Member Info for OofyProsser

Crocqman: : when did I say Angus are in technical default? They are in default plain and simple. Look it up in a dictionary! The issue is, once you’re in default, your creditor has the whip hand and can declare a default when he pleases.

You’ve been consistently wrong on this share for years and the bears have been dead right. An acknowledgement of these facts would do you more credit than does a repetition of these inaccurate and rude remarks.

I see there’s another expert here expressing with great confidence the opinion that Angus is not in default.

Angus is by definition in default. There is no point in its creditor declaring a default unless it plans immediate proceedings to protects its position. Being in default is a different thing from a creditor declaring a default. Try to understand. Angus is in default.

Angus is in default. The fact that Trafigura has not declared a default (why would they, unless they were about to distrain on Angus's assets?) is entirely irrelevant. Trafigura is in a position to do virtually what it wants with Angus, whenever it wants to.

The Chairman is the mouthpiece of the corporate shareholder which appointed him. He was a comic turn in any case. Carlos is much smarter but is rather close to Paul Forrest. It’s only the individual shareholders whose interests are not represented on the Boatd.

The criticism of ‘Erbert is a little misleading. He’s a proper senior oil and gas executive. I suspect he took the Trappist vow when he realised what he’d got himself into - but maybe he needed the money, so didn’t resign. Not a very good record but not dishonest or really incompetent.

Why, Ocelot? A very useful reminder of the former MD’s rejection of $20 million on normal banking terms in favour of delaying progress at Poundland for another 15 months or so - once they’d agreed that horrendous deal with Mercuria. A good thing he managed to negotiate that sweet deal with Mr. Forrest before he resigned, what?

Yes. Muck165. A different parcel. The original diamonds long gone, probably to Hong Kong. Gucci Grace laughing all the way from the Bank.

Averaging up, legalese? You’d do better to take your profit (!?) head for the hills and be thankful.

“..and the company can start afresh.”

That’s a pretty depressing prospect.

Mirasol; yes, Ocelot's efforts to put lipstick on this vast pig seem to have hit a roadblock. Is this a strategic withdrawal? If so, it’s probably not good news.

Mirasol: I’d say they’ve written small shareholders out of the equation. There’s nothing in this for them.

What next? Well, we could well see the lemmings doing what lemmings do. As the poet Macaulay puts it (admittedly, not referring specifically to lemmings) “those behind cried “forward”, those before cried “back”. Too late.

Mirasol: many thanks for this. The important words appear to be “the Minister may..”. Not “the Minister will”.

Mirasol: the 3rd quarter turnover figure suggested that the improvement in gas flow is not resulting in better returns to Anguish. It’s not clear to me that they’re in a position to pay interest on the debt, much less repay loans.

I should think they’re in detailed discussions with Aleph, Mr. Forrest and Kemexon - and possibly Mercuria. Some quite difficult issues, if it’s true that a bankrupt company can’t own or lease UK gas assets.

A question or two addressed to the perennial bulls of Vast:

1. What has Mr. Prelea ever done that inspires confidence in him?

2. What has happened to the Swiss investor?

3. Why does anyone believe that the diamond parcel given to Vast in April is the parcel that they were forced to surrender in 2010. Robert Mugabe was a rapacious murdering dictator and he gave his wife Grace free rein. She had diplomatic status, so her baggage on flights abroad was never inspected. She had a house and a diamond cutting business in Hong Kong. She was very keen on diamonds. If she’d sent a couple of Mugabe’s boys round to the Reserve Bank with a request for the original parcel, who was going to refuse? I wouldn’t have. Would you?

Giving Vast an alternative parcel containing grossly inferior stones must have seemed a nifty way out of a legal impasse. What would you have said if you’d been Mr. Prelea? No, me too.

If uncertainty over their financial position were a pretext for delisting the shares of companies quoted on AIM, most of the small-cap companies on the exchange would be suspended. It’s a quite ridiculous pretext. The suspension should be lifted.,

There’s no excuse for a continuation of the suspension. It was imposed six months ago because of rumours and speculation on an RTO (ho ho). Lifting of the suspension would allow at least some shareholders to rescue a fraction of their investment. The lemmings would be left with worthless paper.

Either way, it’s going to disappear unceremoniously up its own rear end, the subject neither of regret nor of regulatory investigation.

A nice exercise in self-parody, Ocelot.

Superficial. Worthless. Paid for.

HITS: I agree that it’s not a pretty picture. However, I think you have to add back the “depletion” figure. As I understand it, it’s similar to depreciation - a cash flow item. It’s not spent money.

Also, I think that to say we know little about the hedge contracts isn’t accurate. Their terms are listed in the annual Report and Accounts.

What I can’t understand - and no one has addressed this convincingly - is why the third quarter revenue was so poor at a time when the onerous hedges had expired and the terms of the new hedges were neither here nor there.

Mirsaol: with this improvement in production and the end of the onerous hedge contracts, how are the disappointing third quarter revenue data and the revelation that they’re only capable of meeting current bills to be explained?