Advance Energy Dividends - ADV

Advance Energy Dividends - ADV

Stock Name Stock Symbol Market Stock Type
Advance Energy Plc ADV London Ordinary Share
  Price Change Price Change % Stock Price Last Trade
0.00 0.0% 0.155 00:00:00
Open Price Low Price High Price Close Price Previous Close
0.155 0.155
more quote information »
Industry Sector

Advance Energy ADV Dividends History

Announcement Date Type Currency Dividend Amount Period Start Period End Ex Date Record Date Payment Date Total Dividend Amount

Top Dividend Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 06/12/2022 21:41 by sweet karolina2

You object to being called a mug, yet you applaud someone who has no interest in and knows nothing about ADV and is only here to stalk me because he got it badly wrong and has lost money elsewhere, but won't learn the lessons from it.

Instead of mug, what should I call someone who has been repeatedly warned, but still got themselves trapped in a suspended share that has an at least 80% chance of losing them all their money and a less than 20% chance of just losing them some of their money?

I tend to agree mug is not really enough. Does being repeatedly being proved right, as I have been for the last 6 years about this uber dog with fleas of a company, not afford me at least some credibility if not superiority?

Maybe you would like to make a coherent argument backed by real world evidence why getting trapped in ADV is a sound investment on a risk / reward basis. That way maybe you might have at least some credibility.

Posted at 29/11/2022 15:34 by sweet karolina2
I do understand the nature of the market and the rules it is supposed to operate under and that it rarely does operate under those rules always to the disadvantage of PIs. I also understand the various processes which go on behind the scenes. That is why I don't lose overall because I understand the risks and the rewards and don't invest unless the balance is heavily in my favour.

When you invested you had at best an 80% chance of losing everything. It does not matter what price you bought in at when it goes to 0p you lose everything.

The only AIM Rule 15 shell since Covid, which starts trading on the Standard List (it was delisted from AIM because it could not complete in the 6 months from suspension) on 5th Dec has provided an on paper reward of 50% for those who got in at the very bottom, for those who bought in on the peak of hypes they have a paper loss. I will be watching the first day's trading to see how well the paper gain actually holds up when trading starts. My stalker Boxerdoz is upset because for very sound reasons which I have explained and he can't provide a counter argument, my opinion is it won't hold up well and the paper gain would be best turned into a real gain sooner rather than later. He does not agree, which is fine, however rather than counter the argument he just calls me a troll and stalks me - his loss he is a coward and a fool.

All the shells when they announced the RTOs gave the name of the target. ADV has not done that and still has not done that. Why do you think that is? Let's find out what you really do know about the processes you are relying on to get your £150k+.

On what basis do you expect to get back £150k - pure pipe-dream based on: it is incredibly high risk so the reward must be incredibly high too? You got the first bit right but you have the second bit badly wrong.

Posted at 29/11/2022 07:21 by sweet karolina2
AIM Rule 15 shells are toxic, uberdogs with fleas like ADV are toxic they just send shareholders' money to money heaven ($27m as ADV). They are what you should be keeping a clear path from. When you see that skull symbol on a bottle it is not the label that will hurt you, it is what is inside the bottle.

People who go around cowardly stalking and abusing other people because they don't agree with them are the scumbags and trolls.

Idiots like TCE who think they are clever when they are not, who run around ramping toxic uberdogs should be avoided too as they can be harmful to your wealth.

Those that don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Will you learn this time? Time will tell, it always does.

Posted at 15/11/2022 18:20 by sweet karolina2
Well it looks like the only one of the 5 real world examples of AIM Rule 15 shells since Covid still standing is going to make it all the way back to trading:


UK SPAC has been suspended for well over a year. It lost its AIM listing, but should come back on the Standard List on 6 Dec (still a few hurdles to clear but it should not fall like MTFB did).

At 0.3p most, but not all, people who bought into the shell have theoretically got their money back and some have made a reasonable profit <50%). However to realise that they will need to sell when it returns to trading. That would be fine if the market wants to buy. If the market does not want to buy and lots want to sell then the share price will crash and those theoretical profits will disappear very quickly. Time will tell, but my view is the share price will tank and the company will run out of cash and be doing discounted placings within a year.

The question is was it worth it? Money tied up for over a year. All the anxiety as delay after delay occurred and still no guarantee of being able to bank the profit. That is the reward for the one that worked, the reward for the 4 that did not is 100% loss. Factor that in to a risk reward balance.

There are 2 key differences between UK SPAC and ADV:

UK SPAC started with a decent amount of cash. That went down but there is still a decent amount left on relist. ADV will have none and may well be in a negative cash situation ie it is not a cash shell but a debt shell.

UK SPAC got rid of the old BoD of the business which failed and brought in specialists in doing this sort of thing, who promised and then kept that promise not to trouser the cash for themselves.

Both these factors have been critical in UK SPAC making it back at all and the theoretical profits being there. Effectively the RTO target (a Greek pot company) has paid about £5.5m for about £1.7m in cash and a Standard listing which should cost about £200k. The issue is the Greek pot company probably would not have got a listing if it had not been for the hard work of the specialists on the BoD. The Greek pot BoD could have screwed UK SPAC over and gone for an IPO once the major hurdles were clear, but they did not and again I would see that as being down to the professionalism of the specialist BoD. The specialist BoD resigns on listing leaving it to the Greek pot boys. That; the amount paid for the listing; the obvious lack of cash on listing and how many hurdles, which will need cash and time to over come, before the Greek pot company could become cash generative at PLC level is why I expect the share price to crash on actually starting trading. Time will tell.

I have asked before why would any decent cash generative company want to RTO rather than IPO. The answer is they don't, it is only those that would have major issues doing it alone that see RTO as a better route for them. Companies with major issues that are over priced having paid too much for a listing won't fair well. Hence whilst the most likely (80%) outcome for ADV is no RTO and 0p the 20% case is the company is still an uber dog with fleas no matter what it is called.

Posted at 13/10/2022 17:24 by sweet karolina2
Are you really that thick?

The clue is in the name - AIM Rules apply to AIM listed companies. Don't believe me fine, but surely you believe the uber dog of a company you put your money into:


As an AIM Rule 15 Cash Shell, the Company is required to make an acquisition, or acquisitions, which constitutes a reverse takeover under AIM Rule 14 (including seeking re-admission under the AIM Rules for Companies) within six months from 27 May 2022. Alternatively, within such time period, the Company can seek to become an investing company pursuant to AIM Rule 8, which requires, inter alia, the raising of at least GBP6 million and publication of an admission document. In the event that the Company does not complete a reverse takeover under AIM Rule 14 within such six month period or seek re-admission to trading on AIM as an investing company pursuant to AIM Rule 8 (either being, a "Re-admission Transaction"), the Company's ordinary shares would be suspended from trading pursuant to AIM Rule 40. Thereafter, if a Re-admission Transaction has not been completed within a further six month period, admission to trading on AIM of the Company's ordinary shares would be cancelled.

27 Nov 22 suspended anyway, 27 May 23 delisted. The only asset this little uber dog has right now is cash that runs out very soon and its listing. Don't believe me then believe the audited balance sheet at 30 Apr 22 they have just published.

Keep deluding yourself as much as you like, you are trapped anyway, but maybe it might be worth learning the lessons for next time?

Posted at 02/9/2022 13:40 by the chairman elect
BOBBIE8702 Sep '22 - 14:35 - 98 of 98

big talk of a jv between clon and adv on a new project

Posted at 02/9/2022 13:35 by bobbie870
big talk of a jv between clon and adv on a new project

Posted at 30/7/2022 17:52 by sweet karolina2
An example of another AIM rule 15 cash shell RTO that went wrong and the company was delisted. Last placing was on 20 Jan 21 (shortly after becoming rule 15) at 0.6p. It was suspended at 1.15p (mid) but people were paying over 3p in the months leading up to suspension, excited at the prospect of an RTO.



"As at 1 July 2021, the Company's cash position (net of current liabilities) was approximately GBP1.9 million." [A hell of a lot more than ADV currently has, even after the placing.]

"Completion of the Proposed Transaction remains subject to certain matters including:

a) commencement and satisfactory completion of all necessary due diligence;
b) completion of a fundraising shortly proposed to be undertaken by Blue Air;
c) exchange and completion of the SPA;
d) approval by Ridgecrest's shareholders, at a general meeting to be convened in due course (the "General Meeting"), of the Proposed Transaction;

e) the raising of an appropriate amount of new equity funds for the enlarged group (the "Placing");

f) the obtaining of a Rule 9 waiver by the UK Takeover Panel in respect of the proposed issue of new shares to Cristian Rada and his brother; and

g) readmission of the enlarged share capital of the Company to trading on AIM."


"Ridgecrest, an AIM Rule 15 cash shell, has terminated negotiations on its proposed reverse takeover of Blue Air*. This is a consequence of Blue Air's inability to raise the pre-RTO funding that was the principal condition of the non-binding heads of agreement between Ridgecrest and Blue Air's vendors referred to in Ridgecrest's announcement of 6 July 2021."


"Ridgecrest Plc (formerly Nakama Group Plc) became an AIM Rule 15 cash shell ("AIM Cash Shell") on 5 January 2021. As a result of not announcing a reverse takeover within 6 months of becoming an AIM Cash Shell, trading in Ridgecrest's shares was suspended on AIM on 6 July 2021, in accordance with the AIM Rules for Companies (the "AIM Rules"). As it has not been possible for Ridgecrest to undertake and conclude a reverse takeover within 12 months of the Company becoming an AIM Cash Shell, admission of Ridgecrest's shares to trading on AIM will be cancelled at 7.00 a.m. on 7 January 2022 ("Cancellation")."

It has since "listed" on JP Jenkins and made a small investment in some no hope business:

jtourer31 Mar '22 - 11:45 - 1589 of 1604
0 2 0
I wouldnt have known about this if you hadnt posted, as I have never previously heard of JP Jenkins. Nor is it on their web-site. So I thank you but are just more annoyed with this company.
starpukka31 Mar '22 - 12:09 - 1590 of 1604
0 0 0
Does this at all increase the chances of us getting some of our money back ?
Orange131 Mar '22 - 12:31 - 1591 of 1604
0 0 0
Not if this company information is anything to go by:

jtourer22 Apr '22 - 10:48 - 1592 of 1604
0 0 0
Has anyone tried trading any of these shares ?
Festario22 Apr '22 - 11:13 - 1593 of 1604
0 0 0
It’s basically impossible
jtourer22 Apr '22 - 11:34 - 1594 of 1604
0 0 0
So they effectively have run off with our cash then !
Festario22 Apr '22 - 11:37 - 1595 of 1604
0 0 0
Pretty much.....
Although I hear murmurings of possibilities in the future.
But it’s all very amateurish.
jtourer31 May '22 - 16:55 - 1596 of 1604
0 1 0
From what I can see here the Directors of this company have done just enough to both stop the possibility of any fraud inquiries and also to stop holders recouping any of their cash. They seem to know what they are doing in this respect.

Sounds a lot like an uber dog with fleas, unfortunately for them ADV is MY favourite uber dog with fleas and I don't try to cover any others.

Posted at 28/7/2022 18:57 by sweet karolina2
Run around ramper has got it WRONG again because he is just so arrogant and opinionated and knows sweet FA about the process.

The Chairman Elect28 Jul '22 - 09:05 - 2712 of 2712
0 0 0
On the assumption that everyone who frequents these BBs is over 18 then any of the risks associated with shells and RTOs aka @ LSE:ADV are taken as read [He has no idea what they are because he knows Sweet FA but he thinks he is clever - the most dangerous kind of fool]!

Of course LSE:ADV is high risk [RIGHT] but also extremely high reward [badly WRONG] - you pays yer money yer and you take yer chances! [only if you are a total mug punter]

Good luck to all REAL shareholders @ LSE:ADV

It costs about £500k to get an AIM listing (about £200k for Standard list) ADV just raised enough to get through the readmission process, which will take at least 3 months from Heads of Terms, when the shares will be suspended.

What does ADV have that adds any value over and above its listing? - any cash not swallowed up by the directors and that is it. It also comes with a lot of baggage.

Why would a company want an AIM listing? - the answer is very very simple - to be able to raise money by issuing shares. So whatever RTOs in will do a placing at the RTO price to raise whatever it needs.

How is the RTO company valued? - that is what most of the due diligence and other stuff ADV has said it has raised the money to do is about. The RTO company will also do DD on ADV to make sure there are no nasty surprises lurking - there are examples where skeletons have come out of the closet after the RTO and screwed the RTO company.

So how much to pay for an RTO into ADV as opposed to an IPO? - the timescales are about the same and the costs are about the same. Pretty simple £500k plus any cash left when you get there - any more than that and you are paying more than it is worth (not a good idea to do that when you want to convince new investors to invest in you). If the RTO company pays much more, the RTO company is screwing its own existing shareholders and is less likely to be able to raise the money in the placing. The RTO company does not have to do an RTO at all - it can IPO or it could use any shell if it still wants to RTO. ADV HAS to do an RTO or it delists and goes to 0p. The RTO company therefore holds all the aces and a gun to ADV BoD head.

An example to make the maths easy. The RTO Company is worth £10m and wants to raise £9m before placing fees (normally 5%). It agrees to value ADV at £1m. With 1.5Bn shares already in issue that is an RTO price of 0.066p and that will also be the placing price, but if the Brokers can't get the placing away at that price then it will come down or the whole thing falls apart has happened plenty of times before. In this example there are 30Bn shares at the end and will probably do a 50 or 100 to 1 consolidation. Assuming 100 to 1, shares start trading agin a 6.6p and this might be where run around ramper thinks money has been made but he would be WRONG yet again.

So where is the REAL reward for REAL ADV shareholders? There isn't one.

Ahh but what if the share price shoots up after the RTO. Entirely possible but not inevitable as it depends on what is RTOed in and whether the market likes it or not. If you like what is being RTOed in and want some then, when you know what it is and decide you like it, just sign up with the broker to take part and get all the readmission documentation CPRs etc and DYOR before you decide to part with your cash at 0.066p. Far less risk that way and far greater reward too.

So the run around ramper who knows sweet FA is not really bringing anyone good luck but is putting a curse on anyone daft enough to blindly buy in on his mindless run around ramping.

Posted at 13/2/2022 13:10 by sweet karolina2
The mistake made by all investors (II, SI, PI) here was the failure to assess the risks properly and then balance them against the genuine potential rewards.

At a project level the risk / reward balance was marginal:

BHP identified the attic as a target but did not drill it.

The people BHP sold the field to did not drill the attic.

CVN said it could fund drilling itself but then went out to find someone to pay for the drilling.

Only ADV was interested because they were desperate to do something and CVN were happy to let ADV take all the financial risk, not just of this stage but for the whole development: RNS 17 Dec 20 "Assuming drilling success at the B-10 appraisal well and, among other things, the parties agreeing a field development plan, Advance Energy has agreed to source and arrange development financing up to first oil, which is expected to be primarily in the form of debt [70:30 is the best they could have hoped for but with something like this 60:40 would be more likely which would have left ADV with a lot more equity to raise]."

It was obvious to anyone with any experience at all that the risk assessment in the CPR was nonsense - 95% chance of 1C when the definition of 1C is 90% of that volume being there, if you hit it at all. To stand any chance of funding development in the manner proposed, 2C volumes being demonstrated as recoverable would have been needed: definition of 2C is 50% if you manage to hit the target at all and there aren't then complications with parts of the reservoir being trapped or having insufficient permeability - very few reservoirs can be recovered from just one access point - look at the number of holes BHP drilled to bring into productions the parts of the field that were brought into production.

The structure of the deal made a marginal risk / reward into an insane risk / reward balance for ADV, but a great one for CVN. Further the existing equity and the admin costs made the readmission investment even more insane: Pay £20m for less than 80% (Mcap at placing price was £26m) to enable $20m to be put into a marginal project for only 50% of the potential reward, whilst taking all the funding risk up to first oil!

Having raised the money ADV could not have pulled out and done something else [Dave Whitby was a crook who did not drill the well he raised the money for but instead squandered it on paying himself and doing related party transactions]. This BoD are not as good as they claim to be, but they are not crooks like Whitby.

All the talk of acquiring a non operated stake in producing and already cash generative assets sounds great, because they are clearly far lower risk. But then so are the rewards. With the running costs of the company taken out of any dividends paid back to ADV, $20m would not provide any return to ADV shareholders - those shareholders would be far better off using the money to buy shares in BP and Shell in the market.

The idea that ADV could now get debt, when it has no assets on which to secure it, to fund a non operated stake in a producing cash generative field and that would provide returns which covered the running costs of ADV, servicing the debt and creating returns to shareholders is completely ludicrous. Yes there are such stakes available, but they are not given away and ADV has nothing extra to offer so any deal would favour the vendor (exactly as the B10 deal favoured CVN). If ADV did manage to raise some money then it would again do a bad deal, because it would be desperate to do a deal to keep the mugpunters believing so more discounted bucket shop placings could be done to keep the gravy train on the rails for the BoD and the advisers.

Those looking to blame someone else for what has happened here are failing to learn the lessons from their own investing mistakes. Investing is all about risk / reward balance. What investors did here was gamble on a single spin of the wheel and when it did not come up as a winner try to avoid looking at themselves as the cause of their losses.

Put yourselves on trial. Why did you put your money in here? why did you not work out that it was a bad investment?: Everything I have said above was freely available info in the public domain at the time you bought in. Find yourselves guilty because you are, then sentence yourselves to either learning how these things work and how to do proper research before investing or to investing only in FTSE 100 or through established fund managers who have a market beating track record over several years.

Nobody who did proper research would buy shares in ADV or any of the other AIM uber dogs that destroy wealth whilst funding the lifestyles of BoDs and advisers until the gravy train finally hits the buffers and they move on to the next one whilst leaving PI's with nothing and no one but themselves to blame.

Your Recent History
Advance En..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

Log in to ADVFN
Register Now

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20221210 04:55:39