Member Info for Santos1

There was an interesting article by Gillian Tett in the FT at the weekend about how green activists need to start talking more about adaptation ie how to handle climate change . Next month a major report is being published by McKinsey Global Institute on adaptation strategies. And Gates is now urging green activists to focus less on Domesday warnings and more on efforts to create liveable habitats. He says every time re-building takes place after disasters they' ll have to build smarter , whether its homes in Los Angeles or highways in Delhi. He says ' It won't be cheap but it will be possible in most cases'. Gates ' shift horrifies some green activists but entrepreneurs are responding by launching high-tech adaptation. In this country we need more wetlands for natural resilience and this week a public-private British group called FloodAction coalition co-led by Aviva and three dozen companies including UBS will urge investors to fund £1bn of infrastructure for natural resilience.

Blackhole - to answer your question - yes, I would buy at these levels because a) I expect FID to be announced at any time before year end ( all indications continue to point to that) or failing that, before the end of March at the latest, and b) I expect previous highs eventually to be reached and exceeded as the new oil province opens up. My expectations for share price performance always have been, and remain, based on the Lassonde Curve, which you can google.

With that bacon butty picture all over the tabloids again, no chance I would say...

Croftoriginal 2 writes

" When FID drops ( it will old friend)

We'll toast the start, not fret the end'

This is poetry worthy of John Keats, very cheering on a cold Sunday evening down in the west country.

After reading Nomlkanymore's brilliant post all I can say is that I am not waiting for FID to lift my glass- bottoms up!

'

Awkword says" Financial institutions cannot commit until the latest the latest sabre rattling is out the way'. Sorry to contradict you, but there are literally hundreds of territorial disputes globally. If your argument held water, there would be no international investment in disputed territories, eg Taiwan. That isn't the case. Either you believe the UK Government will defend the Falkland Islanders right to self-determination, or you don't. If the latter, then don't invest. Personally I think it would be political suicide for any UK government of whatever political persuasion to abandon the Falkland Islanders. It would also be the most gross betrayal of the families of the military who lost their lives in the conflict.

I would like to filter you Rolf, believe me. But in common with other long term investors committed to RKH I would rather read what people are saying about it, and to correct anything that strikes me as a load of tosh. That's what chatrooms are for.

Rolf- you make a lot of confident assertions which are wrong. You obviously don't even know what a legal disclaimer is. When anyone dares to challenge you, you resort to personal attacks. You are a sad angry man but unfortunately we have to read your objectionable posts as this is the only forum for RKH investors.

Rolf- I think people can read your objectionable posts and draw their own conclusions as to what you have said- assuming they can be bothered.

Well Rolf, I don' t believe you have ever worked in the City other than maybe for a short time in a junior capacity in some bucket shop fleecing private clients. I didn't say it was a short trade - I gave you reasons why it wasn' t- and I didn't say that there aren't legal departments in banks. BTW if you think desks in investment banks don't get legal advice frequently from outside solicitors it tells me very clearly that you have never worked in one.

LTT- personally I think it is highly unlikely imo that any placee would sell an existing holding in RKH with a view to replacing it at a discounted price. This could very easily be interpreted as exploiting a privileged position of having access to a discounted share offering, to the potential detriment of other shareholders who are not in such a privileged position. If you were an institution doing that you would very likely seek a legal opinion first, let's put it that way.

Rolf- I am entirely familiar with shorting strategies, unlike you. I worked as an institutional stockbroker in an investment bank. My clients included hedge funds. I wasn' t talking about tactical ways to manipulate the price down. I was talking about investment strategies - the reasons why the fund manager is putting the short position on in the first place . Those reasons vary . Sometimes a trade needs to be executed quickly in one block. Sometimes a position is built up slowly over a long period . Your suggestion that hedge funds don't do OTC block trades in size is utter tosh. BTW, no hedge fund/ professional shorter that I have ever come across would short a single highly volatile AIM stock about to be announcing transformative news. Any suggestion that the large trade was a short sale by a hedge fund is highly likely to be incorrect. I have also explained my reasons why it is highly unlikely that any of the placees in the fund raising would be shorting ahead of the placement.

Mirasol- your opinion is that institutions would all sell their mother if they could make a dollar. I presume thats a joke ( ?? ) Did you work at Lehmann, by any chance ? Bad luck if you did. Personally I don't think Lehmann type attitudes to making a quick buck are in any way representative of the investment banking scene, either then or now.

Rolf- its your posts that are confused. You say that ' if i was a short seller and I borrowed 18m shares and sold them all at once I'd be pretty bad at my job'. It clearly not a job that you have ever held. Whether you sell shares in one go or dribble them out is going to depend on how quickly you think the share price will fall, what your market outlook is, what your strategy is, etc etc. There isn't a right or wrong way to do it despite your confident assertion that there is only one way to do it.

To be frank I don't think your comment clarifies anything, Rolf. If someone is borrowing 18m shares there is no reason why they would not sell them in one lump in a negotiated trade, and no reason why they would necessarily sell them at a lower price than the market price. Indeed some institutions would be happy to pay a small premium in order to pick up a large block in a stock with low average turnover. What my post was about was that imo none of the placees are selling stock , or shorting stock, in RKH.

In my recent post I suggested that it would be unethical and market abuse if placees in the upcoming placement that will be triggered by FID were to borrow stock in RKH and short sell it at current market levels in the knowledge that they will be able to cover their short position when they acquire shares in the placement at 53p, giving them a guaranteed profit. In the US this practice is known as ' shorting into a placement' and is definitely against specific SEC rules and would be regarded as potentially illegal market manipulation. There is an obvious conflict of interest in that the investor would be exploiting its privileged position of having access to a discounted share offering, and would be setting up a trade against the company they are supposedly investing in. The position is highly likely to be the same in the UK .

I have not located a specific rule that would stop one of the placee institutions that already holds RKH from selling its holding at current market levels, knowing that they can buy them back in the placement at a guaranteed profit , but I feel confident that this practice also would be regarded as unethical and a conflict of interest. It is self-evident that respectable institutions in the US, UK and Israel absolutely would not want to be tarred with that brush.

Therefore I think that any suggestion that one or more placees could be selling RKH, or short-selling RKH, is highly likely to be incorrect.

Invested- have a google of ' Rockhopper London Stock Exchange' . You will find the 18.5m shares trade there , in the list of all the trades. The information for the trade just gives the no. of shares traded and the trade value. If there was no buyer, there wouldn't be a trade.

Invested- there was a buyer for the 19m shares as well as a seller ! Nothing to be spooked about.

Oil Traded asks if a drop is to follow. If a drop to 53p was a certainty then every man and his dog would be borrowing RKH to short it down to the placement price of 53p. The reason they don't take that risk is because the funds to be raised in the placement will unlock a new oil province and will allow RKH to participate with a big chunk of it, therefore no-one can be sure what the share price will do if and when FID is announced and the placement is triggered. Shorters can't be sure that they will be able to cover their short position for less than the current market price. They could potentially be wiped out entirely if the stock were to double, and we know from past experience that this stock is volatile. Who would seriously want to take that risk in a volatile AIM stock like Rkh - other than a few amateur traders ?

Btw, imo it would be market abuse / unethical ( and probably contractually impossible ) for the placees to borrow the stock and short it at current market price in order to replace it at 53p. Imo it would also be unethical for any placee currently holding RKH to sell the holding in order to replace it at 53p -but it may not be unlawful. I am not a securities lawyer and do not know the answer to those questions at time of writing.

I don't see why the trade 'could have been done days ago' , as Rolf claims. Once an off book trade is complete it is usually reported to the Stock Exchange within minutes. The regulator regulator requires maximum transparency to maintain market integrity. 'Dark pools' and other trading platforms are highly regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. There are strict rules about how quickly after completion the trade has to be reported. The basic purpose of these trading platforms is to allow large institutional trades to be executed efficiently with minimum market disruption, and to prevent front running.

Happy-you bring it on yourself by openly admitting that you do no research. It's understandably seen as wasting people's time.