The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
When Turkey was muted last year, a number queried the wisdom of this sortie. But the inevitable reply was - it had been risk assessed - by whom we weren't told.
Given Sanderson's record generally it will be fortuitous if it is no go. The chance to make a quick buck was the cited rationale. Let's say it goes ahead would it be another UKOG failure? Even if successful heaven forbid would UKOG see any cash back.
There are 2 options
A shut the shop now or
B get some experts in to reassess what UKOG HAS OR HASN'T in UK and hopefully produce a recovery plan but this must exclude Sanderson. He can be sent to consult for AME.
And Sanderson could even try to blame the investors - they allowed him to create too many shares which he spent like confetti! Had we not done so, he could not have wasted so much.
Of course he could blame Allen Dee Howard the chairman or dear old Mardon- Taylor, the quiet one for not stopping him.
If Sanderson still cannot tell us what is happening, he is continuing to demonstrate his unfitness to be a Director of a UK public listed company. Meantime many many individuals are continuing to see their investment savings dwindle. A full investigation into this company is required to include all officers and advisers.
Think very carefully. The Turks will move very carefully and could give Conroy impression it is in the bag. Unless it is tied up quickly which is highly unlikely, Turks may just lose interest and put Conroy on back burner indefinitely.
It may be that UKOG's bad track record / poor financial position is proving unacceptable to the Turkish authorities and indeed to AME.
As others have suggested before, the company would then have to turn its focus on salvaging the UK business as far as is feasible.
BUT is it off? Or are we taking an alternative route and if so when will Sanderson tell us?
The transaction should be based on a value that IS confirmed by INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONAL VALUATION.
This is what COMPANIES ACT 2006 as amended requires.
So it doesn't matter what you think about profit, shareholders require UKOG to comply with Companies Act.
And as Penguins have mentioned, the matter of licences acquired by shares previously may also be in point.
There can be repercussions for the allottees if the correct procedures have not been followed inter alia.
The auditors will refer to PW transaction.
In any event the PW transaction has yet to complete 3rd instalment £550k so the door remains open to resolve the position.
Can I ask if you are connected to the Board of UKOG or PW ?
Well think it unlikely Sanderson would tell us even if he does know.
So we have to rely on non exec Mardon Taylor - trouble is he doesn't say much and he probably can't answer.
At the end of the day it is just a balance number which makes the accounts add up.
If you turn to P W WELL TEST LTD ACCOUNTS -31st July 2020 there is a profit of around £1,300,000 showing which one has to assume is relating to UKOG PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT.
There could be a number of reasons for the profit. Bearing in mind the adverse financial condition of UKOG why has a transaction taken place which results in this level of profit for PW.
It may well be there is a know how or goodwill element UKOG is paying for but the deal was apparently for equipment per RNS.
Without a formal valuation as required by Law - or perhaps there is and if so where - it does raise questions ie WHY have UKOG SHAREHOLDERS been so kind.
Perhaps Sanderson doesn't know.
Auditors are required to be sceptical in their examination of accounts. The audited accounts are due to be released.
Penguins mentioned shares as consideration for licences. Another good point to think about - were there independent valuations?
Hello again,
Yes the report should accompany the relevant return of allotments to Registrar so it is filed with that return. It should therefore be on public record and available for viewing on line etc.
In regard to licences, I haven't looked at that aspect but I would think that similar considerations apply.
What is concerning is the high value of the PW transaction - why would PW agree to accept risky shares in UKOG. Would you?
Penguins
The independent valuation report should be on file at Companies House ie for public together with the share allotment return. Unless it has been filed in last couple of weeks, it has not been filed.
The consideration overall seems very high compared to that reflected in vendor's accounts but there is a second PW company with assets therein. Irrespective of this, the consideration appears very high so I simply query if this is correct. Let's have an independent valuation to demonstrate that the transaction is at a fair value. Is that too much to ask? Or let's say a fair value is £974000.51
This means UKOG have overpaid by nearly £700,000.
The independent valuation is required to protect shareholders avoid transactions being at excessive values.
The deal was / is in three parts so the legal requirements can still be met although late in the day and there are penalties if the rules are not met.
Is this not an example of Sanderson overlooking procedures that are designed to protect shareholder value?
What is the point of having non executive Marden-Taylor on board and paying him £20k a year. He should be on top of this and keeping a close eye on Sanderson. Commonsense should have suggested there should be a proper valuation independent of Sanderson irrespective of the law so shareholders can have reasonable assurance the consideration was fair.
The deal itself was valued at £1.6m - quite a lot - and the seller seems content with a delayed payment scheme which is perhaps surprising.
Anyway let's not prejudge but it is another warning signal questioning Sanderson's behaviour.
Some will say it doesn't matter but it does and perhaps Sanderson would not have UKOG in such a mess had there been more scrutiny.
It might be argued that the Directors' behaviour has been questionable by not taking any risk themselves in financial terms but enticing shareholders on a continuous basis to lose millions. In fact the Directors have individually gained over a number of years. WHY ?
AND YOU QUESTION THE TURKS' CULTURE.