Member Info for Wigwammer

Tbh bb, I own 3STS. Tesla is an interesting company with several potential areas of growth, but I believe it is probably substantially overvalued. But chiefchuma’s post is simply factually inaccurate and demonstrates the same negligence to fact that he is ranting against.. “Okay fine, it's a software company valued at more than Microsoft...” no it’s not.

I think it’s true that fund managers would feel pressured to sell PFC, rather than be associated with a company under such scrutiny. But that’s exactly the sort of emotional reaction that a PI can use to their advantage. We don’t have clients to answer to. Anyway, the only certainty here near term is more volatility, I suspect. GLA :)

I’ve had a look through the posts, Jonny, and you certainly start the problem by unnecessarily referring to paddy in your first post today. I’ve also gone to the trouble of extracting the info from your multiple posts today which are actually relevant to PFC. Here is is .. “I think it’s going to go to 78p. It might not. But also it might”. And on that bombshell , I wish you good night :)

The truth is you referred to him in your first post today, and he reacted. No?

Not really, Jonny. He isn’t preventing others from reading. Perhaps it wasn’t a great idea to refer to him in your first post and then state in your next one that “Ignore the bull**** from these joker investors”. Since then, it’s been an exchange of various insults and references to RR that don’t have much to do with PFC.

This isn’t the RR board and he is reacting to you calling him a “joker investor”. Please stop the inflammatory rhetoric and stick to PFC.

This isn’t the RR board. Take it elsewhere please.

The evidence has been enough to convict one individual already. And that individual was the head of sales, not some back office administrator operating in the shadows. If I were the new management - even If I was happy the internal investigations were thorough and genuinely believed things were squeaky clean - I would still go down the DPA route. Too much risk that something wasn’t covered. Will the SFO agree to it? Probably. But then again if they want credibility as an organisation that will go to court if necessary, having got the conviction of the head of sales, this may be their chance. I agree - April may turn out to be an interesting month.

Paddy.. I very much hope you’re right. I think you may well be, and the risk reward is a good one. But the SFO have not stated they want a DPA, and - as you now agree - PFC may well want to engage on that front. The lingering concern for me is that that in previous DPA’s I cannot see a case where a senior exec has already been convicted. It is quite possible that the SFO does not want to get itself in a situation where companies are strategically assessing the risk and scale of a potential DPA, and calculating that wrongdoing is the best way forward. Hence, every now and then the SFO may well say - stuff the DPA, we’ll take them to court. Given we’ve already got a senior officer convicted, we quite fancy our chances against PFC. I hope that’s not the case, but as I state, that seems to be the difference between this case and others that have been sorted by DPA. Hopeful result - $200m DPA announced first thing Monday! ATB

Can anyone please tell me the following... in any of the previous 9 DPA’s agreed, is there an instance where a senior executive has already been convicted of wrongdoing?

Sorry, SFO not SFA.

Thanks Paddy. Apologies for my my ignorance, but how do you know the SFA want a DPA, and how do you know that PFC do not?

The DPA has been used 9 times by the SFO since being instituted around 10 years ago. There were two large settlements with Rolls Royce (around £500m to be paid over 5 years) and Airbus (around £1bn) but the other 7 are of a far more modest size. So perhaps a figure around £300m here would be considered appropriate - perhaps conservative - and would probably appease the market. What I’m unclear about here is how the prosecution of a prior board member affects the SFO’s approach. As far as I can see, individuals were not implicated in previous DPA’s - happy to be proven wrong there. But will the SFO be more confident about taking PFC through the courts on the basis that they have evidence and proof from the conviction of Lufkin? Again, happy to be shown that is not the case.

Lots of talk about shorters, but with few 3%+ institutional positions we don’t know what the material longs are doing. Institutional fund managers don’t like scandal - let’s hope they are dumping for emotional and not rational reasons.

7.2m btw is around 70% of the average daily vol over the last 5 days. Let’s hope it’s the final dump!

Yes - but given it was settled at below the closing mid price doesn’t it mean the seller is a bit more aggressive than the buyer?

Wow. 7.2m dumped after close. What where why who..

Tesla is not valued more highly than Microsoft. It’s valued at about a third of it. Not much good preaching about untrustworthiness if your own posts contain out and out fibs!!

HuevosYBacon ... 2 posts in history ... are the shorts starting to panic?

Thanks jagman. Interesting point :)