Member Info for ToTheMoon1

Regular trading account would be fine, losses in that can be used to offset gains.

I don’t think you can claim a refund on the cost of the shares.
However you can use the loss to offset any capital gains you made selling other shares I believe. Not sure about ISA or SIPP, but if you have a trading account and take profits, you can offset what you would have paid against the POG loss.
At least that’s what it used to be, I used to work for Lehman and had part of my salary in shares, basically it meant no capital gains tax one year.

“ But the community as a whole has to bear the cost of the consequences.”

The idea that taxpayers should fund POG retail investors - doubt that would fly with anyone in government.

Your investment choice, should not be one for the general public to fund.

>It's as silly as telling a Ukrainian who had his house razed >to the ground by bombs.

Ridiculous analogy. Creating an investment portfolio where you have all the risk in one or small correlated set of assets is just asking for trouble. That’s why many funds are prevented from doing so. It is simple common sense.
If people repeatedly ignore advise to diversify well thats their issue.

The UK taxpayer shouldn’t be in the business of paying people for their failing investment strategies. And before anyone says ‘but RBS’ … the potential downside of system failure meant that the government at the time was right to buy RBS. Cheaper for taxpayers to pay for RBS basically, not the case here.

As pointed out, Buffett himself offered the SP500 vs hedge fund bet.

For all investors diversification is important. You are not trying to maximise potential returns at all cost, you are managing the downside.

PwC, KPMG both throwing mud , is that your opinion?

Lawrence, Prior to KPMG, PwC also gave up auditing POG did they not? According to the press they cited corporate governance concerns.

We’re they also throwing mud in your opinion?

Hedging risk isn’t ‘mumbo jumbo’.

“KPMG flagged potential issues on an estimated $302.4 million of transactions in the three years to August 2020”

Being listed on an exchange and included within an index is not a guarantor of returns to shareholders.

POG share price fell quiet steadily from its highs in the year before the invasion.
POG may have struggled to refinance in any circumstance.

POG only had operations in Russia:
- any investor could have been reasonably expected to understand the risks of a company . Specially given the turnover in auditors through the recent past of the company.
- POG never got itself into a position to diversify its operations geographically.
- Investors in POG should have diversified their portfolios. Some on this forum were encouraged to do so over several years.

POG and many other companies were impacted by sanctions. That is regulatory risk.
Given their structure and financial position that existed (their debt burden) that proved an existential threat.
Many advised late investors of this and investment post invasion was highly speculative.

The government cannot compensate all companies for losses due to regulatory changes. The government would not want to compensate POG shareholders, the majority of which are based in Russia.

As far as I can tell circumstances have forced decision making by Administrators.

Perfectly reasonable to query some of the BoD decision making and could things have been differently.

Whether you’ve a legal case (against BoD or others) is guesswork, and best taking specialist legal advise.

Nah, this looks desperate to me:

mobile.twitter.com/In****ing/status/1562524807392272386

Creditors are investors just the same as you Lawrence.

People buy bonds knowing that they
will hopefully get coupon and their money back on
redemption.

They give up potential gains on stock price for being more senior creditors if things go south.

Don’t blame them for your investment decisions.

In the case of POG it seems HMRC are a reasonable creditor too, so at least taxpayers are getting what is due.

T-2y to T-1y, pog lost just over a third of its value (if my historical data is correct) not sure how the bonds were trading, but POG may have struggled to refinance anyway.

Interesting that it seems a takeover offer was on the cards just before the invasion, talk of bad luck for POG re:timing of Ukraine invasion.

Not sure how long a waiver would take to get or likelihood, and even then with sanctions being global and from the US, I doubt any bank would refinance even if they had a UK waiver. My guess is banks wouldn’t do anything that would put them at odds with US regulators.

Legal bods would know best.

petropavlovskplc.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Update-From-Administrators-19.08-1.pdf

There is an update as of Friday, you need to look under ‘Administration News’ under ‘News and Events’
You will see an update as of 19th of August

It also answers the questions raised (the decree is covered and isn’t specific to Russian shareholders), if you read it.

They put updates on the pog website, if you look at the website under admin news, there was an update yesterday.

> it is so fishy that there's just enough

It isn’t fishy. Potential buyers aren’t stupid, they will offer just enough for an offer to pass and no more. They can do the math.

> Did they ever confirm who buyer was??? I bet the >buyer was related to UMMC and the big shareholder

It has been explicitly stated in all the press releases and high court judgement. UMMC are the prospective buyer.

> How can we get this investigated

It has, the administrators don’t just do as they see fit. They have to and did, go before a High Court judge. He reviewed it and allowed them to proceed.
They presented the facts and the risks (on-going legal risk in Russia etc.) of not proceeding quickly.

They also stated the recent Putin decree re: disposal of shares etc would warrant further investigation,
IIRC.

If you feel aggrieved, you should join that group that are getting a legal review, probably cheaper than doing it yourself. See what lawyer says.

“There are people watching and commenting on these groups who do not want you to stand up to their malpractice”

I have not seen any. I’ve only seen comments re: how to go about it, it’s fine to say you are organising action, and querying decisions of BoD. Leave questions open etc… But I and others have pointed out best not to state things publicly as facts that may be open to question, for your own benefit.

If you feel you have a legal case, speak to a professional and he or she can advise.

I’m pretty sure they’d also advise not posting grievances on-line forum. Specially where they may not be accurate and leave yourself liable to action.

Gazprom Russia bound by Russian law so free to sell debt, question for lawyer?
CEO of UMMC isn’t sanctioned, see Admin notes.
Kroll did the initial independent valuation etc. etc.

Looking back over the messages, other people felt the same too. Bit strange to hold stock (and 100% of your portfolio) in a company whose corporate governance you’ve had no faith in for years?

They did because it was in taxpayers interests to do so, the cost of not doing so may have been higher.