Member Info for TheTrotsky

It seems to be a common trend with all the banks and life insurers today

magmanus why don't you look at the rules for GMs. It's not a meeting to just discuss; it's a meeting to vote and it's simple mathematics that the minority shareholders don't have enough votes to prevent IBPO being delisted. Now if you think you can appeal to Aggarawal's better side and dissaude him from voting for the delisting (after all the carnage he and the BoD have caused) be my guest. I'd say your 99.99% toast.

You're looking at it wrong. You might think that buying 20% of a company with great prospects might be a good idea but (certainly here in the UK) a 20% holding gives you little, or no, rights whatsoever if the other 80% is owned by another individual (votes generally require either 50% or 75% approval). Nobody is going to buy 20% of this company whilst Aggarawal controls the other 80% and can virtually do whatever he wants.

maqsod, I hear what you say but IMHO if Aggarawal was concerned about the opprobrium or the damage to his reputation he wouldn't have countenanced delisting IBPO in this way. I'm incredulous that he has chosen this course of action but if you put that to one side and re-read the RNS you'll realise that all minority shareholder protection is being stripped away after the delisting and that if Aggarawal is willing to follow this course of action then he might aw well go the full hog and maximise the value for himself personally.

I accept that there is a (remote) chance that Aggarawal might change his mind about the delisting (albeit that if he does he and IBPO would likely face massive lawsuits; the actions taken thus far are heinous but not illegal but if they change their mind they could face a lawsuit for misleading the market). If the delisting proceeds Aggarawal might agree to buy out the minorities afterwards but he can't be compelled and he's giving himself all the tools to strip the company without the need to pay fair value.

magmanus, there's only one person speaking BS here and it's you. General meetings aren't cosy discussion forums over a nice cup of tea. There is a discussion and then there is a VOTE. The BOD and Aggarawal would not heva issued the RNS if there was the remotest possibility that they might be swayed by minority shareholder protestations. Institutional investors sold out on Friday; they at least had the sense to realise that they couldn't win a vote at the GM. By all means hold out for a fair settlement after IBPO is delisted; you have every right to be delusional.

Clarkcp, I suggest you re-read the RNS. If IBPO is delisted (which would seem to be an inevitability due to Anil Aggarwal, via EICR, controlling more than 80% of the issued shares) then various measures that are currently in place to protect minority shareholders will be stripped away. Also, and this is key, IBPO will be outside the scope of UK law; the minority shareholders would lose the ability to sue IBPO and/or Aggarwal in the UK courts. Bottom line, Aggarwal can strip the company blind.

I've never given it much thought Saints76 but I suspect that Diver is alluding to the costs of vetting statements, whether that be by the Stock Exchange, broker, accountants or other professionals. For instance, technical disclosures in CASP's RNS are stated to have been reviewed and approved by Mr. Assylbek Umbetov, a member Association of Petroleum Engineers.

I wouldn't expect the costs to be £millions each year but there are certainly more costs than might appear at first glance.

According to the Sunday Times today "... ShadowFall has has built a short position in Asos worth about £4 million ..." which would equate to abount 0.5% of the issued shares based on Friday's closing price. The article also goes on to say "... Asos is the second most shorted stock in the FTSE 250, with 10.98 per cent of its outstanding shares on loan, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. Major hedge funds including Citadel Advisors and Marshall Wace have also taken out substantial short positions ...". That's about 5% higher than the figures currently being quoted on LSE (so somebody's data appears to be incorrect or out of date).

One silver lining; ShadowFall doesn't appear to have issued one of its reports on ASOS. So it would appear that its position is based on sentiment about ASOS's ability to turn round its recent fortunes (primarily, no doubt, in the US) rather than any perceived wrongdoing, financial shortcomings or misinformation on the company's part.

Teddy100, You have an abnormal RNS and you are talking about normal business resuming come Monday! Pull the other one. "Normal" left the house on Friday. Prepare for the abnormal from here on out. No final dividend has been declared and Aggarawal can basically do whatever he wants with the business and the assets after delisting (beyond the reach of UK law). He's just overseen a c80% reduction in the share price without batting an eyelid; trust him to look after your future interests at your peril. Aggarawal is only looking out for Aggarawal. Why accept c83% of the cake when you can have the whole 100% at minimal, or no, cost after delisting? You can cry and wail into your morning cornflakes all you like but if UK law is unable to prevent the delisting then expect all future bets to be off.

If you buy now expect the shares to worth virtually zero come the delisting date (and expect many of the remaining PIs to be rushing for the exit). If you are happy with the prospect of potentially losing all your money (I'd suggest that currently there is greater than 95% certainty that the shares will be more or less worthless once IBPO has been delisted) then by all means take a flyer on a bounce come Monday but just be aware that you will likely be relying on robbing Peter to pay Paul and that the last person out may be left holding a dud.

... ckers!

I don't know what the current business relationship is between IBPO, EICR (Cyprus) Limited, Anil Aggarwal, Geophysical Substrata Ltd and Strand Hanson Limited but to the extent that IBPO's future profits are reliant on business from those related parties then I would suggest that all bets are off. The cancelling of the current relationship agreement and other statements made in the RNS would suggest that Anil Aggarwal can arrange matters to suit himself and, effectively, divert profits from IBPO to the other related parties if he wants (there will be no future commitment to undertake transactions between the related parties at arm's length and on normal commercial terms).

Aggarwal would have been fully aware of the consequences of Friday's RNS before it was made and I'd respectfully suggest that PIs should not trust Aggarwal to run the business going forward with their best interests in mind. To think that he might be swayed by the opprobrium in the press and/or elsewhere between now and the General Meeting is, IMHO, naive. There is nothing (currently) illegal about the proposed delisting and the impact that it will have on minority shareholders and I don't think Friday's RNS would have been made if Aggarwal wasn't anything other than thick skinned. Nor would I be placing any reliance on any future dividends being paid to the minority shareholders once IBPO has been delisted. Once delisted, IBPO will not be subject to UK shareholder law and, as such, Aggarwal will be in a position to re-arrange the share capital to suit himself.

There is only value in IBPO if the delisting can be realistically derailed anything else is likely to prove a pipedream. I've had a few shares delisted in the past. The shareholder information dries up and the minority shareholders are left in the dark. You will probably learn second hand that shares have been consolidated and/or new shares issued, on a non-pre-emptive basis, to Aggarwal at a heavily discounted price; all with the view of diluting the existing minority interests to virtually zero. Failing that, you might find the business(es) and/or assets being sold to other Aggarwal controlled companies at non-arm's length prices (the family silver being sold for peanuts).

I'm neither short or long on IBPO. We all make investing mistakes from time to time (I'm currently nursing, for me, a heavy loss on DVRG which, being realistic, I'm unlikely to ever recover) but don't be swayed by the PUMPers. There is absolutely no guarantee of any future dividends (no final dividend has been declared) and I would not be placing any reliance on the BoD or Aggarwal looking after your interests after IBPO has been delisted. Re-read the RNS; it offers little or no hope of PIs getting a fair deal. I'm not sure what I would do if I was existing holder but I certainly would be extremely wary of putting any more money at risk on the hope of a share price bounce based on wild speculation. The PUMPers on the other hand always need su

Art123, The share price on AIM makes no difference to the main shareholder; they had no plans to sell before the delisting. After delisting the main shareholder can, effectively, do more or less what they want to diminish and/or eliminate the other shareholders e.g. the Market Abuse Regulation will no longer apply after delisting. Don't forget the company isn't resident in the UK, so a lot of UK laws that might otherwise have protected minority shareholders will be disapplied.

This looks like a stitch up that was always just waiting to happen. Until yesterday I didn't realise that once a shareholder owns more than 50% of a company's issued share capital they can increase their stake without limit and without being legally required to submit a formal bid for the whole company! Ludicrous but true. Normally a shareholder is required to make a formal bid once their shareholding exceeds 30%.

Hi Ace, Regardless of how DEC maintains its wells they are nevertheless "depreciating" assets i.e. they are "consumed" over time (depleted), so they have no alternative other than to replenish their "stock" periodically until such time as DEC enters its run off to closure phase of operation. Invariably this will require large up-front payments that (all being well) will be paid off over the production life of the wells plus generate a tidy profit to boot.

Should we be overly worried that DEC has "... high and continuing capital investment requirements ..."? Im not sure that DEC's "predicament" is any different from the likes of BP, Shell or any other large oil/gas producer on that count. Nor am I being dazzled by DEC's current 15% equity yield; I see the curent high yield as being a consequence of the low share price rather than the consquence of an unsustainably high dividend payout.

Yes, more is being paid to bondholders than shareholders but I wouldn't expect any different given the current level of debt; paying down debt is always the first priority and, more often than not, you'll find that debt is always paid down much faster than the well depletion rate.

Can DEC raise more equity/debt to purchase more pre-drilled wells? That depends. It's already digesting a lot of new debt as a result of its most recent FY23 acquisitions. I'd therefore be surprised if it was considering any more major acquisitions over the next 12-18 months (there was a hiatus after previous large acquisitions). However, if the right deal came along at the right price, I think DEC could probably raise the debt/equity it needed. That said, DEC is arguably trading at a significant discount to NAV (as opposed to historic NAV) which might make a further non-pre-emptive placing incredibly difficult to get past existing shareholders (a fact that I'm sure will not be lost on Rusty).

The real questions you've got to ask are:
1) Does DEC need to buy more wells to pay down its existing debt? I don't believe that to be the case.
2) Has DEC underestimated its future well capping liabilities? The jury is still out on that one (if nothing else DEC is finding it difficult to persuade certain people in certain quarters that it hasn't underestimated its liabilities)
3) Do DEC's IFRS accounts, particularly its income statement, give a true picture of the current state of affairs? Personally, I think IFRS only serves to confuse matters (it seems to throw the kitchen sink at the comprehensive income statement and then "repent at its leasure")

I'm not sure that Aviva would be affected by such claims unless it is selling its insurance products through agents/brokers.

The commissions in question would generally necessitate the freeholder using an intermediary, such as an agent/broker, and, as such, I'd have thought are more likely to be negotiated by the agent/broker direct with the insurance underwriters rather than mainstream insurers. Mainstream insurers themselves tend to act as middlemen between their customer and the insurance underwriter(s) and, as such, it would make sense for the agent/broker to cut out the mainstream insurers.

Alternatively, I believe it is currently permissible for the freeholder to add a "reasonable" service charge before on-charging insurance costs to their leaseholder(s) but that would be nothing to do with the insurer (it's not paying any commission).

Shhh, You'll jinx it ;-) Two days of small, upwards price movements makes a (nice) change. Maybe, just maybe ;-)

Hi Ace, I agree the net cash generated from operations ($1.229bn) but according to my figures they spent $2.066bn (gross) on natural gas & oil properties. I appreciate that DEC have realised some proceeds from divestitures over the same period but I'm not sure whether that would fully account for the $328m discrepancy.

That said, I'm not sure where you are going with this. DEC have borrowed to acquire pre-drilled wells. The costs have been capitalised and the costs expensed to the P&L as the wells are being depleted. Over the 4-year period, $451m of depletion expenses have been charged to the P&L. I don't see anything unusual or abnormal in this. Acquiring new wells has enabled DEC to not only increase production but also generate additional operational cash. Wells, whether drilled or pre-drilled, are the manufacturing plants of the oil production business.

If DEC hadn't bought the pre-drilled wells they would have had to find new, undrilled properties and gone out wildcatting, with all the costs and risks associated with that, to replenish/increase their existing reserves. I'm sure that the cost of a pre-drilled well would probably exceed the cost of drilling your own well, if one was to assume that every well drilled struck oil and/or gas, but when you factor in dry wells and the risk that their might be no oil and/or gas on a given property, the cost comparison becomes a lot more subjective. Bottom line, DEC is a producer, not an explorer, and, as a company, has a totally different risk profile to an oil/gas exploration company. Buying pre-drilled wells gives DEC an element of certainty, reduces risk and allows DEC to concentrate on managing the numbers.

What legal implications? What complications? The main shareholder controls more than 80% of the issued share capital and has already given indication to the BoD that they intend to vote in favour of the resolution to delist. Therefore, if the main shareholder votes in favour of the delisting at the General Meeting (and there's no reason to consider that they won't) then it becomes mathematically impossible for the remaining shareholders to block the resolution (even if they all vote), as you only require 75% of the share voted at the General Meeting to pass the resolution, and it's perfectly legal (albeit morally repugnant).

Also, I wouldn't count on being able to get any additional value for the shares if they are delisted. The termination of the relationship agreement and the consequentional voiding of the contractual obligation to ensure that the IBPO conducts transactions with the controlling shareholder and businesses under his control on an arm's length basis means that future profits can be "diverted" wherever he sees fit. It's a stitch up, good and proper.

Anybody else see what happened to IBPO today? The share price is down c80% on news that the directors are proposing that it de-list from AIM. The RNS came completely out of the blue and IBPO doesn't appear to be any trading difficulties. The primary reason given for the de-listing is that it's supposedly in the best interests of shareholders!

Yesterday IBPO had a market cap of c£580m and today it's c£120m! The main shareholder (a Cyprus-based company which is owned/controlled by one individual) holds >80% of the issued share capital and has indicated that they are in favour of de-listing; so there doesn't appear to be any way for other shareholders to prevent the de-listing.

On the face of it, there's going to be a massive value shift in favour of the main shareholder. Not only that, no undertaking is being given to coinduct business on an arm's length basis going forward. It would appear that the ultimate controlling party wants to ensure that any profits on transactions between companies under common control will arise where it suits them. Certainly glad that I don't have IBPO in my portfolio. IMHO IBPO should never have been allowed to float on AIM in the first place if the free-float was less than 25%; it was a stitch up just waiting to happen! I hope the Stock Exchange takes note and shelves any plans it may have in the pipeline to loosen the existing free-float restrictions on the main market (and tightens the restrictions on AIM). The proposed IBPO de-listing is an embarrassment; it's nothing less than daylight robbery.

NewUncle, Apologies if anybody has already explained this but trade financing more often than not would inlclude invoice discounting (you "sell" your invoiced sales for an upfront payment, say 60% of the invoice value, to a finance provider; you remain responsible for collection of the debt and have to reimburse the finance provide if the debt goes bad; on payment of the debt you repay the finance provider the amount you were advanced plus a fee - could be anywhere between 5-10% of the invoice value; those may not be the exact mechanics but that is effectively the result). The only problem I foresee is that finance providers tend to be selective about which invoices they will finance and governments and/or public bodies tend to be a no-no (because they are nortoriously slow payers; the ideal customer is one who might normally be expected to pay within 30-60 days; if you can advance ,say, 60% of an invoice value and earn, say, 5% of the invoice value every month, you can double your money each year - not bad)

Also, on a more pragmatic note, whilst GB and any of his cronies remain on the MSYS BoD I doubt that it's going to help the share price one iota. Given GB's increasingly chequered and tarnished history, I wouldn't be surprised if large sharehoolders were reticent to invest whilst he remains involved in the day to day operational management of the business. Once bitten twice shy; his credibility is totally shot.