Member Info for honestbob

thanks that is an interesting and informative article

If bank taking a hit for miss selling - shareholders suffer again - including tax payers . Bank itself didnt do the miss selling it was staff and their superiors - pity they cant repay some of their historic bonuses which would appear to have been earnt by improper means .Also the BOD etc who were paid to run a clean ship and clearly didnt.

Why would you want to aggravate any one or play them like anything

All the best found your posts always informative and appreciated detailed technical input you provided Toxic your dry humour has raised many a grin I wish you both well Cat if you are bored one evening you might like to cast your eye over anglesey mining - this is not a recommendation or a ramp but I think looking at their position is something that might appeal to your investigatory interests All the best every one and perhaps we will meet again on other boards HBl

They will have been aquired under a sharesaving scheme probably with some sort of discount - given that an RNS has to be issued at some expense each time this happens you would think that perhaps this is a perk that the director might forgo

I think the theory might be right I fear the actual practice will be in line with your belief

if only one bidder or agreement between interested parties I think you are right - and in that instance they might pay even less than value of bonds Otherwise if two or more genuinely in competition could fetch more - would hope that liquidator has asked for full and final bids by a date . In which case would be interesting to see what transpires _ you would have thought if statoil bidding blind they might not think two or three hundred million too much to pay to obtain licence - and all data test results. Would think this would be a lot safer and cheaper than letting licence lapse and start from scratch But who knows we are deaing with a company whose ability to snatch disaster from the jaws of victory

am afraid I have to agree - incompetent , overpaid , pompous , unlucky , overinflated self opinion yes but I don't think deliberateley dishonest

I am not an accountant but my understanding is - To have a taxable loss you will have to have disposed of the asset or it will have ceased to exist .At present whilst not tradeable, company is in liquidation and possibility ( small) of a return to shareholders .So I dont think you can claim anything until liquidation complete . The only way to crystalise the loss now that I can think of would be to transfer them to someone else ( not a spouse ) at minimal value I think you would then be deemed to have disposed of share at current market value . When you can claim the loss it is only against capital gains - profits on other shares etc - not income tax .Sadly nothing can be claimed if the shares are in an ISA

it is unfair if it is the case .Also you might find the action groups would be interested to hear if you were encouraged or otherwise to take up the rights by your employer

Overman I don t think ceiling cat posted anything very inaccurate and was a helpful and useful point of reference for technical points about the company Be honest with yourself if you had listened more to what he was saying and spent less time automatically disagreeing with all he said wouldn't you be a lot better off now ? Legends as you say he may only have one share - but it is presently worth just as much as your or my entire holdings

Given time and energy RBS expended to try and create a platform - some 8 years I think . As different approach perhaps they should accept they are not up to the task and give customers 2 years notice of closure .Customers could then choose who they bank with in an orderly fashion - rather than have some one forced on them . The remaining branches etc could be sold and that would resolve the issue.

that is a very good question

Leg I think you will find the cat was a holder and one of the most knowledgeable posters and if I remember rightly one of the few to actually attend an AGM But anyway what does it matter whether he is holder or not I would suggest that any hostile fire perhaps would be better aimed at the people who created this debacle I doubt there will be another AGM

last accounts show sales volume nearly maintained and more importantly a reasonable net profit , dividend yield is about 4 % - IMHO price will slowly move upwards - whether HRG aquistion will benefit or otherwise will have an effect

looks from petitions etc as if PIs may well hold majority stake don t undertand the technicalities but wonder what would happen if directors instructed to table EGM for immediate liquidation of XEl - selling XER to highest bidder that might scupper the cosy arrangement they seem to have

it is curious - you normally proceed against the entity with the debt and then look to guarantors / security givers Clearly the Black Cat incident was an omen

If statoil buy bentley licence from liquidator - if done properly bondholders should be repaid and surplus given to sharereholders You would hope that Rupert is doing his best to sell it to statoil prior to a liquidator being appointed -

Pete - not that it probably makes much difference but extract from company site showing XER holds the interest in the fields etc , not XEL . Companys house shows that the security for the loan is given by XER . Xcite Energy Limited (XEL) is a heavy oil appraisal and development company, with current interests in four blocks in the UK North Sea, all of which are held with 100% working interests through its wholly-owned UK subsidiary, Xcite Energy Resources plc (XER).

I think you have it slightly wrong The debt is owed by XEL - but the security is given by XER. XER is owned by XEL..So you would have thought that done properly the assets of XER would go to the lender but not XER itself. I imagine BH keen keen to keep XER intact to preserve licence. RNS as usual less than clear - are bond holders calling up because shareholders won't roll over or because directors want 10 million