Member Info for johnychainlocker

Toffers, You surely don't expect £50 share purchases/sells to make any difference to the price , do you?

Those 10 silly trades have already cost you about 20% of the 'investment' made, and for what - to get back at the shorters?!

Really!!!

W Pleasure@Phyl.

I really don';t know why it is not put forward more by the likes of AJ Bell and HL, instead they 'feature' Fidelity Index World P, which is in itself, a nice long term, low cost, buy and forget index fund, However L&G's performance over the long term is superior.

It also compares very well with VUSA, Vanguards S&P 500 fund, similar holdings but again L&G is better performer.

You will remeber perhaps the story of Warren Buffet's wager with the active fund managers of USA. He bet them a million dollars (to be given to charity) that over 10 years none of the fund managers would beat the simple S&P index. He won the bet!

I can't find a better performer with an equally low ongoing charge. Sure some of the better fund managers like Terry Smith and Nick Train's funds can have periods of out performing, but over the long term I'll stick with L&G Global 100 Index

@Phyl - have you tried comparing the performance of the funds you mentioned with L&G Global 100 index, especially over the long term?

I think you would be surprised, it's a tenth of the cost over Fundsmith, for eg, the performance is v. good over the long term, and it's Legal and General!

Valid point PFCvet -

however my belief is that the shorters were already aware of Schroders reducing, and that PFC were FORCED into the "Press Release" on the 4th December because of the rapid decline in the share price and the lack of ANY information whatsoever in the public domain at the time.

My opinion is that PFC board should have released the information as soon after they received it as possible, instead of letting all the wild speculation develop as to why the share price was dropping without any apparent reason.

They could have released the information contained in the press release of the 4th Dec within the business update issued much later on the 20th. Dec

The confusion, the total blackout of info. exacerbated the falls and strengthened the shorters' hands. You will note that once ALL the information was public the share price staged quite a recovery from approx 17.5p on the 11th Dec to approx. 40p at the end of Dec

Bit of a 'technical' issue here Tuan.

PFC were notified on 1st Dec.'23, that Schroders had substantially reduced their holding. It is very clear in the TR-1 Form of 10th Jan. '24, Box 6

Prior to the 1st Dec.'23, PFC had indicated a business update was shortly to be announced, which they did in their RNS of 4th December '23.

No mention was made in that Press Release of the fact that Schroders had sold the majority of it's holding.

Petrofac issued a Trading Update on the 20th December,.

Again. no mention was made of Schroder's move even though PFC Board was fully aware of the situation regarding Schroder

PFC stated that they did not receive the OFFICIAL TR-1 Form from Schroders until the 9th January, and released it straightaway on the 10th Jan '24, in ACCORDANCE with regulations.

What is not at all clear or acceptable, is why PI's were kept in the dark in the period from 1st December '23 to 10th January '24 about Schroders much reduced holding.

If you remember, at the time, there was almost a complete blackout from PFC, despite many communications to IR at the time. about the massive drop in PFC share price.

Nada, nothing - and yet THEY KNEW!

PFC's 'excuse', 'get -out' or what you will, is that they could not inform the market of the information in the TR-1 from Schroders until after they received the official form on the 9th January., and that the delay was due to a "technical Issue"

In the meantime the hedgies pounced, and made PFC the biggest short holding in the market, and if some people want to put this down to coincidence, or solely the 'business update' of the 4th Dec, then be that as it may, I for one do not.

My firm belief is that during that period the hedgies had learned of Schroders position (very difficult to keep a lid on that with all the parties involved) and that caused a double whammy to the share price - and in all that time silence from the Board!

Were Schroders asked not to release their Tr-1 until after PFC board issued their business update so as to minimize the damage.

Was it even surpressed?

What is the 'technical issue' that caused a 6 week delay to the issuance of the TR-1 from Schroder?

It all 'smells'

Agree Poker

Spot on Mary.

@sundancer - needless to say I agree entirely

Not at all geOrge123.

2 ways of looking at it I suppose, however I am not at all happy with being 'effed around by company execs. and BOD's who play fast and light with their own investors.

.

I think the whole period between very late November '23 and the 4th December smells, hence my bringing it to FCA attention, as well as PFC IR

FCA Regulations are there not only to be adhered to in order to maintain an orderly market, but also to protect investors, especialy small PI's like you and me. We get a rough enough deal as it is without all the jiggery pokery that goes within board rooms and institutional investors, keeping us, the misinformed, misinformed!

I get further upset by PFC IR's people fobbing genuine enquiries off with arrogant dismissives.

- "How do you think that Shareholders can benefit from this?" - I would hope that PFC take their resposibilities to all us PI's far more seriously and realise that that we can't be treated with complete contempt with 'ready-made' convenient replies to genuine investor concerns.

PS FYI , I have been long in PFC since around 2015 or so, and am far happier to remain now than I have been for a long time

GL

Below is the reply I received from FCA on 26/1/2024:

"Thank you for taking the time to contact the FCA. This matter has been received by the Market Integrity Unit in the Primary Market Oversight department (PMO) of the FCA. PMO is responsible, among other things, for monitoring issuers’ compliance with the FCA’s Listing Rules, Prospectus Rules, Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules along with the UK Market Abuse Regulation (the Market Abuse Regulation or MAR). For more information about PMO, please see the primary markets pages of the FCA’s website.

__

We are reviewing the issues that you have brought to our attention with a view to determining whether it is appropriate for us to exercise any of our statutory powers. As part of such reviews we may use the information gathering powers available to us to seek further information from the subjects of the enquiry and reach out to other agencies as appropriate. We may also wish to contact you for further information. Once we have completed our review, we will consider whether it is appropriate for the FCA to launch a formal investigation via its Enforcement Division, whether some other form of intervention is required or whether the case should be closed with no action. In particular, an important part of our consideration is the potential seriousness of the misconduct.

__

As noted in our Approach to Enforcement, not all breaches of our rules or requirements constitute serious misconduct, however, where we suspect serious misconduct, we will start an enforcement investigation. We use our experience and judgement to ascertain whether this suspicion exists and there are a number of considerations we take into account when doing so. Chapter 2 of our Approach to Enforcement document provides further detail on these considerations, which include the nature of the actual and potential harm involved; the extent to which the suspected misconduct has or may affect consumers, markets or firms if we do not take action; and the public interest in investigating the matter.

__

As a matter of policy, and for legal reasons, we do not provide details to members of the public about the content of our assessments (including where we decide that there are no grounds for further action). Unless our work results in a public disciplinary outcome, the FCA does not comment on these matters. We understand that this can sometimes be frustrating but you can find further information on why we take this approach here.

__

Thank you again for contacting us."

I also copied in my MP on all these comms

Reply from IR

"Thank you for your enquiry. We are very mindful of our obligations under the DTRs. As stated on the RNS issued on 10 January, Petrofac received the TR-1 from Schroders on 09 January and we were therefore not in a position to announce the change in ownership any sooner than we did. The late receipt was as a result of a technical issue. "

'Technical Issue my ar s e"!!

For info, I enclose copy of email toi IR at PFC dated 24/1/24:

Hello Lynette,

Thanks for the reply and the confirmation of date of receipt of the TR-1, however you have not answered the question about the delay.

Can you confirm that you were notified on the 1st December that Schroders had substantially reduced their shareholding please.

Furthermore can you confirm that PFC complied fully with DTR 5.8.12 in that this regulation states:

1)An issuer not falling within (2) must, in relation to shares admitted to trading on a regulated market, on receipt of a notification as soon as possible and in any event by not later than the end of the trading day following receipt of the notification make public all of the information contained in the notification.

2)A non-UK issuer and any other issuers whose shares are admitted to trading on a prescribed (but not a regulated) market must, on receipt of a notification, as soon as possible and in any event by not later than the end of the third trading day following receipt of the notification, make public all of the information contained in the notification.

I am obviously not a professional here but it would appear to this layman that the date when PFC were notified of Schroder PLC’s share sale, that is 01/12/2023, and the subsequent RNS issued on the 10/01/2024 almost 6 weeks later is NOT in ‘compliance with the above ( highlighted in red) and repectfully request your clarification on this matter asap.

Regards

***************

Copy to Andrew, Supervisor/Supervision Hub FCA under Ref: [ref:!00Db00K8yP.!5004G02cL8tY:ref]

I already did that about a month ago Tuan - PFC responded but have heard nothing yet from FCA. Will keep all informed

'cor blimey that's been around the houses a number of times, surprised it's still doing the rounds, still no harm in repeating - I suppose

Seems to me both of you could do with some help from a psychiatrist

Good read Mikodx

Yeah, and some traders look at their tea leaves pattern after they've finished their brew, otherwise known as a PG Tip

Hi Mary, made my small punt this am, came out out quite nicely!

@Barn - why would the price drop if the shorters are getting out?

The earl and a number of day traders from here have suddenly appeared on sdry board - and there I was thinking about a day and board without 'em!

Dogger - There's another board I can recommend to you.

As a clue, the company explores for a gas that's lighter than air, floats all sorts of balloons, and used to make your voice go very high pitched if you breathed it in and then spoke.

All your mates are over on that board, spouting so much sh..te it's unbelievable. Can't you just go and join them?

I'm sure you'd have much more fun over there and be even more meaningless than you are here.