Member Info for dickupham

The 'Big 4' are PwC, Deloitte, KPMG & E&Y. Evidence please.

Olderandwiser - surely you cannot be being serious? SymmetryCapital ('Andreas' - where does that name suggest he may be from?) has made 34 posts on LSE over the past 2 years - every one of them about GBO and every one of them saying what a great company it is - based as far as I can tell on a fundamental failure to understand accounts or the significance of matters any experienced accountant would regard as motherhood.. The website he referred to as being 'under reconstruction' over a year ago still seems to be 'under reconstruction'. Andreas's posts include the following gem from last year: " Before starting Symmetry Invest (the danish name of the company) i was actually working as an accoutant for many years. The company i worked for were also buying smaller auditing firms. When we did that a big percentage of the costumers were leaving us. That is two main reasons for that. 1) the bigger company always have higher prices. They think they can buy the little company and raise prices. Thats hard 2) The costumers somethings just not like the "new" company. This is just my guesses, so take it for what its worth. I think that is the case with BDO. Globo liked LittleJohn and the prices they were getting. But when LittleJohn merged into BDO new and higher standard were required. BDO wanted to audit the whole firm including all subsidiaries for a much higher price then what LittleJohn+GT was demanding before. Read the latest statement from Globo. BDO didnt even start the auditing of the 2013 report yet. Thats why they could get the audit scope. Not because of accounting fraud or anything else. Simple as it is, BDO could not get the Audit scope because they wasnt started yet (and GT was doing the greek subsidiary). Stay calm here, shorters will cover eventually when they feel their isnt more to get here. The value investor will win this battle in a big way" An investment analyst and adviser?? Get real. Pretending that a 'jibberish' report such as the one posted on here and circulated on other boards is a balanced assessment of the real situation isn't going to get anyone anywhere. QCM may have no substance (they don't look to me to have any) but this doesn't mean that some of what they say doesn't merit serious consideration. It has been clear to me for a long time, as an ex owner of the shares, that the accounts need to be viewed with more than a large pinch of salt. The concept of 'prudence' has no place in GBO's corridors. While the company declares increasing (and impressive) profits each year, cash never arrives to back them up. I know all about 'purchased intangibles' (capitalised R&D) and how growing companies increasingly need working capital to expand but this does little to persuade me that reporting is fair. As for the recent post which states that 3 of the top five accounting firms were asked to tender for the audit, I do not believe this is true. The 'Big 4' are PwC, Deloitte

You say: "This is so like the attack that was made on Quindell. Bear in mind that even if their claims are totally unfounded, no-one can touch them for it, so they can really make whatever claims they want"......... ...........can you explain how you reach this conclusion (ie "no-one can touch them for it")? Is Costis not now a US resident and does GBO not have registered place of business in the US? Is there any law that prevents a UK citizen or company from suing a US organisation or individual for libel anyway? The circumstances here are not the same as those that affected QPP because Gotham City Research is based in Delaware, which affords companies registered there protection from legal action outside that jurisdiction. QCM's place of business is in NY, as far as I am aware. Costis/GBO cannot just let this go so if what is stated in the report is untrue, QCM will be be history - as will the individuals behind it.

kingbob - after the consolidation there will be 8.4m shares in issue - see one of my earlier posts. From the RNS: "The Company has agreed to acquire the entire issued and to be issued share capital of Jersey Oil and Gas for a consideration of £495,000, to be wholly satisfied by the issue of 2,250,000 New Ordinary Shares". That will leave old Trap shareholders with 28%, JOG's (now Trap's) directors with 27% and new shareholders subscribing to the placing (that's raising £800k) with 45%. Trap's old shareholders may only have 28% of the action but it's 28% of a much better set-up with a decent chance of doing well. For once we can look forward to the future here with optimism. If the new boys get a fair crack of the whip, we could be in for some fun. And we'll always be able to say: "we were there at the beginning - what was there not to like?" (when the company has a market cap of £250m and we're all driving Maseratis). I wish.

kigbob - if the vote on Friday isn't 'yes' on Friday, I'm pretty sure TRAP will go into administration. I doubt there are any 'white knights' waiting in the wings. It's very difficult to see how it can be anything other than 'yes' with 32% already voting in favour. It's the % of votes cast that the required majorities (75% & 50% depending on the resolutions) are determined by.

"until producing assets are required" ACquired

"Where do you get 10k bpd from?" They've said they're looking to acquire producing interests in the NS (ie part of the action in fields operated by others) and I assume have the finance lined up to do this. Three or four such interests could easily get JOG (which is what TRAP will be called if the vote this week is 'yes'- which it will be) to 10kbpd. I've used it as a realistic target; it's not a forecast as it could be lower or it might be higher. I haven't got a crystal ball. "How much of that is traps, jogs" All of it. TRAP's existing shareholders will just have less of the action (28%) because new shares are being issued to save the company from going bust, which is where it was heading quickly thanks to the muppets known as TRAP's existing directors. The extra 72% is buying cash to tide things over until producing assets are required, plus a team of people who will hopefully achieve what they've told us they're going to try to. They seem genuine enough to me, based on what they've done with the lives so far. JOG (TRAP's new name) will have about £1.1m in cash, its existing interests in Romeo and Magnolia and no liabilities on 14 Aug if the vote is 'yes'. Athena's effectively gone so we won't be losing any more on this. Is JOG likely to be a success? Depends what you think of the new team and if you believe they'll do what they say. They're rolling their company (JOG) into TRAP because they want the tax losses. There's no other reason, so it's logical to think they believe the company's going to be profitable otherwise why do it? The £14m of tax losses is worth £7m in cash and TRAP was/is valued by the market at less than £500k so it's pretty easy to see the logic. JOG also gets a free listing on AIM, which would have cost over £1m. The new (placing) shares are priced at 0.22p. There's a proposed consolidation of 1 new share for every 100 old ones so the new price will be 22p for the 8.4m in issue. Divide the shares you've got by 100 and multiply the result by 22p and that's what they're worth on day 1 of TRAP's new life as JOG. Let's put it this way: the new lot can't do any worse than the last. Hopefully all TRAP's old directors will immediately get the boot, although I have a strange feeling one of them might stay on for a while (until the new lot realise he's a clown). There's nothing to lose. The last lot saw to that. With a market cap of less than £2m the new team won't have to break any high jump records to get shareholders something back. Everything depends on making the target acquisitions of producing interests and the oil price. My guess is that breakeven will be at well under $50pb because the assets they'll be picking up will be from bombed out companies.

Some people are missing the point. Effectively TRAP is dead - it has gone. Shareholders of TRAP remaining on 14 August will own 28% of what is to become Jersey Oil & Gas (JOG). £800k of new money is being raised in a placing that will give participants 45% and the existing JOG shareholders will hold the remaining 27% of shares in the new set-up in consideration for amalgamating their company with what remains of TRAP (very little). JOG was specifically set up relatively recently to acquire producing assets in the NS at bombed out prices from distressed sellers. TRAP didn't have any of these but it has tax losses of £14m (worth £7m to a profitable company) which it can offset against future profits. We were told in the RNS last week that due diligence is presently being undertaken on two acquisitions and JOG is in the data room on a number of others. It doesn't sound to me as if JOG's directors are hanging around and it is to be assumed arrangements are in place to provide the finance for the acquisitions because £1.2m, or whatever the new set-up will be holding in cash after the placing, is only intended to provide working capital until cash producing assets are acquired. The ongoing liabilities at Athena and the cosy arrangement with CGG Services have been ring-fenced (ie expunged) and I suspect we'll learn shortly after the meeting on 14 August that TRAP's existing directors will not be playing any part in the 'new' company's future - and good riddance to them too; I sincerely hope they get the square root of eff all when they go. They deserve to be sued. This is all about TRAP's tax losses - nothing else. If anything comes out of Romeo and Magnolia it will be a bonus and there isn't anything else except £400k that would only have found its way into the usual pockets. That administration was avoided is practically a miracle given the record of TRAP's directors. In contrast, look at the CVs of the new team and make your judgements on them. It's still a gamble but they look to me to be a team with a mission and their timing might be ok. When the new set-up is complete, JOG (which is what it will be called) will still only be valued (at the placing price) at about £2m. I'm not making any recommendations - just trying to clarify things for some. I'm personally trying to work out what a company with - say - 10kbpd of production might be worth if the oil price perked up a bit in a couple of years' time.

'this is bust unless we all chuck cash at it'. how does anyone get to chuck cash at it? we haven't been asked to. The placing is already done subject to being approved at the meeting and the cash collected The hope is that the deals that are being worked on will put the company in a cash generating position. Do you think the directors of JOG have put the company together, probably using their own money, so that they can pee it away on Trap? The main reason JOG has reversed into Trap, which they'll be running from now on, is for the tax losses, which suggests to me they think the new Trap (to be called JOG) might make a profit at some point in the not too distant future. I've no idea what the future holds, but it's probably a hell of a lot more than it held yesterday, assuming the vote is yes on 14 aug

Looks cheap to me, kingbob - all depends on how good the new lot are (they look ok - I googled the names), the acquisitions they make and the funding they have in place.

http://www.jerseyoilandgas.com/

The way I read the situation, which I believe is the correct one, is that following the meeting on 14 August (assuming shareholders vote in favour - administration is the alternative) the total shares in issue (rounded) will be 8,231,000. These will be held by: a) existing holders 2,270,000 (28%) b) JOG shareholders 2,250,000 (ie the new management team I think) (27%) c) those subscribing to the placing: 3.711,000 (45%) No cash is being contributed by JOG, which is effectively reversing into TRAP and will have value inasmuch as it must have had a cost of set up, it has assembled a team and I suspect will already have identified acquisition targets, so is 'ready to go'. £800k will be raised from the placing to add to the £400k TRAP recently said it still has (or had), meaning there will be £1.2m in the kitty to provide working capital until other cash generating assets are acquired. Given the background of the new (proposed) directors (and the absence of any of the names shareholders have come to hate following the disastrous decisions they made which all but killed the company) it looks to me as if TRAP is effectively being acquired by JOG for its tax losses, which are worth multiples of the present market cap, its AIM listing and the two main assets.that remain (Magnolia and Romeo) . I doubt the new management team have come together with the aim of failing and TRAP looks to be their first move towards the achievement of their objectives, in the "new" TRAP - name to be changed to JOG - as set out in the RNS: " Refined business strategy: o To continue to focus on maintaining, developing and exploiting a portfolio of North Sea assets with a greater focus on producing assets in order to seek to unlock the inherent value in the Group's existing tax losses; o To assess and acquire potential further North Sea oil and/or gas producing assets, some of which have already been identified by Jersey Oil and Gas and are currently undergoing due diligence and/or subject to ongoing commercial negotiations. It is time to put the past to bed. The last lot blew all our money and I reckon we're lucky to be getting this chance at least to get something back. Today's price of 0.3p to buy gives the company a value of £670k when we know its tax losses alone are worth multiples of this to a company making profits - plus Magnolia and Romeo get the chance to play out in the hands of people who seem to know what they're doing. The whole thing, though, is about new assets that the JOG team have already identified and are in discussions about acquiring. This presumes they have already made arrangements as to how the acquired assets will be financed. When the proposals have gone through there will be 8.2m shares in issue, which at (say) 25p would still only value the company at around £2m, with over £1m in the bank to see the company through until (presumably producing) assets are acquired. ht