Member Info for big-blue

Where did the Russians bring their money to hide it from the tax man? Which tax man
Now we like to call them the oligarchs, Who mentioned oligarchs?
to perpetuate the Marxist hate of anyone who’s rich? Errr what?
Yet, we don’t call the Saudi's the same, Don't we??? On what basis do you make that claim?
just the media narrative you’ve been spoon fed. Oh touched a raw nerve somewhere, my media feed is global from all sides. I am remarkably well informed as old lags on this board will testify.

Did Russia just turn the gas off? Or did the EU sanction Russia first trying to economically cripple Russia? What did you expect them to do? I, err, I really have no idea what your point is... Germany made a serious error and is now retracting as fast as possible as is the rest of Europe. The idea is to prevent Putin funding the war.

Did Ukraine mine the ports to stop Russia invading? Was it this that stopped grain exports? NO!

If Russia didn’t want grain leaving, it wouldn’t…it would’ve been incinerated. But then Russia could not have stolen it.

As for businesses leaving, who’s loss is that? You think other countries won’t fill their place? NO! The reason why most of those businesses are so important is that there are not replacements of the caliber or scale, like Lloyds. They own most of the market for those services or goods. You expect like for like replacements? Now that is funny.

Russia is now significantly closer to the majority of the worlds population, How, how is it closer? Have the continents been squeezed together?
who have larger growth prospects, from 5 to 10 is not as impressive as 1000 to 1005. Yup, the disposable income of BRICS is going to make up for lost inward investment and overseas earnings for Russia, huh, NOT!

As for a mining company leaving a country with the largest deposited globally, I think it more likely POLY leaving the LSE. Time will tell. Other deposits elsewhere without the overheads of corrupt local authorities, police, mafia etc, etc, etc.... with access to any piece of equipment required etc, etc, etc.... with access to all levels of insurance required etc, ec, etc.. with access to funding without a ccc- credit rating etc, etc, etc, and able to stamp the bullion with hallmarks welcome in virtually all markets so not having to discount etc, etc, etc and able to list on one of, if not 'the', most prestigious exchange in the world, bye, bye MOEX.

I do like these attempts at creative writing as the turd polishing fraternity try to spin the fantasy that it is all somebody else's fault and sweet innocent ickle Wussia is just being bullied by the nasty meanies, US Marxist meanies to boot (that was a howler, is greed no longer good?).

And for the Russians in London, old school philosophy, people don't ship on their own doorstep which is why every whako on the planet is allowed into London, where we can keep very, very, (look up to your left by the ceiling fan - smile) VERY

Russia has nothing exclusive, nothing. And what it does have it uses as political leverage in many ways amidst excessive corruption and reliability meaning it is the least desirable supplier. Better to pay a little more for supply security into the production line elsewhere. And the war and use of energy and grain as a weapon has done nothing to improve Russia's existing poor reputation. So many business have called it a day, and many more planning their exit, including POLY.

"you probably exercise all you cognitive capacity on using your opposable thumbs "

Resorting to insults = lost the argument!

No pipsqueak, I mean what I say. The world does not need Russia. There are plenty of other places to obtain what we need (just ask China!), or the ability to modify and redesign to suite what resources are available.

Thank you speel. Good to know I clearly hit the nail squarely on the head with you!

Sanctions from the west were targeted at individuals in the hope they would be motivated to move against Putin, those individuals turned out to be gutless little ships. The rest try to target the financing of the war and components used to make the weapons of war. The sanctions are in response to a war without foundation rather than some sort of random unprovoked act by the mean nasty west against cute innocent ol' Russian. Oh Russia is so innocent, not!

Those countries may not yet be applying sanctions whilst they can get handouts, but there are very few open statements supporting Russian actions or backing Russia unequivocally. All I hear are a lot of very carefully chosen words. Even Russia's new besty, China, isn't supporting the war with military help and the statements are lukewarm and more full of diplomatic niceties. The US, EU and UK can far outspend Russia buying friends if they want but the 'west' policy has been since the credit crunch to get countries self-sufficient and not reliant on the west. China has taken over much of the bankrolling of infrastructure investment and it is more China calling the shots, not Russia in those territories.

World affairs are much complicated than your rather two dimensional BBC centric prose. Putin is actually doing the est a favour creating a situation where the massive energy error can be corrected using the war as an excuse and more generally a major rethink and abandonment of the disastrous zero carbon policies.

Watch out for news stories about the BBC being challenged directly to allow alternative views and debates about climate change claims and effects, or lose its license to broadcast.

The war will not end soon, sanctions will not end whilst Russia is on Ukraine soil, POLY has a toxic asset and needs to get rid of it or suffer consequences in the credit, insurance and gold market..

You require making a huge mountain of suppositions pipsqueak that never existed on which you then declare western folly. In reality, with or without the Ukraine war, Europe aws to be held to ransom over energy supply by Russia at some point anyway. Your essay pays no regard to the political structure that drove the policies to where they were, namely zero carbon and EU trying to be the new USA. China has been top economic dog for over a decade now and the BRICS has been emerging since the 90s and have been pushed and encouraged so as to stop being reliant on the west. Similarly in Africa. Russia is simply looking to walk in and profit from that. He is not being welcomed with open arms and he is having to work very hard to be heard. Does this group need Russia as a leader?

You ignore the fact the US is trying actively to withdraw from being the world's policeman - a role it was dumped with at the end of the cold war and doesn't want. It is not being defeated at all, it is the policy.

As for being affected by sanctions, the main impact is the necessary correction to the idiot policy of allowing Germany to become so dependant on one source and the economic madness of the green zero carbon policy and arbitrary targets. Post Merkel, this reversal was always going to have to happen at some point and it was always going to be painful as renewables were never going to fill renewable supply gaps. The Ukraine war has provided an early catalyst to break from the Russian dependency and for the zealots of zero carbon to start being challenged in the open. Watch over the next 6 months as zero carbon is hugely reduced and the Ukraine war used as the catalyst. The leverage Putin thought he had will not exist. Ukraine will not be abandoned, Russia will not gain, sanctions and the impact on POLY will not abate. The rest of the world DOES NOT NEED RUSSIA.

As for the rest of the sanctions, these are steps to attempt to coerce instead of all out war. If Russia chooses to ignore the coercion, then the western world will have corrected the energy supply error and carry on working with the sanctions and eventually extend to war. The alternative is to allow naked aggression to yet again succeed and wait for the next invasion. Ukraine has become the final straw and there is a very real concern Russia will continue moving west. Best to engage Russia now before the make further progress east. Other nations will milk what they can as cheap as they can while they can from Russia and hey, good luck to them. I like the idea of India being able to buy oil 1/4 the market price as long as some of that benefit helps the poorest. Who's taking who for a ride here? When Russia starts demanding full price, how friendly and compliant will Russia's new best buddies be then? How long can Russia continue handing out inducements and incentives to buy nice words.

You're getting desperate for that energy ace card to carry weight. Except countries are quickly turning back to coal. Putin won't be able to force the EU's hand to force Zelenski's hand (and the Ukrainians would never accept surrender) so sanctions will remain in place. Bear in mind too, there is a very high head of steam building up in opposition to all the green crap and problems it causes which is showing through. Putin has relied on the greens to steer Europe into a dependant corner. He has actually gifted the burgeoning rebellion against the greens a vehicle to use. Another brilliant miscalculation. THAT is why debates of yesteryear on here about climate change have been very relevant. There is no ace card for Russia to play as the zero carbon hysteria is being pushed back increasingly so leverage to end the war to suite Russia will not happen and so sanctions and pariah status continue for much longer and so POLY should not 'hope' to hang on with toxic assets and must split the company and preserve what is left.

Would you give the same credit rating to two gold mining companies (all things being equal), one has no mining or asset interests in Russia, solely in Kazakhstan, the other has half in Russia, the other half in Kazakhstan?

Makes ya think.

Few of the aggressive propaganda posters seem to have returned. I wonder if LSE has set a condition accounts must not be via VPN. That would filter out all the organised trolls, and they clearly seem to have been blocked.

"Sanctions aren’t being cancelled while the war is being contested. End of…"

Sanctions aren't being cancelled while Russia is on Ukrainian soil. How manys sanctions imposed from 2014 over 8 years were lifted? None. Ho many of the old and new will be lifted if Russia is still on Ukrainian soil in 8 years time? None!

Wishful thinking BSR. The grain deal was blood out of a stone! It's easy to clutch at straws.

The indication something is up is when Russia claims it is holding a ceasefire to allow peace negotiations, as it did before, and expecting Ukraine to drop its weapons on command. Russian ceasefires actually mean they are in trouble and trying to buy time to resupply and regroup. Russian independent ceasefires are conditional are also a setup for Ukraine to be seen as breaking them responding to attacks are through false flag events.

Realism is the order of the day. The war is as far from an end as it could be.

I think the question you're asking is why people hold after the company confirmed it was considering splitting end of March? Perhaps they old because of a potential split. When you're buying in to the extent BR did, there is a good chance you are going to get access to high level contacts. Maybe BR were aware well ahead of the market, a month, that the business plan if a war happened would be to split making the buy in at a far higher price than current was still very sound. There is certainly no indication which way BR would advise on voting, No TR1 changes showing anybody is dumping in response to the proposals.

No reason to split? If that were the case, why did the board start considering putting a wedge between the Russian and non-Russian. Like it or not, for a very long time to come, anything Russian is regarded in the west at least as toxic. How many of those companies not left yet in fact are planning and exit just like POLY? The Russian bit is going, it will anchor the rest. And don't forget the credit rating which may be seriously impacted by having half the company Russian as extremely high risk and borrowing becoming extremely expensive, including existing debts.

EU bans Russian gold. The asset has increased in toxicity. As I pointed out earlier, such sanctions will last as long as there is any illegal occupation of Ukraine. So if Russia succeeds militarily, and bearing in mind S, Japan and others are bound to adopt the sanction too, this could be around for a decade.

Now the thing to note with this is that proof of origin of articles derived from the initial product are going to be increasingly sought. The bulian will be stamped. Are you going to buy Russian gold knowing that a large sector of the market will not accept it when you try to sell it later? You will be left to sell it only to those not applying the sanctions. That will devalue what you have. And when the EU asks for an origin certificate proving those gold earrings were not made by Russian gold, what you going to do? You're going to avoid buying Russian gold to begin with or get involved in the murky crime world of falsifying documents and recasting bullion with fake hallmarks. Russian gold has become a bit risky to buy!!!!

and I've just noticed squeaky is on post number 2 and both backing up this 'buckeye'.

Here we go again.......

OK, so the explanation is now as clear as a bell but you have an agenda to try and sell the idea it is something that can't be possible so you just disregard the explicit point by point explanation and carry one claiming no split is possible, fingers in ears, la la la la, can't hear it so doesn't exist.
You prefer asset sale to split. So way not just say that instead of being so defensive and denialist?

what is the ratio of shares traded on MOEX and to LSE?

What is the ratio of number of shares held within the Russian jurisdiction, and UK jurisdiction?

Knowing that detail amy give an indication which way a vote about splitting or relisting on another exchange might go. I can not see Black Rock voting for a sole listing on MOEX.

Not sure why this is fantasy, splitting the company up in some fashion was proposed by the board and is being actively assessed by a special committee right now. We are speculating how it might happen.

"However, the 'value' lies more in the Russian assets, so will shareholders get on a vote on whether to accept the 'loss' of the more valuable Russian assets?"

THIS.... will be the debating point. If old POLY is valued at £1,000,000 and there are 1,000,000 shareholders, 500,000 on each exchange, do you offer each shareholder 1 share in their respective jurisdiction new company per old POLY share? Highly unlikely. Some will say, what about the fact Russian assets contribute 75% of the profit? So you instead give XYZ holders 1.75 shares for each POLY share, and for every ABC holder 1.25 for every old POLY share. You 'weight' the distribution. But then another says, what about the debt, so you adjust the weight to mitigate debt ownership. There will no doubt be a range or further variables, each moderating the weighting given to the number of shares issued to holders in the new companies.

Will it be fair, honest and business like? Or will there be a stitch up and ABC holders get shafted? The comment that Russians on MOEX musn't be left with nothing and should get something indicates the gaming of scenarios so far isn't weighting well for what would be the Russian XYZ business.

I posted before, any split will require very detailed scrutiny. Given the likes of Black Rock are significant holders, it is safe to say their judgment for ABC holders be could be regarded as sound. But this split will be an exercise in 'watch your backs'.

No, you misunderstand. If you sell the assets, MOEX holders ae in the same position and divvies still can not be paid to them and by company policy therefore to nobody.

There is no 'weird' share split. The existing POLY shares are not being shared out. POLY ceases to exist. It is null and void. It is a dead POLY. Instead there are two new companies, each the exclusive owner of part of the old POLY assets. The distribution of assets is based on the jurisdiction. XYZ owns and controls all the old POLY stuff on Russian turf and in Russian banks and is listed on MOEX, ABC owns and controls everything else and is listed on LSE. The two companies are completely separate and wholly enclosed in their respective jurisdictions. In fact they are now competitors in the gold market. They don't even send each other Christmas cards.

What about the shareholders of the old POLY? When POLY was wound up, what did they get? They could have been given a wedge of money to hand over their shares and no longer be shareholders in anything. That is one option. The other option is to give shareholders no money for giving up their POLY shares, but instead give them shares in one or both of the the two new companies.

BUT, if I, and many others in the west, were issued shares in both XYZ and ABC, well the XYZ shares would be useless as I wouldn't be able to receive a dividend paid from inside Russia, and likewise for a Russian inside Russia not being able to receive divvies from ABC paid outside Russia all due to sanctions that may last many, many years.

What would be the easiest and simplest way to hand out the new shares, bearing in mind the likely banking arrangements a shareholder may have, sanctions, and the ability to receive dividend payments now and the future influenced by geopolitical events?

It therefore makes sense to award the shares in the new companies based on which jurisdiction the shareholder is likely to be in. A simple reference for that is where that person currently holds their POLY shares, LSE or MOEX. It isn't a perfect system but it is a good enough reference.

Now, ABC holders get their divvies paid and can trade their shares on LSE, XYZ holders get their divvies from inside Russia and can trade on MOEX.

E-very-body happy, no?