The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen 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.
Not surprised at today’s outcome, but disappointed once again...
So 0.1402p = 0.12% of the launch price so the launch price = 0.1402/0.12 x 100 = 116.83p.
Doesn't look right to me.
Loss of 99.88 % since UKOG shares first launched.
And they'll say things like 'the share price in a third (or whatever) it was this time last year. It must be due a correction. Sounds familiar?
Those that bought the open offer shares were probably conned by a phone call boiler campaign. No-one would have bought them with a proper understanding and without persuasion. These boards are just a piece in the grand scheme of things.
Could you really feel sorry for anyone who bought at 0.18 when SP had been lower than that for days?
You could almost feel sorry for those investors who participated in the recent Placing at 0.18. Not sure there will be so many mugs available next time around. I know a few residents who are already celebrating !
But jam sticks and we want the oil to flow!
I think they have already in the guise of slimy sanderson. And he's taking all the jam.
A few years ago , I sold out here at a significant loss because I came to the conclusion that the main priorities of the bod were not aligned to my own and the initial involvement of Big Dave was a huge red flag . Since then the company has continued with its jam tomorrow approach and imv will continue to do so until investors call time or by some stroke of luck the jam arrives. Perhaps they should recruit a Mr Robertson.
Funky - “Any old crook” - agreed but first you have to create a BOD to lord over, and they are just as crooked - it’s easy money for them, after all, when it all goes bust,they have taken the spoils and will just set up elsewhere and do it all over again. Aim regulators are spineless, they would not want to tarnish the reputation of AIM They also get paid to be a regulator!!!!
@ Ian
You may wish to look at
https://docs.londonstockexchange.com/sites/default/files/documents/aim-landscape-infographic.pdf
In particular, at page 4 under “The Financial Conduct Authority” and in particular “…From an AIM Company perspective, it has powers to investigate disclosures made by an AIM Company where they may be false or misleading statements and which (intentionally or recklessly) induce investors to trade or refrain from trading in the company’s securities”.
If you don't like the BoD vote them out. It is that simple.
Fraud is fraud whatever the AIM regulations but determining what is and isn't is not straight forward I suspect.
The income from the City of London is too great to let honesty and integrity take over.
headinthesand
Investors' legal protection is provided by the 2016 Companies Act where Directors are personally liable to conduct Fiduciary Duties on behalf of all shareholders equally - including disclosure.
Beyond that, the Misrepresentation Act is designed to protect investors from relying on false or misleading statements. This act is easy to sidestep by paying for a CPR which is like lending your watch to someone and asking them what time it is!
FCA doesn't enforce these laws, but simply refers wrong-doing to the courts.
Thank you @Headinthesand
I’m just reading the London Stock Exchange AIM Rules for Companies - there’s definitely some regulation but as you say, lighter than with the FTSE companies.
If there wasn’t any regulation then surely any old crook could set up a company and fleece investors??
Ian, that is another of your increasingly bizarre comments. You seriously believe that there is no regulation applicable to AIM companies and their directors? And you invest based upon such a complete misapprehension? That is terrifying.
Yes, although regulation is lighter touch than you'd find on the FTSE, there is still plenty in place and yes, the FCA can get involved if such regulation is contravened.
I mean okay, I can understand why, when looking at UKOG's and its board's track record, you might think that there are zero requirements to tell anything close to the truth, to announce information (good or bad) in a timely manner and not to directly contradict RNSed information and commitments...
...however such regulation still exists.
How can someone possibly invest anything at all in AIM when they are this clueless?
If you did any research before investing in the Aim market you would then know that it is not Regulated so no point posting about FCA interaction now is there. Dyor. Gla.
It’s the same with Anguish. Shareholders were misled for six months last spring and summer over the state of their finances and progress at Poundland. Yes, the FCA should definitely be taking action in both cases but they appear merely to be a box-ticking setup. Whether it’s lack of funds, lazy staff or absent leadership, they’re toothless and largely missing in action. The London Stock Exchange should be involved too, in my view. The AIM market was surely not set up to bring the UK’s financial regulatory system into international disrepute?
Great post @ Cynderlad.
Just out of interest, would there be enough to put the case to the FCA that salmon slacks has deliberately misled us investors???? If so, this should be reported.
People have lost lots of money on this lifestyle share that keeps him in a decent salary and no doubt a healthy pension to boot.
This conduct ought to be investigated, all in my opinion.
Hi Mirasol,
It was also a long, long time ago that they said they would recomplete HH-1 as a dual Portland / Kimm producer and we are still waiting for that too! I forget, didn't they announce that plan after the EWT on the Kimm?
A full blown frac wouldn't help, as it's very difficult to Frac a formation that is naturally fractured (like trying to fill a bucket with holes already in it) and you won't know where the frac fluid is going to go.
I suspect they have some nearbore damage which a mini acid frac might help with, but even that (although it would be less than 100 bbls) would be impossible without the XP mob baying for blood.
Whatever the reason for not producing the Kimm is, the silence from the UKOG board on the Kimm is shameful.
Buy in last week did you Will? Welcome to UKOG!
SS has your money now!
" UKOG have never made any other announcement other than posting what appeared to be very good flow rates from the HH test"
And that was a long long time ago
the disappearance of any mention of the Kimm since then shows it doesn't work commercially withe current operation
I suspect that a frac or prop job would help but that's not on here and now
Mirasol,
"The Kimm clearly doesn't produce well without (possibly) fraccing - the recharge rate is too low for commercial operations"
It would be nice to know that for sure - we can only inferr it from the lack of any Kimm development and the statements made in the Loxlely planning application documents about the Kimm being non-commercial, as UKOG have never made any other announcement other than posting what appeared to be very good flow rates from the HH test.
Been dealing now for 67 years,doubt anyone on here can teach me anything, going from what you type...50% of
you are still wet behind the ears.