Member Info for Crocqman

Updated for spelling/missing words. Apologies. New glasses needed!

Desertwolfch,
I think it may just be that a lot of people fill out the TR1 forms incorrectly and confuse the 'issuer' with the 'holder'
The form is quite long-winded with a lot of notes and boxes to tick, so easily done, I'm sure.
Haven't looked specifically at the Schroders or Norma filings though.
I am not sure if there is much checking at the FCA for these submissions other than whether the actual figures are correct, who knows!

red_hornet,
I think the rules mean that if an Israel incorporated company had a UK listung, they would NOT need to abide by the UK regs.
If an Israel based holder was investing in AFC, then yes, they would need to issue a TR1.
Most likely, their custodian would take on the submission on behalf of their client, I don't think it is the holder themselves who make the submission - it is probably part of the custody agreement that the custodian will perform any/all regulatory requirements on their behalf

Desertwofch,
I think it may just be that a lot of people fill out the TR1 forms incorrectly and confuse the 'issuer' with the 'holder'
The form is quire long-winded with a lor of notes and boxes to tick, so easily done, I'm sure.
Haven't looked specifically at the Schroders or Norma filings though.
I am not sure if there is much checking at the FCA for these submissions other than wherther the actual figueres are correct, who knows!

red_hornet,
I think the rules mean that if an Israel incorporated company had a UK listung, they would need to abide by the UK regs.
If an Israel based holder was investing in AFC, then yes, they would need to issue a TR1.
Most likely, their custodian would take on the submission on behalf of theie client, I don't think it is the holder themselves who make the submission - it is probably part of the custody agreement that the custodian will perform any/all regulatory requirements on their behalf

Yes, that is correct for a TR1 in respect of a non-UK issuer.
So that would be a company incorporated outside of the UK, but with a UK listing.

AFC is the issuer and is UK incorporated, so any holder (regardless of their domicile) must abide by the 3% innitial TR1 notification requirements, and subsequent 1% inceremental change requirements.

Yes, there are different requirments for U.S., Israel, Swiss (and one other I believe - Japam?) incorporated companies where they do not need to abide by the UK regs for any UK listing they may have as their own local regs are considered to be robust enough.
Someone posted a link to this earlier this week, or last week.

The above is my understanding/interpretation of the FCA regs

Webbs,
Think your maths is a bit out.
Based on today's open, I make it 97 trading days to get to 5p if losing 4% a day.
20 trading days to 5p if it loses the equivalent of 4% of today's SP daily (i.e. 10p per day which would become an ever larger as a % each day as the SP falls)

Was jusrt thining the same, RBL.
In both, but will look to switch more into Shell over time.
Happy to be holding both in the short term though, and anything around 290p is a good top up point here imo, although may be worth holding off for the interims on Tuesday, or at least see the Shell results for an indicator tomorrow in case of any surprises
gl

Just thinking aloud, but wouldn't it make sense for it to be a requirement to take a test prior to entering pre-flight security checks as the first step in the process, with a result potentially being available prior to a passenger leaving the security area (given this can be a lengthy process), and then, the same could be done on arrival for additional checks unless the arrival Country determines the out-bound check is ok (could be determined by the out-bound Country status).
With passengers wearing masks from entering the airport, to exiting at their destination, the risk of passing on to other passengers would be small, and a passenger could be prevented on entering the post-security zone, if a positive result is known (or boarding, if the test results takes longer) - a stamp would needed for each passenger to be shown at the boarding desk prior to being allowed on the plane.

HaHa.
Yes, GP. Decimal point all important !!
Good luck to you too

Anticipating a slow/steady rise over the coming week or so in the lead up to next news, and then perhaps a smal jump immediately priot to activity commencing as investors hop aboard in anticipation.
Slighlty more conservative than mix, but can see circa 28p-30p SP here within the next 2 weeks, then perhaps up to 32p-35p upon news of on-site action commencing. After that is anybody's guess.
Not long to wait now, and plenty to look forward to over the remainder of H2 and beyond.
gla

Nearly 7pm and only 70 posts all day.
Says a lot about sentiment here.
Before the planning debacle, you would often see 70 posts by market open and there were several days of close to 1k posts.
Big 6 months ahead for ukog. Delivery more important now than ever as folk seem to be losing faith and interest
gla

Thanks Shamrock.
Good news stories here every couple of days this past week.

The latest from Spain, and elsewhere in europe will make the markets jittery though, so suspect European markets may open down tomorrow, but plenty of positive signs for the future here.
Think RR will struggle to get some proper SP ttraction in the short term.

He was definitely talking about infrastructure.
This crisis has highlighted how quickly other Countries can throw up roads, bridges, hospitals and other large infastructure projects. The Nightingale hospitals showed aht vould be done quickly
The UK has been arguing about a new Heathrow runway for years (30 or so?), HS2 and similar projects are always delivered late and miles over budget and road repairs, let alone new roads take an age.
Government policy in this regard has always been a short-termist view until a seismic event, or necessity dictates a long term plan.
Hopefully, this supposed change will apply to planning. There is too much red tape and too many people involved fro anything to be resolved and actioned quickly.
More forward thinking with planning for the future, being pro-active, not reactive and the application of common sense needed, for sure, as well as protecting and supporting UK assets (not suggesting this applies to ukog in its' current guise, but in the future?)

Have only been invested here for around 6 weeks.
Disappointed to be 15% down, but holding for the long term, have other positions expected to be more beneficial in the short term.
Agree, the boom in online shopping and continuing changes in packaging for Supermarkets, etc to be more 'green' will provide decent growth here.
The dividend suspension was disappointing, but not expected.
In the short term, I also see this around the current SP level and any rise will most likely be gradual when the wider market improves

The analysts may just be going on a likely scenario, rather than any actual knowledge, and it could stem from the backlash around March/April with the govenrment/BofE 'recommending' companies halt dividend payments.
They will also have conversations with management, and although they would not be told any inside info, they could interpret any general comments made to mean this is a possibility

I would think a small reduction, rather than 'slashing' of the dividend is more likely, although the Media would represent any reduction as 'slashing' for headlines, they always announce a small % change in GBP exchange rates, for example, as it soaring or slumping vs USD/EUR after all.

I am in BP too and it has been suggested that the recent sale of assets to Premier could be a way of maintaining the divi.
We will find out soon enough.
Can't comment on the article though

Yes. It's not a bad plan B to fall back on is it, go back to the original plan A which is a certainty.
Expecting excellent results from the new Plan A though.
good weekend all

Apologies if already posted.
Some U.S. states experiencing delays of 1 week or more for testing labs to provide results due to volumes and lack of equipment and are fearful of the situation worsening.

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/as-long-waits-for-results-render-covid-tests-useless-states-seek-workarounds

richlist,
My understanding here is that there are EU Regulations and EU Directives.
One we need to follow without fail (Directives, such as MiFID II and MAR), the other we can interpret for our own purpose (regulations).

I looked at the ESMA link, and thought that it was showing each Country's interpretation of the requirements with regard to major shareholder notifications, and what I saw for the UK tallied with the FCA handbook.
Could be wrong though.

I have made a lot of posts on this subject. Interpretation of regs like this is often fuzzy and open to differing opinions.
I don't see anything amiss here with regard to AFC, and believe as your last post states, that it is just a case of the company being aware of new II's, but that they are just not above the 3% threshold. I would hope it is not the latter.
I will leave it at that, for this topic
Good weekend all

My understanding is that all Non-UK holders of any UK issued share still need to comply with the UK regulations, and that there are different timelines for reporting with regard to any non-UK incorporarted companies with a UK listing.
The list of 4 Countries seems to suggest that if a company incorporated in either the U.S., Japan, Israel, Switzerland, but with a listing on a UK exchange, does not need to comply with the UK regs as their own Countries' regs are robust/equivalent.

My interpretation is that, for AFC, everyone, everywhere still has to notify by TR1 for any significant holding.
As an example, I have seen Canadian holders make TR!'s on other UK AIM shares.
As someone else pointed out though, just because there is an obligation to report this to the company/FCA, that doesn't mean that everyone will. With most things, there will be ways to get around this, if someone really wanted to get around the system/rules.
Again, I believe the onus to report will be on the custodian of the holder, rather than the holder themselves via their account agreement, so unless they open multiple accounts with various different entities and go though the required AML and KYC checks to do so, this would be a lot of work/hassle just to avoid making a disclsure, especially for a small AIM company.

Just to add, I think people are getting too hooked up on the comment regarding the company share register and a TR1 holder.
Surely, the important thing is having big II investors who are here to hold and support the company, rather than to trade for a quick return?

I guess the drop was inevitable seeing as I made 2 top ups at the 24p lelvel thinking that would be the new bottom.
Even when adding the 2nd limit trade I was telling myself to wait until the results just in case.
Was not expecting any additional news, as I think that would have required a separate RNS, but seems like updates are expected.
Only holding a short time compared to many, it seems, but don't see anything of concern in the RNS, but sense the fruatration that there was not more.
gl

Thanks for this.
Looks like GL and the team are doing some good work and have a decent relationship with the local council, something I believe we were being told repeatedly was not the case and that everything would be a msaaive struggle to deal with given the supposed lack of experience and expertise in the team.
Good news

ocelot,
What is it we're looking for on the ukog home page?
The big header banner that says UKOG: Energy for Britian, or perhaps the RH side column announcing the 0.17p SP?