Member Info for dickupham

1onic: you say: "(it) was so much better when we could put children up chimneys"..........

...do you really think this? Your thinking seems a bit outdated to me - not sure what others think.

You sound as if you might be an admirer of the FCA, Good for you.

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/fca-employee-handbook.pdf

21 pages on maternity, paternity, adoption and surrogacy leave, shared parental leave.............

............make sure you have a nice lie-down as soon as possible - and certainly no later than 4pm - if someone unreasonably asks to to work any part of your lunch break. And if, perish the thought, you'r ever called upon to work overtime, FFS take the mandatory two days off to recover or we'll have to sack you for breaking ranks............

...........you couldn't make it up. OK - I officially give up

Nowhere in the whole of the 118 page document does it get anywhere near saying you're supposed to be good at what you're paid for.

If this is an example of "protection of workers' rights" as envisaged by the EU, then all I can say is TG we're leaving (if in fact we're allowed to).

BUR £10 or £6 on Monday. Or somewhere in between. Or higher or lower,

It's impossible to predict the thought patterns of the Gnu

Don't forget to watch this space re Juridica. It ain't over yet Dan. The clouds are gathering and a storm is predicted. Not quite sure when, but soon.

Enjoy the holiday weekend and goodbye.

all imo...dyor

Bruce - everyone is entitled to their opinions whether they seem logical to me or not. I was only posting my views.

I contacted the FCA on many occasions about different issues connected with AIM companies over about 7 or 8 years, until I stopped wasting my time about 3 or 4 years ago. I had originally been confused about whose responsibility AIM was but was directed by the LSE to the FCA (it might have been called FSA back then). Initially the clowns there didn't think it was them either, but I eventually I managed to establish it was.

I spoke with one or other of the FCA's c.3000 clueless people on a number of occasions - never to any good effect despite there being, clear evidence of serious failings. Two such complaints involved Chinese companies I wasn't personally invested in but I felt strongly about, where Chinese crooks had told good stories, taken investors' money and looked as if they might just disappear (they did a few months later). The two cos in question both had UK non-exec worthies. The fees were all they cared about and they walked away too . The standard response I always got from the FCS (or FSA) was to the effect: "we'll investigate your complaint but won't be able to tell you the results of our investigations for reasons of confidentiality. But you might notice things have changed if we do find there is substance to your claims". Nothing ever changed of course . The place they filed details of pending investigations appears to have been the bin. 3000 public sector nitwits whose only aim was to be paid as much as possible for doing as little work as possible. The last time I contacted them was about XEL, where it was clear there had been share price manipulation towards the end. I was told by the person I spoke to in the FCA that AIMRegulation investigated share price manipulation, so I sent full details of the trades involved to them, linking a number of large trades (all sales) immediately following publication of an article in an online US share tips magazine stating that XEL had secured the funds it needing to repay an obscure hedge fund which had advanced interim funds of $130m secured on XEL's only asset (the Bentley Field - NPV10 value $1.3bn). The article was taken down quite quickly but I'd taken a screen print of the false article and provided a copy. No funds had been secured and the shares sold were on the spike created by the fake news. Was anything ever done about this? Have a guess.

I don't doubt what you say about who or what is supposed to regulate AIM today (but in fact doesn't). Does it really matter? I wasn't being untruthful in what I wrote. I also realise spread betting is almost always used by PIs to go short. The spread bet firms have to hedge their positions though so they borrow shares owned by people who don't know their shares are being used as weapons against them. I suppose long bets has to be hedged too, so the same applies.

The 'City' is rotten to the core.

jmofwiw

"if you allow going long the corollary must apply"..........what strange logic you apply, Bruce.
In order to go long (ie 'buy') shares, a buyer has to lay out hard cash. Not so when going short. It therefore cost next to nothing (really just lending fees) to profit from shorting. Value destruction is the name of the game and it can yield high rewards to those who play dirty. Those going short simply have to be able to borrow enough shares from existing holders to do their dirty work on before returning them (damaged) to the lender, because 'naked' shorting is illegal, for obvious reasons.

It would be a fair game if the beneficial owners of the vast majority of the shares lent to those wanting to short a stock knew - and had approved - the loan of their shares to (typically) investment banks and hedge funds by people they trusted to invest their savings wisely on their behalf. The ones who do most of the lending are pension fund managers, although I am increasingly suspicious about internet brokers, who hold countless billions of shares in every listed company in nominee accounts for their beneficial owners. Think of the lending fees. Does anyone reading this truly think the FCA (the nationalised regulator of AIM) is likely to do anything about it?. Lensers don't disclose anything; nor do pension fund managers disclose the results their shorting activities. They're not required to so they don't. They keep it to themselves. Buried in the small print somewhere will be the right for fund managers to lend shares in their custody in return for fees which they themselves pocket, not back into your fund. They care less about making returns than about making the most for themselves. Most do it so who's counting? here are of course exceptions - put your money with them.

None of them will admit to lending because they know no-one would trust them with their money. And if you specifically instruct: "you are specifically NOT to lend shares you hold on my behalf to ANYONE", the response you'll get should you discover they've lent share in one of the funds you're invested in to spivs to profit from by destroying the price before returning the damaged goods to the lender to tuck back into your fund at 70% of the value before the shares were lent, is:"we hold a lot of shares in that company - the ones we lent weren't yours".

The whole rotten practice stinks and is imv fundamentally dishonest. If our beloved and morally upstanding Government didn't make a fortune out of it (your pension savings can't be taxed, but investment banks and their 'fat-packaged' spiv traders, plus UK based hedge funds and their morally bankrupt and vastly overpaid so-called wizz-kid employees can be - at top rates on the huge profits they make by destroying your savings. You're talking big money for the politicians to buy more votes by distributing your (former) wealth to people who don't deserve it.
Follow the money and you'll usually get to the right answer.

dyor

I changed my mind, ajax - a Gulfstream 650 costs about half a bill And petrol, parking, a couple of pilots and a team of three or four 26-30 year old stewardesses with massaging skills (plus uniforms) adds to the cost. I'll probably go for a yacht instead I reckon. Princess Yachts is nearby, although I have to say I do prefer Sunseekers. I'll see what kind of help they're each prepared to offer with parking (I think "mooring" is the term?) and crew.

Whatever; when I pick you up I hope the standard of accommodation you'll experience is up there with what you'll be used to in your "triple front half twist with pike" static in Skeggy. If it's all the same to you I'll probably sleep onboard the yacht with the crew. Team spirit and all that.

£15 a share would do the trick but I'll probably hang around for £20. I might not get the chance - we might get taken out at £10. There's no particular reason why some of the above should be an exaggeration. The fundamentals support the numbers.

Is Skeggy still as glamorous as it was in the 60s?

happydayz - Equinor only has an option on Buchan and J2.

Today's announcement alone is worth nearly twice JOG's slightly increased market cap. Do people know what this is? 14mmboe @$7 = £74.4m. Divide that by 21.83m (the number of shares in issue) and that's 340p a share. And the price increases by about 30p before being sold into? FFS. The 14m barrels is commercial because of JOG's hub plans for Buchan so whilst some discount might be appppropriate, let's not go overboard..

Not sure why people don't get it. I don't think it's me. Put it down to girth (thickness).

And people are talking about FRR being their banker ffs. They've kissed their money goodbye, that's for certain. Never mind that they'll never find anyone (sane) to buy their shares, FRR isn't even registered in the UK, so shareholders don't even have the limited protections afforded by the UK Companies Act.

Yeah, lets all put our money in BPC and UKOG - not JOG. They're both great companies with loads of upside, particularly for the directors (although that's another story). Dramatically undervalued if you ask me. Just imagine what they'd be worth if they had any reserves to speak of, any money to call their own except what's enough to pay the directors' big packages, countless millions of "in" or "at" the money options and billions of shares in issue that will continue to increase as the never-ending cash burn continues.

JOG's a waste of space. Too many reserves and too many options. Too much cash. Plus it has to be a disadvantage for a company to have directors and senior management who are skilled, committed, honest and hard working.

You have to laugh.

In the words of the world's most skilled investor (WB - the sage of Omaha):
"Price is what you pay; value is what you get"
"the stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient"

Ignore the airheads - they'll eventually go away. Someone with a big holding also looks as if they're unloading. Regular 'sells' in round numbers (2.5k, 5k, 10k, 15k & 35k) are cancelling demand. A lot of fund managers are airheads - the clever fund manager in Schroders bought at £2 and sold most at about 60p. Legal & General weren't much better. They sat through the 60p but sold as soon as the recent awards were announced. "Phew" the L&G bloke will have have said to his mates in the wine bar - "that was a narrow escape".

Indeed. He nearly made a profit.

GLAL
dyor

Yeah trader250 - there is a lot to do before getting to first oil. And JOG - if it actually intends still to be there when it happens - is likely to get quite a bit of help with funding the project from a potential licence partner that's one of the biggest and most respected outfits in the world, to whom it's gifted 50% of its Buchan and J2 reserves (50m barrels). Plus JOG has the option of farming out chunks of its 50% interest for cash, or commitments to meet JOG's share of development costs to first oil.

The world is its limpet.

Nice post - very thoughtful of you. Thanks for the warning. What do you reckon 120 million of discovered oil in an iffy area like the central North Sea?

dyor

Grewber - thanks for the info, which is interesting. I only said "oil - in simple terms" because, as far as I am aware, JOG only has reserves of oil, not gas. The recent evidence of price per boe I referred to is Cairns' farm out of a 10% interest in the 80mmboe Nova Field (off the coast of Norway) to Dyas for $59.5m. There's a FDP in place but they're only at tender stage for the infrastucture.

Whichever way one looks at the situation here, JOG is fundamentally undervalued. I've been a lot more relaxed about my investment in JOG (which is significant to me) since discovered reserves in such volume unexpectedly arrived. As I read things, JOG has plenty of options on the development funding front. There's no doubt in my mind JOG's senior team are very skilled at what they do and that JOG is very well advised. I've always thought that BMO taking on JOG as a client was significant, because it showed the high regard they must have for what is a company with a market cap that's normally a long way below their radar. The don't take on anyone!! And Vicary Gibbs's appointment as CFO was equally significant, given what he's noted for being skilled at achieving.

For general info, this was taken from the further explanations given in this morning's RNS, below the announcement itself:
" The acreage is contiguous with the previously announced 31st Supplementary Offshore Licensing Round awards both in the Greater Buchan Area ("GBA") containing the Buchan and J2 discoveries and the Capri, Chamonix, Courchevel and Zermatt prospects and the Licence P2170 (Blocks 20/5b and 21/1d) acreage that contains the Verbier oil discovery, in which JOG holds an 18% working interest alongside operator, Equinor UK Limited ("Equinor") (70%), and CIECO V&C (UK) Limited (12%).

Together with its interest in the Verbier discovery and previous GBA acreage awards, the addition of Block 21/2a to its portfolio provides the Company a significant opportunity to operate a major new area development of in excess of 120 million barrels of oil equivalent ("mmboe") of discovered mean recoverable resources net to JOG.............
..............JOG has already commenced work on a Field Development Plan ("FDP") seeking to deliver a JOG-operated area hub development in line with the OGA's Maximising Economic Recovery of UK petroleum ("MER UK") strategy. JOG is fully funded to an FDP. This area hub will be planned to incorporate the redevelopment of the Buchan oil field, together with the development of the J2 oil discovery and potentially the Glenn and Verbier oil discoveries as well as other discovered and yet-to-be-found resources in the GBA. First oil, subject to funding, is targeted for 2024. JOG will evaluate and determine the optimal sustainable development plan, designed to deliver phased and extended plateau production."

JOG has to be an attractive proposition to a bigger player at any stage along the line. The price just has to be right.

dyor

I get your gist PC01, but not your maths :-)

I work on a conservative value of $7 per barrel. This is an estimated selling price achievable for discovered resources in the ground pre-infrastructure spend, in an area of the NS that's close to the Forties Pipeline for tie-back purposes (recent evidence is there to support this price - higher actually).

JOG has 18% of Verbier's minimum of 25m barrels, which is 4.5mmboe. Add to that the 52.5mmboe (net of likely transfer to Equinor) in Buchan & J2 and this gets us to 57mmboe (ie 57 million barrels of oil equivalent -'oil' - in simple terms). Today's addition takes us to 71mmboe.
71mmboe alone (ignoring the value of hundreds of millions of barrels of prospective resources across JOG's five contiguous licences) gives us a value of $497m - say $500m. I don't really see a reason to discount the $7pb but, even if one did, it would still leave a value of the discovered resources alone of $250m - or £200m using a $/£ rate of 1.25.

This is £9.16 per share (I think much higher because I wouldn't discount my $7pb by 50%). Throw in 84p for the rest of what JOG has (not least extremely talented and committed management and staff) as we're being ultra conservative - and £12m of cash, plus the prospective resources referred to above, and say £10 a share. I'm doubtful the directors would entertain a bid at that level.

One day the penny will drop

dyor

happydayz : you say the price is based on 25m barrels. Do you mean the minimum 25m barrels in Verbier, of which JOG's share would be 4.5m barrels?

What about the 100m (mostly proven to flow) discovered barrels JOG now owns in Buchan and J2 as a result of the OGA's recent generosity, plus 91m barrels of prospective resources in Buchan Capri, Zermatt, Chamonix and Courcheval? Does the market value these at nothing in your opinion?

Seems to me it does. Just goes to show the market isn't very clever. But that's logical because markets are generally made up of people whose only focus is on price, not value. It is said that fundamentals always win in the end. but I'm not sure where, when or what the end will be here - JOG's potential is vast.

Well done on getting to a 6 figure holding, Tommy. A promising start :-)

GLAL
dyor

..............canny sellers no doubt putting their money into BPC, which has a lot to offer, like:
no reserves, no money, no partner, convertible debt in the offing, no funds to drill, 1.6bn shares in issue and hundreds of millions more in soft options - shall I carry on?
https://www.investegate.co.uk/bahamas-petroleum-co--bpc-/rns/progress-on-commencement-of-exploration-drilling/201908210700027000J/
https://www.bpcplc.com/

Market value? More than JOG.

Insane

One analyst's view - apologies if already posted. Can't be bothered to plough through all the mystic meg price predictions about the behaviour of a gazillion short term traders focused only on making a quick buck:
https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/901137/burford-capital-shares-worth-more-than-double-current-levels-says-berenberg-901137.html

Degsy - people are taking Viceroy seriously? C'mon- you're 'avin a larf. According to what I read, their advice to their client/s was to drop the BUR bid because its "spectacular"performance measured against Juridica's and another player's more modest ones couldn't be explained (can't remember the name of the other player now).

Clever V might have looked at things the other way around. What couldn't be explained was Juridica's performance. What JIL was reporting might have been thought modest but it was reporting was a country mile ahead of what it actually was. I am not going to say why. Over its lifetime JIL failed by about $13m to return to shareholders (after including all the dividends paid to them out of capital - profits were certainly never there to cover them) even what they paid for the shares in the IPO in 2007 and a placing in 2009. Fields and Brennan told everyone the dividends were the results of exceptional performance. Quoi?? Where did these appear in the accounts? Can't say any more at present but watch this space - in a country like Britain regulators don't like to be forced to investigate anything so one has to work around this particular obstruction. No problem - there are other ways - it just takes longer. 4 years is nothing, it's just starting to get interesting. Burford could not have come along at a worse time for you - what dastardly luck you're having. Oh dear.I...............the clouds are building up on your horizon, chaps - cumulo nimbus - about 40k ft high. Is that thunder I hear rumbling in the distance? Wake up, Dan - you need to put your mack on.

Carson missed an open goal - I could have given him my report for nothing and he'd have been commended for dropping it into the market on a sunny day in June 2015. Or 2016. Or 2017 - hey, let's have a look at what happened on 14 Nov 2008 that was in shareholders best interests. Now that's fun - certain eyes didn't glaze over on reading the word: "swap". Or "standby support". It night have fooled Neil and a few other children masquerading as fund managers......... but it didn't fool me.........

Tickets for the front row are all sold out but there are plenty of others to watch from. Could be be one of the best plays anyone has ever seen..........

Short V anyone?

Only joking............
Just coming, nurse...............get off me, I just wan...................

..........sorry about that everyone, someone forgot to lock the door after his supper. We've given him an extra pill - he should be ok in the morning
rgds Nurse

Alamo - maybe the MMs just have a few too many shares after recent selling - there were two more sales of c.30k shares this morning according to LSE. People see things differently - it's up to them what they do with their shares. The majority on here judge JOG a no-brainer based on whatever fundamentals they look at.- doesn't mean they're right though, because risk can never be eliminated. I work on the balance of probability and get to a fair value that's in multiples of the current SP based on logic alone. So what? If a majority of people think (and act) differently to me and sell when I'd be buying, the price will go down, not up. Carrying out share valuations was part of what I did when I was a partner in a firm you'll have heard of. Who cares? Price is what counts to most people. Value doesn't matter to them; only price counts. They don't understand value, much less care. The diff between the value one gets by multiplying the SP by the no. of shares out there (<22m) and inherent value is bound to narrow as the fundamentals play out.

Patience and (sometimes courage) are required. Circumstances can change and if they do, so should one's assessment of inherent value and risk. JOG's fortunes seem to me to be 'on the up' but that's just me. The full present state of play has yet to be announced. By Q4 I expect there to be a lot more visibility, particularly on the prospect of P2170 becoming a real winner and the options that are open to JOG re partnership and development funding . I can see circumstances in which JOG might look attractive to a co. looking to build its proven reserves - given the volume of confirmed reserves it's likely to have vs its excessively low market cap. My guess is that to tempt JOG's directors to sell, any discussions would involve a take-out price in double figures. wdik? Who can safely predict anything that might happen in the future?

Sincere good wishes to you for a full and speedy recovery. If it's any consolation , I had a prognosis from a medic I'd been seeing for 2 years+, of a max span of 10 years (he called it: "not bad considering............etc") back in 2003. Not bad?? I was only 52!! I took consolation in the old adage: "only the good die young". You might try it, although I doubt you're as bad as me. I was never going to die and my dogs agreed as we walked miles ever day on the moors I'd taken to living on by then. 16 years later and I'm still here - arguably fitter than I was back then, although I can never beat the underlying chronic condition I suffer from. I take a 'glass half-full' approach to life and my future every day and it helps a good deal . Always look forward rather than dwell on the past; it can't be changed and no longer matters. Carpe diem. Whatever works best for you.

I for one am rooting for you. Just make sure you've recovered in time for the £5 (intermediate) party I'm hosting in Devon when the penny drops. I'll send a helicopter to collect you :-)

dyor - GLAL

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/muddy-waters-reports-burford-capital-to-watchdog-as-battle-between-the-two-escalates-a4212081.html
............"The battle between the two companies has divided the City. Burford has been a stock-market darling since its float in March 2014"....................

...........2014??

https://www.burfordcapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2009-10-16-burford-capital-completes-130-million-ipo.pdf...............

...............very sloppy, George..........

Can anyone rely on what's written by these so-called "financial journalists"? Or place any reliance on fund managers who missed what was staring them in the face at Juridica. The MoS reported 2 days ago that a firm of City analysts called Viceroy had advised a VC client a while back (it was apparently considering bidding for BUR) that BUR's "spectacular performance" was at odds with the performance of the first UK listed company in the litigation finance field: Juridica Investments. The potential bid was apparently dropped as a result. Viceroy might have done better to look at things the other way around - why was Juridica's performance so abject, when the chairman and the investment manager were telling everyone it was great?

I can tell you the answer (which will eventually be made public). Watch this space.
https://www.cityam.com/pwc-faces-guernsey-probe-over-audit-failed-claims-funder/

Not sure what BUR is guilty of other than looking at long term cases in progress and recognising some of the profit when the circumstances of the case justify it. Yes it's subjective and legal outcomes are sometimes unpredictable. But over a period of time a company builds up a 'performance' record on which it can be judged and more assurance on critical judgments can be gained each year. BUR sets out its year by year record in this regard. Is it being suggested this is false or misleading (or both)? The London office of E&Y conducts the audit and E&Y proclaims itself satisfied the financial statements follow IFRS guidelines. External counsel is engaged to provide independent views - and this is on top of extensive consideration of outside corroboration of the facts attaching to each significant case in progress.

None of the above gives complete assurance, however. As I have already established in a case that's relevant to the outcome here, if there is a determination by key individuals in a company to behave dishonestly, all steps will be taken to avoid the dishonesty being discovered. I haven't done enough detailed research of BUR to form a definitive opinion, but nothing I've seen so far has jumped out and smacked me in the mouth. It did in another case I can think of.

I hold a small long position in BUR (c.£10k) for interest (shs bought last week at 450p and the rest at <800p).

all imo/dyor

The way I read things is that JOG is bound by the legal situation that prevails following the award by the OGA (subject to documentation) of the three new licences in the GBA. JOG's rights in these will not vest until the usual licence agreements are signed. I'm guessing this might take a few weeks yet? Other legal matters that are ongoing include Equinor's option and putting that to bed, assuming it is taken up.

We also have the P2170 partners' interpretation of the full package of seismic data to come, plus any other news that's relevant. Quite a number of things might happen - it's all guesswork but I don't see the likelihood of much, if any, news that's negative.

sonofthebull commented: "No oil production as yet or money to drill wells or a partner for that matter"..............true but why would Equinor not want to be involved?

https://www.cairnenergy.com/news-media/news/2019/nova-update/#Tabundefined=1

"Cairn also holds a 20% (10% after the Dyas farm-out) non-operated interest in the Nova development (formerly Skarfjell) in the Norwegian North Sea, located ~17km south west of the Gjøa field in Norway. Nova is expected to deliver peak production of 50,000 barrels of oil per day (bopd) (10,000 bopd net to Cairn) with first oil targeted in 2021. Contracts have been awarded for both the subsea production systems and the drilling rig and the Plan for Development and Operation has been submitted to the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy and approved".

Nova's development plan is some way ahead of Buchan/J2's but if I correctly interpret what's written, the partners aren't yet incurring substantial infrastructure costs. Cairn's recent farm-out of 10% of the licence in Nova to Dyas indicates an achievable price per barrel for light crude in the North Sea (NCS) of around $7.5pb. Knock off whatever might be appropriate for the fact a FDP still has to be approved and it still means that JOG's 55MMboe in the 4 licences it has (or will shortly have) on the UKCS has an immediate value that's multiples of what the market presently values JOG at - inc £12m+ in cash

I note that JOG has made no changes to its website since the award of the new licences. I doubt they have forgotten. They're probably waiting for the formal award of the licences before making changes. There's no rush. What might also be added is information about the big seismic exercise - although the award of the licences alone would justify whatever the website changes cost. AB said in the relevant RNS: "this is by far the most significant event for JOG since its inception and we are excited to start work on this new project immediately".He is not given to exaggeration. Hopefully the significance he talks of will be overtaken in in the future by whatever P2170 (Verbier, Cortina, Meribel - maybe more) is eventually found to hold.

Roadshows in the City to attract more LT investors anyone? It's what I'd go for - perhaps early Q4 if the info is there........

dy

"This was 860-9"............

............probably about the same score Australia will have on the board at Lords come Thursday close of play?

http://www.alteriacapital.com/

When you said "funds" I assumed you meant (eg) pension funds.
https://shorttracker.co.uk/companies/
The list is of the usual suspects who've gone short. This, to me, is not the interesting bit. It's who has lent them the shares to go short with. This is where there is no disclosure. For all people know it could be the (pension) Funds in which they beneficially own the shares the Fund Manager has invested in.

Odd that only one holder of short positions of 0.82% of BUR(established on 6th, 7th and 8th Aug) should show up - and that shorting doesn't seem to be what Gladstone Capital is about:
https://ir.gladstonecapital.com/company-overview

Also a bit odd that no-one seems to be interested in a tale of deceit and losses (or failures to gain) to shareholders of more than $100m. JIL listed on AIM in Dec 2007. It was also Guernsey (CI) registered, where there is no requirement to make virtually anything public - and most companies don't. The amount raised was also £80m and the largest subscriber in the IPO (29.5% - later increased to 36% was Invesco (our friend Neil) which still held shares when the money had well and truly gone - not as many, because smart fund managers in Baillie Gifford and Legal & General had wrested off Invesco the title of "biggest holder" at various later times. The BG fund manager told me after I'd tipped him off about what was going on: "for Chri*t's sake don't put anything to me in writing". A TR1 was filed a few days later showing BG had reduced by about half. You couldn't make it up. I also copied my letter to m'lud (which expressed my concerns in full) to the CI auditors. They went on to sign three further clean audit reports before the Company was put into liquidation.

As I said in a recent post, which no-one seems to have read, it is ultimately about the honesty and integrity of the principals - and the role of the auditors.

I'm a former partner in a firm most will have heard of (there are three others of broadly similar size in the world) and forensic accounting was among the subjects I had experience of - not that anyone will think this will be relevant to anything. I packed up to get a more balanced life and manage my own affairs in a more structured way.

Whoever went short big time on IQE was a shrewd cookie imv. Nelson and his cronies have made themselves very rich while shareholders have had nothing but jam tomorrow. Look at the p/e - forget the "adjusted EBITDA" which means nothing. Look at the gearing and the huge dependence on a very few major customers (inc Apple & Huwai (however you spell it). Show me the money - ten bob for the first person to find it..........

Hope BUR turns out ok. As a company develops a track record it becomes easier to form a view on the likelihood of projected settlements turning out broadly as expected. Dividends are modest but what about management remuneration? Why not tell people?

dyor
all imo

all imo

also tried shorttracker,co,uk: https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=E211GB1274G0&p=Sorry%2C+the+website+www.shortracker.co.uk+cannot+be+found.......
.......ok - I've found it via google - tks