Jac the last line of that post had me lolin so much ......The irony of you saying that is simply staggering
Again the question I asked you is dodged and just twisted slightly into another question so you can avoid looking even more of a f00l
First point is KH was incompetent thats the biggest difference!!!!
But the main point was that you and winnet and eagle have dribbled on for ages about COC selling out low and all shareholders being stitched up (when COC have near 30% of outstanding stock it shows how st00pid that comment really is) and also stated that the CEO is a COC man so this is bad for the co.........so please explain the logic behind a COC man accepting a 45p as a trigger for his options if the price you sold at was the epitome of being clued up
P.s. did you see what happened to oil today and all other oil stocks......if you had half, no even a quarter of a functioning brain it would be obvious why BLVN is down but your bitterness from losses here wont let you see that, so its the usual de-ramping drivel again
And again, that last line of your post.......comedy gold
you got out of this "dog" at a massive loss, and thats you being "clued up" is it? it hasnt tanked in anyway shape or form since you sold so the self congratulatory pat on the back is unwarranted
fact is you were buying and holding it through to the fall from triple digits to 18p, since then and with COC in charge 90% of the time the SP has been between 28-33p......and with nothing happening on etinde for a while the SP in a holding pattern is obvious and attaching the label "dog" is complete drivel
i asked you before and i will ask you again, the CEO's 10mil options trigger at minimum of 45p.............why are they that high if the SP is never going to get above your genius sell price?
Perhaps but I had enough of a clue to get out of this dog... where as you still blindly hang in there hoping all will be well and promising your wife/husband/sexrobot that they'll get the holiday of a lifetime....next year!
the usual drivel from our resident marshmallow i see
jac i have just had a peek at your posting history...........in your last 600 odd posts on this website you have posted twice on SXX and once on HIBU (the old YELL) and the rest was only on BVLN
and you want us to believe you have made money "else where" ...........LOL
i notice you were stating buy at BLVN all the way back in 2012 and 2013 and 2014, since then BLVN has come crashing down from triple figures to 18p .......... is it therefore OK that we disregard this "advice" of yours please
P.S when is your 12p target on BLVN going to be hit?
P.P.S why is it a sell at 30p when the CEO only gets his 10 mil options if SP is above 45p, please explain?
P.P.P.S. do you remember writing this on hibu months before it went BUST?
"I'm hearing whispers that things are swinging our way in a big way... Could HIBU turn out to be the buy of the century?"
everyone please stay well clear of this mans advice, it will end up being seriously bad for your wealth
A relatively modern, benign waters vessel, built in Singapore and a guess would be that it is routing from far East via its home yard for maintenance and probably to take on supplies and equipment to minimize any necessary contact with the bureaucracy and corruption of Douala.
A long voyage though to Cameroon - 9,400 miles (8,200 nautical miles.)
Do you remember back in early 2014 when you were buying GKP with, and I quote, no fear that was at £1 in old money, thats a break even on those shares now of £100.00 per share..........what do the say about a f00l and their money?
Speaking of f00ls, you might want to take heed of Mark Twains infamous quote its better to remain silent and be thought a f00l than open your mouth and remove all doubt..........
Nowt wrong with wanting to trade this at all......take 10% here and there fair play
Those who arent playing a short term game should by now know the most likely scenario is a full company sale in the not too distant future
Crown arent in this for the long haul, they are a hedge fund after all, fact is CEO is a COC man and he has 10mil options that he can only benefit from if SP gets above 45p at some point ...thats your bare minimum sale price, thats just over 45% return from anyone buying around todays level
The SP probably wont get as high with COC as it would have with a competent team with experience in the oil industry taking Etinde to its full potential, but fact is the former BOD were incompetent and the CEO just a bean counter who has failed in corporate governance, fiduciary responsibility and failed miserably operationally and in creating shareholder value.......
so between the choice of a sale of about 55-60p (if POO continues higher this will only increase sale price) in 2018 or year after year of a greedy CEO misleading the market and going through shareholder cash like its Monopoly money......the more sane of us voted for the former
Lets hope the KH drop (200p to 18p) allowed a lot to average down enough that 55p sees minimal losses or a half decent profit and that winnets consistent misleading and lying doesnt stop anyone benefiting here
Applying your previous argument - if investors don't like the current situation they can always sell up...
I have , thinking I can get back in lower . Sold yesterday , I think the CFD thing is a hedge by BOA and Sand Grove are betting it will go higher . I think it will drift and I'll get back in lower , if I'm wrong I made 13% .
Do you have evidence that COC are guilty of malpractice? If not you are making libellous statements. You really should carefully consider whether you want to risk people with immense wealth deciding that they don't like your accusations and suing you.
Applying your previous argument - if investors don't like the current situation they can always sell up...
"Its merely stating a rather obvious fact that they majority of shareholders who were not COC, did not want COC to oust the BOD. Indisputable fact."
again winnet proves he has no concept of what a "fact" is..............you mean the majority of shareholders that VOTED did not want to oust the BOD............tell us again the % that didnt vote and then explain how you know exactly what they wanted
yes because yet again you cant let go of the fact COC won and your precious KH lost.......you brought this up again, not indaknow! get over it!
again, proof please or like 99% of your previous posts this is just more libel and emotional ramblings
"trustworthy and honest"
so KH the man you consistently praised no matter what, was the epitome of the above two traits was he? do you want me to remind you AGAIN of KH's history?
You appear blind to a rather important fact. It doesn't matter what the 'majority of PIs' might want, or vote for. The only important fact is that the majority of shareholders - or at least those who bother to vote - wanted COCs proposals to be successful and voted in favour of them last year.
FWIW I would again vote in favour of COC against the past board of directors. The lack of NEDs is a concern, but quite frankly the last lost lot were so ineffective I don't believe that BLVN is any worse for the change.
Possibly also worth noting that the combined code was complied with by Carillion and others yet added no value whatsoever in the final analysis.
Good post - "4) I am concerned that there is no non executives on the board to act on our behalf if an offer was to come in for the company. This is against normal practice as COC affiliates are at present the only members of the Board."
A very good point. The answer is, if you invest in BLVN you are a passenger, at the mercy of whatever COC decide [completely in contradiction to both best practice and the Combined Code] - unless - another holder[s] can acquire enough shares to wield some voting power.
Remember, the majority of PIs voted against COC and give their performance thus far, would almost certainly do so again, so that figure may not need to be anything like the figure the Monaco money men have clocked up. The vote was only narrowly lost last time, but it may not take too many shares to get back control. Just a thought.
I think this is only one holding of 5% because
1) The CFD holding by Sand Grove does not state this holding has voting rights(upper boxes in RNS). Also CFD's are a contract between a broker and Sand Grove(Not the stock exchange). I am assuming they are a buy and not a sell contract.
2) The BoA ML statement says the voting rights are indirect. They maybe want to cover their exposure to the contract in case the share price moves up sharply. They could have now bought more shares above 3% and so have to declare an interest. They may have bought these shares from other large investors as there has not been 10 m shares traded recently.
3) Someone gave a link on LSE to an article in the Glasgow Herald. They have given little evidence to justify why they think it is two holdings of 5%.
4) I am concerned that there is no non executives on the board to act on our behalf if an offer was to come in for the company. This is against normal practice as COC affiliates are at present the only members of the Board.
The reporting threshold is 3% but they could have been holding 2.99% for a while and there would be no reason to declare anything under 3% on the declaration where it states - situation previous to notification . This declaration def . says CFD's though , so I remain confused as to the situation . Doesn't help my nervousness !
thats true freddie but isnt there usually a part of the RNS which shows a previous holding if applicable, doesnt seem to be the case with these latest 2.............i have certainly never heard of Sand Grove before so they should be classed as a "new" shareholder
anyway the original point of this thread was that these 2 holdings are the same shares.........i just dont think they can be because how can both be holders of 5% of the company if they are the same shares, no logic in that.......... and the total of shares isnt even the same
There is nothing to say that Merrill Lynch or Sand Grove Cap has recently acquired 5%. The 5% level is (IIRC) the first reporting threshold for significant holding. In other words, the two could have been holding 4.9999% for quite a while and not had to declare their holding.
They would have only needed to acquire a few hundred shares each to cross the threshold to report their current levels of 5.001% and 5.03% respectively
The holding RNS states CFD's, perhaps their contracts are with holders of less than 3% and not with Bank of America . Very confusing but I can't see where they bought the shares as the volume over that period wasn't great .
"Bank of America buy the stock, they then write a CFD to Sandgrove. Sandgrove get the return on the stock and pay interest rate to BoA so that they take a position in BLVN without having to fork out the cash. There is only one 5% purchase."
elena the used washing machine salesman turns up outta the blue, calls this a dog and in the next 2 days we find out 2 funds have bought up 10% of the company
eagle still hasnt explained how COC will get maximum reward for their near 30% of the CO but other shareholders will get nothing, dont these 2 latest 5% purchasers know what eagle does!
winnet has now changed his buyout target from 30p to 50p but apparently COC are still "wallies" if they get 50p, even though they are likely going to make a 60%+ return on this venture, yes f00ls of the highest order indeed!
and jac's 80p price target when COC first took over some how magically changed to a sell at 24p a few months later when he sold out...........
Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.
The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.
The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.