Amerisur Resources Share Discussion Threads

[the drewster] 13/10/2017 06:42

Booked reserves are what we need.

[retailronnie] 13/10/2017 06:37

It was interesting when Malcy interviewed JW, at the end (17.30) he asked about the future of Amer over the next year. First thing JW talks about? Social issues and he carries on at length saying they are not a systemic problem etc.

[lucyp00p] 13/10/2017 01:04

Foiled, change the bloody channel. Your witch hunt has no legs and nobody gives a toss about corporate governance, Rex Harbour or barking at the moon vis a vis calling for heads to roll. Amer is on the right track and if a major shareholder wants to liquidate a mammoth shareholding in order that us small investors can pick up a bargain, celebrate the good fortune. Have you seriously got nothing better to do than drone on and on and on about something you have absolutely no influence over? Better still, open a new thread. Call it "hot air and total irrelevance"

[foiledagain] 12/10/2017 22:01

Hugo. They had no problem calling in the Company Registrar at times of their choosing, so the legal aspect is not relevant, as there a company by law is enabled under Section 793 of the Companies Act to find the status of beneficial owners including holdings at any specific time. In fact they need not do that as companies such as Argus Vickers provide that service to many companies on AIM as a matter of course.

Ace: I disagree with that amount of downward pressure from selling nothing would or did keep the shares from falling. This was mentioned by many posters that even after good news the share price still sank. You don't sell that many shares into the market without it hitting the price, which it did over a matter of months irrespective of whatever news and that was ably demonstrated.

The board has a statutory right to know beneficial ownership of shares.

When I first posted about RH selling I had a lot of posts suggesting it was conspiracy theory, and yet after pressure Amerisur got the company registrar to confirm selling, which proved there was no legal obstacle to them doing so, and again the last RNS via the company registrar proves that they could at any stage have given updates to properly inform shareholders because as sure as eggs are eggs EVERYONE ELSE SEEMED TO KNOW.

That is unacceptable

Now its possible for Amerisur to buy back all RH's remaining Amerisur shares should they wish, but where now its likely the City and Institutions will start buying, but where they had no reason to buy knowing the situation that other shareholders didn't

[hugomaracuya] 12/10/2017 21:41

FA. I do appreciate what you say, but I think that takes us into a whole new realm of legal arguments, and I don't think any of us are competent enough to come up with the correct answer.

On the one hand, yes, we shareholders do have a right to know of any circumstance concerning the company's field of operations or financial situation that materially affects the value of our shares. But how far does that right extend? Does it extend to revealing the private and confidential financial information of a private individual, which could damage the value of his investment or wealth?

And yes, investors have a duty to disclose major changes to their holdings, but what happens if he fails to do so until he has finished selling? He has the right not to do so if it is one sell order. Is the company to reveal that information, and risk a massive legal bill for disclosing information which it should not do? Imagine the scenario that an investor who holds 50% of a company, say 500 million shares, puts in an order to sell the lot, to raise a certain amount of money, to finance another large project. This could take many months. After say, 3 months, the broker has sold 100 million, leaving 400 million shares to go. If the company then reveal to the market before the sale has finished, the price could crash, and that investor could lose multi millions of pounds. What would be the legal consequences?

Maybe that scenario did actually play out? Maybe our company did find itself in that quandry? Maybe they took legal advice? But they wouldn't be able to tell us, nor could they breach the rights of the large investor.

Its something that can only be decided in court, to balance the rights of one against the rights of another, itself a very costly exercise. Who's rights are more important? If you were the CEO of that example company, what would you do?

[aceuk] 12/10/2017 20:54

FoiledAgain whichever way we go round it the basic problem has nothing to do with anybody selling shares of Amerisur Resources - if things had gone right on the ground (no social issues, no heavy rains, OBA up and running as frequently promised, etc.) the price would never have got below 30p never mind 20p.

For me you are creating a red herring and it is best left alone. I have no interest in spread-betters or people investing what they do not have and nor should the board.

Have absolutely no problem with the board being held to account for failures on the ground but that is the extent of it .... apart perhaps from John Wardlebeing held to account for being purposefully lite with an overfriendly analyst ;-)

[foiledagain] 12/10/2017 20:37

Hugo. He was not the problem, Amerisur could have known, should have known.
He had every right to announce a single transaction after all disposals.

The company however have a duty of care to keep shareholders informed and on that RH could not have prevented Amerisur disclosing sales, and nor did it prevent them for confirming his sales AT A TIME OF THEIR CHOOSING.

Therein lays the problem, it should not have been at a time of their choosing shareholders could and should in my opinion have been kept up to date with disposals, and which is not a breach of RH's confidence, as its a statutory obligation and why I called for the Companies Act Section 793 notice, which requires that information by law.

It is clear to all and sundry that the City have been feasting off the shares of worried shareholders and it was no coincidence in my opinion that so many bb posters were suggesting the idea of RH still selling was a conspiracy theory, but where the City obviously knew and so did institutions hence no real urgency for any of them to up their stakes, watching the price dropping daily.

Good information on selling would have given some confidence that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with Amerisur and again those buying what they considered cheap shares were entitled to know that RH was disposing of shares, as they too might have delayed purchasing over the months and months the share price was trashed. Mind you the BoD strategy could also have prevented a much quicker decline.

Shoddy treatment in my opinion. I would guess that the Board of Amerisur like most other boards have such information on a daily if not weekly basis, as many sign up to services from companies that provide that information.

Those that have purchased in this time may well reap very good rewards, and now we are down to a number that could be taken up by one institution, or one predator or even a buy back, might mean good action on the share price if allied to decent news, but it does not fill me with confidence that whilst the City knew, the institutions knew and Amerisur should have known....shareholder here didn't and indeed bulletin board posters that probably knew were posting about it being just conspiracy theory he was still selling....no doubt to keep the prices falling for the companies they worked for.

[hugomaracuya] 12/10/2017 19:15

He has done the same thing in the past, failing to report transactions. Many years back, it was when he was buying. He knows damn well that there is nothing anyone can do if he doesn't make a report. Neither the FCA or the LSE can touch him, or penalise him, living where he does, as they do not have jurisdiction over Monaco. In fact, he can even sue the pants off them if they disclose confidential financial information before he has completed his sell or buy orders. Hence the registrar can only try to ascertain the extent of any sell or buy orders, and only when they have been filled, can the registrar disclose the information to the market.

Unfortunate, but there's not a lot anyone can do. I gave up even thinking about his holdings many years ago. Makes very little difference to the overall scheme of things, and doesn't detract from the fact that we have 23(?) wells, all successful, producing oil, building our cash pile, and when he has gone, its like the ripples on a pond. Throw a pebble into the pond, and after the ripples have stopped, you'd never even know he had been there.

As they say over here, "Tranquilo".

[boris cobaka] 12/10/2017 17:41

Fadilz the volume during the period in question was very low and it wouldn't have taken much buying or selling pressure to move the share price either way. With it being an offload it was enough to ensure the share price broke below 20p.
Interestingly from around mid july we saw the share price continue to fall but momentum actually began to climb providing a 'positive divergence'

No doubt some of the short positions were initiated with the knowledge that a large holder was also continuing to offload stock but that would have been before end June with share price much higher I suspect.

[boris cobaka] 12/10/2017 17:24

foiled again - welcome to AIM...

[fadilz] 12/10/2017 17:08

davwall, 2m+ is total daily volume. As you say, RH volume would be small in comparison.

[foiledagain] 12/10/2017 16:44

Quid. Quite frankly that is simply unacceptable excuse.

No the BOD did not state he was selling, as otherwise if they knew categorically they would have a duty of care to ensure ALL shareholders knew at the same time.

No Malcy never said how many RH was selling, and indeed only mentioned that as far as I know AFTER selling had occurred, but again no extent.

There is simply seems no excuse for this Board to not have informed shareholders where they could easily ascertain he was selling.

They had every opportunity of doing what they did today on a monthly basis if necessary and at negligible cost which would in my opinion have somewhat protected shareholder value.

Instead it seems clear that the reason there were not massive City buys or institution buys was because THEY knew and shareholders didn't.

The obligation to notify is by the seller RH, but where they have transacted one sale order that has not been settled there is no obligation to notify until that has settled.

The Board must surely have been aware of this.

It was confirmed by the first RNS where the company registrar had ascertained the selling, so Amerisur can have no excuse in saying they had no idea, because they had confirmed it.

I've lost nothing as I have not been in a position where I needed to sell or had to, but so many others might not have been in that position, including long term holders or anyone whose holding has had to be sold at such a depressed sp, including a long time holder no longer alive.

[quidnunc] 12/10/2017 16:14

They said he was selling at the AGM.
We went and we told you all what was said.

If I remember rightly, even Malcy said he was selling.

So anyone who claims they didn't know is not paying attention.

FWIW, I think he will continue selling if it works for him.
Q.

[lucyp00p] 12/10/2017 15:52

He's still got more shares than all of us combined I'll bet

[davwall] 12/10/2017 15:44

Fadilz - I might be missing something, but I make the daily volume sold by RH over nine months about 160k, not 2M. I think RH would otherwise have sold 400M in the period at 2M per trading day...

[aceuk] 12/10/2017 15:42

No, but it's enough to cause it not to rise - the market is tired of the jam story and wants some sign it will arrive!

[boris cobaka] 12/10/2017 15:40

I think you'll find it probably was enough when you consider it would also have encouraged others to sell and some maybe stopped out. No final 'wash-out' though volume-wise, which points to a 'stretched' share price - hence that loverrly bounce a couple of weeks ago.
Sp would have dropped around 5-6p over the period in question.

[retailronnie] 12/10/2017 15:33

So he's sold about 4.5m since June the 30th. Not enough to cause the drop in share price by himself.

[dodge city] 12/10/2017 15:20

Whoops I assumed he was a director, my mistake.

[aceuk] 12/10/2017 15:14

Who's a director of what?

[dodge city] 12/10/2017 15:10

I thought the company said a couple of months ago that they didn't know why the share price was falling.

[blackdown2] 12/10/2017 15:01

It would be much more interesting if the remaining holding was acquired by another operator.

[boris cobaka] 12/10/2017 14:47

cheers Ace.
Interesting indeed.

[foiledagain] 12/10/2017 14:43

Ace. for me that is not the point although relevant, as it makes the Board look poor for not notifying holders at the constant selling which is what I suspected was taking place. The point is that his holding could be taken back by Amerisur without affecting drilling plans or anything.

What is pertinent though is all those who suggested there was no seller, and again it proves our Board could have ascertained all the time exactly what RH's selling was and updated accordingly.

So lament for any holders who were stopped out for no other reason than continued selling pressure or even for spread betters who might have been closed out for the same reason.

There is no doubt the market knew the position, only shareholders seem to have been denied that information.

The game is different now though because if he is selling the amount outstanding could be bought in one easy buy back or from an institution knowing the situation, or even a would be predator.

Before this it would have been difficult for Amer to buy back shares without using up all its cash, but now it can.