Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
Yes, Good coverage. Did the regulator not see the naughtines themselves. Guess its like my local council when an 'illegal' fence goes up.
Apols for the typos.
ARCM directors are criminals in my book.
It's a no brainer
ARCM are vultures hoping to illegally attack a dead body. Premier Oil have now turned and shown teeth and is now a company side awake. ARCM are no birds of prey and haven't a prayer.
Employing Rothschilds was a masterstroke.
It's the same debt against a more assets and quicker access to the north sea tax offset. Less Risk.
Not completely comfortable with the PI watering down
Id say arcm are fighting for their existence at this stage. If this short goes any more pear shaped they will get bludgeoned by the squeeze.
I think the question you are trying to pose is,
Can there possibly be a conspiracy between all 41 lenders with pmo or without pmo so to reduce the sp so these participants can get more dilution and hence make more money at expense of shareholders. Its pretty preposterous really, far too many participants.
What I can't get my head round is why, when PMO have clearly stated that super-senior and senior holders on their side are both in excess of the 75% mark, ARCM would still bother to contest it in court. Seems madness to me.
The ES article is Fake News - paid for by ARCM again
PMO had 72.7 % at the aquisition announcment. On the webcast they stated they needed 2.3 % from the remainuing 27.3 %, and that 7% of those not yet contacted were retail bond holders. PMO were very confident of getting it. (the coupon is going to 8.85 % - why would the they not approve ? )
Furthermore, for RNS following the court decision - they clearly say they have 75.15 of "senior committments" - to me that doesnt include Retail Bonds. Even if it does, they are over the 75%
Bear13 I think you'll find that shorting is not illegal in the US.
According to Investopedia :
"Short selling fell under heavy scrutiny during the global financial crisis of 2007 and 2008 when Australia, Canada and several European nations placed bans on short selling of financial stocks. Since that time, regulations have been lifted or amended in some countries, but generally speaking, the United States has more liberal laws on short selling than most of the world."
jw, I agree, they won't act on our moans, but some of the larger intitutions having a go at them might make them put the coffee on and wake up.
Its nice to see the lenders feeling the same way as we do,
I wrote to FCA and published the stanard holding reply on here. I wrote to them again with a "get a move on" and got a similar reply with a"we are taking it very seriously" statement.
I then asked them to give me a timelin- and that as I wasnt happy with their actions that I would complain to the Audit Office. They replied with a link to their complaints page - but no mention of a time line.
I am considering send a Request For Information letter to find how:-
How many letter/emails the have recived on this subject
How much contact they have had with ARCM
How many official complaints they have recived.
How many repsonses they have sent other than the standing holding pattern.
I thought it might be worth a few of us doing the same - but with the Lenders on the case then Id say it was more likely for the FCA to responsd to that - rather than a bunch of PI's
Perhaps the FCA should tell them to unwind their short position back to their previous declaration and give them say a month to do it.
It should not have been needed for ARCM to be reported.
This is the problem with all regulators who are reactive instead of proactive.
This has been widely reported.
The FCA have been asleep.
Interesting TarthD.
Looks like they are capable of making huge fines - certainly large enough to hurt our shorter. A big issue will be how speedy their actions are.
It would be great (but probably unlikely) if their decision was made public before PMO's final Court hearing to approve the scheme of arrangement.
They can do their job sometimes.....
https://w w.w.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/2019-fines
Some eye-watering fines last year.
Slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce is about all they will get from the FCA.
Maybe the FCA will surprise us all and actually grow a pair and do something for a change about market abuse. For ARCM to say “sorry we just didn’t know we had to report it” is laughable. Imagine if they shorted a share in the US and said “sorry we didn’t know shorting was illegal in the US”. The yanks would say nice try and crucify them. Pure and simple what they have done has caused a massive conflict of interest and now is out and out market abuse with their court appearance trying to block something that everyone (PMO, ALL the other lenders, shareholders) say is best for the company.
Looks like ARCM has been reported to the regulator:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/premier-oils-attacker-reported-to-regulator-2n0tm7bhs
ADDDED emphasis
Have I missed ANY PAST (2018/19) statements from TD or any PAST company RNS stating.......
Am I missing something: in basic terms
After the release of data regarding ARCM's massive short we then become emboiled in this news of the PMO debt, ARCM purchasing of more debt, then news /report that PMO want or need to complete restructuring.
Have I missed any statments from TD or any company RNS stating that due to failing expectations on company performance they (PMO) will not make the planned repayment schedule? To the contary: Catcher doing really well, Tolmount sanctioned, put in 23mil carry for the 88e drilling campaign, escaped a carry with RKH, sale of Zama when PoO is good.
No mention of failure to meet debt repayments..so why the extention...what have I missed...is it down to ARCM?
Rgds Sft
sorry been on bevy
eat the insole out my work boots!!
couldn't agree more
Oiluser couldn't agree the pleb who wrote this article must also be on ARCM payroll its purposefully written to sow doubt in our minds. The money ARCM have at stake they will be more than happy to pay a few dead beat journalists to spout lies as they do best to assist ARCM's own agenda if the telegraph article wasn't paid for I ll eat the unsold out my work boots, this is no different!!
Yes, I noted the same myself lol.. neutral as in (this time) he's not got a vested interest, just passing some time I think!! The neutral part, most definitely, cannot be in relation to his written word that's for sure.
Right, must be Saturday night film time and hunt down a cold beer hidden somewhere in the fridge :-)
Ya couldnt make it up, or could ya. Classic psyops
What I am particularly enjoying is Andy saying ‘ from a neutrals view’. Bit like saying Whitebox are sitting on the fence.....?
More press tonight no doubt? The ES article came out lunchtime Friday