Fortune Oil Share Discussion Threads

[alanadale] 21/1/2015 11:19

The Costas Group: Lexus, rje fortune and gwatson who met up with me before last September’s AGM. Did we exchange coordinates? I’m suffering total amnesia on the point but can find no evidence we did.



But if I did leave you my card it would be useful to make contact.

[neptune_tad] 21/1/2015 10:40

Just voted NO along with my wife.

Beware of the scaremongers, it's just a vote whatever the result will apply to all whether you voted yes, no or not at all. At least with a NO vote we may get an improved offer, a YES vote and you definitely won't!

N

[txi] 21/1/2015 09:43

I'm still inclined to vote no unless something positive comes to light in the next few weeks.

[alanadale] 21/1/2015 09:19

That was good digging Del to unearth the average price of CGH shares in CGG at HK7.5. Did you compute this figure yourself or is it buried away in a company statement? It would imply a premium of HK4.5 on the current share price of HK12 and a £180m capital gain.

What I don’t know – perhaps you have some views on this Del – is whether this CGG holding was exclusively bank financed or did Fortune plough cash into the j/v. It must be available somewhere. It would be well worth knowing.

My own gut feeling is the CGG holding is worth £300m net but it would be good to get some numbers.

The CVR, the way it was set up etc is the way to unravel this…

And you know what Del. I’m sure Daniel Chiu would fix you in the eye with a look as open as the day is long and declare he is an honest man.

[tel5] 21/1/2015 09:07

unless things change am also now going to vote no.

[ken536] 20/1/2015 23:21

I will also add my name to the No Vote,
Come on, Let all us PI's Put our names on this BB
saying we will all be saying NO to this 10p offer.
Let's show we still have some fight left in our blood.

[peto] 20/1/2015 21:17

via.con It is all or nothing... the same for all shareholders whichever way we vote.

If you join me and vote no and the vote goes against us we will all still get the 10p per share.... even those who who voted against.

However if we succeed in stopping the scheme to de-list then we all will continue to be shareholders as we are now (even those of us who voted 'yes'), our shares will be no more illiquid than they are now.
It seems highly likely that the true value of our shares will then begin to be realised, as the brothers realise they will have to raise their offer if they want our shares

[afrosia] 20/1/2015 19:34

Look, he cannot delist the company without agreement from the majority of minority shareholders Can people please stop spreading this tiresome, fear mongering nonsense?We have to vote this derisory offer down. It would be sheer folly to accept 10p per share, given the value of the company.

[mutantpoodle] 20/1/2015 17:16

if we learn no other lesson let us make comprehensive notes of ALL director names..and ensure that we have NOTHING to do with any company in which they are involved in the future.
I realise they dont/wont care but it should provide us with a small satisfaction.

[tel5] 20/1/2015 16:56

good posts and hearing the arguments for both camps am now leaning towards accepting the offer and putting cash into a good dividend paying fund . Having waited over 20 years for this share and accumulating at various prices I will have made a small profit though nothing like what was hoped for however lessons have been learnt no 1 being dont invest were the directors hold the majority of the shares and could take the company private on their terms with scant regard for the true worth of the company or for minority shareholders. I suppose it could have been worse could have been invested in lloyds Bank when the shares were riding high or in some hole in the ground mining company that got buried .

[pieball] 20/1/2015 15:54

Agree with you both. Take the dosh, learn and move on.

[exel] 20/1/2015 10:19

Ken and via con, I fully agree with the thrust of your points, but everyone should also remember that this is not just about DC. Vitol looms large in all of this. As Herbert V Prochnow (Legendary US financier) memorably stated "When money talks, there are few interruptions". We should not now 'interrupt' this sad, but inevitable, process. Indeed, we should support it. Let's get very real for one moment - us PI's are neither Prochnow, Vitol nor DC for that matter. We should accept this deal, learn all the lessons, and simply 'move on' before 'something else' kicks off. For example: At the time of the Scottish Referendum, (where OIL revs were a crucial factor) if someone had asked 'what if?' the OIL price collapses by circa 40-50% within just 4 months? They would have been led away by white-coated health professionals. Look at the stats coming out of CHINA NOW (e.g. lowest growth rate in the past 24 years). What next?? Final point - Believe it not, the NEDs actually worked this UP to 10p+5p 'insurance' (just in case a sale of China Gas Holdings may be achieved in the near term - unlikely but not impossible). This is all so far from ideal for 'us lot' - but we must bank the cash residue and simply move on. This is about foldable MONEY not emotion or fairness etc. If looking for the latter, maybe stay away from equity risk investment?, unless one has the clout of a Neil Woodford etc. ex

[via con] 20/1/2015 10:02

Unfortunately Ken I have to agree you, as Danny has reinforced the racial stereotype that you cannot trust business people from his side of the world. I, and others I know, have had a few run ins with the Chinese here in Spain and I´m sorry to say I will no longer do business with anyone from their community any more.

[ken536] 20/1/2015 09:50

Good Post via con, he has already shafted us PI's
It is now a matter of 'Thank God' we will get 10p
It is now time to draw a line under FTO, having
learned a hard lesson on the ethics of the business
people in China, ie Not to be trusted.

[via con] 20/1/2015 09:20

peto I completely disagree.

We all feel that the offer price and especially the zero possibility of a 5p later under values FTO, but this is a game in which the PI has no option but to accept the offer.

Why, because I do not believe that Danny boy will offer us more. The BOD have told us that this is the offer, and if you reject it, the company will simply delist and then our shares become illiquid.

The choice is non existant, we are in the unfortunate position of being between a delisting and a low ball offer.

I know which I prefer, as the rejection of this offer is likely to cause us more pain and losses than accepting it.

We have been royally f@cked over by Danny, he holds all the cards, and we simply have to accept this reality and move on, and be thankful that he hasn´t completely shafted us.

[peto] 19/1/2015 19:20

I will vote to reject the deal. If enough of us minority shareholders do the same it we can stop it. They have placed their bottom offer. On rejection they will have to offer more, as this takeover has been the game plan for a long time. (a firm 15p would probably do it for most here, and it would still be a 'steal'. Or an outside interest may move in to better it.

[wezzo] 19/1/2015 12:59

thanks exel for your reply

[exel] 19/1/2015 09:53

in my non-expert view, wezzo, it (the 5p) would be classed as a part of the deal consideration, if it were to materialise - so it would be liable to CGT (after any losses b/fwd and unused annual allowances etc. but it would not incur income tax). If one assumes that the carried CGT cost of your FTO holding is fully offset against the 10p base consideration, in the first instance, then there would be no further 'cost offset' against the (unlikely) 5p of additional consideration - were the CVR to come good. ex

[wezzo] 19/1/2015 09:32

would the extra 5p be classed as part of the share price.or would it be deemed earnings per share.so liable for tax.

[exel] 18/1/2015 10:56

Been majorly out of touch, so 'big thanks' to all posters on here for your very good inputs above, over the past month. Have just caught up. Like pretty much everyone on here, I would have very much preferred a rather better cash offer. But 'fighting this' risks deferring (or potentially losing!) the 10p in cash, within this tax year. As to the CVR, it does now seem rather unlikely to have any value, contrary to my initially optimistic take, but we shouldn't write it off, completely - nor to any extent 'above zero' should one rely upon it. Also, selling out between now and 'deal settlement' makes very little appeal (at less than 10p with the illusory CVR 5p absolutely abandoned!). So my sober take, today? support this deal with a heavy heart and clear head - and move on. That's now my intention, unless I hear a very compelling reason to change it. ex

[jacks13] 18/1/2015 10:18

Del – that was an interesting article you posted recently:



The shifting of risk from bidder to target might have some justification where the bidder is, or might be, in the dark about the prospects for the future of the target company. But this isn't the case here as we all know, and shows how morally bankrupt this offer is.

Regarding the takeover rules I doubt VSA will have got it wrong.

[del44] 17/1/2015 20:17

This has cropped up a few times on some other boards....I think it is wrong.....
I have copied and pasted it here....

"Following changes to protect AIM shareholders, a company cannot be taken off the market unless it has the support of the majority of minority shareholders.

Not sure if the Chius hold enough for this to kick in, but will have a look. By Afrosia"

FTO is not, nor has never been on AIM. But he may still have a fair point none the less....