Member Info for dflynch

CONTINUATION

To disguise the acquisition of E’s shares on behalf of S they were retained in trading pool created by M. They were successful in this because, whilst the number of shares in a company is known, as to whether they are currently held, or are in the process of being transferred, is not! This removed the necessity of S having to inform E of the number of shares they held in the company. Once the agreed number of shares required by B, under the agreement with M, was reached E was properly informed by S.

S was ultimately able to achieve its investment objective of acquiring a %share in E at a cost far below the true value of E. Their achievement was an illustration of the magician’s art of distraction and deception – as applied to share transactions and prices!

A far-fetched scenario imagined on another idle Chinese virus furlough afternoon - or a possible
plausible explanation?

Here’s a far-fetched scenario.

An entity, (S), wishes to acquire a large percentage of an exploration / production oil company (E). S reasons that E will be acquired in the longer term by a major oil company (B) once the early development risks are full quantified and meets B acquisition criteria, technically, commercially and financially.

The problem for S is the finance available is insufficient to take the large % stake in E required. A smaller %stake is unattractive to S as the potential returns do not match those required by the investment risk calculation. Additionally, any purchasing interest shown in the market would increase the SP of E and alert the market to S’s plans.

Fortuitously for S the SP in E fell. Initially the fall was due to the release of poorly presented information by E. But then other factors effecting the wider oil industry caused a significant fall of SP across the whole oil sector. Eventually, the sector’s SP, generally, recovered and stabilised. The SP of E, however, did not and the slide in their SP continued with a news-stream that further unsettled the market in E’s shares.

S saw an opportunity to acquire the required %stake in E, by taking advantage of the SP collapse and shorting activities of other third-parties. S had to devise a tactic for maintaining a low SP in E whilst building, without the market being alerted, the required %stake.

S had many relationships within the City and one, (M), was of particular interest as it provided, with others, a market in E’s shares. S acquainted M with its intention and requested co-operation.

S confirmed to M that it did not intend to make a bid to takeover E as S did not have the financial resources, or expertise to successfully accomplish this. The objective for S was to profit from a bid for E. M agreed to co-operate with S and purchase shares in E at a guaranteed low SP. S backed up the agreement placing the funds allocated for the purchase of the shares with M.

M then had to employ a market trading strategy that would allow it to full-fill S’s requirements without alerting the market. The opportunity to make some extra profit for M, if the shares could be traded at a price lower than that guaranteed to S, was also attractive.

M achieved maintaining a low SP by setting up a trading pool of E shares which they then continually transacted through the market. These transactions gave the appearance that more E shares were being sold than bought. The delivery risk to M of the transactions were negligible – M having previously received payment. The other MM’s, though not involved in the arrangement between S and M, reacted accordingly reducing their trading SP range for E, thus creating a low market capitalisation for the company.

CONTINUED NEXT POST

Consumer giant Unilever jumped to the top of the Footsie today after reporting a smaller drop in sales than expected during the second quarter.

"Behaviour changes due to Covid-19 caused shift in demand for some products"

The Anglo-Dutch multinational behind Ben & Jerry's ice cream, Domestos bleach and Dove soaps said strong demand for home hygiene products and hand sanitiser helped make up for a decline in food and drink sales to cafes, bars and restaurants.

Bang on target!

Let's have more spirited responses to the situation created by the hopeless HIGNFY team at no10 and their forebearers!

Perhaps then we might see an improvement in the quality of British life!

Sainsbury's has shared an update on Twitter with shoppers clarifying where it stands on shoppers wearing face-masks.

It follows the introduction of a new law requiring mandatory wearing of face-masks by shoppers in England from the July 24. The government has given police the power to fine anybody flouting the law. Illogically shop and supermarket staff are not required to wear face coverings!

Sainsbury's supermarket has told Twitter users: "We won’t be challenging customers without a mask when they enter or when they are in store since they may have a reason not to wear a mask."

Tesco, meanwhile, responding to Customers feedback and the “easing” of the governments lockdown restrictions, have scrapped social distancing measures in store. The supermarket’s one-way system down aisles has been axed, and the number of customers allowed in stores has been increased.

In contrast Aldi, in an email to shoppers said: “…you will need to wear a face covering to enter one of our stores…” Their “Deutsche Ordnung” approach includes a traffic light system at store entrances to accurately manage the number of people in stores at any one time, and social distancing markers.

Whilst in Greggs the Bakers, along with other take-away outlets, a face-mask is required - but customers cannot eat their purchases on the premises! Whilst next door, in Joe’s café, a face-mask is not required to purchase and eat similar product lines - on the premises!

The curse “May you live in interesting times” surely reflects the difference in attitude and reaction by retailers to confused government direction as they eagerly seek to increase foot-fall and sales in the race for the lead in market share and profit!

Sainsbury's has shared an update on Twitter with shoppers clarifying where it stands on shoppers wearing face-masks.

It follows the introduction of a new law requiring mandatory wearing of face-masks by shoppers in England from the July 24. The government has given police the power to fine anybody flouting the law. Illogically shop and supermarket staff are not required to wear face coverings!

Sainsbury's supermarket has told Twitter users: "We won’t be challenging customers without a mask when they enter or when they are in store since they may have a reason not to wear a mask."

Tesco, meanwhile, responding to Customers feedback and the “easing” of the governments lockdown restrictions, have scrapped social distancing measures in store. The supermarket’s one-way system down aisles has been axed, and the number of customers allowed in stores has been increased.

In contrast Aldi, in an email to shoppers said: “…you will need to wear a face covering to enter one of our stores…” Their “Deutsche Ordnung” approach includes a traffic light system at store entrances to accurately manage the number of people in stores at any one time, and social distancing markers.

Whilst in Greggs the Bakers, along with other take-away outlets, a face-mask is required - but customers cannot eat their purchases on the premises! Whilst next door, in Joe’s café, a face-mask is not required to purchase and eat similar product lines - on the premises!

The curse “May you live in interesting times” surely reflects the difference in attitude and reaction by retailers to confused government direction as they eagerly seek to increase foot-fall and sales in the race for the lead in market share and profit!

Sainsbury's has shared an update on Twitter with shoppers clarifying where it stands on shoppers wearing face-masks.

It follows the introduction of a new law requiring mandatory wearing of face-masks by shoppers in England from the July 24. The government has given police the power to fine anybody flouting the law. Illogically shop and supermarket staff are not required to wear face coverings!

Sainsbury's supermarket has told Twitter users: "We won’t be challenging customers without a mask when they enter or when they are in store since they may have a reason not to wear a mask."

Tesco, meanwhile, responding to Customers feedback and the “easing” of the governments lockdown restrictions, have scrapped social distancing measures in store. The supermarket’s one-way system down aisles has been axed, and the number of customers allowed in stores has been increased.

In contrast Aldi, in an email to shoppers said: “…you will need to wear a face covering to enter one of our stores…” Their “Deutsche Ordnung” approach includes a traffic light system at store entrances to accurately manage the number of people in stores at any one time, and social distancing markers.

Whilst in Greggs the Bakers, along with other take-away outlets, a face-mask is required - but customers cannot eat their purchases on the premises! Whilst next door, in Joe’s café, a face-mask is not required to purchase and eat similar product lines - on the premises!

The curse “May you live in interesting times” surely reflects the difference in attitude and reaction by retailers to confused government direction as they eagerly seek to increase foot-fall and sales in the race for the lead in market share and profit!

Sainsbury's has shared an update on Twitter with shoppers clarifying where it stands on shoppers wearing face-masks.

It follows the introduction of a new law requiring mandatory wearing of face-masks by shoppers in England from the July 24. The government has given police the power to fine anybody flouting the law. Illogically shop and supermarket staff are not required to wear face coverings!

Sainsbury's supermarket has told Twitter users: "We won’t be challenging customers without a mask when they enter or when they are in store since they may have a reason not to wear a mask."

Tesco, meanwhile, responding to Customers feedback and the “easing” of the governments lockdown restrictions, have scrapped social distancing measures in store. The supermarket’s one-way system down aisles has been axed, and the number of customers allowed in stores has been increased.

In contrast Aldi, in an email to shoppers said: “…you will need to wear a face covering to enter one of our stores…” Their “Deutsche Ordnung” approach includes a traffic light system at store entrances to accurately manage the number of people in stores at any one time, and social distancing markers.

Whilst in Greggs the Bakers, along with other take-away outlets, a face-mask is required - but customers cannot eat their purchases on the premises! Whilst next door, in Joe’s café, a face-mask is not required to purchase and eat similar product lines - on the premises!

The curse “May you live in interesting times” surely reflects the difference in attitude and reaction by retailers to confused government direction as they eagerly seek to increase foot-fall and sales in the race for the lead in market share and profit!

The reason that the SP is where it is as a result of holders of the share being willing to SELL it at the prevailing offer price. Their willingness stems from either:
• a change in investment strategy,
• a need for the proceeds,
• their perception that the share is correctly or over-valued,
• the intention to re-purchase the share in the future at a lower price,
• a belief that retaining the share, having made a “paper” loss, is too risky; and,
• impatience with the supply and demand mechanics of the market.

Selling a share increases the supply side of the MM’s trading balance. An increase in the supply side, which cannot be absorbed by the demand side, will invariably result in erosion of the SP.

That the BOD are not making public comment does not mean that they, and the rest of the team, are being idle! Complete, accurate and timely knowledge is not always available to investors and this could be for excellent commercial and regulatory reasons. Speculation does little to fill this knowledge void, particularly as in time it may prove to be embarrassingly mis-leading!

WAM

If the share price were to reach 15p and you bought in – how many, and at what price, would you sell to take your profit?

Similar returns on PB experienced but works works better if if you invest in large blocks up to the limit.

Could see, hope, that the limit be doubled to £100K. Solves HMG need for funds in an instance.

We shall see!

I like a bank with lots of branches spread around the country-side. Good solid visible buildings on the High Street in which my hard-earned money can safely reside. Buildings that provide evidence of their financial strength and dependability where-ever I am in the Country. What’s not to like?

Furthermore, if, perish the thought, they do get into difficulty I can hurry down to my local branch and get my money back! And, if they do go under I, and fellow customers, can have the satisfaction of burning the Bank branch down! Very difficult to achieve this level of satisfaction with a web-site and information lost in the “Cloud!”

Just a thought!

:-)

Hebridean Sunset

I am curious as to why, with a shareholding average price of 11p, that you seem to be indicating that you would sell at 9.5p? Particularly as the SP is so currently undervalued. Are you desperate for the cash?

A rise of c50% to your 9.5p might occur as a result of market manipulated volatility but is more likely to occur, in time, during a general re-rate by the wider investment market.

It would be safe to assume that in such an event the rise would continue and surpass 11p – an amount you seemed to have considered, in the past, to be a SP value that would give a positive future profit from your investment decision.

The indication that you are prepared to take a loss on your investment must be music to the ears of the shorters. It is not the price you will accept, but the indication that you are dis-illusioned with the company’s performance and prospects, and prepared to take a loss. Their psychological attack on the company is working!!!

With regard to DrT, he still has a channel for directly communicating with the BOD. I am sure that his advice on the technical aspects of the project will be listened to and considered – as will technical advice from other contributing parties.

Historically, any dis-agreement between the two parties would seem to be, speculatively, regarding the transition from the “academic to commercial” focus that shareholders rightly expect.

I think it right to assume that the BOD will consider DrT’s shareholding in the same way as any other shareholding, albeit his opinion may be at diametrically opposed to other shareholders. He does not appear to by a major shareholder. Even if he was the BOD would probably react in similar fashion as other companies with major shareholders, eg Easyjet and Stelios. It appears there are two major shareholders in the company controlling c16% each but neither seems to have requisitioned a seat on the BOD.

As you will be aware the BOD act as stewards of the Company on behalf of shareholders. As a director there is a requirement to discharge duties in the best interest of shareholders. The BOD is held to account by shareholders – excellent reason to attend, question and vote at company AGM’s. Shareholders should also communicate any concerns directly with the Non executives on the BOD as their primary duty is to look after the interests of shareholders during Board meetings – this would include consideration of any take-over bid.

Happy to be corrected on any of the above by the more knowledgeable.

We can only speculate / guess at other investors aspirations and the BOD evolving intentions and plans to react to future potential and unknown events.

The opportunity currently exists for some parties to benefit from this uncertainty. Furthermore, it can be appreciated that it can take a certain amount of nerve to conquer the fears generated by this uncertainty. A renowned motto I recall is “Knowledge dispels fear.”

As Harold Macmillan reputedly said “Events, dear boy, events” – we patiently await them and the knowledge that will dispel the uncertainty!

I don’t think that Hurricane will be a target for a takeover.

I could not see the BOD recommending an agreed takeover with the SP at such a low undervaluation of the true company value. A hostile bid is always possible but even at a 100% premium it would be risible, although attractive to the trader gamblers operating in the market. Firm resistance by the BOD and LTH (PI & II) would be a barrier to a successful hostile bid. An increase in the SP as a result of the bid would attract further attention to the market’s current undervaluation.

Could a parallel be drawn with Sirius minerals takeover. This proved to be a bad investment for LTH and PI’s when they were recently taken-over with a low-ball offer below true valuation. In this particular case the problem was the lack of cash to continue the project to production. The parallel is therefore not there - Hurricane having the cash for current operations, a strong supply and stream of production income and manageable future debt liabilities.

The 1047 comment about Bondholders.

The SP has no bearing on the holders of the bond – there is no covenant regarding the SP in the Bond documentation. Furthermore, the action or the interests of the Bondholders would not come into play until the period shortly before maturity. Until then the payment of interest is their only concern and that is easily sourced from the strong supply and stream of production income.

In the relatively short-term market manipulation may benefit the trader gamblers and “shorters” but in the longer term “shorters” may be re-taught a valuable lesson in choosing which shares to short!

“Semper fidelis – my arse” as my old sar’n’t major used to say - and he was very experienced and knowledgeable!

0824 Contribution.

Your rant should be directed at the market - not the BOD.

Certain techniques used in trading shares do allow the SP to be manipulated in the market to one party’s advantage and consequently another’s disadvantage - shorting a share is such an example.

I agree the SP is out of kilter with the underlying value of Hurricane as I understand it. I can give no rational explanation for this situation other than market manipulation. Naturally an event could occur that would justify the current, or lower SP - but that is the risk for an investor and the gamble for the trader.

Hurricane is an oil producer in what I understand to be potentially a world-class oil field in a stable part of the World. Future oil-supply from less stable areas of the World is becoming increasingly problematic. The potential for a dramatic change in the SP as the World gets older and people become wiser is there.

If like me you believe the SP to be lower than the true value then take advantage of the situation. Otherwise, be patient, hang on to your investment and await events.

"Honestly, I believe if he leaves with the share price still sitting on 5 / 10 year lows he will struggle to get another Job "

With the incredible and obscene amount of money he has extracted from shareholders pockets, for little value returned, he will never have to work again! But then again, he obviously appears very greedy so I could be wrong!

As someone has already pointed out elsewhere there's a dogsbody in Lincolshire that might be deserving of the job!

Our results demonstrate the feasibility of an integrated workflow for the identification of a complete repertoire of somatic alterations and highlight the intrapatient genomic differences that occur between CTCs and metastases.

Although brain cancer liquid biopsy analyses appear indeed challenging, advances have been made and here we evaluate the current literature on the use of liquid biopsies for detection of clinically relevant biomarkers in GBM to aid diagnosis and prognostication.

Seems positive too me - but I really am not qualified to give a proper opinion. DYOR

See 2302 last night!