We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
If you have any concerns about the recent vote please report to the following.
AIM Regulation To contact AIM Regulation, please email aimregulation at londonstockexchange dot com or call ....
In case the above gets editored...
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/aim/contact/contact-us.htm
and scroll down
something probably is worng...
Something here isn't quite right
I very much doubt many voters changed their vote between the initial postponed meeting where they failed to reach the required 75% and the actual meeting. The only material change I can see is that 7.7m additional shares were issues, as far as I can see without voting rights in place in time for the meeting.
We are then told that the 75% need to carry the delisting as now been reached, no actual number of votes cast.
Does anybody know how to raise a query with AIMs? Surely they are required to publish the actual voting numbers.
Did anybody here actually vote in favour of delisting?
CORRECTION... I apologies, the new shares are not admitted to trading until 26 June 2018, as such they cannot be used to effect the vote. Although I remain convinced the BoD will have some other fiendish plan.
I think the RNS yesterday is probably confirmation that this is going delist and your vote as a small share holder is worthless. What? I hear you ask... --------------- Previously we were asked to vote on the company delisting from AIMS, the vote we were told was more than 50% in favour, but did not reach the 75% required. Previous share base was 35m and we know the vote was somewhere between 17.5m (50%) and 26.25m (75%). If you then increase the share base by 7.7m to 42.7m and assume that all of those 7.7m vote in favour of delisting you get... 17.5m + 7.7m -> 25.2m which is 59.0% of the (35m + 7.7m) vote Or 26.25m + 7.7m -> 33.7m which is 79.5% of the (35m + 7.7m) vote - they are over the line... However, that all assumes that you have 100% of shareholders voting, which I very much doubt. If we assume that only 70% of share holders have voted the numbers change significantly... working with 70% of the original 35m -> 24.5m So... We then estimate the vote was somewhere between 12.25m (50%) and 18.38m (75%). If you then increase the share base by 7.7m to 42.7m and assume that all of those 7.7m vote in favour of delisting you get... 12.25m + 7.7m -> 19.95m which is 62% of the (24.5m + 7.7m) vote Or 18.38m + 7.7m -> 26.08m which is 81% of the (24.5m + 7.7m) vote - they are over the line... We obviously don’t know where between the 50% and 75% the vote fell, but I’m willing to bet that the number of additional shares issued, 7.7m is enough to more the line to a point where they are over it. ------- The only positive I can see is that WED have also put up the cash to purchase 500k of Oklahoma wells needed to cover off the debt, it's looking very much like a buy out by them working with the existing BoD.
I'd assume that these are just private investors taking a punt; a back of a fag packet (remember them) calculation suggests that given the current SP I could cross the 3% boundary for less than 3 grand... On the assumption that the proposal to sell assets to repay the loan will be passed (I personally see little choice on this one) then there will see be some value to the company. The company would then be 'stable' and as such WED would potentially resume their investments. If I was the BOD then this is the type information I'd be putting out there.. Suggestions to BOD - Announce that once the loan has been repaid all board member will accept a salary reduction of 50% - Announce that once the load has been repaid it will be business as usual with respect to the WED investments - Announce a full and complete list of retained assets and their estimated value - Announce a shareholders representative (ideally unpaid) has been appointed to the BOD, perhaps one of the new 3%+ holders would like to step up as communication director?
Robsky, Sorry, I don't buy the view that the bank pulled the funding when the realised the vote was going against the BOD, that would (a) suggest the bank was privy to the number of early votes cast, and although I would no longer trust the BOD to not reveal this information I would probably trust the bank to not ask for it, and (b) suggest a level of trust in the BOD to not be privy to this information before asking to de-list whithout informing the shareholders. I stand by my assumption that the BOD knew bank were pulling out when they call the GM and asked to de-list, but wanted to try and hide the asset sale possibly for the good of the SP and possible for the good of their own positions. With respect to changing my vote; could somebody, ideally the BOD, please give me a good reason to? Struggling, here are some suggestions: - the board members will take no salaries for 12 months and only draw very strict expenses, after 12 months their combined salaries can be no more than 10% of the year's profits capped at a total of 100k USD and subject annually to shareholder approval. - WED continue with their contractual investments. - There will be regular, at least quarterly, updates proving clear details of what is going on. Even then, why the hell would I vote for it? The only reason given so far is to save 100k per year, as previously that can easily be saved from the BOD's salaries.....
My assumption is that the BOD have known (or at least assumed) for some time that the bank would not extend the loan, hence the move to de-list. This would have allowed them to quietly sell off the North Dakota assets and pay down the bank loan whilst retaining their positions. The assets 'must' cover the loan, that was the whole point of the 'asset backed loan facility', the only question is what other value remains and is it a viable business. I suspect with the existing BOD pay structure and cost base in place the answer is 'no'. So, Rita has tried to de-list and failed (more then 50% support but less than 75%), no surprises, there simply was not sufficient information provided to the general shareholders to enable an informed decision. She is now going to to reschedule the GM and ask shareholders again if they wish to de-list given the 'new' information about the bank calling in the load facility. Personally I'd like to see some sort of plan, either the remaining business is viable but only with a reduced cost base or we sell the lot and more on. Details of the reduced cost base please, remove AIMs fees and drastically reduce staff costs?
The votes will now be in and counted so the BOD probably know where they stand (or fall), I think it is unlikely that those attending the AGM will vote against the board. On that basis if there has been a shareholder revolt and a 'no' vote pending the BOD have 24 hours to decide on their next move. It does also provide the BOD with 24 hours to rally their supporters to attend the GM if things are looking uncomfortably close... Do those here saying 'no' have sufficient weight to reach 25% of the vote, maybe. But given there is virtually no information on who holds about 60% of the shares it's really quite hard to call. ----------- Where next... A 'yes' vote. You can basically kiss bye bye to your shares, they will disappear into the round filing cabinet in the corn of Rita's office. I expect some private investor will buy in and pick up the scraps so diluting the shares another 90% or so, perhaps this is the only feasible outcome with the current debt levels. A 'no' vote. The board are in a untenable position, they have admitted that they can't turn things around, have a bank loan that they are struggling to refinance and can't find further investment. Do they hang on and keep taking their salaries or do the right things and honor their obligation to find new (lower paid) leadership. Where does this leave WED? They either walk away or perhaps they step in and replace the BOD, after all they are the only known shareholder in a position to do so. Personally I'd like to see the balance sheet and details of the current assets, only then can you determine just how hopeless or otherwise the situation really is. I guess this might be forthcoming in the form a the board's spin on the EOY results, which if issued under AIMS rules will have to reflect some form of reality. see you all on the other side.
The 'action' has been listed on my broker's website (TD **********, now iii) for several days. I have voted 'no', like others I'm happy for it to go down ugly. Rita, If you really want to save the company money take a 75% pay cut, that will more than cover the AIMs' fees.
For what it's worth I don't think the BOD will get the 75% that need to carry the motion to de-list, I suspect there are too many bitter LTHs. Those that are already 99% down are probably quite willing to set the ship alight and watch it burn. Not sure where that will leave things.
Without seeing the actual contract with WED it is obviously impossible to say, but I would assume they have an exit clause that means they are not required to meet their $10m agreement if this is delisted. They may have an exit clause without it being delisted but in that scenario I would expect them to forgo other rigjhts??? Vote No and take the 'them' down with the rest of us.
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why on earth would I vote for this? My shares are already virtually worthless so I might as well vote against and prevent the BOD taking the easy way out. Where does this go if the resolution gets rejected? Do the BOD all step down? If they do step down then I would assume Rita's severance pay would be much reduced... Presumably WED are already on board with this approach otherwise it is a none starter....
from the recent update Reserves Report does not include proved shut-in, proved undeveloped, probable and possible reserve classes as well as Magnolia�s interests in undeveloped acreage. Basically what this is saying is that once the oil price hits a certain level the operators, over whom we have no control as a small percentage player, will reopen the taps. This will provide an instance uplift in both day to day income and reserve value. We no idea however what percentage of MAGPs holdings are currently 'shut in'.
Idiot, You are correct in most of your thoughts, however for some it is simply too late to cut their losses here. If you are 97% down then there is little point in taking back those �3 from the �100; you have in effect already written it off so might as well leave it be and pop back annually to see if anything has changed.
In my mind there are two apposing views of the WED deal, the positive view that here is 18m USD being invested into MAGP from which MAGP receives fees and a 25% free carry on each new well per spacing unit. The all sound great from a MAGP prospective, although currently we haven't seen much by way of results and at the moment it only appears to be covering the running cost (salaries). - oh dear was that the positive? On the negative side I keep asking myself do the individuals who are paying into the WED EB-5 visa programme real expect or care about a return on their investment, for them it is simply, they pay $500k into the EB-5 visa programme and they get to live in the US, basically its a tax that is being used in this case to 'prop up' the US on shore oil industry.
At least the continued slipping of the SP is based on an extremely small trading volume.
This is like waiting for <complete as appropriate>
where next 2p?
And I was hopeful this morning...
The start of something? Firstly it is important to remember that WED are paying for these and they are basically free to MAGP as part of that agreement, investment covered and management fees covered, so free to MAGP. Right, a back of the fag packet calculation suggests that those 3 listed give a total of 0.1636% interest to MAGP, which probably means 10 to 20 boepd (at $60 pb) -> $1000 income. So is this all of the first $500k? or is there more to come from that tranche of cash? If we assume the worse case, that being this is all of the first 500k, then can we still expect the final outcome to be 37 times this value?