We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Leyshon Energy | LSE:LEN | London | Ordinary Share | VGG5476A1049 | ORD NPV (DI) |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.00 | 0.00% | 4.00 | - | 0.00 | 00:00:00 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | N/A | 0 |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
21/1/2015 10:05 | SOS, Warren Buffet has a lifetime average of 20% per year, you consider that a waste of time? You only need a low figure to beat interest rates and develop a good compound return. I got 19% last year after 30% the year before, returns I consider to be fantastic. I aim at 5%, anything more is a bonus. | rcturner2 | |
21/1/2015 09:41 | rct2- odd gem still pops up on the AIM , kibo is one i bought at 2p and sold all the way up to 12p but that's a exception but your right about most of them being rubbish,i only invested in stock market to get returns in excess of 30% otherwise it's a waste of time.. unless things change this year i can see alot of people now walking away from small caps.. | sos100 | |
21/1/2015 09:21 | I think far too many PIs target a completely unrealistic return and this is why they are hooked on rubbish shares on AIM and why the directors of these companies just carry on shamelessly milking AIM. A realistic return is 5-10% a year and once you accept that there is no need to go anywhere near AIM as there are plenty of good stocks that will deliver that return at relatively low levels of risk. | rcturner2 | |
21/1/2015 09:08 | "In the time it takes to get your money back you could make that as profit elsewhere...." Yeah, I admire your optimistic outlook RCT. I'd do the same as you and clear out all my AIM O&G minnows were it not for the humiliation I'd feel as I sent the figures to my accountant in a few months time. I'm taking a certain amount of comfort from PA's holding in the company. | scallywag | |
21/1/2015 08:31 | papillon, I have now sold all my AIM minnows and have decided to give O&G a miss. There are so many good shares out there it saddens me that so many private investors love chucking their money away on AIM. In 2013 O&G was one of only 3 sectors on AIM that showed a negative return and in 2014 the AIM O&G index lost 40% yet still it is as popular as ever. The average AIM O&G investor lost 40% last year, yet all the PIs think they are great investors and can beat the average. I am average at best and so I only seek those areas where the average return is positive! | rcturner2 | |
21/1/2015 07:43 | PA owns 12.5% of company(31m shares) , so he is the one most concerned about share price I'm not worried at all. I think we'll get more money than the current share price anyhow. Cash is more than 4P and we have the asset too on top of that. DYOR | trade75 | |
20/1/2015 19:54 | "or at least have fun losing it". Unfortunately most will put their money into speculative AIM losers so perhaps it would be better to ignore RCT's advice. | papillon | |
20/1/2015 19:35 | "In the time it takes to get your money back you could make that as profit elsewhere...." ... or at least have fun losing it. | boadicea | |
20/1/2015 18:27 | scallywag, you are ignoring the fact you have to wait for the money. In the time it takes to get your money back you could make that as profit elsewhere, which when added to the risk of something going wrong I cannot believe it is worth seeing this out to the end. | rcturner2 | |
20/1/2015 17:58 | Leyshon Energy to return cash to shareholders and cancel AIM listing News Jan 20, 2015 Leyshon packs up in China By Amy McLellan Twelve months on from its demerger from Leyshon Resources, and Chinese gas explorer Leyshon Energy is planning to return more than US$15 million in cash to shareholders and cancel its AIM listing. It follows a run of poor results from its Zijinshan project in China and the failure to bring in partners or identify other opportunities against a backdrop of uncertainty and price volatility. Shareholders will vote on the proposals at the end of this month. As we reported last month, the company initiated a strategic review to consider its options. Beijing-based Leyshon isn’t short of cash – it has cash of US$24.6 million against estimated liabilities of between US$8.6 million and US$9.3 million – but it is opportunity poor after mixed results from the Zijinshan block on the eastern fringes of the Ordos Basin and the slump in the oil price rendered other target opportunities marginal. Against this backdrop it makes sense to cancel the listing to preserve cash – including associated Directors’ and professional advisers’ fees, this costs around £500,000 per annum – and to return funds to shareholders. It is currently estimated that such cash distribution will be around US$15.4 million, or around 4.1 pence per share. The cancellation of the AIM listing is proposed for February 10. The company will then adopt a simplified Memorandum and Articles of Association and go into hibernation as a shell company. Once all liabilities have been settled, there will be general meeting at which shareholders will be asked to consider winding-up the company or any alternative business proposal. If the company is wound up, the appointed liquidator will make a final distribution of any residual cash. It’s a disappointing end to a company that had hoped to push ahead with unconventional gas in China’s Ordos basin but, as we have seen too often on AIM, there are worse outcomes for shareholders than having a cash distribution. Indeed, analyst Malcolm Graham Wood of Hydrocarbon Capital said this was “probably the best bet for now” and suggested investors keep an eye out on what the management team does next “as pound for pound it has one of the most experienced groups of industry guys I have seen for a while”. This includes ex BG executive Kim Howell, who was appointed non-executive chairman in November after former chair John Manzoni stepped down following his appointment as the first ever chief executive of the Civil Service of the British Government MD Paul Atherley is a former senior investment banker with HSBC while non-executive director Tony Megg has more than 30 years in the oil and gas industry, most recently serving as executive VP for Talisman and before than as group VP of BP, where he was head of group technology until 2008. | papillon | |
20/1/2015 17:45 | I'm wondering why there seems to be a ready market in hoovering up shares at quite close to the 4.1p figure. It makes me wonder if there's something else going on. | huxley1 | |
20/1/2015 17:11 | boadicea - a good point and well made. Some of mine are in an ISA - it would be a shame to lose their value from the ISA. | scallywag | |
20/1/2015 17:01 | RCTurner2 - admittedly there is an element of risk, but I wouldn't think it's too high. In my case there would be a difference of £420 between selling at the best price now and hanging on for 4.1p, assuming the ex-entitlement shares are worth nothing. | scallywag | |
20/1/2015 16:59 | I have been trying to work out the likely effect where shares are held in an ISA. The two most relevant indications seem to be; "....the Directors have notified the London Stock Exchange of the date of the proposed Cancellation as being 10 February 2015." - and: "It is expected that the cash distribution will be finally determined by the Directors shortly after the General Meeting and paid, as soon as practicable, to Shareholders on the company's register of members as at the date of Cancellation." Interpretation of regulations by nominee brokers often vary - in practice if not in intent. However, if the proceeds are paid to the holders "as at the date of Cancellation", there is no question that the money belongs definitively in the ISA even if there is a delay and the money actually arrives after the emaciated shares have been ejected following delisting. The ability of some nominees to recognise and cope with such a situation is, unfortunately and from past experience, questionable. I therefore suggest this reference, "... paid, as soon as practicable, to Shareholders on the company's register of members as at the date of Cancellation." - is well noted and used to batter any ISA nominees who fail to comply if the situation arises. | boadicea | |
20/1/2015 14:18 | yes,done some more research and seems to me to be a return of capital under the so-called 'good tax capital' provision if so the cash received would represent a part disposal for cgt purposes | richman777114 | |
20/1/2015 10:30 | Why risk anything going wrong here? Just sell and put the money into something that might actually make progress. | rcturner2 | |
20/1/2015 10:12 | I also think a return of capital is the most likely mode of payment, in which case richman777114's suggestion of selling ex entitlement seems the least messy way of escaping the situation, provided there is a reasonable period before the listing is cancelled. | scallywag | |
20/1/2015 10:09 | Perhaps an issue of b shares on a 1 for 1 basis, with the b shares having immediate redemption at 4.1p after issue. That was the method used in a recent similar situation in which I was involved. | flyfisher | |
20/1/2015 09:14 | Looking at the balance sheet, it is clear that the payment must be a return of capital unless court sanction is first obtained to write of accumulated losses against capital. (Dividends have to be paid from earnings and cannot legally be made from capital.) I see little possibility that the company would take the time and incur the expense of making any other arrangement. So what is the simplest/cheapest option? Probably buy in and cancel shares, possibly by tender offer? Suggestions?? | boadicea | |
19/1/2015 22:12 | boadicea interesting the circular is silent on the precise nature of the distribution and the tax consequences - wonder when we'll find out? also i presume the stock will go ex-entitlement at some point prior to the distribution (again circular silent on this) enabling us to sell at the last minute for a maximised sale price and a clean cgt position and no income tax? (assuming that is the treatment of the distribution) bit murky isn't it? | richman777114 | |
19/1/2015 21:13 | I would expect it to be done as a return of capital corresponding to a reorganisation of the company reducing its capital base. If classed as divi income, then OK in an ISA, otherwise tax of 22.5% (as an addition to 10% tax credit) for a 40% payer, assuming it is treated as UK rather than foreign income. Large companies often provide two parallel options, to take as income or capital with a deferment option to the following tax year, but most unlikely LEN will do that. However, given the questions that arise, one can see why many punters prefer to take the simple sell-now option. It also avoids the potential problem of ejection of capital from an ISA which could occur if the process becomes prolonged. | boadicea | |
19/1/2015 17:51 | does anyone know the tax treatment of the proposed distribution? my research suggests that it may be treated as income which would mean a tax liability for 2014/15(!!)followed by a negligible value claim for cgt purposes in 2015/16 when the company goes into liquidation(thus establishing the capital loss) bit messy, cashflow negative and more punitive tax position for a higher rate taxpayer | richman777114 | |
19/1/2015 14:16 | The supporting evidence I have used has usually been a report, issued by the administrator or receiver for the company in wind-up, expressing the opinion that there is no likelihood of any return to unsecured creditors. This may appear as a regulatory RNS or perhaps subsequently on the company web-site. Alternatively, for a holding that has been virtually diluted out of existence, evidence that the proceeds of disposal based on recent market transactions would not cover the fees incurred in the disposal process. I assume HMRC do not examine each case in minute detail and generally appear to me to treat claimants with a clean returns record as being genuine if there is no obvious discrepancy. | boadicea | |
19/1/2015 10:50 | boadicea - I'm all too familiar with the HMRC negligible value list - probably a reflection of the companies I tend to put money into! I thought that it excludes companies which are listed on AIM, so to claim a loss for an unlisted private company would be more difficult still. However from what you say, it sounds as if they don't require much by way of evidence. Thanks, that's useful info...... | scallywag |
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