[ADVERT]
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Polo Resources Limited LSE:POL London Ordinary Share VGG6844A1158 ORD NPV (DI)
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.0% 1.57 1.15 1.99 - 0.00 01:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Mining 0.0 -3.3 -1.1 - 6

Polo Resources Share Discussion Threads

Showing 16926 to 16944 of 17650 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  682  681  680  679  678  677  676  675  674  673  672  671  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
18/8/2020
18:02
« The stock is actually up 37% in the last three years » yeahhhhh and polo is down how much in the last three years???? 😂😂😂😂 The simplest way to benefit from a rising market is to buy an index fund. While individual stocks can be big winners, plenty more fail to generate satisfactory returns. Unfortunately the Hibiscus Petroleum Berhad (KLSE:HIBISCS) share price slid 38% over twelve months. That falls noticeably short of the market decline of around 0.7%. On the bright side, the stock is actually up 37% in the last three years. Of course Hibiscus Petroleum Berhad may not be the best stock to buy
johnnyrambo1
18/8/2020
17:28
Tick tock tick tock friday is coming......
johnnyrambo1
18/8/2020
17:11
Well 888 it's a bit stupid to offer a judgement on the 'balance of probabilities' if he has no evidence whatsoever to balance. So unless he's connected to the Nomad or Polo he is simply making a guess as to why the nomad has resigned. As you rightly point out there are several reasons why a nomad may part company, it doesnt necessarily mean wrong doing. I could say that Tang as a barrister will know the rules inside out and on the 'balance of probabilities' it is unlikely he would step outside them. But like Glavey's statement that would be hogwash too.
mickmack
18/8/2020
16:15
The question you ask of Glavey is the same point I have made for sometime which he can’t answer because he doesn’t have any concrete evidence. He is just giving speculative opinions which he can’t support with facts. One then has to question what he wishes to achieve by spreading his speculation.
888icb
18/8/2020
15:33
Glavey you say 'on the balance of probability' the Nomad has resigned over breaches of LSE rules. I've asked you what evidence you are basing your conclusion on?
mickmack
18/8/2020
14:59
mickmack, Information quoted is in the public domain. I added it there for you. :-) But you really must try to read what is written and not make up things which weren't. Similarly understand the meaning of what you write. In post 16886 my ultimate comment makes clear the limit of the NOMAD's duties. Trading in the company's shares will be suspended immediately if it has no NOMAD. It is on notice now, not once the NOMAD has resigned. It then has 30 days 'grace' in which to find and sign up a NOMAD who will agree to act for the company, if it has not found one previously. This period is to enable completion of diligence and formalities. If a NOMAD is not found within the allotted time the company will be delisted. "Under such circumstances, where the Nomad had relinquished its responsibilities towards a particular company, the company’s shares are suspended from trading and then delisted if no replacement is found within 30 days." You ask a question and call for an answer. You get a straight response and then you don't like it, so you call it hogwash.
glavey
18/8/2020
14:32
Any allegations would have to be investigated (and proven) before any action would be taken. I have never heard of any Nomad "blotting" their home patch. Auditors very occasionally. That is why you have whistleblowers. Is Tang behaving ethically?
russman
18/8/2020
14:09
Glavey don't get all sanctimonious when you later add additional information to your post after it was read. So you consider on the balance of probability that Polo have acted illegally. Do you have any evidence to back up this hogwash? The company is on notice of suspension if it has no Nomad. If and when the company appoints a Nomad it will be lifted. If the company had acted illegally it would be reported to the LSE and they would suspended immediately. More hogwash from you I'm afraid.
mickmack
18/8/2020
13:42
mickmack, Do yourself a favour and R..E..A..D.. :-) I consider, on the balance of probability, that the NOMAD has given notice of resignation because, in their view, there is irregular behaviour or sufficient cause for concern thereof. The company is on notice of suspension. A NOMAD acts as a regulator, they do not administer the law.
glavey
18/8/2020
13:08
Glavey you like to ask questions but you never give answers. So you go first, do you thjnk the Nomad has resigned due to illegal activity by Polo? If you think that is the situation then why has Polo not been suspended from trading, presuming the Nomad has fulfilled it's obligations to report.
mickmack
18/8/2020
12:53
mickmack, "...you never actually make a point..." There are plenty of points. Have you difficulty reading? Should have gone to specsavers? Let's take the one you made about observing 'significant shareholder' activity. Although you didn't respond on that, consider the recent daily volumes and the share price collapse. What do you think might happen if a sell order of any substance entered the market? "Isn't it also a requirement that a departing Nomad is duty bound to inform the Stock Exhange (sic) immediately if it is aware of such poor behaviour." "Although paid by the listed companies that they represent, Nomads may deem it appropriate at times to resign from their position and/or report the company it regulates if persistently failing to meet the AIM rules and regulations that they are there to advise upon. This would be to avoid being fined by the London Stock Exchange for failing to properly police the market." "Nomads act as the primary regulator throughout a company’s time on AIM" hTTps://aim-watch.com/project/advisers-brokers-on-aim/
glavey
18/8/2020
10:35
Tick tock tick tock You’re correct Glavey
johnnyrambo1
18/8/2020
09:30
Glavey you never actually make a point when you post your drivel. Are you insinuating that the Nomad left because of poor practice/illegal shenanigans by Polo? Isn't it also a requirement that a departing Nomad is duty bound to inform the Stock Exhange immediately if it is aware of such poor behaviour. Of which the SE can immediately suspend Polo from trading. That hasn't happened either. So what is your point?
mickmack
18/8/2020
08:38
Is he another clown or maybe another 888FT alias 😂😂😂
johnnyrambo1
18/8/2020
01:58
Silvstallone, 17 Aug '20 - 18:58 - 16873 "Good finish" Well done, your very first post it seems. We all have to start somewhere and this board and POLO's circumstances make it as good a place as any. 888 will be grateful for your support. :-)
glavey
18/8/2020
01:38
spights, "...if you read his post you can see why I posted it" I cannot.
glavey
18/8/2020
01:23
"...subject to review probably annually and perhaps they couldn’t agree. Such reviews would be carried out long before a NOMAD resigns and potentially leaves a client 'Nomadless'. No NOMAD would want to be seen 'dumping' a client over a fee review before a replacement NOMAD could be appointed. Similarly no company who wished to remain listed would put themselves in such a predicament. Allenby advised that the company should appoint an additional Independent Non-Executive Director six months ago, which the company has so far not done. That is to say POLO have failed to heed the advice of the NOMAD.
glavey
17/8/2020
19:00
Johnney made good money trading this today🤑Ԍ97;🤑
johnnyrambo1
17/8/2020
18:58
Good finish
silvstallone
Chat Pages: Latest  682  681  680  679  678  677  676  675  674  673  672  671  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
POL
Polo Resou..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20211016 05:33:56