Ovoca Gold Share Discussion Threads

[oli12] 22/9/2017 17:55

Well that was a short lived, Rath Dhu Limited have departed already. No doubt their sole purpose was to purchase the shares from Damille Investments for Mr Golovanov.
One wonders whether Damille were not keen to sell to him directly, he never really delivered much for them despite them pressing for funds to be returned shareholders.

4 RNS for OVOCA in September, that's more than the rest of the year combined!!!

[oli12] 21/9/2017 16:51

By my calculations Kirill Golovanov now owns 23.9% of the company and along with holdings of Leonid Skoptsov & Yuri Radchenko the directors have 52.4% of the shares here. Will they make a move to take this private with a low offer. At 15p it would cost them £6m to buy the shares they don't own and in return they get €21.4m of cash and equivalents along with the mining licences held. If a favourable outcome to the Taymura court case could lead to more cash as well (several million $).

According to the annual report from June ; Euroclear Nominees Limited BBHISL Nominees (HSBC) Citibank Nominees (Ireland) Davy Crest Nominees Redmayne (Nominees) Limited Chase Nominees owned 51.47% of the stock here so some one has sold.... Damille Investments also had a 5% holding that was sold in the last few weeks...not sure how Rath Dhu Limited acquired their shares either. Management must have enough shares directly or indirectly to take this private. Their can't be many PIs left.

[fenners66] 21/9/2017 15:09

Look at the trades - 2 of them at 3,250,000
One priced at 8.2 one priced at 8.5 we know what that was.
Is it the same trade through an MM with a 0.3p turn for him?

Where did they come from?

Another transaction from one of the nominee companies as his last slug?
In which case again it may have been just a housekeeping (type) exercise.
This guy was the company secretary before taking over the shares - does make me wonder what leverage he had in order to acquire his stake in the first place.

[oli12] 21/9/2017 12:15

No comments on CEO buying yesterday at 8.5p thoughts? Is he ensuring total control OR preparing to take this over?
AGM is in November....something brewing could be good....could be bad. About time shareholders saw some value here. (I expect a cheap take out for 12p by management giving them the cash for nothing)

[oli12] 19/9/2017 06:37

Thanks Fenners I appreciate your posts and assessment based on your experience here - it is something to consider. Investors in OVG cannot say they were not adequately warned about the numerous risks here. Please keep posting where you see fit.

Some might be surprised when the AGM arrives here.

[fenners66] 18/9/2017 20:52

The history for me is that years back we the followers of another board had a get together that included a presentation from Ovoca directors. We felt they had given us a special insight as to their company back then.

It is hard not to take an interest after that. Once you get to know a company it is easy to read between the lines - having done that 9 years (9!!!) ago and not been proved wrong yet I don't mind adding to this boards understanding.

By way of example I was looking at Laura Ashley at around 20p - someone on that board advised the MD had control - avoid.
A little research turned up that he decided to spend ALL the cash on a building in Singapore - they do about 10% of their business in the far east. It did not seem altogether logical and now the shares have no dividend and are trading at 8p - needless to say I did not buy - parallels?

I have that person to thank.

[oli12] 18/9/2017 19:33

Let's see on that one, I struggle to see how the 3 directors cannot be classified as a concert party and should be treated as such by the market. I am sure they have had advice on this point though. If they were deemed to be a concert party they would need to make and offer to the remaining holders. Something could be brewing (news) given the delayed AGM - if they sort the Taymura mess out, that will represent a successful year here! (granted the bar has been set low based on previous years achievements)

The AVOID for the company is understandable to a degree, however I am still to fully understand the reasons for the extensive efforts made by some posters to just re hash old news and rubbish this company at every opportunity - AIM is full of companies like this maybe Ovoca don't hide it as well as the others.

[fenners66] 18/9/2017 15:03

So Oli are you going to look into the Company's Act (2006?) and find a clause to debar 49% (+?) shareholders from voting ?
It could be worth your while....

Every chance though there is no such clause to stop them, which is why the stock market has continued to mark these down despite the inconsistency between valuation and assets.

[fiachra] 18/9/2017 13:45

Fenner66. It hit the equivalent of 550 pence in 1987.

[fiachra] 18/9/2017 13:43

Three Russian Oligarchs are not going to fall out.

[oli12] 18/9/2017 12:53

The directors have a vested interest in any vote to wind up the company and give funds back to the shareholders. They want to protect their jobs, large salaries and given their apparent previous ability to sell the company their own assets for personal gain I believe they should not be allowed to influence any vote. They act as a concert party and should be treated as such, one wonders why they have not been obliged to make an offer to buy the remaining share capital of the company given their joint holdings amount to nearly 50%.
On the positive these types always fall out in the end.

[fenners66] 18/9/2017 09:44

"Not for widows and orphans" this share.
But with the Net Assets worth more than the market cap , to the uninitiated it looks a no-brainer, free money.

There are 000's of analysts working in the city who can line up net assets vs market cap and they have not been motivated to buy the shares - they and now you, know why, I have explained above.

But every so often another novice will come along and not know why - so they can take a look at this board and find out.

I believe these boards have been a genuine help to me with both good and bad info about potential investments and I see every reason to give back info in return.

[fenners66] 18/9/2017 08:40

"IMO they should be excluded due to their conflict."
So everyone that would be voting to give themselves money would not also have a conflict of interest?
Conflict with what the directors' may deem in the best interest of the company....

If this got enough support for the motion to reach the AGM it would sort this out once and for all.

A vote against by the majority would lay it to rest; but then would that reduce all hope of a distribution and the share price with it.

I do not think the Directors have a need for the remaining shares - they already used the methods I noted above to improve their % shareholdings - so then no reason for anyone to buy?

[oli12] 18/9/2017 08:27

Apparently the AGM will be in November the date TBC - maybe the delay is because the company expects significant development by then on the return of the Taymura funds by way of litigation.
I read on another blog the new shareholder might request a motion that funds are returned to shareholders - interesting as we will be able to see how the BoD vote on such an issue. IMO they should be excluded due to their conflict. Time will tell.

[fiachra] 17/9/2017 10:02

I have been a shareholder since 1986.Fenner66 I am glad you have taken an interest as those companies you disparage usually get a run--from a low base. Although it will be hard to work your magic here.

[oli12] 16/9/2017 07:07

WoW diligent work Fenners, I am somewhat surprised the trouble you have gone to despite not owning a single share.
IF I were a board member or related party why would I post on here... as you have correctly stated they have control of OVOCA that has been apparent for some time, they nor their associates need to post on here. For the record though I have no connection to the company, its management in any way what so ever.

Why do you despise this share so much? Fenners are you Tim McCutcheon?

[fenners66] 15/9/2017 22:21

I bet you are bored by now so if you really are not connected and you didn't read the accounts ..... I bet you a Mars bar you never get a dividend

[fenners66] 15/9/2017 22:18

And to correct you on shareholdings - from the annual accounts 2016

Leonid Skoptsov 11,656,203

Yuri Radchenko 11,656,202

Kirill Golovanov 16,256,203


Total 39,568,608


out of (excluding treasury shares) 81,563,806

Makes 48.5%

Now if a nominee could be persuaded to vote the same way.........


However some nominees have been able to provide shares for Kirill anyway

Ovoca was notified on 12 October 2015 that Kirill Golovanov, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, had purchased 4,600,000 ordinary shares of the Company at a price of Stg 5.4 pence per ordinary share by way of an off-market transaction on 12 October 2015. Mr Golovanov purchased the ordinary shares from Trikeri Investments Ltd ("Trikeri"). Following this transaction, Mr. Golovanov holds 16,256,204 ordinary shares of the Company, or 18.4% of Ovoca's issued share capital. Trikeri no longer has any interest in the ordinary shares of the Company.

Strangely they were noted as a nominee as far back as 2011

[fenners66] 15/9/2017 22:06

Still think they are an exploration company?

From the 2016 accounts Note 15:

In 2015, the Company impaired its property plant and equipment related to mining by €’000 1,569 (US$’000 2,130). The Company then decided to sell its mining equipment subsequently in 2017.

bet they have not even got a spade left..............

[fenners66] 15/9/2017 21:37

If you never read the 2010 accounts

On 15 January 2010, the company acquired 100 percent of the share capital of Magsel, Bulun and Olymp. The companies are the owners
of the Stakhanovsky Licence, the Rassoshinskaya Licence and the Nevsko-Pestrinskoye Licences respectively. Total consideration
consisted of an initial cash consideration of €4.796m (US$6.960m) and deferred consideration of up to a maximum of US$18 million,
payment of which is contingent upon the achievement of certain exploration and licence targets. The acquisition is deemed to be a
related party transaction as detailed further in note 27.



And note 27 -

During the year Ovoca Gold Plc, through its subsidiary Silver Star Limited acquired three Magadan subsidiaries details of which are
disclosed in Note 15 – CJSC Bulun, Magsel Ltd. and Olymp Ltd. These were wholly owned by Mikhail Mogutov, Leonid Skoptsov and
Yuri Radchenko, who with their related parties collectively own 44.7% of the issued share capital and are directors of Ovoca Gold plc.
During the year the group entered an agreement with DGGC, a company of which Yuri Radchenko is a shareholder and manager, for
the lease of plant and equipment (€179,082), property (€2,186) and a contracted explorations services (€3,020,325). At the year end
the company owed DGGC €722,568



So you see in 2010 the 3 directors whom only controlled 44.7% of the company
committed to buying their own assets for circa $25m


And you think they do not control this company?

Since then there have been some share buybacks and what % does that leave them with?

Like I said wake up !

But are you connected .......?

[fenners66] 15/9/2017 21:10

The last purchase by Ovoca of its own shares was in April 2015.
The question is why were they bought ?

They are NOT an exploration / development company that was made apparent some years ago when they said they were going to be an investment company.

Like the previous post said - investment assets held in Bermuda...

Bet you didn't read the accounts ....

So are you connected to the directors?

[fenners66] 15/9/2017 20:54

You did not answer are you one of the directors or their family / connected person?

[fenners66] 15/9/2017 20:53

I repeat my previous post written before you appeared ;-

fenners66
30 Jun '17 - 09:18 - 6711 of 6746 0 0 Edit
Got to say its a "pretty" set of accounts lots of figures € and US $

Rather confusing and they go a long way to tell shareholders ...... that they have done nothing.

Some of the notes seem to say that they have continued to lend money during the year and then impaired these loans - how odd?

They declare the % shareholdings of nominee shareholders - but only quote the number of shares of the directors and their families.

So they are supposed to be around 44% for the 3 of them

But nominees have 50% so who do they own those for?

What is clear is the directors absolutely control this company and what happens to the investments - which are held in Bermuda.....