Member Info for Corryvreckan1

Additional detail on the LSE volumes at the bottom of this page, incl. May and up to last Friday:

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/HBR/harbour-energy-plc/trade-recap

The daily buyback restriction is max 25% of the average volume over the previous 20 trading days. In periods of high volatility like recent weeks this can throw out some odd days higher or lower than previous.

The relatively higher total volumes on a few days in mid May will still be factored into the average just now, but as they drop out in the days ahead - and if they are not replaced by higher days going forward - then you could see the daily buyback dropping off again. This can sometimes be anomalous with the SP direction and therefore not always allow for loading up when the SP is lower.

I need to stop looking at this stuff :/ Tell me I’m reading too much into it…

I mentioned yesterday that there would be 8,456,723 LLOG shares left that could be sold down to the 70% level. The TR-1 has 2nd June as the relevant date.

NAV_Mike queried if the off market trades on the 3rd might be related to the TR-1. I don’t think so directly as they were a day later, but the volume was 2,936,523 which has too much of a ‘similarity’ to 8,456,723 for my OCD liking. If that was a sell subsequent to the TR-1 distribution then it would take them down to a more rounded 5,520,200 left to sell.

It would also take them to 6.98% which would require a further TR-1 for crossing under 7%. Possibly a deliberate sell volume to trigger a TR-1 to keep the market informed? If it is then the RNS will have to be issued by Harbour by close on Monday at latest. I await to be proved wrong/deluded/sectioned.

I now going for a long walk far away from my screen. If I don’t return then you’ll know that the spivs have been watching me closely…

Regarding today’s TR-1 from LET/LLOG

From RNS 22/12/25: “Of the voting ordinary shares issued to LLOG [174,855,744], 70% will be subject to a one-year lock-up following completion of the Acquisition [11th Feb 26].”

70% = 122,399,021. Today’s RNS has them down to 113,184,026, which might seem like a breach overshoot of 9,214,995 (5.27%)?

However, note 11 on today’s RNS is of interest:

“The Harbour Energy PLC ordinary shares are being distributed to various other entities as well as employees and former employees of LET, LLC. The one-year lock-up described in Harbour Energy PLC's RNS announcement dated 22 December 2025 continues to apply.”

This, to me, is slightly ambiguous but I think we have to read the last sentence as referring to the shares they have just distributed per this TR-1 (so the end of that statement should be read as ‘continues to apply TO THESE SHARES’) rather than just a general reminder for the rest that they still hold. That eliminates the overshoot calc problem and this would still leave them with 8,456,723 they could sell before Feb 27 without dropping below 70%.

----------

On not being included in the FTSE 100, I think the EIG lock-up plus some others are adjusted for. There was an RNS issued by FTSE Russell on 27th March regarding an Investability Weight Change “as a result of a secondary offering”. This appears to refer to the 60m that EIG shifted in March and so the remaining 59.3m (3.75%) they hold would still be adjusted for in some way in the FTSE calcs this week. Doesn’t fully explain it so must be others included in the adjustment as well.

The 90 day lock-up remaining for EIG expires on Tues 9th next week…

Not happening this quarter:

https://www.lseg.com/en/media-centre/press-releases/ftse-russell/2026/ftse-uk-index-series-review-june-2026

Tokugawa

More AI problems:

If the full market cap was £5.14bn then it would have been placed at 77th at close last night, not 87th. The AI is taking 87th from Harbour’s actual position at last night’s close on the full LSEG table (referenced previously here) and has then wrongly assumed that 87th is based on the “full” MCap that it has decided it should be. Not good gruel!

Also note, from the FTSE Russell UK Index Series Ground Rules:

“4.1 Eligible securities

Equity shares listed on the following categories are not eligible:

[…] Non-Equity Shares and Non-Voting Equity Shares”

Which is partly irrelevant because:

“6.6 Size

Only the LISTED equity shares of a company will be included in the calculation of its market capitalisation.”

Again, your AI has clearly noted the LetterOne shares are “unlisted” yet still tried to include them in the calc. Unplug that thing now.

I still cba going through Harbour’s capital structure in more detail to see what else might or might not qualify for inclusion, but maybe stop using AI for this stuff? The Ground Rules that FTSE Russell follow are free to download from their website (if you have trouble sleeping ‘cos they’re a bit heavy going). Or, just wait until tomorrow eve for the magic reveal…

"Or is Google missing something??"

It looks like that supposedly sentient AI that Google claim they don't have is missing a few marbles ;o) What it's given you is kind of half-right ish but also non sensical at the same time.

Nothing is certain until FTSE Russell issue the table around 6pm tomorrow following their review meeting, have a siesta until then.

Property1 - please see my post on Sunday 31st at 16:33 (half way down page 2 of the forum here).

Also, my last para in that post is in a similar vein to Benside's post below. I think FTSE Russell may have an adjustment in their calc so if Harbour are not on the change list tomorrow eve then that will likely be why.

When I first posted on 20th May about using the FTSE 350 table as an indicator I also posted:

‘* Note that the MCap on this list only updates once overnight, so £4,752m is last night’s close. The share price in the column beside it is live (15 min delay) throughout the day but it doesn’t update the MCap at the same time (rather misleading, IMO).’

As it's the weekend, you won’t see on that list the correct close on Friday until tomorrow pre-market open (it should be £4.142bn and I suspect that means it may be a couple of places lower?) and likewise you won’t see the Tuesday cut-off until Wednesday morning. Even then it should only be treated as indicative rather than final as sometimes FTSE Russell find things in some of their more arcane rules that impact on their calculation.

I actually thought Harbour should have been included in the indicative press release and haven’t quite worked out why not. There may be something around the free float criteria that is impacting on their calc, or something related to the LLOG 174m shares issued in Feb? But I cba working it out and all will be clear around 6pm on Wednesday when the official changes are released.

Bonne chance.

Quiet day overall so just adding a few things to the ISA discussion here.

The parliament Treasury Committee first challenged and pushed back against the overall ISA changes in October, more details in the links in here:

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/158/treasury-committee/news/211308/government-responds-to-cash-isa-report/

The point first raised below by Ken23 was then noted in an HMRC newsletter:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tax-free-savings-newsletter-19/tax-free-savings-newsletter-19-november-2025

"3. Cash ISA limit

- tests to determine whether an investment is eligible to be held in a stocks and shares ISA or is ‘cash like’

- a charge on any interest paid on cash held in a stocks and shares or Innovative Finance ISA"

But the Treasury Committee still didn’t seem too impressed in January after receiving the government reply - Chair of the Treasury Committee, Dame Meg Hillier, said:

“The Treasury’s ambition is commendable, but I remain to be convinced that these reforms will drive the cultural change that Ministers want to see.

"In her proposed changes, the Chancellor risks complicating the ISA landscape and confusing consumers.

“It is now clear where the Government stands on the issue. The next step is to see how this complex product will be delivered in the real world.”

Those points tying into Trouts’ post below.

While it’s still just a proposal going through consultation it will need to go to parliament fairly soon to allow ISA managers time to implement any changes before next April. It can only be hoped it's another one of Reeves' flag raising exercises and will then be watered down.

Interesting comment from AJ Bell on this:

"And while HMRC has proposed new rules to charge interest paid on cash held in Stocks and shares ISAs, it didn’t use the [word] ‘tax’ in its announcement. We don’t know whether its choice of wording was intentional yet, and whether any new charge would simply be income tax or a different type of charge. Another interesting point is that before changes to simplify ISAs in 2014, cash awaiting investment could be held in a Stocks and shares ISA without a tax charge, and it was up to the ISA manager to assess this."

https://www.ajbell.co.uk/news/what-we-do-and-dont-know-about-cash-isa-changes

Broker commentary will be interesting in the weeks ahead as they will be the ones at the forefront of implementing and managing any changes that make it into final policy.

"Simon Harrison is stepping down as Chief Executive Officer and board director with effect from 30th June 2026 in order to pursue a new opportunity."

A new opportunity:

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/ULTP/appointment-of-new-ceo-t2672456hdcy7yb.html

"The Board has commenced a formal succession process to appoint a permanent Chief Executive Officer. In the meantime, Giuseppe Mastrolia, ..."

Absolutely standard procedure in any listed company when a CEO resigns.

Just to add to the comments with links to the LSE FTSE lists, this is the official current FTSE 350 list which is more applicable for FTSE review:

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/indices/ftse-350/constituents/table

Sort by MCap highest>lowest (I’m told this option is not available on some devices, particularly mobiles).

You then get 20 lines per page, scroll down to the bottom and click on page 5 (if visible, if not it’s likely page 4 first and then scroll down again and click on page 5).

Harbour are second top of page 5 so currently* in position 82 as others have said.

* Note that the MCap on this list only updates once overnight, so £4,752m is last night’s close. The share price in the column beside it is live (15 min delay) throughout the day but it doesn’t update the MCap at the same time (rather misleading, IMO).

There are IPOs, takeovers, listing changes etc. this quarter that will impact on the final 100 and 250 lists on the 2nd June cut-off but regardless Harbour look in good place to be promoted.

The ‘companiesmarketcap.com’ list is not quite comparable as it includes all UK registered companies and several of them don’t qualify for inclusion in the FTSE UK Indices. You can compare their list with the LSE link above to see the differences. FTSE Russell use a full “monitored list” of companies and only those that meet all of their several qualifying criteria are then considered for inclusion based on MCap. Position 90 or above (note – not position 100) on that list is needed for promotion to the 100, below 110 gets you demoted.

For info, the various different indices can be found from the top of the LSE home page here:

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/

Property1 – I recommended your post yesterday with the key dates this quarter as that is spot on, and one of the best summaries of the events I have seen.

Carnival first intimated the unification in their Q4 ER on 19th Dec 2025.

The Shareholder Document was published on 2nd March and the RNS included a detailed timetable of events.

The Court and Special meetings voted in favour of the resolutions on 17th April and the RNS on 20th April confirmed the timetable.

The Court sanctioned the Scheme on 1st May and that RNS confirmed the final stages of the timetable.

The London Stock Exchange issued the Notice of Cancellation RNS on 7th May.

----------

There is absolutely no reason for any Broker to not have prepared and planned for this in advance and any that are still stalling are taking the proverbial.

Except they will likely refer you to their T&Cs that probably say that events like this may take longer to ... blah, blah, blah.

Vote with your feet.

And if you wish to escalate to your Broker's customer complaints department then make sure you get a reference number from them in case you need to escalate further to the FCA (but here's hoping you don't need to go that far).

* abacus

;o)

Looks like a miscalc on the purchase. Last Co.house filing on 6/8/25 shows 78,473,489 shares in issue. Pre-sale they would have been up to 30.009%, post sale it's 29.999444%. Eek!

Alternative comment from JPM included here:

https://www.lse.co.uk/news/ULVR/magnum-ice-cream-bid-seen-unlikely-as-complicated-by-tax-constraints-t8mi04wdeg4hdny.html

Agreed, BB. To actually go through the calculation and state that reduced capital in the AGM notice and not realise how far out it was from their intentions is a ridiculous oversight.

And as you say not for the first time. As a further example, in the Annual Report just published they have finally fixed note 22 (prev. 21) to change Brett’s designation from Non-Executive Chairman to Non-Executive Director (in line with Tyke’s phone call comment earlier this year that they don’t have a Chairman) but they couldn’t be bothered to proof check the rest of the report for the other places it was wrongly stated. A simple electronic word check on ‘Chairman’ would have flagged them up for correction as well. Is that now 4 years running they have submitted an incorrect and misleading report to the Jersey Financial Services Commission?

Including:

“On an annual basis, the Chairman considers the performance of the Board and discusses with the Company Secretary the re-election process. Given the performance of the Company, the Chairman has confirmed that the Directors being submitted for election […] continue to be highly effective, qualified and committed to their respective roles.”

“highly effective” – apart from the financial reporting function it seems!

These errors should not be happening - repeatedly - in a stock market listed company. Unfortunately that’s one of the risks of small companies with few directors who’s functions repeatedly overlap and reduce the possibility of proper oversight and governance, but they should not be relying on anonymous posters on internet forums to proof read their legally required documents AFTER they have been published!

-\ end rant.

The share pricing is as BB posted at 15:39 and the calculation shown in the AGM notice v.s the capital balance in the last accounts suggests it's not a typo.

Agree with howdelp's post at 15:43 about this facilitating share issues in the absence of cash, but watch for the dilution effect...

I'm not aware of this being different in Jersey law but I cba looking through it again.

Tyke - truetide would be diluted as well in any raise, unless they participate, so it could pull them away from 30% rather than push them over.

It does seem that the Board can't see any short term mechanism by which the share price could even be higher than the current 0.5p, to facilitate a raise at a higher price, therefore proposing to reduce the nominal value by a factor of 20 to make it easier in future.

Ii are notorious for being asleep at the wheel when there are changes to listings. Send them a secure message or phone them to keep pestering them to get it fixed. It is entirely a problem on their platform, possibly just waiting for someone to tick the right box.

There is no problem with the stock market listing, nor other brokers that I can see, and it was just a change to the sub category on the main market last week and none of the relevant codes were changed so ii have no excuse (again).

Part 1/2:

Key takeaways from the April Progress Report for Prax E&P:

Timetable (see post 2/2 below) – as for State Oil, Teneo are indicating that a 12 month extension beyond the initial statutory deadline [29/9/26] will likely be required.

Serica retention – see also post 2/2 below, £1m still possibly repayable to Serica at end of April. In addition, Teneo have now stated “The Consideration was subject to a final true up mechanism in respect of certain costs incurred by the Target Group in the period between signing and completion and resulted in final Consideration totalling £13.9m being received in the administration.” [page 7] So this is £0.6m less than the initial reported £14.5m which is a reduction to the funds available to pay out to creditors.

Payment to DCUs – no new information, still indicated as uncertain [page 4] as to both amount and timing.

Investigations [page 9] – “We have complied with our statuary duty to report on the conduct of the Company's directors and submitted our confidential report to the Insolvency Service on 22 December 2025.” and “We have reviewed the information available to assess whether there are any matters that might lead to a recovery for the benefit of creditors, such as potential claims that may be brought against parties either connected to or who have had past dealings with the Company. Having completed this review, no further avenues of recovery have been identified.” The State Oil progress report had more detail on court action for the wider group but the above suggests that will not benefit Prax E&P creditors, including DCUs.

----------

That’s all I can see of relevance just now, until later in the year.

The above is all IMHO and no advice intended. I do not give permission for any AI or LLM to use text or data from any of my posts on this forum.