The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Morning ferret, thanks for posting the HL response. I don't I understand how that'll work, but HL then are implying that Poly shares held in nominee accounts *where they are also in a tax wrapper* - i.e. SIPPs and ISAs - will be retained rather than liquidated (forcibly sold).
A given investor's holding would then become effectively in escrow for an indefinite period, and there would of course be a complete embargo on selling some or all of the position.
Questions immediately follow:
What happens to any dividends paid by Poly with respect to these shares?
How long could the escrow/embargo period last? Can the escrow/ embargo ever be reversed?
And what happens if current Poly as an entity splits into Poly K and Poly R, with Poly K relisting on LSE? Would this nominee holder take beneficial ownership of however much Poly K became worth in the split? Or, because there'd at that point been an entire change to entity, would the holding effectively cease to exist for nil value?
I've no idea of answers to any of these. Tbh, I don't know if brokers do either and I'm not fully confident in what they might say (although it'd be better to have in writing).
AIX has a list of authorised brokers here: https://aix.kz/clearing-settlement/aix-csd-participants/brokers-1/page/3/
There's just over a couple of dozen after discounting those that are suspended according to the list. There are no UK domiciled brokers according to the list.
Why do they care so much about a listing getting suspended though? It happens for various reasons, usually with riskier stuff, and I don't see how the broker can force nominee holders to sell on the basis of possible upcoming suspension. Are they just after the commission from the sale, which would become unobtainable once an equity was suspended?
In theory, any equity trading in London could get suspended for some reason at some point in the future. Do they forcibly sell an investor's holdings when a future suspension date is announced, but before said date arrives? It doesn't add up.
Assume they had 17,700 shares at their average of £2.83, then their holding book cost is about £50,000. If a broker sold the lot today, that's 17,700 x about £1.90, for liquidation value of £33,600.
£50,000 less £33,600 is near enough £16,500 - the bitter pill they talked of. N.b. the £1.90 sell price is nominal and what I picked for the purpose of the calculating; it's based on the price Poly has been trading around much of today.
'Does this mean that HL, iWeb Jarvis etc. will NOT be able/willing to retain their nominee "pool" of total shares ownership and register that ownership with AIX CSD, the future registrar of record for the company?'
That's how I've been reading it. Get a sense it won't matter if a holding with a broker who doesn't deal in AIX is in a SIPP or ISA wrapper: no transactions would be possible, including receipt of dividends, because the brokers' not dealing in AIX takes precedent over whatever it HMRC means by recognising 'AIX' and instruments traded on it as being allowed to be held in ISAs/SIPPs.
It's common with countries in that region anon3 unfortunately. Turning the proposition around a little: until this situation with Poly, of those who've now done so, who had previously considered (or had) opening accounts with foreign brokers to trade on AIX? If not, why not? What would put you off?
This is the influence the situation is having on people who might otherwise have sounder judgement.
Along with the cliches and blustering delivery, most of your 'points' are quite lame BSR; they're not worth the bother of rebuttal.
'My biggest concern is, it's well, KZ, isn't it? Corruption is apparently rampant.'
Yeah, that's another elephant in the room. Some of this may be an effect of language translation, but the 'tone' of the AIX site isn't professional and because of that serves to reinforce my sense of unease.
Someone got triggered. Try a nice lie down BSR before trying to use words again.
Yes, I've looked and didn't find it reassuring. The exchange began less than two years ago. Liquidity and value are tiny compared to any established exchange; and on the list of traded instruments I found, only about two dozen were equities.
I can't see buyers and sellers being well matched, so that'll result in big spreads for small tranches and difficult trading.
Wasn't it meant to be possible to sell (tho not buy) with Tabys?
Thanks for the summary chique.
I know the dividend is a big attraction but I'm quite sceptical of firstly, what Poly will decide to pay vs previous times. And secondly, what percentage of any distribution is realisable for UK investors.
Yeah, the requirements to set up Tabys were a red flag to me as soon as I saw them too Stan. Makes me uncomfortable. Everything that could be needed for a little ID fraud; not forgetting groundwork laid for money going walkies too.
What if either of those happened? What rights would a UK RI have? And whatever they are, what realistic prospect of their being upheld?
Similar concerns I have with the other providers. They're hardly FCA backed, with a guarantee for your first £85k cash. I hope I'm way wrong for those who've took the plunge, but I gotta gut feeling about the situation overall and these providers.
Anyone got their account far enough along yet to be able to test actually buying something on AIX?
AIX is so new and has small volumes of trading of any instrument. Does it not concern anyone what the spreads & execution will be like & if the regulation will be any good?
I can see us going through the faff of setting up to deal on AIX and still ending up with a stranded asset that doesn't re-rate in anything like the way some expect.
The ii statement is good, clear info. It's a model for what all brokers should be managing for their retail clients.
Are the platforms allowing selling only then?
26th of what month h118?
It's not possible to infer the interest rate on the revolver from the charge in the cashflow statement at all because noone knows how much is drawn and when, and for how long. If they disclosed the particulars of the RCF, it would allow for better estimate of future cashflows, and thus equity value.
It's unorthodox that they haven't given even the most basic terms of substantial amount if debt that's used for, presumably, general day-to-day running of the business.
Nah, I don't short Terry (nothing against it though). Been trading the Boo volatility to make a few quid. I see Boo as sub-investment quality, but I do agree that being short in the 30s likely has limited upside. Can't see it getting much past £1 for a long time yet, if ever again.