggests that it is likely a no vote will result in administration, but when they give that opinion themselves, quoted in the Times suggesting that a no vote will "very likely result in administration", I have a problem with that. They have no way of knowing that. They are not qualified to make that scaremongering statement.
Fraser is conflicted and, IMO, will do anything at this point to save his 7 million payout and new job with AAL. He does not have shareholders best interests as his priority. Anything he says, given his track record of broken promises and mis-statements over the past several month should be taken with a pinch of salt. For Sharesoc to regurgitate this and pass it off as their own opinion is not helpful for shareholders, particularly those still trying tp find a plan B.
Why haven't sharesoc been more actively promoting and supporting www.fundsirius.com ?
The advice in your post yesterday covering quotes from Sharesoc in the Times, coupled with the fact that I don't see much effort on the part of Sharesoc to promote the www.fundsirius.com campaign.
I think people that forked over 45 quid expected more assistance and support. Just my opinion.
LTV
what advice is that ?
If you are talking about the bits that have been cherry picked by the press then you have to wonder what agenda they are on because I feel sharesoc have only pointed out some thruths and possibilities ???
The Sh@te is about to hit the fan!!!
Is Sharesoc licensed the give investment advice? Should they not be remaining neutral on the vote and simply giving out information, rather than opinions? Should they not be more concerned with representing shareholders rights, particularly the right to vote, but leaving the voting preference up to the individual?
There seems to be a lot wrong with the voting system and one shareholder one vote is significantly compromised by the one nominee account one vote reality.
I'm sure many of the hundreds, if not thousands, of shareholders that forked over 45 quid to sharesoc feel a bit let down by the representation they're providing to shareholders.
Is sharesoc a wolf in sheeps clothing?