Member Info for YingTong

They still exist, certainly in as much as they haven't entered liquidation voluntary or otherwise.

They have little to no requirement to notify the members of very much at all as an unlisted public company.

Yes I should have included the word currently. :-)

The corporate website is now unavailable.

Billf, there is another (possibly negative) point I forgot to mention.

The deferred tax asset was approximately 11m, and accumulated losses were in round terms 40m.

However a substantial portion of this was as a result of EOI and was consolidated into the accounts as required.

Now EOI has been disposed of a portion is no longer "accessible".

This amount won't be known until the next accounts are published.

The key word is "potentially".

The rules are reasonably complex. These days you cannot just "buy" and offset tax lossess.

They have to be in the same line of business (that is oil and gas exploration). It may be struggle to allocate them to an existing profitable o and g project. (Losses made prior to 2017 can only be offset against the same trade, post then I believe it is unrestricted - but I not completely certain).

Carry forward (ie against future profits) is much easier than carry back (ie against prior profits).

Say I reversed in my general trading company. I could only use post 2017 losses against future profits.

Say I reversed in my o and g explo company - same trade - so all losses could be offset against future.

Say I reversed in my o and g production company. Maybe this isn't the same trade because the asset has moved beyond development. There is some greyness.

Consolidations are always an emotive rhing. Far more so than splits, even though both are - of themselves - value neutral.

If they can somehow get a deal which involves an O and G asset incoming then there is potential value in the tax losses.

Each depends on it's own facts of course. They gave to be "the same business" which is somewhat subject.

It it unlikely a producing field would qualify (though not impossible). If it were that simple it would very likely have already happened.

If it were a development field then there is a good chance.

There were also changes to carry back/forward a couple of years back which make allocating prior losses against future profits more restrictive and subject to limits.

There is potentially 11.245 m in offsetable tax.

It can't cancel the name change. It has already done it ! No marks to HL there.

They could of course have another GM and change it back.

For some there may be mileage in kaking a negligible value claim to HMRC for CGT.

If they were held outside an ISA then the acquisition cost will be the original purchase price. Care must be taken over timing because of the time limits on claiming the loss against other crystallised profits.

If they were held inside an ISA it doesn't help :-( This is because the acquisition cost will be the value when they were booted out of the ISA. I think the same will be true with a sipp.

Kmack,

Received by somebody:

Further to our previous communication on 1st March 2022 we have received notification that the Consolidation and New Listing on LSE will not be going ahead.

Should you retain your holding of Guardian Global plc, we will notify you on receipt of any further information from the Company
------

Curious. The resolution was unconditional (doesn't really make any difference either way but not implementing a resolution is probably an offence under the companies act).

MORWENA,

They, whilst a PLC, are unlisted. They cannot issue an RNS for anything (it's for regulated news by listed companies).

They can issue a reach, anybody can access this service. It is for unregulated news. They have done this but are in no obligation to do so.

As far as I am aware the only thing they are obliged to do is notify shareholders of a general meeting. (*)

Even if something as dramatic as insolvency were to occur the company has no obligation (not saying it is or will happen just exemplifying). In this case though the administrator has various duties which involve communication with shareholders.

(*) It gets murkier. Strictly you are not likely to be a shareholder. You are only a shareholder if your name is recorded on the register. Most are held by nominees (generally pooled, but sometimes individual). You are simply the beneficial owner. With listed companies the nominees have some obligations to disseminate the information (not the company).

With unlisted companies there are none that I am aware of.

Bottom line, there is very likely an information vacuum in terms of what they release and how it gets to holders.

Kmack,

I think you might have meant the 40:1 consolidation ?

If so that remains. It was an independant thing, not conditional on anything else. You haven't "lost" most of your investment as a result. You still own, collectively, the whole company. It is just represented by a lot less shares.

As an unlisted company though it will be difficult to transact. However if you can find a counter party you can agree a price and transact (obviously in practice that is going to be difficult). You would also have to notify you nominees and the registrar.

The BoD already have approval to issue new capital at any price. That permission was given by the resolutions at the last GM. It was in no way tied to this specific deal. As an unlisted company there is very little restrictions on the BoD in this area anyway. They are only bound by the Articles.

The BoD have little obligation to notify you of anything.
The BoD will, in my view, struggle tocomplete anything.

They have almost no money (the prospectus said it would likely run out in March). Making the filings, doing the accounts and so on will be tricky. Either the accountants will need to be paid in shares (fat chance) or the BoD will need to somehow lend actual real cash.

Gary is not an officer of the Co. He is just a large shareholder (he was only ever CEO designate). Certainly he may have influence. But he doesn't have authority.

Taxi, yes it is academic now.

But I think you missed the point.

They were able to get (upto) a total consideration of 3.35m. Mainly in shares - which would have been a max of 30% of the overall equity.

But currently they own 100%.

If what they currently own, plus 300k capital injection (that's what was left after debt and costs) plus a listing was genuinely going to be valued at 20m why would they give away so much.

So a totally different alternative than that detailed in the prospectus.

A serious question then taxi.

At your touted 5-10p it's worth 20-40m. Give or take.

Why - when they own 100% of that - would the Stevens sell it for a few 100k in cash and an absolute max of 30% of the overall equity going forward ?

That is what you maintain they are doing.

As to the rule change, I suspect it only becomes relevant if there is some sort of fundamental change to the offering. There is presumably some sort of deadline though.

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-confirms-new-listing-rules-boost-growth-and-innovation

Increasing the minimum market capitalisation (MMC) threshold for both the premium and standard listing segments for shares in ordinary commercial companies from £700,000 to £30 million. Raising the MMC will give investors greater trust and clarity about the types of company with shares admitted to different markets.

---------
I have no idea if it affects anything tgat was "in progress" at the time of the change.

But either I have radically underestimated the initial value or they may have a problem.

He is no longer Co Sec of GUARDIAN GLOBAL SECURITY SERVICES LTD a subsiduary.

But it's odd.

Increasing politicisation is a big issue Taxi. I doubt Swift will be replaced but it will very likely lose its dominance.

This has actually started happening. Russia got partially kicked out of swift after Crimea. This ped to them developing their own alternative and it does have some use already in the Axis you describe.

The trend for globalisation and streamlining resuces alternatives. It also tend to force many organisations to take a "moral srand". This is wrong.

To their credit ICANN have, so far, resisted this.

That interesting article makes no siggestion about any form of replacing swift or denting it's dominance.

It is certainly the case that it can he used for a reasonably quick transfer outside swift and at reasonable cost.

But I maintain that speed of processing transactions is a major issue from a point of potential throughput (swift averages over 100 and peaks at around 4000 per second).

Volatility is an issue. There are 2 extra currency conversion steps involved with a delay (albeit only a few seconds) between them. This exposes volatility risks to both the originator and destination.

Whilst this probably isn't a problem for modest sized private transactions it likely is for any commercial transactions, especially big ones.

But, if they fan solve those issues they could get dome acceptance as a money transfer mechanism. Getting it beyond niche will be hard.

You may also he interested is having a look at Stellar (obviously many similarities given it was set up by one of the ripple founders). It's trying a similar thing, and believes it is also the future.

There is no way a token will replace swift.

The simplest reason being there is zero technical chance of coping with the required volume onn a blockchain.

It has been delisted for quite some.

I assume you mean liquidate. ?

An issue is they probably dont have the money to do that voluntarily either