Member Info for johnpwh

I still hold a few shares here (a few after 600 to 1 that is!). I think I have about 129.
Anyway (wonder if anyone will ever read this??) the loss is useful to carry forward. Given that I cant find it on a the HMRC negligible value list, which isn't surprising as it is still 'breathing', I believe from past studies that you can make a CGT loss claim on something that is massively diminished in value, but not yet dead, provided that you take the asset forward at 0 acquisition cost - so that in effect you get could for the full sale proceeds on any future disposal. Can anyone corroborate or contradict this?

I have been through this (unfortunately!) before. One was an bunch of hopeless (was going to use the word hapless for a bit of variation but hopeless is more apt) gold miners called Norseman Gold, who left AIM but who Barclays kept on the books for me long after I left them for iWeb. So over the years I have had statements off Barclays saying I was a shareholder, and I ignored them but still left the account sitting there just in case. Turns out Norseman morphed into an entity called Tulla on the ASX and are still alive (most probably on life support). Sadly they had a consolidation of about a million to 1 and and my holding is worth about tuppence ha'penny. But hey, can't complain, if you cant ride these things I guess you shouldn't invest in speculative shares. Mind you with the likes of Petropavlovsk, Marconi, Carillion and Sirrius in recent-ish history , can't always trust the big 'uns either.

So if (when really, but I don't want to sound even more pessimistic) these lose their AIM quote in a few month time from where will we get our updates? And what if the platforms we are on don't permit the holding of unquoted shares? I assume we would need to get them in certificated form?

I don't expect anything more from this. Even if possible where would the money come from?
A more interesting question for me would be what was the (rejected) GGP valuation for the 5%. I doubt SD would be forthcoming about that though

At least there has been no collapse in SP.
My thoughts are that our world class JV partnership is a pretty toxic relationship. Wouldn't entertain GGP offering a higher amount for 5%, but dug their heels in for an independent valuer whose hands were tied by parameters that they knew were unrealistic. The previous GGP management who were responsible for this mess are too be condemned. Our JV partner will make sure GGP is always very much the junior, no doubt regards us as an irritation.
As they said in Peaky Blinders, 'big f**ks small'

Bloomin' 'eck Goldfinger. 5 to 7 years? I may not see it!

Icandc
I cannot argue with what you have just said.
New blood on the AAU board, very welcome

That's a good point well made Icandc. However the commodities being mined are priced in US dollars, and though the gold/silver is all sold to the Turkish government for Lira the proceeds are immediately exchanged other than retaining sufficient to pay immediate expenses. At least that is what we are told, though such is the lack of confidence now in information from the company that there is room for doubt at least in my mind.
As I say, good point. But that immediately begs the question, given recent fairly lengthy interviews we have received from proactive and others, should Sener not have addressed the effect that such high inflation is having on the company in the only country in which they have producing assets or are (supposedly) actively drilling?

Anyone still happy?
Kerim Sener and Michael de Villiers what are you going to do about this? Where is progress towards the half billion pound company?
People are selling as they have lost confidence in your ability to run this business

Willowman
It was his preoccupation with sleazy comments that make me filter him in the first place. Shame as when he actually talked about AAU he had some reasonable things to say. Sadly that was overshadowed with tasteless and pervy posts which makes you wonder the sort of individual he is. We would not be friends.
Back to the subject, some good posts by Levi, belar and DJ. We all feel the same now, this company is looking like it has lost its way, giving up stupid amounts of assets for accelerated progress that isn't happening, and with a total inability to do anything about the situation as it is now a minority shareholder in assets where it was once a (Venus excluded) 100% holder. This board were good for exploration but found wanting and outwitted when producing. Change is needed.
External conditions aren't helping as inflation is now sufficiently entrenched and longstanding to surmise that the link to gold price is finally broken. There is no sign of the long predicted $2000, $3000, $4000, £5000 gold price

Well played longterminvestor for getting the first post published on this board!
Speaking only for myself I feel that EW has questions to answer now that we know the value that the market has placed on HLN. The split itself is, in my opinion, wise. To have a pre eminent pharmaceutical company which has a division selling consumer products at the 'quack' end of the drugs spectrum was not great for the image.

Grezzz
They have consolidated.
The effect is that compared to last night, you now have fewer shares but at a higher price so that (market fluctuations today excepted) the value of those (GSK) shares today is the same as they were last night.
Anyone know why they bothered with this consolidation, what was the need? It was not to massage the share price to a range considered 'acceptable' by the market since both yesterdays and todays SP would have been.

Fidepax1
It does appear that Emma Walmsley may have some explaining to do to major institutional investors.
I've not worked it through in detail. but do your figures need adjusting for the Haleon Shares that GSK have retained? If Unilever had acquired the consumer products division I assume that would have been 100% with GSK retaining nothing.

No
You only have to click on the trades icon at the top of the page to see that actual deals for GSK are at c.£13.85

Out of interest iWeb are showing the Haleon shares now and have attributed 17.97560523% of the acquisition cost to Haleon. I have not tried to reconcile that figure since my shares are in an ISA and I don't need to know!

unvrkw
Fingers and toes crossed. Mind you that's going to be uncomfy eventually, because the wait for the court case will be months or years. And will more than likely fail, which will be end of the road. I assume the AIM listing ceases on 11th October.

Sorry
'their current market difference' should have been 'their current market value;

Hi gwm
Not sure I understand why you think you cant sell GSK shares to realise a gain. As your acquisition cost for GSK will have reduced (see MrMaths post at 10.13 today) then the lesser amount you will get from your GSK shares will still give a gain, albeit smaller. It is smaller because to make the pre split level of gain you would need to sell your Haleon shares as well. This is because if you were in profit on GSK before the split then your acquisition cost for Haleon will be less then their current market difference - by approximately the 'drop' in the paper profit on GSK (approximate as the price is varying all the time from last Fridays close). Hope this makes sense

Twonko, who are you having a go at? I see no problem in people with only a limited knowledge of Stock Market investing in blue chips. Taking your argument only slightly further you can say that they shouldn't even invest in index tracker funds.
Boards like this are here for discussion and to help people, at least that is what I believe.

Hi MrMath
I'm a Maths & Tax bloke too. Agree with your formula but are you sure its closing rather than opening prices, after all your acquisition cost is usually just that - the cost to you the second you became the holder . Don't imagine HMRC would be too picky unless something dramatic happens during the day. Not even sure if the Stock Exchange publishes an opening price coming to think about it. Just wondered if you knew?