Columbus Energy Resources Share Discussion Threads

[the guardian] 10/11/2017 11:57

Looks like if we don't get something official, bigmj may give out a few clues on LSE.

[offerman] 10/11/2017 11:55

Bigmj? Is that his name on lse? Thought he was bigdouble or two alias's but same person .

[greatfull dead] 10/11/2017 11:53

OO and excess share received by PI is yesterday's news as far as I am concerned.

LK, how about an update on operations in Trinidad before the end of trading today, please?

GLA,
GD

[nexus7] 10/11/2017 11:52

From bigmj Today 11:23
-------------------------------------

RE: We are firmly on the cusp

Hi Emily

I hope you are feeling a bit more relaxed about the share price than you were when we last spoke on here.
Things won’t be perfect over night but we are certainly on the right path with Team LK.
Everything I have met him he feels me with confidence, on my way to meet him now and am sure that today with be equally positive

[crosseyed] 10/11/2017 11:51

Brasso,

Do you know that or are you guessing?
The CERP website gives a list of top shareholdings. All are Nominee Account Providers adding up to 53% of issued shares - smaller NAPs are not listed. These are all well-known with similar total holdings. It seems very odd that there should be such a disparity in the take up of the Open Offer rights thereby allowing for a range of 5% to 30% in proportions of excess share applications

c

[brasso3] 10/11/2017 11:51

The open offer was only for a 3% increase in all of our holdings so the combination of OO and excess shares range from 3.15% - 3.9%. This is really very minute in the grand scheme of things. I agree lets move on from this OO discussion and start talking about CERP.

[the guardian] 10/11/2017 11:45

Yes but that only applies if the broker applies for shares on a company basis rather than a summation of individuals.

Anyway, let's move on because I want to see the share price at 10p before Christmas.

[brasso3] 10/11/2017 11:37

The answer is simple.

If you got excess shares from broker X then that is because other investors with that broker did not take up their allocation.

If you received a minimal quantity of excess shares then that is because there was a strong take up of OO shares with your brokers investors.

[the guardian] 10/11/2017 11:32

We know that Brasso, but having received 5% as opposed to 35% of requested excess shares, it would be nice to know why because it could be a reason to change brokers if another and larger OO was ever carried out in the future.

About time this ticked up.

[brasso3] 10/11/2017 11:27

This is typical of every open offer I have been involved in. This is not specific to CERP. CERP respond to the nominee accounts requests.

[the guardian] 10/11/2017 11:23

Don't know crosseyed. One thing is for sure, the NAHs have all gone about the OO in a different way.

[crosseyed] 10/11/2017 11:20

TG,
Could they legally NOT distribute shares acquired entirely on the basis of clients holdings?
c

[the guardian] 10/11/2017 10:27

Just thinking again about that, all of the NAH's could have legally applied for shares based on total volumes held by the company and then chosen to retain some of the shares rather than distribute them to clients.

[the guardian] 10/11/2017 10:20

crosseyed, I gave it a lot of thought last night and came to the same conclusion, which is that the NAH (brokers) each treated the deal differently. In the case of TD /II, they simply submitted the total open offer requests from individuals and the total excess share requests submitted by individuals.

In order for any other NAH to give out more excess shares, then they must have received more shares from CERP in terms of OO shares and / or extra shares. As you say, because the Nominated Account Holder is legally holding all of the shares, it would have been quite legitimate for Barclays for example to request OO or extra shares on an overall company basis, irrespective of what individual clients had requested.

I can't see why a Nominated Account Holder would do this but it appears to be the most likely explanation.

[jcgswims] 10/11/2017 10:15

HPotter, I've included both intraday and 6 monthly chart. I muddled through and got there in the end :)

[offerman] 10/11/2017 10:14

Haha! More around than ever lol

[hpotter] 10/11/2017 10:14

jcgswims, I was thinking about a 6 monthly comparative chart.

Please don't go to a lot of hassle on my account. I just thought that it would be useful to see how well the CERP share price is doing relative to the other local companies.

Edit. Thanks, you beat be to it !

[luckyvince] 10/11/2017 10:12

Now that the OO is over, i am going to concentrate on shooting that bloody owl..

[jcgswims] 10/11/2017 10:11

HPotter, Chart box updated to include Trin and Txp for comparison.

[crosseyed] 10/11/2017 09:38

This disparity in the proportions of distrbuted excess shares varying with Nominee Account Provider (NAP) is really bugging me. Checking back through posts, the proportions varied from about 5% to 30%! If, in accordance with the RNS of 2/11/2017, excess shares were indeed distributed by CERP in proportion to the number applied for, I have been thinking how that might be legitimately possible.

To recap, the total number of shares (to be) distributed was 20,129,349 (~20.1 million) for which total applications, both Open Offer (x, say) plus Excess Applications (y, say), amounted to 64,720,401 (~64.7 million).
Arithmetically,
x + y = 64.7 (million shares)
Excess shares available = 20.1 - x
Excess shares applied for = y = 64.7 - x
Pro rata distribution p = (20.1 - x) / (64.7 - x)
[It would be useful to be told officially the values of x and/or p.]

Joner in post 2071 reminded me that NAPs are represented on the CERP Share Registry as a single shareholder. I had assumed that each NAP would simply aggregate separately the Open Offer and Excess Share requests from individual account holders, passing that information to CERP by the 27th October along with the payment deposit funded from account holders.

But there is another possibility. The NAP might claim Open Share rights for total shares held being the legal holder of those shares irrespective of the actual Open Offers requested by account holders, ie a somewhat greater number than the sum of those individual, due to:
a) For whatever reason, not all account holders would have taken up those rights; and
b) There is naturally a small reduction per account due to the mechanics of the 1:31 conversion in which total eligible shares (as of 13 October) are divided by 31 and rounded down. On average, each individual "loses" 0.5 shares. If there are 1000 account holders, that amounts to about 500 shares. Whereas the single NAP shareholding would be expected to "lose" just 0.5 shares, giving a gain of about 500 shares.

Those extra shares would then be available to be added to the pro rata distribution to the NAP of excess shares, in turn to be distributed to account holders in proportion to their individual excess share application amounts. I assume that would be quite legal but it raises the question of why the NAP would temporarily fund those additional shares. An incentive service to account holders, maybe?

In addition, it is also possible that the NAP could legitimately request more excess shares than the aggregate applied for by account holders though they too would require temporary funding by the NAP.

Any or all of these actions would explain differences in proportions received relative to excess shares applied for. CERP would have no direct part in any of the variations. They would simply receive the individual shareholder applications, including NAP applications each as a single shareholder, and calculate the actual excess and gobal proportion for distribution back to the individual shareholders, along with the Open Share applications. Any single independent shareholder would receive that global proportion of applied-for excess shares.

We shall hopefully find out.

c

[jcgswims] 10/11/2017 09:19

HPotter, My html skills are a bit rusty but I could give it a go. A 6 month chart do you mean? Or an intraday one?

[hpotter] 10/11/2017 09:06

CERP not doing badly compared to T & T peers. Both TRIN and TXP down this morning.

jcgswims, would you please consider adding a chart to this BB showing share price of the T & T oilers.

[the guardian] 10/11/2017 08:40

Same here Currypasty. I thought that most of the cash returned yesterday would have been used to buy shares today.

[offerman] 10/11/2017 08:38

Mines sat there waiting to see if no news brings this slightly lower as often no news on shares and they often drift . However , if it doesn't drift then I'm also content as have oo and small excess so I'm very grateful.