Columbus Energy Resources Share Discussion Threads

[offerman] 10/11/2017 08:35

The Guardian - 10 Nov 2017 - 07:05 - 2074 of 2077 - 3Ditto

[currypasty] 10/11/2017 08:32

Im disappointed that now the placing and OO is sorted, that more PI's arnt spending their returned cash by buying more cerp...

[the guardian] 10/11/2017 07:58

So, with the OO over, when will we get an operational update? I hope we don't have to wait another month. The company are obliged to update shareholders on any material change which could affect the share price - in a timely manner!

[the guardian] 10/11/2017 07:05

arry, why do you post about someone who doesn' t even post on this board?

[arrynillson] 09/11/2017 23:22

Offerman - echo your comments about this thread - people have refused to engage with 12bn who has been exposed for being a danger to wealth as evidenced by his recent advice that readers sell at the low 2p levels.

Boasting that he does not research this company is probably not likely to convince readers that his comments are of any value either!

[crosseyed] 09/11/2017 22:09

Joner,

I fully realise that nominee accounts are aggregated and represented as the provider. I thought I made that point. Nevertheless, all shareholders, however represented, should still receive the same proportion of the excess applied for, if pro rata is properly interpreted. You and your wife seem to have hit the jackpot with Barclays at 30.2%. Good for you, but you can perhaps understand why a shareholder with another provider who received just 5% might feel aggrieved.

I shall see how CERP respond.

c

[joner] 09/11/2017 21:41

Crosseyed
To me, the crucial statement in the RNS of 2/11/2017 is this...
"Applications under the Excess Application Facility will be scaled back pro rata to the number of Excess Shares applied for by Qualifying Shareholders."

The Qualifying Shareholders in our case is not "you" but your provider and their total holding on our behalfs.
In my case with Barclays as the nominee both myself and my wife applied for OO shares and got the correct allocation as specified in the OO of 39,100 and 14,332 shares.
However, with the excess OO we applied for 100,000 each and both have been allocated
30,206 each.
I hope that helps, imo.

Brasso3
I think you're spot on and I would add how refreshing it is for an AIM company to do as it promised in any fundraising, well done LK and the team.

[archlight] 09/11/2017 21:17

HL, I received 12.6% of shares requested

[offerman] 09/11/2017 20:43

O/TEvening Ccr, Just left you a message on another thread on another stock. Terrible thread mind you over there compared to this brilliant civilised thread and stock.

[the guardian] 09/11/2017 20:31

Thanks crosseyed.

[crosseyed] 09/11/2017 19:53

TG,

To me, the crucial statement in the RNS of 2/11/2017 is this...
"Applications under the Excess Application Facility will be scaled back pro rata to the number of Excess Shares applied for by Qualifying Shareholders."

Pro rata, as I'm sure you are well aware, means 'in proportion to'. Like you, I assumed that the remaining, ie excess, shares after distibution of the Open Offer entitlements would then be distributed according to the number of excess shares applied for (by Qualifying Shareholders, ie those who took up their full Open Offer) divided by the sum of all such excess share applications. That is a fixed percentage. It should make no difference whether the excess application was made by a single shareholder or collectively through a nominee account provider such as TD, Selftrade, IWEB etc. The provider should receive a number of shares commensurate with the number applied for from its account holders. The percentage distribution should not be affected by the number of such applicants nor the number of shares applied for.

Pro rata is a very simple arithmetic calculation. If the description above is not the way that excess shares were distributed (as seems to be the case judging by the very varied feedback reported here and elswhere) then that distribution most certainly was not 'pro rata'. A case of misleading information?

However I have asked CERP for an explanation by email. I'll let you know if I get a reply.

c

[brasso3] 09/11/2017 19:08

I think hassling CERP by e mail/ phone regarding the OO is a good way to ensure that PIs do not get included in future placings. It is the responsibility of your account provider IMO.

[ccr1958] 09/11/2017 18:58

Glad that OO is out of the way , LK has learnt he has a good following next time he might satisfy everyone :)

[kazz] 09/11/2017 18:12

Cheers jcgswims
Regards.... Kazz

[the guardian] 09/11/2017 17:53

Crosseyed my friend, just so that I can get my head around the apportionment of excess shares:

I assume that if the excess shares requested by a broker applied to only a small percentage of their investors who had requested a large number of shares, then individually, those investors would be likely to receive a large percentage of their request.

Conversely, if the brokerage had a large number of investors all wanting a large number of excess shares, then scaling back on a company basis would mean that the individual clients would receive a much lower percentage.

I asked for 21000 additional shares and received 1097.

[nexus7] 09/11/2017 15:47

From bigmj Today 11:04
-------------------------------------

RE: Big Double
Yes BigD and I will be meeting with LK tomorrow, if the share price passes 7p today might even buy him lunch :-)

[ccr1958] 09/11/2017 15:40

It certainly is ,cheers jcg.

[jcgswims] 09/11/2017 15:17

Kazz, Excess money now in IWEB account.

[offerman] 09/11/2017 15:11

Ha ha Holly , The Koot will not have a hoot for me if I did. Thanks CCr

[ccr1958] 09/11/2017 14:57

Nice one offer, pleased for you Buddy !

[holly day] 09/11/2017 14:52

Well done for persevering offerman. No worries from me re the language as I would've been less kind to the situation! Hope you enjoy the ride and may be you can speak to Koot in the same manner to get an RNS!....not.

[offerman] 09/11/2017 14:36

Cheers LV Glad yours all sorted too.Once again apologies for earlier language from moi .