Amerisur Resources Share Discussion Threads

[francis55] 31/1/2017 15:54

You know the old story - greedy directors taking what they can and then failing to find oil in significant quantity and the share price goes south to nil and the company goes bust. Anyone remember Rockhopper? There are waves of this with Amerisur time and time again but fortunately they do have some oil to sell. Im in until year ends are published in April and hopefully from loss to profit with price of oil and capex reduction with OBA should produce a small uplift but i will stay in if its breaches the daunting tasks of that ellusive 33p mark...

[foiledagain] 31/1/2017 15:34

Tony, I agree with you, as it is the exercising of an option that makes it a benefit giving an instant tax liability.

But exercising was a matter of choice its not a requirement.

If it was negligible and only to pay tax with no benefit to them at all, then they could easily have not exercised the options at all but they chose to exercise 3,000,000 options, and dispose of 1,500,000 with 750,000 each being sold into the market, which along with sentiment did shareholders no favours, plus ending up with their holding being increased by 750,000 shares at no cost.

They should have been ashamed to have taken up the options under the circumstances in my opinion, but it demonstrates admirably that some see Amerisur as a vehicle for their own individual wealth which does not seem to have computed into increased shareholder value.

There is still the question as to why if the potentially 'transformational' or 'imminent' news was in the offing, would they want to sell at all, as the tax liability would surely be minimal compared to the effect of the transformational imminent news on the sp?

The fact the share price has decreased from that date suggests its own story.

[charlieeee] 31/1/2017 13:09

Foiled

You need to distinguish between "vesting" and "exercising" and they were doing the latter, which is why TR's excellent explanation applies.

They had to "exercise" before 20/01/2017 otherwise the already vested options would have expired as per previous post.

[tonyrelaxes] 31/1/2017 12:27

Foiled.
The exercise of an option is a 'benefit' that gives an 'instant' tax liability. This is calculated on the difference between the share price on the date of exercise and the amount paid (in this case NIL).

Irrespective of selling any or not, the tax has to be paid to the PAYE timetable - by the 19th after a month ending 5th.

Do the sums.
You will see they sold just enough so they did not have to put their hands in their pockets to pay anything!

[foiledagain] 31/1/2017 12:11

charlie, you better ask ace whether he thinks a tax liability would have occurred had they NOT disposed of the shares?

They had no obligation to divest themselves of the options did they? They chose to. Immediately on doing that there was a tax liability, which unlike normal tax liabilities is payable immediately.

So the idea that they had a tax liability that they had to ameliorate by vesting options is nonsense in my opinion, as it was from vesting those options the liability occurred.

"with the balance being retained."

[bigwavedave] 31/1/2017 10:52

Never mind, it's the official Groundhog Day on Thursday (as opposed to the never-ending Groundhog Day we live in here). Maybe Punxsutawney Phil will glimpse sunshine this time.

[charlieeee] 31/1/2017 10:51

As far as I can see, the RNS 20/1/2012 sets out the detail

Vesting in 3 years

Expiry in 5 years.

"There was no consideration paid upon the grant of the options and the options expire on the fifth anniversary of the grant".

So, 20/1/2017 if I have got the right lot of options.

[warre] 31/1/2017 10:41

Can anyone answer Currypasty's question in 46980?

[charlieeee] 31/1/2017 10:40

FoiledAgain

The RNS could not have been clearer

"Mr Clarke and Mr Harrison have sold a number of the new ordinary shares, with proceeds from the sale approximately equal to the tax liabilities and other costs arising from the exercise of the share options, with the balance being retained."

As ACEUK has said, enough of the shares were sold to cover the Tax. Personally, I think that the only conclusion to be drawn from such action is that they wanted "freebies", something absolutely for nothing, rather than think that this reflects on the company prospects. As someone else pointed out at the time, this is frequently (but not always) the way management handle options and the associated tax bill.

[gtfcniles] 31/1/2017 10:35

I don't think you guys are aware how vesting options work. *None* of the money from the sales of the shares they did has gone into their accounts, the sales was purely to cover the tax responsibility of the shares that is liable, yes they could have payed the tax bill with cash but makes sense to dispose of the tax liability with share sale.

[aceuk] 31/1/2017 10:10

No, the tax bill is there the moment the options vest

[currypasty] 31/1/2017 10:06

were the options due for conversion or did they have time left?

[foiledagain] 31/1/2017 10:04

As a rule of thumb approach if a BoD are telling you how great things are going to be but then dispose of their options and the price drops after it might leave a large credibility gap.

With so much 'transformational' news or 'imminent' news to dispose before that seems strange....until or unless the price drops further.....or until that 'imminent' news still has not really occurred, then it may take on a more jaundiced perspective

[blackdown2] 31/1/2017 09:49

Like a number of other PIs - I suspect - I am only holding on in the hope (expectation) that another party values the potential more highly than the market appears to.

Whilst social unrest will continue to be a problem, it has been for years so this is nothing new. To me, the main issue is the BoD's lack of credibility and this is what is depressing the share price

[foiledagain] 31/1/2017 09:36

No, the tax bill was from the disposal.

Other taxes would be paid after end year, but disposals of options incur immediate tax liability.

[9barracuda] 31/1/2017 09:14

Or they had a tax bill

[foiledagain] 31/1/2017 09:06

When members of a BoD sell options in advance of their oft announced transformational success only for the share price to fall below the price they sold shareholders may be forgiven for having the impression 'something is rotten in the state of Denmark'.

When news is 'imminent', pipeline 'imminent' yet BoD sell, it suggests shareholders might not in possession of the same news that others have.

[quidnunc] 31/1/2017 08:58

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark WSQ

[foiledagain] 30/1/2017 12:20

?

No answers were forthcoming about the Michinoko company showing as being dissolved or what has happened to their significant holding, and the silence suggests the BoD are aware but choose to remain silent.

This company shows as being struck off October 31, 2016

Incorporated: 19-MAR-1999 Inactivation: 17-DEC-2015 Struck off: 31-OCT-2016
Status: In transition
Registered in: British Virgin Islands
Linked countries: Guernsey

[lucyp00p] 30/1/2017 09:56

I think you're "something else" mate

[foiledagain] 30/1/2017 09:09

At the time the options were sold recently I explained that time would tell if it was luck on their part, or whether it was something else.

I think the 'something else' has proven to support that opinion.

[blackdown2] 29/1/2017 15:59

Fortunately, Amerisur operates, at least partly, in an area with established oil fields. This, coupled with the ability to export via Ecuador, puts it in a reasonable position.

Whether there is an oil boom, or even a recovery, in Colombia probably doesn't make much difference to the company. In fact, it may be more of a takeover target now than it was before.

[malkiel] 29/1/2017 15:30

Why Colombia’s Oil Industry Might Never Recover.

[valentine] 27/1/2017 16:21

Who knows?..Roll? Same price though. No whoosh so far, for sure. As long as JW not disposing we're ok.