Jpmorgan Russian Securit... Share Discussion Threads

[loganair] 27/10/2022 19:07

EI - OK you follow the current narrative and I'll use by own brain to come up with my own conclusions.

I bought my JRS at and average price of 364p and sold 90% at 696p, therefore I made a good profit out of my investment in JRS. Since I have rebought back in at an average of 81p with a current 41p per share being held as dividends in JRS frozen bank account in Russia.

This was my second time round with JRS, the first time I bought in at an average of 321p and sold just before the financial crash of 2008 for 798p, so another very good profit there.

[essentialinvestor] 27/10/2022 18:43

Logan, you have paid a very high financial price, at least in % loss terms.
Some might conclude it was richly deserved, or Poorly!.

[loganair] 27/10/2022 18:34

hindsight - I'm just posting the truth rather then some posters who seem to me only post the Status Quo propaganda of the Western media who are bias and completely one sided, therefore I am just posting the stuff that is not being reported by the Western media.

[loganair] 27/10/2022 18:32

The 3 major share holders in JRS have not reduced any further over the past couple of months and still hold a little over 20% of JRS.

On a personal note, I would not mind a Capital raise to get the new trust off the ground as long as the small private retail investor is also allowed to take part, in other words a "Right Issue" and not a "Placing."

[hindsight] 27/10/2022 18:32

Loganair rolling out more Russian propaganda

The greatest Nato expansionist has been Putin, new Finnish border is 1340km and hes made the Baltic sea mostly Nato

[loganair] 27/10/2022 18:22

Popit....

The proposal by the JPMorgan Russian Securities trust to expand its investment universe outside of Russia “makes sense” according to various experts, but whether or not shareholders will get on side with the idea is uncertain.

Just over eight months since Russia invaded Ukraine and global economic sanctions effectively froze all Russian assets, the JPMorgan Russian Securities board is attempting to outmanoeuvre the restrictions by amending the investment objective.

The suspension is being reviewed on an "ongoing basis", according to JPMAM, "JPMAM continues to monitor and assess the impact of sanctions in relation to a broad variety of risks: investment, convertibility, liquidity, custody, counterparty and settlement risk."

But investors have continued to back the trust, as Shavar Halberstadt, equity research analyst at Winterflood Investment Trusts, said: "Preferring the potential long-term recovery of Russian assets over an immediate return of capital at diminished valuations".

He said that given the groups has a broad base of expertise for investing outside of Russia, it "makes sense to identify a productive destination for the £17m of cash held by the fund".

Halberstadt said that this could even be an opportunity for it to carve out a new niche, with very few investment trusts having direct investment into Africa for example.

But while the proposal made sense, the Winterflood analyst said it was not so simple to get it over the line.

"Should the proposals be rejected, we would expect the fund to enter a de-facto realisation phase, make no significant changes until there is either a clear prospect of sanctions relief or a catalyst for a full write-down."

Rob Morgan, investment analyst for Charles Stanley, said that there was "strong case for winding up the trust" given the "ongoing viability, plus prospects for recovering any remaining value from Russian holdings have diminished".

He added: "This is a difficult situation for all involved and will not be easy to untangle."

Ultimately these changes will only come into effect if shareholders vote them through at the general meeting next month.

He said: "Would all new investors want to end up with Russian exposure or would they object on ethical grounds? We think the proposals need to go further, with a new class of share created to represent the Russian exposure, ring-fencing it from the new fund."

[essentialinvestor] 27/10/2022 18:18

* Down over 90% in 12 months.

[loganair] 27/10/2022 18:15

Popit - Time and time again JP Morgan and JRS have made it very clear they will not take a path that will carry significant risk of losses to the current share holders.

[loganair] 27/10/2022 18:11

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major and Woerner

On the 12 December 2017 the National Security Archive at George Washington University posted online 30 declassified US, Soviet, German, British and French documents revealing a torrent of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991. Some of the documents have been publicly available for several years, others have been revealed as a result of Freedom of Information requests for the study. See the briefing here.

US Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on 9 February 1990 was only part of a cascade of similar assurances.

As the authors, Svetlana Savranskaya and Tom Blanton argue: “The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels”.

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen”.

During the discussions to re-unify East and West Germany, the Western parties sought to defuse Moscow’s fears that a reunified state in the heart of Europe would present a threat to the Soviet Union. Gorbachev only accepted German reunification—over which the Soviet Union had a legal right to veto—because he received assurances that NATO would not expand after he withdrew his forces from Eastern Europe from James Baker, President George H.W. Bush, West German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, the CIA Director Robert Gates, French President Francois Mitterrand, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, British foreign minister Douglas Hurd, British Prime Minister John Major, and NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner.

In February, George H. W. Bush’s secretary of state, James Baker, assured his Soviet counterpart, Eduard Shevardnadze, that in a post-Cold War Europe NATO would no longer be belligerent – “less of a military organization, much more of a political one, would have no need for independent capability”.

Nonetheless, Baker promised Shevardnadze “iron-clad guarantees that NATO’s jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward”. On the same day in Moscow, he famously told the Soviet General Secretary that the alliance would not move “one inch to the east”.

The following day, February 10, 1990, Helmut Kohl, the future chancellor of a united Germany, repeated the same thought to Gorbachev, even as they disagreed on other issues. “We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity. We have to find a reasonable resolution. I correctly understand the security interests of the Soviet Union, and I realize that you, Mr. General Secretary, and the Soviet leadership will have to clearly explain what is happening to the Soviet people,” Kohl said.

The promises not to expand NATO only lasted until 1997, however, when Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were invited into the alliance. In total, 13 Eastern European states have become NATO members since then.

Gorbachev and subsequently Putin have frequently bemoaned the West’s broken promise, with the latter insisting that it fundamentally undermined the fragile trust between an internationally retreating Russia and an ascendant United States.

With the exception of a handful of online opinion articles, no major media outlet has so far reported on the release of these newly declassified documents. In ending the Cold War by breaking promises to Gorbachev, the attitude of the revived Russia of today should not come as a surprise. As the Russian journalist and columnist for Bloomberg Leonid Bershidsky concludes it is now “highly unlikely that any successor to Putin will simply cast aside the broken promise story, which is by now embedded in the Russian government's post-Soviet DNA. For years, perhaps decades, maintaining a confrontation with Russia will be easier than rebuilding trust”.

[popit] 27/10/2022 18:08

loganair

Thanks.

I also think a capital raise is unlikely. And even if they did consider it I don’t think there would be much demand for it. Most investors do not want to invest in anything connected to Russia now on woke grounds, and even if JRS is renamed JPM Emerging EMEA, everyone will know that they are still invested in Russia.

[loganair] 27/10/2022 18:04

TT - "To understand Russia’s claims of betrayal, it is necessary to review the reassurances then US secretary of state James A. Baker made to former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during a meeting on February 9, 1990. In a discussion on the status of a reunited Germany, the two men agreed that NATO would not extend past the territory of East Germany, a promise repeated by NATO’s secretary general in a speech on May 17 that same year in Brussels."

TT - Gorbachev was promised that NATO would not expand Eastwards, past the borders of the reunified German therefore Tiger your post 4187 is entirely incorrect on this point and my post is correct.

Tiger most of what you are posting is incorrect and just following the status quo of the propaganda being spouted out by the Western media.


What would the USA do and how would they act if Mexico invited Russia to place weapons and troops in Mexico - the USA would never allow this to happen.

[brwo349] 27/10/2022 17:38

Logainair is saying the US have killed more than Stalin or Mao lol.

[1917again] 27/10/2022 17:37

1991 Ukrainian independence referendum

Subdivision Voted "Yes" %[4] Voted "Yes" % of total electorate[19]
Crimean ASSR 54.19 37[20]
Cherkasy Oblast 96.03 87
Chernihiv Oblast 93.74 85
Chernivtsi Oblast 92.78 81
Dnipropetrovsk Oblast 90.36 74
Donetsk Oblast 83.90 64
Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast 98.42 94
Kharkiv Oblast 86.33 65
Kherson Oblast 90.13 75
Khmelnytskyi Oblast 96.30 90
Kyiv Oblast 95.52 84
Kirovohrad Oblast 93.88 83
Luhansk Oblast 83.86 68
Lviv Oblast 97.46 93
Mykolayiv Oblast 89.45 75
Odessa Oblast 85.38 64
Poltava Oblast 94.93 87
Rivne Oblast 95.96 89
Sumy Oblast 92.61 82
Ternopil Oblast 98.67 96
Vinnytsia Oblast 95.43 87
Volyn Oblast 96.32 90
Zakarpattia Oblast 92.59 77
Zaporizhzhia Oblast 90.66 73
Zhytomyr Oblast 95.06 86
Kyiv City 92.87 75
Sevastopol City 57.07 36[20]
National Total 90.32 76[21]

[tigerbythetail] 27/10/2022 17:31

Loganair is just a wingnut influenced by RT and similar right wing fake news sites. Almost every fact he posts is wrong. I can't be bothered to correct his posts.
Meanwhile, JRS came out with a change of mandate and name today. Presumably this is followed by a highly dilutive placing to raise funds, or else what is the point of the whole operation? So there is very little here for investors hoping to see some value from the Russian investments the fund still holds.
Maybe it's time for everybody to accept that Russia is over, at least for the next 20-30 years? It will either turn into a giant North Korea or fall apart as multiple civil wars break out. There is nothing for a Western investor there.

[essentialinvestor] 27/10/2022 17:23

ADVFN have a record of all posts, even if deleted and an ISP -
If an outside government agency requested this.

As mentioned, this potentially could be very serious.

[1917again] 27/10/2022 17:20

Loganair, we still await the source of the 390,000 troops killed, as surely you weren't lying

Why cant you provide the link ?

It starting to look like you were lying, so the question is why ? Are you being paid ?

[essentialinvestor] 27/10/2022 17:08

If someone is posting unquestioning support of Putin, what might they be posting
or doing on other sites?. We unfortunately may end up at war with Russia.
This could potentially be a very serious issue.

[loganair] 27/10/2022 16:59

EI - I understand what you are saying if any poster is posting anything that is either pro Putin or pro Russia then that poster has to be censored and cancelled even though the said poster is only balancing the propaganda of the Western media status quo of pro Ukraine posts, often by posters who have had no experience of visiting Russia, let alone living and working in Russia which I have had.

I set up this thread so that points of view from both sides may be discussed in an objective, informative and hopefully sometimes interesting manner so others can carefully explore, examine and interpret the value of the information...

It seems to me EI, what you are saying is that my posts need to be flagged up to the likes of the police or MI5 or MI6 and that I should get a visit from such an agency = tyrannical dictatorship and not Free Democracy.

[essentialinvestor] 27/10/2022 16:49

You might wonder whether some of these unquestionably Pro Putin posts are
being monitored or should be flagged up to agencies outside of ADVFN,
if made by British citizens based in the UK.

[loganair] 27/10/2022 16:16

Whereas supplies of Russian pipeline gas--the bulk of Europe’s gas imports before the Ukraine war--are down to a trickle, Europe has been hungrily scooping up Russian LNG.

“Russian LNG has been the dark horse of the sanctions regime,” Maria Shagina, research fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, has told WSJ. Importers of Russian LNG to Europe have argued that the shipments are not covered by current EU sanctions and that buying LNG from Russia has helped keep European energy prices in check.

Thankfully, there’s a clear upside to imports of Russian LNG to Europe: the continent has managed to fill its gas stores well ahead of schedule, with Reuter’s gas meter revealing that 93.8% of the EU gas storage is currently filled.

A lot of blame falls on Switzerland, with 80% of Russian raw materials traded via the Central European nation and its nearly 1,000 commodity firms. Switzerland is an important global financial hub with a thriving commodities sector despite the country being far from all the global trade routes and without access to the sea; no former colonial territories and without any significant raw materials of its own.

Deutsche Welle has reported that 80% of Russian raw materials are traded via Switzerland, according to a report by the Swiss embassy in Moscow. About a third of it are oil and gas while two-thirds are base metals such as zinc, copper and aluminum. In other words, deals signed on Swiss desks are directly facilitating Russian oil and gas to continue flowing freely.