Petropavlovsk Share Discussion Threads

[undervaluedassets] 27/10/2020 08:36

200 day moving average broken to downside...needs to recover quickly.

Last time the share price went down through the 200 day moving average (the big daddy of moving averages) was 12/07/18. And in the following 3 months after 12/07/18, POG shares lost 35%.

There is minor support at 23-24p on the chart and then the next support is at 17-18p
(which funnily enough is 35% down from the price now)

Tea leaf reading aside - (I consider technical analysis to be only of marginal utility) - the one thing that is certain is there has been a volt-face in sentiment about this company since the vote; from hot stock to dog stock.

Always fun and games with Petropavlovsk

[midasx] 26/10/2020 21:04

Consent fee is 0.25%, the alternative termination fee is 0.10%

The Proposal, if implemented, would allow MHA the necessary time to conduct and prepare the 30 June 2020 Review Report. At this stage it is not clear whether the Issuer or the Parent will be in a position to make available on the Parent's website and deliver to the Trustee the 30 June 2020 Reports prior to the Meeting. If the Issuer or the Parent makes available on the Parent's website and delivers to the Trustee the 30 June 2020 Reports prior to the Meeting, the Issuer or the Parent may terminate the Solicitation. If a Termination Event occurs, the Issuer will not be obliged to pay or procure the payment of the Consent Fee, but the Noteholders will (subject to the terms of the Proposal) be eligible to receive the Termination Fee.

[space_bob] 26/10/2020 20:49

As I understood it, they'd already missed the reporting date so the charge had been incurred whatever happened. Late October was given as the new date for the accounts. Not sure if they incur a further charge if they miss this date too.

[apple53] 26/10/2020 20:33

Robert
What you are terming 'combined' is the total number of shares in issue (or, to be precise, voting rights, and I have no reason to believe any of the shares in issue have less than or more than one voting right). It is NOT the total number of direct and indirect shares held by Prosperity entities.

MidasX- good point about missing the deadline and the higher fee (I will trust your knowledge on this - haven't checked myself).

[midasx] 26/10/2020 19:33

The BOD have stated the interim results will be available by the end of October.

Questions should be asked as to why they could not produce the accounts by today, which would have saved the company $750,000 in consent fees.

Surely you can convince accountants to work overtime to save $750,000??

[weemonkey] 26/10/2020 15:41

Unnecessary fees then.

None too clever.

[malcontent] 26/10/2020 15:27

can smell a rally coming...

[midasx] 26/10/2020 13:05

The company are paying a consent fee of 0.25% or $1,250,000 for being late with the accounts.

They could have reduced this and paid a termination fee $750,000 less by releasing the accounts today!

The Bond holders will not then count the late production of the accounts as a default.

[fellranger] 26/10/2020 12:44

Think this is like a penalty due to bond holders - .25% of $500,000,000 - due to POG being late reporting ?Happy to stand corrected .....

[undervaluedassets] 26/10/2020 12:18

Anyone like to explain the RNS today..

Bondholder waiver? dunno ...

plain English please.

Fees waived in respect of late results ? I dunno..

One for you RobertSH maybe seeing as you appear to know everything.

[robertstronghand] 25/10/2020 09:00

Including the indirect which has fallen slightly, 452,641,629 to 434,417,617, but direct has risen by more, so combined 4,352,134,110 August 6th to 4,390,206,390 as per last notification 20th October.

[stevea171] 24/10/2020 12:59

Obviously they don't want to fix that because this is a Strukov engineered take over where a Prosperity nominee would not play ball with the rest of the team. Just get in the way so can't even be considered.

[apple53] 24/10/2020 12:23

Robert, I think you may have missed my posts re. share count and Prosperity's holdings. To be clear the combined holdings fell from 452m to 434m.

I agree that Prosperity should indeed have the opportunity of a director. The board should already have fixed that given they must all recognise how farcical was the final clause you refer to.

[robertstronghand] 24/10/2020 10:54

Maybe the heavy rain hitting production in Q3 explains the somewhat disappointing results at IRC, Q4 should see a much more substantial increase in cash on hand if debt repayments continue their decline from 8.8m. There really should be scope to increase the pace of repayment too, I assume that is allowed by Gazprombank.

[robertstronghand] 24/10/2020 10:51

6th August Prosperity had 3,899,492,481 at 11.61%. Now 3,955,788,773 at 10.98%. If I had to guess maybe some small western investors are being spooked and selling, found the bond conversions odd, so more likely they are, maybe friends of the previous management moving on now. I think it would be a good move if Prosperity were allowed to put forward a director, they are a large shareholder and it would build bridges, I note their candidate did receive a majority vote for approval last time, only to be cancelled by the last clause also receiving a majority. Sometimes Russians charge head first when a bit of finesse will get the end result they seek quicker.

[robertstronghand] 23/10/2020 18:53

So IRC debt repayments have gone from Q1 9.8m to 9.4m to 8.8m in Q3, presumably due to the drop in interest payable on the back of both lower LIBOR and the drop in total debt. Total debt has gone from 219.4m to 214.2m to 209m, increments of 5.2m. Cash has risen from 12.8m to Q3 14.3m. Good they seem to have stopped hedging, although I am not adverse to locking in higher prices to some extent when backwardation ends. Also they seem to be addressing the low sale price compared to spot prices.

[rochdae] 23/10/2020 18:27

I picked up a few more today.

The company is in a mess with management that's for sure. But it's just too cheap now.

Though risky ...but that's the gamble.

Roch

[undervaluedassets] 23/10/2020 16:30

Why did he bring a goon squad to work with him then? Why didn't he bring the police? If the law was on his side HE would have been the one bringing the police.

It is as ludicrous as Trump standing on the street outside a church waving a bible and claiming to be godly; having just cleared the same street with police charges and tear gas.

[troy] 23/10/2020 14:42

Thanks apple. I didn't do the exact maths on Prosperity as things have got complicated over the last few months.

The Russian newswires have been quieter today as my alerts lit up like a Christmas Tree yesterday ! Todays only link is from Interfax who apparently got a comment from Mechcheryakov (although through a representative). It doesn't add anything but translated quite clearly compared to some so I'll post it anyway. For information 470,617 rubles is about £4700 in relation to the computer equipment (allegedly) stolen.........

Petropavlovsk CEO commented on the criminal case

Moscow. October 23. INTERFAX.RU - Maxim Meshcheryakov, appointed temporary general director of Petropavlovsk, explained that in the summer he came to the Moscow office of Pokrovsky Rudnik and a subsidiary of AO UK Petropavlovsk, where he was not allowed by security, on instructions from the board of directors.

So he commented on the criminal case initiated against him. Earlier, the Moscow Investigative Committee reported that the case was being investigated under articles of theft and arbitrariness. The press service of Petropavlovsk announced that the case was initiated in connection with the events of August 26-27: the security did not let the temporary CEO into the office, then he and his companions were forced.

"I came to work to fulfill the official duties entrusted to me by the shareholders of Petropavlovsk plc. I had documents with me: the decision of the board of directors of Petropavlovsk plc on my appointment as executive director of Petropavlovsk plc and the decision of the board of directors of the subsidiary JSC" MC "Petropavlovsk" also on my appointment as the general director of the company. I came to the address where the office of JSC MC Petropavlovsk is located, according to the instructions of the board of directors, which sent me to this building, "Meshcheryakov explained to Interfax through a representative.

"Like no one (everyone ?)else, I am interested in the management company having all the information about its current activities and activities over the past at least three years," he answered when asked about the charge of stealing computer equipment from the office.

In August, the shareholders of Petropavlovsk by an overwhelming majority of votes decided to conduct an independent examination of Petropavlovsk's transactions and agreements over the past 3 years, he recalls.

The case against Meshcheryakov was opened by the Second Directorate for the Investigation of Particularly Important Cases (on crimes against state power and in the economic sphere) of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee in Moscow.

"The company understands that the investigation into the actions of Mr. Meshcheryakov is related to the crime under Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation" Arbitrariness. "According to the legal advice received by the company, the crime of" Arbitrariness "has a very broad definition and may include actions taken to protect legal rights or interests, "- commented earlier Petropavlovsk himself.

The decision to initiate the case states that Meshcheryakov and unidentified persons committed arbitrariness by prior agreement "against the representative office of Pokrovsky Rudnik JSC with the threat of violence against the persons who guarded the premises, and causing significant harm to the organization."

According to investigators, realizing the illegality of their actions, they used physical force to guard the office, entered the premises and took them under their control. In addition, from 26 to 28 August, unidentified persons "unlawfully entered the premises where the computer equipment was kept and committed secret theft of the said property on a large scale in the total amount of 470 617 rubles."

Petropavlovsk has become an arena of corporate conflict in recent months, with the dispute between the main shareholders already spilling over into a conflict between the CEO and mine managers and bringing back the forgotten topic of force infiltration into the headlines of Russian economic news.

The largest shareholder of Petropavlovsk with a share of about 24% is UGK, which is controlled by the family of Konstantin Strukov. Petropavlovsk conducts industrial development of gold deposits in the Amur Region, following the results of the first half of the year, it closes the top three of Russian gold miners.

[robertstronghand] 23/10/2020 13:06

Perma bears missed out on the stock market rally because they ignored the indicators, the most interesting one I see is the very low inventory levels in the US, guarantees strong economic growth there going well in to 2021.

[apple53] 23/10/2020 12:55

So share count increased from 3674 before 6th August to 3956 now.
Even so, Prosperity's combined holdings still fell from 452m to 434m, so my original post (at 12:30 UK time) stands.

[apple53] 23/10/2020 12:46

Actually Troy. Ignore that. I've just realised they released amended TR1s on the 7th August so I need to do a recalc

[apple53] 23/10/2020 12:33

Troy - sorry just refreshed after adding my post, and I see yours.
The share count increased from 3899 to 3956, so this explains only 17bp of the change in their position out of 63bp.

[apple53] 23/10/2020 12:30

Bubloo

I was trying to understand the likely impact the Prosperity selling has had. Their position has fallen by 18m shares since the last notification on 6th August. Average daily volume on the LSE (where I believe all Prosperity's shares are listed given the ISIN) was around £2.5m from Oct 1st to 20th (to pick an arbitrary period), but who knows when they started selling. So anywhere from 5-15% of volume depending on the selling period.

Obviously this may help to explain the fall in the share price, and may also explain why, for a while, the UK listing was at a discount to the Russian.
As you mention, there are likely to have been other (aggrieved) sellers.

Prosperity cannot significantly reduce its stake without hammering the price (and probably ending up with 15+% less cash than the price before their sales), so why do it at all? They had better get on with being an activist influence or find a buyer for the whole company.

Maybe there are innocent reasons their stake has shrunk (btw one of the reasons for the shrinking percentage was the increased total share count for conversions). My guess is they could not sell any quicker than they have without shooting themselves in the foot. They would boost the price if they made a statement which made it clear they will not be sellers (below a certain price, say).