We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Afren | AFR | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 1.785 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.785 | 1.785 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 30/10/2018 15:11 by bigboots I think we have a claim against the FSCS for AIM not regulating the company properly and for the research notes given out by regulated companies to investor which were not correct, causing financial loss |
Posted at 21/10/2015 10:45 by ldlv what if there is an investor that is trying to rescue the company as a going concern. Apparently according to Alixp Afren plc needs $250m, according to Alixp and Alan Linn the money is not there! Management tried everything they said, the useless effort of the previous management that by the way put the company in administration is the excuse. Odd...Imagine that the money is there, that an investor and its European partner are trying to offer a solution (that maybe involves a hair cut). But that hair cut would bring a better realization than selling the assets, while providing a solution for all the parts, Employess, shareholders, creditors... In that case shouldn't the administrators facilitate negotiations to consider objective 1 as it could bring a better return than selling the assets for $200m (Sunday times numbers). Shouldn't the creditors be made aware of that potential solution? Imagine that despite how hard the Investor and European partner try to discuss option 1 to rescue the company, they find an inflexible attitude and the ONLY interest of selling assets. What would be your opinion in regards ethical and law implications of that scenario? Again, According to the Restructuring and insolvency in UK (England & Wales)Law stated as at 01-Jul-2015,the administration procedure is a way of facilitating a rescue of a company or the better realization of its assets. The main aim of administration is to rescue the company as a going concern. |
Posted at 21/10/2015 00:05 by dangersimpson2 There is no solution to rescue the company. The company is insolvent.While I in no way condone the alleged unethical actions of the former management, being short has not contributed at all to the demise of the company and cannot be considered unethical. It was obvious to those who understood corporate structure that Afren was vastly overvalued and shareholders were made aware of the reasons for that including in official documets from Afren themselves. What I do consider unethical was the people who despite this info urged others to hold onto their shares, vote against restructuring in some false hope that they would see a positive return. If you have invested long enough you will have lost money at some point. Good investors learn from the experience. Bad investors blame others like those who were short. Sadly the bad investors never learn the lessons and end up repeating the same mistakes over and over. This may sound harsh but the sooner you accept this as a total loss and move on the better off you will be long term. By all means try to hold those who have behaved unethically to account but know that shareholders will not get financial recompense this way - the former mangement would have to be personally fined billions of dollars and have the means to pay for shareholders to see anything. Giving false hope by suggesting a corporate rescue is even remotely possible would seem to be seriously misguided. |
Posted at 01/8/2015 09:36 by pyemckay I too feel sad for the investors who lost it all here. Some posters have mentioned previously some sort of diversification is the key to investing. Over or underdiversification is another story, but even if you only had 4 equal wieghted shares in your porty you would recover sooner than a total wipeout.I am personally short of afren but that is due to 20 years of experience investing. I'm a better investor now than i was and these experiences and mistakes make you a better investor over time. We all still make mistakes and I got drawn into silverdell 2 years ago. cashflow was tight and the company folded. It was 2% of my portfolio so still hard to take but part of the investment process. I tightened my parameters of investments and moved on. |
Posted at 06/7/2015 12:43 by ldlv Open letter from Wild Wolf to the General and wife:Dear Sir/ MadamWe are respectfully writing to you regarding a matter of mutual interest and mutual benefit.We represent hundreds of disgruntled small private investors in Afren PLC.It is our genuine belief that we just are the tip of the iceberg and there are tens of thousands of other affected investors who are of the same belief that shareholders are being cheated currently out of their investments and we want to make a stand against this.We also are contacting the required regulatory authorities to assist us in stopping these crimes from being completed.A continued and ever increasing media campaign will ensure that this will continue to be publicised until investigated and the truth of the mysterious behaviour of the Afren executive and their colluding friends to crash the share value of the company, will become public knowledge and any criminality will be made accountable. As you are no doubt aware, Afren suffered from previous over exposure to CAPEX investment, some irregular activities of the historic Boards of Directors and the temporary slump in oil prices.It is our opinion that these problems were exaggerated and a campaign of misinformation and manipulation and accounting falsifications have provided an excuse for a premeditated raid attempt by certain bondholders and financial institutions working in concert, to enable an attempt to steal the company using a host of dubious methods and puppet directors and to then sell the asset base on, cutting shareholders out of the equation and cheating them from the proceeds of their investments.Already this attack on the company (perhaps on behalf of a yet unnamed ultimate beneficiary) have resulted in the loss of 95% of the shareholder value of the company already and further losses of another 90% with the threat of the company's demise.We intend to fight this theft of shareholder value and bring those responsible to account.Just because they chose a company with a massive small investor base (mainly pensioners and average working class people) who they felt would be easiest to defraud, does not mean we have to accept their theft. We wont and we intend to fight to get a better offer for existing shareholders regardless of their threats.We have sufficient and an ever growing amount of evidence of a catalogue of crimes and breaches of duty and multiple examples of share price and information manipulation compile |
Posted at 17/3/2015 16:01 by batman9 From another site.Afren proposal attacked By Lee Wild | Tue, 17th March 2015 - 13:05 Share this Afren proposal attacked A lot has been written about Afren (AFR) in recent days, and rightly so. A complex recapitalisation will leave bondholders in control of the Africa-focused oil company and shareholders with next to nothing. And with many existing investors having held a long-term interest in the business, information is crucial. It's why a weighty 16-page note written by Barclays detailing Afren's proposals makes interesting reading. "Afren's proposed recapitalisation protects the business from the consequences of imminent default. However, in our opinion, it fails to provide a capital structure capable of supporting a long term future for the business," writes the broker. "Pro forma net debt exceeds our revised valuation of the core assets, despite a partial debt-for-equity swap and injection of additional capital that dilutes existing equity holders to ~9%. Once recapitalised, we expect the company - now for all intents and purposes in the control of the ad hoc committee of bondholders - to pursue asset sales to maximise the recovery of value and repay debt." Even the $75 million open offer for existing shareholders does not indicate that a sustainable recovery "is unlikely to materialise within a reasonable timeframe". Barclays currently pencils in pro-forma year-end 2014 net debt of $1.4 billion on completion of the restructuring, versus its $1.1 billion valuation of the Nigerian production/developme The proposed super senior private placement notes, and the new 2017 high-yield notes that would replace it, are top of Afren's new capital structure. Holders will also get over 50% of the equity. "This is the cost of enabling Afren to continue as a going concern," writes Barclays' James Hosie. "We believe the motivation for bondholders to support the restructuring is due to the risk that a default event would lead to Afren losing claim to its key assets - the producing Ebok and Okoro fields." What should shareholders do now? "The stock has option value on the basis that a rapid recovery in Brent towards $90/bbl and the disposal of non-core assets (Kurdistan, East Africa, undeveloped Nigerian fields) enables Afren to accelerate debt reduction," says Hosie. "The restructuring remains subject to 75% shareholder approval, but if rejected an alternative proposal would result in a pro-forma net debt ~$0.3 billion higher, increased borrowing costs and a covenant requiring initiation of a formal sales process before the end of 2015." Best-case for equity investors is 5p, reckons Barclays. This assumes that investors do assign option value to the potential recovery of the business through both higher oil prices and asset sales which bring in more cash than expected. Ebok and Okoro fields are clearly the company's most valuable assets. According to Barclays, using valuations discounted from 1 January 2015 and 15% discount rate, Ebok could be worth about $420 million, or risked net asset value per share of 2p, Okoro $191 million/0.9p and Okwok $370 million/1.8p, out of $1.1 billion, or 5.3p a share. This article is for information and discussion purposes only and does not form a recommendation to invest or otherwise. The value of an investment may fall. The investments referred to in this article may not be suitable for all investors, and if in doubt, an investor should seek advice from a qualified investment adviser. |
Posted at 16/3/2015 00:00 by hpcg I am rather intrigued by your stated stance robbie. You would rather lose your entire invested capital because that may (or in practice may not) make other investors poorer. How is that investing? Surely you want to minimise losses, which in this game are inevitable? Why do you want ordinary private investors, pension funds and the like, who hold units with Ashmore and Pimco to lose money? Aren't they just private investors like you? The bond fund managers are simply doing what is best for their investors.In any case company law for England and Wales is explicit that if a firm welches on its debts then the creditors take ownership. That is simply what is happening here. Same as anyone welching on a mortgage loses their house. |
Posted at 07/3/2015 13:28 by accrillium From FoolsMakes for interesting exchange or reasonable minds not overcome by emotions. Hi Paul, Thanks. Now looks like BH's will inject Super Senior Bond ahead of current bonds. The terms may reveal BH's intentions. Will this be conditional on the company agreeing to D4E with Fosun only allowed to participate via a placing. Or will D4E now be the front runner but BH's will consider, if not welcome, alternative proposals up to point of no return. If BH's D4E 100%, Afren unlikely to need additional funding (to the SS Bond). So consensual solution not easy. Perhaps new equity simply replaces SS Bond. I doubt Fosun wants to be a minority shareholder. -------------------- I think the POG restructuring is the obvious model to follow here. It's simple, makes sense and is easy to understand. The figures for long term sustainability under a low oil price environment are worse for Afren than POG has for its own commodity (gold), but there'll be many moving parts here, and it's probably pointless to even try and guess what New Afren will look like. For example, I think Afren should underwrite $850m placing to get rid of this debt POTENTIALLY, but allow existing equity investors, along with new ones to buy as many shares as they want at 1p. For every penny that they don't put in, that amount of debt gets converted to equity at the rights issue/open offer price. The size of the recapitalisation would be so big that it'd allow Fosun etc. to take a very substantial stake. Best case for bondholders (who don't really want equity), is that new investors take up the entire $850m but the problem is that this then leaves the debt in place, albeit $850m fresh funds have been raised. I'm obviously talking extreme situations here. In this particular case, bondholders don't end up putting any new money in, other than what is required via a small, super senior, bond for liquidity purposes. Since debts aren't being paid currently, that won't be much. In reality, I expect the amount of underwriting required to be somewhere between $300-850m. It all depends on how much debt New Afren can reasonably carry, and how existing operations are performing. Along with underwriting of the share issue, I'd expect all bondholders to restructure debt so that maturity extends out several years. In addition, they may be required to take a haircut on their coupon, which makes debt more serviceable in a low oil price environment, even if there is no reduction in the notional amount owed due to new investors "desperate" to get in. An outright haircut (no debt/equity swap) may also be required to encourage new money to come in. Finally - to show I am thinking about this - there is always a reasonable chance that someone buys a significant percentage of the existing shares to try and form a blocking vote for the restructuring and essentially hold everyone to ransom. This isn't too much of a concern, as there are ways they can be crammed down eventually, but it will cause serious delays. From a short perspective, it could also cause serious spikes in the share price as investors are given false hope. This happened with POG, they were inevitably put back in their box. Shares will change hands over the next few weeks to people who have the funds to follow their money in an open offer, and they will all be voting in favour of any restructuring that allows them to take part. Needless to say, the current price of 7p is still daft, given that it values existing equity at £70m (bearing in mind the possible dilution) but I'd expect things to tighten up once a firm proposal is made. Right now, ANYONE buying the equity is completely mad. The bonds are a much better buy, assuming a large debt for equity swap is on its way. That's why I've no intention of closing my short - I'll use shares from the restructuring to do that, as I expect my effective buying price will be at most a fifth of the current price. if I don't get any as the open offer is so successful, there shares will trade at the offer price anyway as dilution will be gargantuan. @WShak1 |
Posted at 07/3/2015 13:26 by accrillium Sense at last.Hi Paul, Thanks. Now looks like BH's will inject Super Senior Bond ahead of current bonds. The terms may reveal BH's intentions. Will this be conditional on the company agreeing to D4E with Fosun only allowed to participate via a placing. Or will D4E now be the front runner but BH's will consider, if not welcome, alternative proposals up to point of no return. If BH's D4E 100%, Afren unlikely to need additional funding (to the SS Bond). So consensual solution not easy. Perhaps new equity simply replaces SS Bond. I doubt Fosun wants to be a minority shareholder. I think the POG restructuring is the obvious model to follow here. It's simple, makes sense and is easy to understand. The figures for long term sustainability under a low oil price environment are worse for Afren than POG has for its own commodity (gold), but there'll be many moving parts here, and it's probably pointless to even try and guess what New Afren will look like. For example, I think Afren should underwrite $850m placing to get rid of this debt POTENTIALLY, but allow existing equity investors, along with new ones to buy as many shares as they want at 1p. For every penny that they don't put in, that amount of debt gets converted to equity at the rights issue/open offer price. The size of the recapitalisation would be so big that it'd allow Fosun etc. to take a very substantial stake. Best case for bondholders (who don't really want equity), is that new investors take up the entire $850m but the problem is that this then leaves the debt in place, albeit $850m fresh funds have been raised. I'm obviously talking extreme situations here. In this particular case, bondholders don't end up putting any new money in, other than what is required via a small, super senior, bond for liquidity purposes. Since debts aren't being paid currently, that won't be much. In reality, I expect the amount of underwriting required to be somewhere between $300-850m. It all depends on how much debt New Afren can reasonably carry, and how existing operations are performing. Along with underwriting of the share issue, I'd expect all bondholders to restructure debt so that maturity extends out several years. In addition, they may be required to take a haircut on their coupon, which makes debt more serviceable in a low oil price environment, even if there is no reduction in the notional amount owed due to new investors "desperate" to get in. An outright haircut (no debt/equity swap) may also be required to encourage new money to come in. Finally - to show I am thinking about this - there is always a reasonable chance that someone buys a significant percentage of the existing shares to try and form a blocking vote for the restructuring and essentially hold everyone to ransom. This isn't too much of a concern, as there are ways they can be crammed down eventually, but it will cause serious delays. From a short perspective, it could also cause serious spikes in the share price as investors are given false hope. This happened with POG, they were inevitably put back in their box. Shares will change hands over the next few weeks to people who have the funds to follow their money in an open offer, and they will all be voting in favour of any restructuring that allows them to take part. Needless to say, the current price of 7p is still daft, given that it values existing equity at £70m (bearing in mind the possible dilution) but I'd expect things to tighten up once a firm proposal is made. Right now, ANYONE buying the equity is completely mad. The bonds are a much better buy, assuming a large debt for equity swap is on its way. That's why I've no intention of closing my short - I'll use shares from the restructuring to do that, as I expect my effective buying price will be at most a fifth of the current price. if I don't get any as the open offer is so successful, there shares will trade at the offer price anyway as dilution will be gargantuan. @WShak1 |
Posted at 06/3/2015 20:15 by elrico "Cooper did not name the new Chinese investors but explained that they would bring in substantial capital in the form of equity, diluting existing shareholders stake."Key word, "dilution" so, sweepstake for the first clown to suggest open at 10? Monday. 2P IS MY GUESTIMATE. Clearly, some PI's did not read beyond, "Cooper did not name the new Chinese investors but explained that they would bring in substantial capital" and jumped in this morning, only to witness bears reap the rewards for patience in the afternoon, because they bothered to read and digest what was reported and made perfectly clear to investors, that they will be wiped out. The lemmings slag, Wass, LM and TW off for having the good grace to warn investors. OK so you hate them because you hate shorters, but you still ignore Cooper? |
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
