We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sunkar | LSE:SKR | London | Ordinary Share | GB00B29KHR09 | ORD 0.1P |
| Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 1.805 | 0.00 | 01:00:00 |
| Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - |
| Last Trade Time | Trade Type | Trade Size | Trade Price | Currency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | O | 0 | 1.805 | GBX |
Sunkar (SKR) Share Charts1 Year Sunkar Chart |
|
1 Month Sunkar Chart |
Intraday Sunkar Chart |
| Date | Time | Title | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15/7/2021 | 08:12 | Sunkar Project Milestones | 9,217 |
| 17/7/2014 | 18:06 | options for SKR shareholders | - |
| 07/3/2013 | 15:45 | SUNKAR RESOURCES | 15 |
| 04/1/2013 | 16:09 | SUNKAR RESOURCES - FERTILE GROWTH - DATA | 32,424 |
| 23/7/2012 | 20:02 | Sunkar - Significant Undervaluation | 59 |
| Trade Time | Trade Price | Trade Size | Trade Value | Trade Type |
|---|
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 15/7/2021 08:12 by vikingwarrier SKR was a complete con. |
Posted at 25/7/2014 18:35 by oilbethere Sent todayDear Mr William McDonald I understand that you are the contact regarding investor complaints regarding the proposed takeover of AIM listed Sunkar Resources. I would like to add my name to the other private investors, who have asked for the takeover to be investigated. The share price has been manipulated to a fraction of its IPO price. Responsible advisers have valued the resource as worth £2billion. Sun are attempting to get to a position to enforce a compulsory purchase valuing the company at aprox. £5million. The directors have persistently promised sales and revenues over a number of years, which have consistently failed to appear. Personally I have seen a paper loss of over 95% amounting to £60,000. I, like many private investors, feel that the share price of Sunkar has been artificially managed to permit a low price takeover and delisting, following which if successful the true value of the asset would be realised for the new owners. As an investor in this AIM share, I would be grateful if you could fully investigate this company and its activities before it is allowed to delist from AIM! Yours sincerely, |
Posted at 18/7/2014 16:58 by augustusgloop Did ENRON or World COM or Mirror Group not have Auditors or NEDs?Is this the same Donald Sinclair whose close relative sold loads of SKR shares just after the share price rose when DS notified a small purchase? Which Auditors are we talking about? The latest ones, or the ones that were removed after refusing to accept the validity of the sales figures in the interims? Are you sure that the Director's owned that many????? Who says? The other major owners (look in the IPO) doc vanished without trace (look in the accounts). This was all discussed extensively years ago. -------------------- What is the alternative? That every farmer in Kazakhstan, Russia and China refused to by the cheapest fertiliser on the market. But the Directors decided to keep spending millions producing it anyway??? [For 4 years.] That every promised sale, suddenly vanished? How come I could forecast this outcome 2 years ago? Just lucky? ------------------ I am well known for identifying these scams: VGM - at 210p --- now gone for 2p JLP - at 35p ---- now still scamming at 1.4p HAWK - at 30p -- MD sacked GNG - at 30p - still scamming at 3p RCG - at 39p - management sacked (or locked up) - assets stolen, now 1.6p And others I have a 100% record on this sort of thing. Every management team that I have called liars have either been removed, delisted from the UK or have had their shares drop by 80+%. There are red flags for these scams - most PIs just ignore them. ELBAN |
Posted at 16/7/2014 20:43 by paulb10 Can anyone post a link to the skr share price on the KAZ exchange. |
Posted at 11/7/2014 09:01 by chway14 How ironic is this.A few months ago when the share price was around 5.5p and falling daily,I e-mailed Nurdin and told him I had sold 50% of my SKR holding and invested it in REM. I also gave him the facts about REM saying that he could recover some of his losses by investing in REM. He replied back saying he was pleased that REM was doing well for me and wished me good luck. Now wasn't that odd coming from a BOD member being pleased with my REM investment. One would have thought that he would have said that I was possibly missing out on SKR's potential but he didn't. I took that to be a negative sign and thankfully I sold out my entire holding of SKR a couple of weeks later. Glad I did as to what has now happened and the best of it is that REM has gone up from 0.82p to 1,81p and still climbing. I hope that SKR holders get a better price which is what you deserve for being faithful over the years. |
Posted at 07/7/2014 19:10 by paulb10 I THINK that it is not possible to do anything now as tomorrow is the deadline either they have 90% of the shares or not. If they do then we are forced to take their price i.e. 1.835p if they DONT then what PERSONALLY I want to see this Britsh company liqidated. But I don't fully understand if they can still take the company private or not with not having 90% of the shares. ITS a bit late in the day but I think that if a liquidator is appointed for 100% of the company he could get a better price for the shareholders for the asset than what is on offer. Your probably all fed up with this situation I am but below is interestingIf a company's assets are worth more than it's market cap, can one say the shares must be undervalued? up vote 2 down vote favorite Imagine a company sold a 10% stake in one of its assets to a 3rd party for $100 million. It would be fair to assume that the asset is worth $1 billion. If that company had 200 million shares issued, and were trading at a price of $4/share, then its market capitalization would be $800 million. Does that mean the share is undervalued, because its market cap is only $800 million but yet by outsiders/a 3rd party transaction, one of its assets alone is worth $1 billion? Hence, the share price should be worth at least $5/share? Else, what am I missing? stocks stock-analysis assets value-investing shareimprove this question edited Jan 12 at 20:58 Chris W. Rea 16.8k851125 asked Jan 12 at 18:05 Nathan 533 add comment 3 Answers ACTIVEOLDESTVOTES up vote 4 down vote accepted You haven't mentioned how much debt your example company has. Rarely does a company not carry any kind of debt (credit facilities, outstanding bonds or debentures, accounts payable, etc.) Might it owe, for instance, $1B in outstanding loans or bonds? Looking at debt too is critically important if you want to conduct the kind of analysis you're talking about. Consider that the fundamental accounting equation says: Assets = Liabilities (debt) + Capital (equity) or, Assets - Liabilities (debt) = Capital (equity) But in your example you're assuming the assets and equity ought to be equal, discounting the possibility of debt. Debt changes everything. You need to look at the value of the net assets of the company (i.e. subtracting the debt), not just the value of its assets alone. Shareholders are residual claimants on the assets of the company, i.e. after all debt claims have been satisfied. This means the government (taxes owed), the bank (loans to repay), and bondholders are due their payback before determining what is leftover for the shareholders. shareimprove this answer answered Jan 12 at 20:48 Chris W. Rea 16.8k851125 1 +1 for the accounting axiom. Don't forget that market capitalization is only common stock. Any preferred stock (which sometimes is issued like debt) is also going to reflect enterprise value but won't show up in market cap. THEAO Jan 13 at 16:17 @THEAO That's a good point. Thanks. Chris W. Rea Jan 13 at 16:17 add comment up vote 2 down vote Look at Price/book value and there are more than a few stocks that may have a P/B under 1 so this does happen. There are at least a couple of other factors you aren't considering here: Current liabilities - How much money is the company losing each quarter that may cause it to sell repeatedly. If the company is burning through $100 million/quarter that asset is only going to keep the lights on for another 2.5 years so consider what assumptions you make about the company's cash flow here. The asset itself - Is the price really fixed or could it be flexible? Could the asset seen as being worth $1 billion today be worth much less in another year or two? As an example, suppose the asset was a building and then real estate values drop by 40% in that area. Now, what was worth $1 billion may now be worth only $600 million. As something of a final note, you don't state where the $100 million went that the company received as if that was burned for operations, now the company's position on the asset is $900 million as it only holds a 90% stake though I'd argue my 2 previous points are really worth noting. The Following 6 Stocks Are Trading At or Below 0.5 x Book ValueSep 2013 has a half dozen examples of how this is possible. If the $100 million was used to pay off debt, then the company doesn't have that cash and thus its assets are reduced by the cash that is gone. Depending on what the plant is producing the value may or may not stay where it is. If you want an example to consider, how would you price automobile plants these days? If the company experiences a reduction in demand, the plant may have to be sold off at a reduced price for a cynic's view here. shareimprove this answer edited Jan 12 at 18:48 answered Jan 12 at 18:34 JB King 5,2001515 Thanks, the price to book ratio is roughly 0.9, and the 100 million was used to reduce it's leverage. The company isn't making losses. Can I view this positively, and "should" the share be considered undervalued? The asset is something like production plant/factory, so I think the value should stay around the same as it produces x amount of the goods yearly. Nathan Jan 12 at 18:40 2 @Nathan If you say "the 100 million was used to reduce its leverage", then that means the company has/had debt. See my answer. Chris W. Rea Jan 12 at 21:01 1 It doesn't deserve being placed in a separate answer, but keep in mind as well that actually liquidating an asset will frequently diminish its value. For instance, your home may be worth $400,000, but if you go to a realtor and say "I need to sell it tomorrow," you might only sell it for $300,000. Benjamin Chambers Jan 12 at 21:16 add comment up vote 2 down vote Imagine a poorly run store in the middle of downtown Manhattan. It has been in the family for a 100 years but the current generation is incompetent regarding running a business. The store is worthless because it is losing money, but the land it is sitting on is worth millions. So yes an asset of the company can be worth more than the entire company. What one would pay for the rights to the land, vs the entire company are not equal. shareimprove this answer answered Jan 12 at 20:00 mhoran_psprep 18.1k11948 Thanks, if the entire company is valued (from the stock market) less than the value of the land that the company owns, can't someone just buy the company at the undervalued price and sell the land to gain a profit? Nathan Jan 12 at 20:24 1 @Nathan Buying an entire company looks easy on paper, but when you actually start trying to buy up all of the shares for a company, the share price quickly gets driven up in the market, perhaps even to a premium. Once you own a certain percentage of the shares, you also have to disclose that fact. Additionally, many companies have provisions to prevent a hostile takeover, such as "poison pills", dual-class or multiple voting shares (putting control in the hands of a minority shareholder or family), etc. It does happen, but it isn't easy enough to say somebody can "just" do it. Chris W. Rea Jan 12 at 20:50 This is the closest to the point I wanted to make... the value of the asset licensed at a $1 billion valuation is the value to the entity buying the license. The owning company might not have the capabilities to unlock the $1 billion value an asset represents. An argument can also be made that the licensee probably sees very much more than $1 billion in value from an asset, or they wouldn't have paid the price. THEAO Jan 13 at 16:22 |
Posted at 02/7/2014 20:42 by paulb10 TakeoverFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about the business term. For the science fiction series, see Hostile Takeover Trilogy. For other uses, see Takeover (disambiguation). This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008) The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (December 2010) In business, a takeover is the purchase of one company (the target) by another (the acquirer, or bidder). In UK, the term refers to the acquisition of a public company whose shares are listed on a stock exchange, in contrast to the acquisition of a private company. Contents [hide] 1 Types of takeover 1.1 Friendly takeovers 1.2 Hostile takeovers 1.3 Reverse takeovers 1.4 Backflip takeovers 2 Financing a takeover 2.1 Funding 2.2 Loan note alternatives 2.3 All share deals 3 Mechanics 3.1 In the United Kingdom 4 Strategies 5 Agency Problems 6 Pros and cons of takeover 7 Occurrence 8 Tactics against hostile takeover 9 See also 10 References 11 External links Types of takeover[edit] Friendly takeovers[edit] A "friendly takeover" is an acquisition which is approved by the management. Before a bidder makes an offer for another company, it usually first informs the company's board of directors. In an ideal world, if the board feels that accepting the offer serves the shareholders better than rejecting it, it recommends the offer be accepted by the shareholders. In a private company, because the shareholders and the board are usually the same people or closely connected with one another, private acquisitions are usually friendly. If the shareholders agree to sell the company, then the board is usually of the same mind or sufficiently under the orders of the equity shareholders to cooperate with the bidder. This point is not relevant to the UK concept of takeovers, which always involve the acquisition of a public company. The are also manager a good team for business lead generation. Hostile takeovers[edit] A "hostile takeover" allows a suitor to take over a target company whose management is unwilling to agree to a merger or takeover. A takeover is considered "hostile" if the target company's board rejects the offer, but the bidder continues to pursue it, or the bidder makes the offer directly after having announced its firm intention to make an offer. Development of the hostile tender is attributed to Louis Wolfson. A hostile takeover can be conducted in several ways. A tender offer can be made where the acquiring company makes a public offer at a fixed price above the current market price. Tender offers in the United States are regulated by the Williams Act. An acquiring company can also engage in a proxy fight, whereby it tries to persuade enough shareholders, usually a simple majority, to replace the management with a new one which will approve the takeover. Another method involves quietly purchasing enough stock on the open market, known as a "creeping tender offer", to affect a change in management. In all of these ways, management resists the acquisition, but it is carried out anyway. The main consequence of a bid being considered hostile is practical rather than legal. If the board of the target cooperates, the bidder can conduct extensive due diligence into the affairs of the target company, providing the bidder with a comprehensive analysis of the target company's finances. In contrast, a hostile bidder will only have more limited, publicly available information about the target company available, rendering the bidder vulnerable to hidden risks regarding the target company's finances. An additional problem is that takeovers often require loans provided by banks in order to service the offer, but banks are often less willing to back a hostile bidder because of the relative lack of target information which is available to them. A well known example of an extremely hostile takeover was Oracle's hostile bid to acquire PeopleSoft [1] Reverse takeovers[edit] A "reverse takeover" is a type of takeover where a private company acquires a public company. This is usually done at the instigation of the larger, private company, the purpose being for the private company to effectively float itself while avoiding some of the expense and time involved in a conventional IPO. However, in the UK under AIM rules, a reverse take-over is an acquisition or acquisitions in a twelve-month period which for an AIM company would: exceed 100% in any of the class tests; or result in a fundamental change in its business, board or voting control; or in the case of an investing company, depart substantially from the investing strategy stated in its admission document or, where no admission document was produced on admission, depart substantially from the investing strategy stated in its pre-admission announcement or, depart substantially from the investing strategy. An individual or organization, sometimes known as corporate raider, can purchase a large fraction of the company's stock and, in doing so, get enough votes to replace the board of directors and the CEO. With a new agreeable management team, the stock is a much more attractive investment, which would likely result in a price rise and a profit for the corporate raider and the other shareholders. Backflip takeovers[edit] A "backflip takeover" is any sort of takeover in which the acquiring company turns itself into a subsidiary of the purchased company. This type of takeover can occur when a larger but less well-known company purchases a struggling company with a very well-known brand such as Texas Air Corporation takeover of Continental Airlines but taking the Continental name as it was better known. The SBC acquisition of the ailing AT&T and subsequent rename to AT&T is another example. Financing a takeover[edit] Funding[edit] Often a company acquiring another pays a specified amount for it. This money can be raised in a number of ways. Although the company may have sufficient funds available in its account, remitting payment entirely from the acquiring company's cash on hand is unusual. More often, it will be borrowed from a bank, or raised by an issue of bonds. Acquisitions financed through debt are known as leveraged buyouts, and the debt will often be moved down onto the balance sheet of the acquired company. The acquired company then has to pay back the debt. This is a technique often used by private equity companies. The debt ratio of financing can go as high as 80% in some cases. In such a case, the acquiring company would only need to raise 20% of the purchase price. Loan note alternatives[edit] Cash offers for public companies often include a "loan note alternative" that allows shareholders to take a part or all of their consideration in loan notes rather than cash. This is done primarily to make the offer more attractive in terms of taxation. A conversion of shares into cash is counted as a disposal that triggers a payment of capital gains tax, whereas if the shares are converted into other securities, such as loan notes, the tax is rolled over. All share deals[edit] A takeover, particularly a reverse takeover, may be financed by an all share deal. The bidder does not pay money, but instead issues new shares in itself to the shareholders of the company being acquired. In a reverse takeover the shareholders of the company being acquired end up with a majority of the shares in, and so control of, the company making the bid. The company has managerial rights. Mechanics[edit] In the United Kingdom[edit] Takeovers in the UK (meaning acquisitions of public companies only) are governed by the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers, also known as the 'City Code' or 'Takeover Code'. The rules for a takeover can be found in what is primarily known as 'The Blue Book'. The Code used to be a non-statutory set of rules that was controlled by city institutions on a theoretically voluntary basis. However, as a breach of the Code brought such reputational damage and the possibility of exclusion from city services run by those institutions, it was regarded as binding. In 2006, the Code was put onto a statutory footing as part of the UK's compliance with the European Takeover Directive (2004/25/EC).[2] The Code requires that all shareholders in a company should be treated equally. It regulates when and what information companies must and cannot release publicly in relation to the bid, sets timetables for certain aspects of the bid, and sets minimum bid levels following a previous purchase of shares. In particular: a shareholder must make an offer when its shareholding, including that of parties acting in concert (a "concert party"), reaches 30% of the target; information relating to the bid must not be released except by announcements regulated by the Code; the bidder must make an announcement if rumour or speculation have affected a company's share price; the level of the offer must not be less than any price paid by the bidder in the three months before the announcement of a firm intention to make an offer; if shares are bought during the offer period at a price higher than the offer price, the offer must be increased to that price; The Rules Governing the Substantial Acquisition of Shares, which used to accompany the Code and which regulated the announcement of certain levels of shareholdings, have now been abolished, though similar provisions still exist in the Companies Act 1985. Strategies[edit] There are a variety of reasons why an acquiring company may wish to purchase another company. Some takeovers are opportunistic - the target company may simply be very reasonably priced for one reason or another and the acquiring company may decide that in the long run, it will end up making money by purchasing the target company. The large holding company Berkshire Hathaway has profited well over time by purchasing many companies opportunistically in this manner. Other takeovers are strategic in that they are thought to have secondary effects beyond the simple effect of the profitability of the target company being added to the acquiring company's profitability. For example, an acquiring company may decide to purchase a company that is profitable and has good distribution capabilities in new areas which the acquiring company can use for its own products as well. A target company might be attractive because it allows the acquiring company to enter a new market without having to take on the risk, time and expense of starting a new division. An acquiring company could decide to take over a competitor not only because the competitor is profitable, but in order to eliminate competition in its field and make it easier, in the long term, to raise prices. Also a takeover could fulfill the belief that the combined company can be more profitable than the two companies would be separately due to a reduction of redundant functions. Agency Problems[edit] Takeovers may also benefit from principalagent problems associated with top executive compensation. For example, it is fairly easy for a top executive to reduce the price of his/her company's stock due to information asymmetry. The executive can accelerate accounting of expected expenses, delay accounting of expected revenue, engage in off-balance-sheet transactions to make the company's profitability appear temporarily poorer, or simply promote and report severely conservative (e.g. pessimistic) estimates of future earnings. Such seemingly adverse earnings news will be likely to (at least temporarily) reduce share price. (This is again due to information asymmetries since it is more common for top executives to do everything they can to window dress their company's earnings forecasts). There are typically very few legal risks to being 'too conservative' in one's accounting and earnings estimates. A reduced share price makes a company an easier takeover target. When the company gets bought out (or taken private) at a dramatically lower price the takeover artist gains a windfall from the former top executive's actions to surreptitiously reduce share price. This can represent tens of billions of dollars (questionably) transferred from previous shareholders to the takeover artist. The former top executive is then rewarded with a golden handshake for presiding over the fire sale that can sometimes be in the hundreds of millions of dollars for one or two years of work. (This is nevertheless an excellent bargain for the takeover artist, who will tend to benefit from developing a reputation of being very generous to parting top executives). This is just one example of some of the principalagent / perverse incentive issues involved with takeovers. Similar issues occur when a publicly held asset or non-profit organization undergoes privatization. Top executives often reap tremendous monetary benefits when a government owned or non-profit entity is sold to private hands. Just as in the example above, they can facilitate this process by making the entity appear to be in financial crisis. This perception can reduce the sale price (to the profit of the purchaser) and make non-profits and governments more likely to sell. It can also contribute to a public perception that private entities are more efficiently run, reinforcing the political will to sell off public assets. Pros and cons of takeover[edit] While pros and cons of a takeover differ from case to case, there are a few reoccurring ones worth mentioning. Pros: Increase in sales/revenues (e.g. Procter & Gamble takeover of Gillette) Venture into new businesses and markets Profitability of target company Increase market share Decreased competition (from the perspective of the acquiring company) Reduction of overcapacity in the industry Enlarge brand portfolio (e.g. L'Oréal's takeover of Body Shop) Increase in economies of scale Increased efficiency as a result of corporate synergies/redundanci Cons: Goodwill, often paid in excess for the acquisition Culture clashes within the two companies causes employees to be less-efficient or despondent Reduced competition and choice for consumers in oligopoly markets. (Bad for consumers, although this is good for the companies involved in the takeover) Likelihood of job cuts Cultural integration/conflict with new management Hidden liabilities of target entity The monetary cost to the company Lack of motivation for employees in the company being bought. Takeovers also tend to substitute debt for equity. In a sense, any government tax policy of allowing for deduction of interest expenses but not of dividends, has essentially provided a substantial subsidy to takeovers. It can punish more-conservative or prudent management that do not allow their companies to leverage themselves into a high-risk position. High leverage will lead to high profits if circumstances go well, but can lead to catastrophic failure if circumstances do not go favorably. This can create substantial negative externalities for governments, employees, suppliers and other stakeholders. Occurrence[edit] See also: Golden share Corporate takeovers occur frequently in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France and Spain. They happen only occasionally in Italy because larger shareholders (typically controlling families) often have special board voting privileges designed to keep them in control. They do not happen often in Germany because of the dual board structure, nor in Japan because companies have interlocking sets of ownerships known as keiretsu, nor in the People's Republic of China because the state majority-owns most publicly listed companies.[citation needed] Tactics against hostile takeover[edit] There are several tactics, or techniques, which can be used to deter a hostile takeover. Bankmail Crown Jewel Defense Flip-in Flip-over Golden Parachute Gray Knight Greenmail Jonestown Defense Killer bees Leveraged recapitalization Lobster trap Lock-up provision Nancy Reagan Defense Non-voting stock Pac-Man Defense Pension parachute People pill Poison pill Safe Harbor Scorched-earth defense Shark Repellent Staggered board of directors Standstill agreement Targeted repurchase Top-ups Treasury stock Voting plans White knight White squire Whitemail See also[edit] Breakup fee Control premium Revlon Moment Scrip bid Squeeze out References[edit] Jump up ^ hxxp://hbr.org/produ Jump up ^ Eur-lex.europa.eu, LexUriServ-PDF External links[edit] Jarrell, Gregg A. (2002). "Takeovers and Leveraged Buyouts". In David R. Henderson (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (1st ed.). Library of Economics and Liberty. OCLC 317650570, 50016270 and 163149563 Acquisition Financing [hide] v t e Corporate finance and investment banking Capital structure Convertible debt Exchangeable debt Mezzanine debt Pari passu Preferred equity Second lien debt Senior debt Senior secured debt Shareholder loan Stock Subordinated debt Warrant Transactions (terms / conditions) Equity offerings At-the-market offering Book building Bookrunner Corporate spin-off Equity carve-out Follow-on offering Greenshoe Reverse Initial public offering Private placement Public offering Rights issue Seasoned equity offering Secondary market offering Underwriting Mergers and acquisitions Buy side Control premium Demerger Divestment Drag-along right Management due diligence Pitch book Pre-emption right Proxy fight Sell side Shareholder rights plan Special situation Squeeze out Staggered board of directors Super-majority amendment Tag-along right Takeover Reverse Tender offer Leverage Debt restructuring Debtor-in-possession financing Financial sponsor Leveraged buyout Leveraged recapitalization High-yield debt Private equity Project finance Valuation Accretion/dilution analysis Adjusted present value Associate company Business valuation Cost of capital Weighted average Discounted cash flow Economic Value Added Enterprise value Fairness opinion Financial modeling Free cash flow Market value added Minority interest ModiglianiMiller theorem Net present value Pure play Real options Residual income Stock valuation Tax shield Terminal value Valuation using multiples List of investment banks Outline of finance Categories: Mergers and acquisitionsCorporat Navigation menu Create accountLog inArticleTalkReadEdi Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia Wikimedia Shop Interaction Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact page Tools What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Page information Data item Cite this page Print/export Create a book Download as PDF Printable version Languages Català Deutsch Eesti Español Euskara Français 한국2 Hrvatski Italiano עבר Nederlands 日本# Polski Português Рус Укр Tiếng Việt Edit links This page was last modified on 30 June 2014 at 12:19. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAli Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimers |
Posted at 23/6/2014 21:34 by danandrews I would ask do we have flexibility on whether this is the highest acceptable share price sapc need to pay. I understand that for takeover they should pay highest price paid over last 3-6 months. Do we as shareholders have access to any others bids or interest regarding takeover.Further if rejection takes place is there any protection for shareholders on being squeezed out with clear share price under valuation. My other area of concern is the nomad I am interested to know how quickly we as shareholders have to be informed of price sensitive information. Transparency has been appalling. The take over panel appear quite a helpful group keen to maintain a fair market for investors. |
Posted at 19/6/2014 09:23 by jojo_binks damac, oilbethere, faza and others,I have 2 million shares (showing a significant loss) and also believe that due to the various events that have taken place, and particularly recent events relating to the earth moving contracts and loans from SAPC and how the RNS relating to them were released resulting in the share price moving down, that this is a clear case of share manipulation to get the share price price down for the offer. I am not experienced in this particular type of situation, however, I would have thought that our best course of action would be to contact the FCA and the FOS with a view to registering a complaint against SKR and have the matter investigated, and as poppa wobbler suggested contact www.sharesoc.org/abo SKR must have indemnity insurance and that would cover company negligence, and the events that have led us to this sorry state, which surely must constitute at least negligence by the company, if not possible fraud/criminal intent. I would support action to have the matter investigated and would also welcome contact from other investors to hear there views. I do work long hours, so if others would like to suggest the events that we need to bring to the attention of the above regulators/organizat As an aside, agustusgloop has plagued this board for a very long time (previously as Elban) and has continuously criticized SKR, now give us reasons for not fighting the takeover. I had originally thought that he was just a disgruntled investor who had lost money, however, in hindsight, is it possible that he has have been working for SAPC for a long time to get the share price down to it's present level to enable the offer to be made at this ridiculous price, why else would he still be around? |
Posted at 04/6/2014 07:35 by chway14 A few weeks ago I told ND and SU how they could recover some of their SKR losses by investing in REM share price was 0.50 then and today it should shoot up over 1pThey have blocked my e .mails so they will lose out on this opportunity. It is their loss. EDIT That's it then,if SKR have snubbed me after being such a loyal supporter,then I am pleased I sold bulk of SKR to invest in REM. REM is much more interesting and open than SKR will ever be. Good luck to long term holders and I hope that SKR can turn things around for it's loyal supporters. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
