ADVFN Logo

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for charts Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.

APF Anglo Pacific Group Plc

157.00
0.00 (0.00%)
28 Mar 2024 - Closed
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Anglo Pacific Group Plc LSE:APF London Ordinary Share GB0006449366 ORD 2P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.00% 157.00 157.60 158.60 - 0.00 00:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover Profit EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap
0 0 N/A 0

Anglo Pacific Share Discussion Threads

Showing 8401 to 8424 of 13025 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  341  340  339  338  337  336  335  334  333  332  331  330  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
27/10/2015
15:39
Here is the old (but apparently ignored by various posters) news.

As announced on the 16th October 2015 the company changed it's listing on the LSE from premium to standard effective that day.

As announced later (DYOR)in the "no undisclosed reason" announcement the company also stated that the reason for the share price movement fall may have been the result of an index fund that no longer having a mandate to hold the stock subsequent to the listing change was required to sell it's holding. There were no undisclosed issues.

The share price fell about 10p in one day about this time when volume rose to over one million shares.DYOR.This day's volume seems to back up their view.More interestingly the deal or deals were done in very difficult markets.

Anyone who wants can read the company website.

bolador
27/10/2015
11:21
I don't know for certain, but I very strongly suspect that such "The Company is not aware of any reason ..." statements are generally the result of regulators reckoning there are rumours circulating about major undisclosed information - rumours strong enough to significantly affect the share price, so that a false market is developing in the shares. They then approach the company and (in essence) say "You really need to resolve the situation - if you are aware that there is undisclosed information, disclose it; if you aren't, say so" (either option should resolve the false market, though in opposite directions!).

My impression is also that once the regulators do approach the company, the company announcement generally occurs within a day or two. For example, a common sequence is that press reports speculate about takeover approaches to the company, people take the speculation seriously enough that the share price starts rising, and within a day or two, the company either announces that an approach or approaches have been made, or makes a "notes the recent rise in the share price and is not aware of any reason for it" announcement.

So with regard to your point 1, I think the company is probably responding to such an approach from the regulators and the timing is basically down to the regulators having a concern about whether everything that should be disclosed has been, not to the company taking a lot of time to notice the share price falls and/or prepare an announcement.

And with regard to your point 2, agreed - but it would be ridiculous to expect companies to keep on announcing already-disclosed information!

Gengulphus

gengulphus
26/10/2015
09:03
The RNS gave me a chuckle too:

"Anglo Pacific Group PLC ("Anglo Pacific", or the "Company") (LSE: APF, TSX: APY), the London and Toronto listed royalty company, notes the recent weakness in the Company's share price and would like to advise the market that it is not aware of any undisclosed reason for this decline."

1. It's taken a while to get it out!
2. No "..Undisclosed reason.." - but plenty of disclosed ones! Production issues, coal price, paying divis partly out of capital..

Still - at least they've got something out eventually.

spectoacc
26/10/2015
08:48
Unusual RNS this morning in my view.

In my opinion only,for a not insignificant part the recent price weakness is because the investing communities may or may not more and more be becoming alert to the headwinds in:

1. Power-station coal
2. Steel-making coal
3. The growing vigour of anti C02 movement and the forthcoming climate change conference.


and may or may not be readjusting various exposures and certain investments accordingly.

ALL IMO. DYOR.
QP

quepassa
25/10/2015
13:54
RCTurner2
25 Oct'15 - 10:11 - 7678 of 7678 1 0 (Filtered)

neilyb675
25/10/2015
10:11
blind leading the blind

coal has two massive headwinds, reduced Chinese construction and increased political pressure

quite why you want to invest in a company with 2 massive headwinds is beyond me

look for companies with tailwinds

rcturner2
25/10/2015
10:03
excellent posts christh
neilyb675
24/10/2015
21:19
facts about coal

South Africa's coal reserves are estimated at 53 billion tonnes, and with our present production rate there should be almost 200 years of coal supply left

In 2005, coal produced 49.7% of the electricity supply in the United States, according to the Energy Literacy website .

christh
24/10/2015
21:17
The advantages of coal

Coal is characterised by:

Security of supply and price predictability;
Wide and long-lasting reserves;
Cost-effectiveness;
Labour intensiveness;
Safety in transportation, storage and handling;
Environmental friendly.

Gas reserves are located in a few countries, instable on the political level, such as Algeria and Russia. World reserves of coal are geographically distributed in more than 100 countries and its reserves are placed in very different areas also from the point of view of national political stability.










hxxp://www.assocarboni.it/index.php/en/the-coal/the-advantages-of-coal

christh
24/10/2015
21:12
Obama's carbon reduction plan under attack from 24 states and Republicans
Published: 23 Oct 2015


IEA report on benefits of coal is 'deeply misleading'
Published: 23 Oct 2015

christh
24/10/2015
21:03
Two dozen states sue Obama over coal plant emissions rule
By Timothy Cama - 10/23/15 08:51 AM EDT

A coalition of 24 states and a coal mining company filed lawsuits Friday to challenge the most significant piece of President Obama’s environmental agenda, his signature climate change rule for power plants.

The litigants accuse the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of going far beyond the authority Congress granted to it by ordering a significant transformation of states’ electricity generation, moving away from fossil fuels like coal and toward lower-carbon sources like wind and solar power.

They are asking the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to overturn the rule. They also want the court to immediately stop its implementation while it works its way through the courts.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), who is leading the legal fight against the plan, called it “the single most onerous and illegal regulations that we’ve seen coming out of D.C. in a long time.”

On a call with reporters, Morrisey repeated many of the long-held arguments against the rule: that it will hurt his state’s coal mining industry, raise power rates for consumers and risk electricity reliability.

“EPA’s rule is flatly illegal and one of the most aggressive executive branch power grabs we’ve seen in a long time,” he said. “The EPA cannot do what it intends to do legally.”

Morrissey said he wants the court to rule on a stay “as soon as possible.” He noted it took a federal judge about a month to delay an EPA water regulation earlier this month, and said that could be a “guidepost” for how long litigation might take.

The climate rule, dubbed the Clean Power Plan, seeks a 32 percent cut in the power sector’s carbon emissions by 2030, compared with 2005 levels. Each state has been assigned a specific emissions goal based on its unique circumstances, with flexibility in how the goals are met.

West Virginia and Murray led a similar coalition in two lawsuits earlier this year against the regulation that were deemed premature by the D.C. court. The first was before the final rule had been announced, and the second was in August, before it was published in the Federal Register.

The Obama administration has been steadfast in its defense of the legal backing of the rule.

The EPA said its rule is legal and will pass all court challenges.

“The Clean Power Plan has strong scientific and legal foundations, provides states with broad flexibilities to design and implement plans, and is clearly within EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a Friday statement.

“We are confident we will again prevail against these challenges and will be able to work with states to successfully implement these first-ever national standards to limit carbon pollution the largest source of carbon emissions in the United States,” she said.

The West Virginia and Murray lawsuits came the day the rule was published in the Federal Register, the first day court challenges can legally be filed.

The states joining West Virginia are Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Arizona and North Carolina.

The attorneys general of 15 liberal states, along with the District of Columbia and New York City, are planning to intervene in the lawsuit to support the EPA.

Those state and city officials, led by New York State, said in August that they “fully anticipate defending the rules if they are challenged in court.”

Friday also marks the first day lawmakers can file challenges under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to quickly overturn regulations.

Lawmakers are mobilizing quickly against the new climate change rule from President Obama, announcing they will file formal congressional challenges on Monday.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Friday said he and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) will introduce a CRA resolution to block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pollution standards for new power plants.

Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) will introduce a resolution opposing the EPA’s existing power plant rule at the same time. McConnell’s office said he will schedule a vote on the resolutions shortly afterward.

“I have vowed to do all I can to fight back against this administration on behalf of the thousands of Kentucky coal miners and their families, and this CRA is another tool in that battle,” McConnell said in a statement.

“The CRAs that we will file will allow Congress the ability to fight these anti-coal regulations.”

In the House, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) will introduce the resolutions.

christh
23/10/2015
08:49
I was expecting this to happen but waiting for some tangible news prior to posting.

Bad news on metallurgical/steel-making coal.

The world's second-largest exporter of steel-making coal after BHP, is called Teck which is based in Canada.

Teck have just recorded a humongous impairment charge on its balance sheet valuations of its coal assets in its results for Q3. Teck recorded an impairment of almost C$2billion ( approx £1billion) on its balance-sheet valuations for steel-making coal.

Teck's valuations of its assets are based on projected future prices of coal. Teck has written its coal assets down because it has reduced its key assumptions for the future price of steel-making coal.

According to an article in MorningStar, the reason for this CS2billion write-down reflects EXPECTATIONS FOR LOWER COMMODITY PRICES OVER THE SHORT, MEDIUM AND LONG TERMS.

If a Company of the size of Teck which is the second largest exporter of steel coal writes down asset valuations, this is public domain information from a very verifiable and highly-trusted source.

It would not surprise me if external auditors for other companies would not equally point to Teck's actions and require other holders of investments in metallurgical coal assets equally to reexamine their future price assumptions built into the dcf valuations of their holdings.

If Teck have written down the value of their steel-making assets, one can but wonder to oneself if others may or may not (have to ) follow suit.

The Teck impairment story is widely found on the web. But here is a link to the referenced Morningstar article.

If you want to believe that prices will rise and that everything is fine for the prospects of coking coal, I recommend that you do not read this article:




Several posters have asserted in the past that steel-making coal was much more resilient to market-related price movements than thermal coal. This would now appear to me to be a very shaky thesis.


ALL IMO. DYOR.
QP

quepassa
23/10/2015
06:56
The price of steel has more than halved in the last 12 months, as Chinese demand has dropped through the floor.
rcturner2
23/10/2015
06:53
The price of coal and steel will go up now as China has the monopoly.
Coal is the cheapest form of energy and a vital ingredient in the steel industry.
The shareprice is heavily overdone.
Expect the results to show the market that the company is doing very well.

christh
22/10/2015
10:26
It has been saddening over the past few weeks to hear of the demise of steel-making in the UK as major factories are forced to close down due to falling steel prices and falling demand combined with cheap overseas imports.

So far, SSI, Tata and Caparo have been victims with several old and historic steel mills being closed or mothballed and with thousands of redundancies for steel workers.

The troubles in the steel-making industries are however not just limited to the UK.

Yesterday The FT reported that the fifth largest steel-maker in the world, Posco of South Korea,reported the biggest quarterly loss in its history and forecast a loss for the full-year citing a slowdown in China construction combined with increasing supply within China as main causes.

The FT article suggests that China are selling steel and "cutting prices even at the cost of widening losses"

The FT yesterday continues by saying that this has prompted a collapse in global steel prices which on Monday were quoted at $170 a tonne compared to $480 at the beginning of the year.

That is an enormous fall.

As metallurgical coal is a vital ingredient of steel-making, I cannot help but wonder to myself and surmise that the woes in steel-making must have an increasingly significant impact on coking/metallurgical coal prices and demand.

The FT picks up the Posco story again today in it influential Lex Column on page 14.

The Lex article is nicely headed " Posco: Still no steel".

The article makes fascinating reading and concludes:

" The steel industry outlook remains dire, with excess capacity and moribund demand from the biggest market, China. Last year, Posco paid out dividends more than 100% of its earnings - this may be hard to sustain.
There are others in the steel complex taking a similarly generous approach including BHP. The last time it yielded 4% was September. Its share price has fallen a quarter since. It now yields 7 per cent. A juicy yield is not enough to offset a dire backdrop".


It seems to me that coking/metallurgical coal cannot/will not entirely escape the pain and woe and "dire backdrop" being widely felt elsewhere in the steel-making sector to which it is tied and beholden.



ALL IMO> DYOR.
QP

quepassa
20/10/2015
14:04
At 71p bid, to the best of my knowledge this is a ten-year low.

Hardly surprising in my opinion given the poor state of the coal markets.

Everyone will have seen the dreadful closures of steel plant in the UK over the last few days and weeks with thousands of steel-making jobs being lost and once great names like Caparo having such difficulty.

This does not bode well for the fortunes of metallurgical coal in my view when so much capacity is being taken out of the market and cheap imported steel is flooding the markets.

This continues to be a very unsupportive back-drop in my view for APF and its share price.

Any investor who took up the recent rights issue is already more than 10% under-water.


ALL IMO. DYOR.
QP

quepassa
20/10/2015
13:35
It's a free country.

If Neil had paid attention to me, he wouldn't have bought this at over 200p. Lacking is certainly the word to describe Neil and Chris.

rcturner2
20/10/2015
13:29
the fact that holders are filtering you suggests the merit is lacking in your posts
shaikan not stirred
20/10/2015
13:26
The very fact that holders are trying to shut down debate shows how nervous they are about the company IMHO.
rcturner2
20/10/2015
13:20
I get info from others. I post what I think.

It isn't rocket science.

Sorry it upsets you.

rcturner2
20/10/2015
13:16
"engage with other investors"

if they have you filtered or tell you they don't appreciate your neg views is that what you call engaging..? how does that work out for you, is it a one way street of communication, very weird.

shaikan not stirred
20/10/2015
13:12
I post here to give my view on the company and engage with other investors.

You don't know what a bulletin board is?

rcturner2
20/10/2015
13:11
you never answered the question (conveniently)
shaikan not stirred
20/10/2015
13:05
lollllll

APF and GKP

How much have you lost?

rcturner2
Chat Pages: Latest  341  340  339  338  337  336  335  334  333  332  331  330  Older

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock