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.
ok, grand. Show me. That IS what I asked.
As for his chums and family, I have no doubt they will be taken care of whatever happens.
By the way, faze, not trading, investing. Do you think you can work out the difference?
As I say, I really, really hope I'm wrong. But anyone who's been in this the last few years has seen a lot of ****** going on
So, let's have the facts, and the FCA rules, please. Simple?
why do I have a sneaking suspicion that copl holders are about to get farked over?
Why suspend trading in shares which would otherwise have led to a sp increase, perhaps a dramatic one?
Why cancel copl shares, without notifying that they will automatically be converted into something tradeable *AT AN EQUIVALENT PRICE*
What is to stop the ceo simply cancelling the shares? Or IF the shares ARE converted, will they be pro-rata. That is to say, if COPL yesterday was worth £37m, but the new entity is deemed to be worth £370m, will copl's shareholders own 10% of the new company, or 100%. If it IS 100%, why cancel the shares and delist? Renames are easy. Atomic was bought at OUR cost, using OUR value, and we should have 100% of the new company.
On the ceo's past performance, however, I expect we are about to be shafted.
I sincerely hope I am wrong. Please educate me with facts, and none of this 'art wouldn't do this'. He would, and he has. Many times. I am a long term holder with a lot of skin in this game.
https://www.northernminer.com/editorial/demand-for-energy-metals-will-be-massive-glencore-ceo-says/1003826505/
From the JLP board. I know this is preaching to the converted, but the flock needs a good preachin' every now and again.
Apologies if already here
you're absolutely right, CD. GGP has all the hallmarks of a bubble, about to pop. Stretching the rsi and other indicators is like an elastic band - the longer you stretch it, the harder it pulls back. Or snaps.
Perhaps this discussion should be done on the ggp board though? Time to pay a visit, perhaps
adick
Dear boy, I did not say that major shareholders "will" shut up, merely that they 'can'.
You really should look at the details of what people are saying.
You have also failed to provide a single examples of where shareholders have ousted a ceo. Read that last sentence very carefully. Twice. Then refute it if you can.
Yesterday's vote told us nothing about Mather's situation, other than 3 or 4 shareholders failed in their bid to oust the ceo. Failed. Read that last word again. Twice.
As for begging me to go google for evidence to support *your* position, you have clearly not done this whole discussion and debating thing before, have you? That's ok, everyone needs to start somewhere, and I suggest you do as the old chinese sage wrote, and start the longest journey with a first step. Careful you don't stumble though :). Again.
As for being wrong and deluded, may I suggest a mirror dear boy?
Right, I'm off out to do a bit of crimbo shopping. I expect to see a nice long list of where a minority shareholders have ousted a ceo when I come back. But I shan't hold my breath.
I suggest you don't either; you don't want to be a bit blue in the face AND green behind the ears, do you?
Pip pip :)
no, I don't accept it. It wasn't the investors that forced him out, it was the company. He was doing a bad job.
Nick Mather IS the company, and he is doing a good job.
3 shareholders can bleat impotently all they like. If they only make up 1 or 2% of the *shareholders* they can shut the f up, until they make up a majority of the *shareholding*. Until then, and whilst he has the support of the board (which your example did not) he is firmly in place and firmly in charge.
Do you understand now?
"steve, perhaps I should have said nearly 50% of shares were voted against, "
Yes, you should have done. Certainly before trying to make fun of someone for understanding *what YOU wrote*
No wonder you couldn't run a company
adick
"steve, you really are daft. It's not the number of shareholders which is important, it's the number of shares they own. What don't you understand about that?"
Oh yes, so why did you write "...a situation where nearly 50% of shareholders vote against a CEO ..."
Silly boy
adick
It's really very simple:
"And the fact is, in virtually every other circumstance I've ever seen, a situation where nearly 50% of shareholders vote against a CEO always leads to the departure of that CEO - particularly when those shareholders are major multi-nationals or institutions."
Provide a list of examples to back up your assertion.
What is your problem?