Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone here.
I have never ever shorted however this is a stonking short and shorters are set to make a fortune as speculation is driving the price.Problem is it is pointless to argue with someone whose investment decision is based.on nothing but hot air.
The key rules to read are 9.6.1 and 9.6.2 under the title “Change of accounting date”:
Rule 9.6.1 states “A listed company must prepare and publish a second interim report in accordance with ■ DTR 4.2 if the effect of the change in the accounting reference date is to extend the accounting period to more than 14 months.”
And 9.6.2 states: “The second interim report must be prepared and published in respect of either: (1) the period up to the old accounting reference date; or (2) the period up to a date not more than six months prior to the new accounting reference date.”
Upland has extended its accounting period from 12 months (ending 30 June 2023) to 18 months (ending 31 Dec 2023) and so rule 9.6.1 applies. The result of both limbs of rule 9.6.2 is that the second interim report needs to be prepared as at 30 June 2023.
There is some ambiguity over the deadline for *when* these accounts should be published. If they are treated as interim accounts then 4.2.2 of the Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules sourcebook (“DTR”) applies, which states:
"The half-yearly financial report must be made public as soon as possible, but no later than three months, after the end of the period to which the report relates."
Share prophets and according to that company needs to publish results by tomorrow or shares can be suspended.Company changed its reduots date but still need to publish results tomorrow or it can be forced to suspend shared
Think they got too greedy and resorted to fake bid otherwise this "p&d"was going perfectly fine.I do think most of mug punters got lured in through telegram and twitter crew and thought they have found a "gem".Why should someone not buy this at 4 when BOD rejected an "14 p" offer deeming it too low for their part ownership in technical report which is worth £10k as per last results.
Not worried, I am amazed at stupidity of some investors.However speculation can only drive shareprice to certain extent.Musical chair has to stop at some point.....Eurasia mining had some real assets and mug punters thought that asset which was bought for 10 millions would be sold for over a billion.Took a lot of abuse there and most of them are nursing a heavy loss there.
Aim, company has part ownership in a technical report, it does not own the asset, has been surviving on placings, its total assets are worth 109k and does not even have money to drill exploration well and mug punters are going crazy over rejecting 14 p offer.Aim at its best.
Lol officemanager knows everything about this company,however his research is based on"hopes" and "potential". As things stand there is no offer and company does not have any asset.Not only that people who took part in placing and had millions of warrants have dumped them on mug punters.But only mug punters know "potential".
So it is at stage one and some mug pubters are hoping that somehow they will find 10s of millions to fund drilling , not only that they will prove them resources and will find money to fund appraisal wells and then there will be a takeover bid.You have got to love aim sometimes too many ifs and buts.I dont see a "potential"
Let me break it down for you in case you dont know it.First they need to identify targets which contain hydrocarbons then have to prove them up tgrough exploration, then submit fid plan and then drill appraisal well.All of these things should cost hundreds of millions and this company is not even at first stage.
It does not own the asset and I have gone through official website and updates.All it owns is part partnership in technical report.So someone has to be mad to offer 143 millions for a part ownership in technical report and BOD has to be even more stupid to reject it.
I still think these are worthless, none of these companies has money to fund drilling, secondly north sea is heavily taxed due to which many companies have exited and you can find loads of producing assets up for sale.But my point being why did company only mentioned part ownership of technical report and not percentage ownership in Sarawak?