blouson blouse
10 May 2018
Re: the long shadow KillermanJYou and Mary appear more interested in attacking the messenger than dispassionately considering the facts in the message. That would indicate Confirmation Bias, which is widely recognised to be a dangerous heuristic for an investor.Dealing with your questions/accusations-1. I'm not making inferences about Mary's purchase price- her previous posts make clear that she bought shares way above 200p about 4 years ago and was encouraging others to believe they would rise significantly from there. If she had invested in low risk products or shares elsewhere that cash would be worth circa 300-350p now, and if she still holds PMG it is worth 53p. Value destruction on a massive scale. [ Perhaps it is ironic that my previous post referred to iinformation in the public domain that is available to people but not accessed and is the difference between the judgements people make?]2. I have made clear previously that I am not short nor long and never have been. So I have no 'agenda' to 'peddle'. But what's your position? presumably you are long and currently suffering a paper loss even before considering what would have happened with an alternative investment?[ I suffer losses too- but I cut them early ]3. You dismiss my posts as 'carp' (presumably a typo, but you mean rubbish?) yet you have not denied any of the facts I have posted and instead play the man not the ball.4. Your suggestion that it is "very unlikely" that PMG can suffer any- let alone a substantial-financial loss from it's previous director's and subsidiary's unlawful behaviour must be a pure guess dressed up as an opinion, unless you have extraordinary inside information. Look at my earlier posts on this subject . There are numerous potential bases for former shareholders of PMG, clients and victims of wrongdoing to bring civil actions against PMG as well as the potential for all sorts of criminal prosecutions. The number of ongoing regulatory, private and criminal investigations into the further nefarious behaviour of Mills and Quayside run into double figures according to Google. Not surprisingly the publicity from the specimen charges has led to a torrent of people claiming "me too". If you are in any doubt that this is real just google David Mills (PMG's former director) and Quayside (PMG's former subsidiary) and you see lawyers advertising for claimants . Obviously HBOS is responsible for some, and maybe most, but that doesn't mean PMG aren't as well or for different ones. Indeed HBOS may have a claim for contribution for their loss against PMG! personally I doubt they will bring that as they just want to hush it all up, but who knows what a new CEO would think.5. The suggestion that HBOS has "accepted responsibility" is laughable. Look at what Thames Valley Police have said about how Lloyds and HBOS thwarted them at every turn and tried to cover things up. Only last week the FT reported on how this is going to run and run, as new cover ups keep coming to light ([link] )6. As regards your details about PMG's business then of course those are ALSO factors to take into account in deciding whether to buy, hold or sell PMG. Neither you or I can judge whether that is "more pertinent" as you claim though because we simply cannot calculate the size of the liability if the past fraud again catches up with PMG. Lloyds thought it had no risk from PPi and has so far set aside £19 billion.......so it would be naive to think even very experienced and very highly paid directors and lawyers are able to assess the risks of litigation. So what chance small investors?And with oil at a 4.5 year high PMG shares are barely back to the level they were a year ago. So they have performed significantly less well than a straight play on oil . The problem is that it is impossible for anyone to know what the exposure to PMG is IF the risk manifests. Lloyds have set aside £100
killermanjarrow
09 May 2018
Re: the long shadow Blouson you're making inferences on Mary's purchase price. Can you tell us your position here? It appears to me that you've got a short open because you've been peddling this tenuous carp for quite a while.Even if anyone wants to entertain your very unlikely notion of PMG being fined for a crime where HBOS has fully accepted responsibility, this investigation has 6 months to run and in that time PMG is expected to release news that should cause this to re-rate from here. In case you're unaware1. AGR TRACS reservoir study is now over due2. Nexen report into feasibility of using the Scot Platform3. Possibility of service agreements being announced.Your posts seem hellbent on advising people to invest elsewhere because of the legal risk to PMG from the Lloyds/HBOS crime but surely even you'd admit that the more pertinent information to affect the share price in the next six months is related to operational progress than information that suddenly leads to a fine for PMG?
blouson blouse
08 May 2018
Re: the long shadow Mary, All potential investors should be encouraged to make themselves aware of this issue. Your suggestions that I am 'peddling' an 'agenda' and am misleading people distracts attention from that. I would prefer not to split hairs over the meaning of the press release but I can't agree that my reasoning is absurd as you intimate. I believe it is perfectly reasonable (which is why I posted it) particularly in view of the fact the release says-1.That the NCA is acting on information provided by Thames Valley Police, ie the force that singlehandedly and despite serious obstruction from others convicted Mills ( a former director of PMG) of his fraud perpetrated largely through Quayside (PMG's subsidiary at a key time) ;2. That "a number of companies have reported allegations of significant fraud involving a former employee of HBOS AND THEIR ASSOCIATES. These include allegations of ....the use of CORRUPT CONSULTANTS". It would be truly surprising if it was another employee of HBOS other than one of the ones already convicted ( especially in view of HBOS/Lloyds public assurances about a 'rogue' ) or that they had used different corrupt consultants to those they were already working with (ie Mills and his wife and cronies). 3. "The sums of money involved could be significant, running to many millions". We know that HBOS has set aside £100 million to compensate it's victims, and there are numerous other enquiries and police investigations still going on regarding that. You may deduce a different meaning to me , but can't legitimately rubbish my deduction of the statement coupled with what else is readily available on the web and social media . It is A- not the only- natural inference. There may be others.Time will of course tell whether PMG suffers more than the £8m you claim as a result of some aspect or other of the criminal activities carried out by its one time subsidiary.Your posts indicate that you bought PMG shares at prices many times higher and many years ago so you appear to be sitting on massive losses which may hinder a truly objective assessment . So I say with greater emphasis than usual, DYOR and having done so see if you feel you can honestly assure people on this BB that the press release TOGETHER WITH WHAT ELSE IS KNOWN containsNO RISK at all for PMG and its long suffering shareholders.
Mary Mullins
08 May 2018
Re: the long shadow Blouson blouse " I haven't misquoted a press release, I've simply drawn a natural inference from it based on information in the public domain but which people may not have connected. If I wanted to mislead I would hardly have pavulnerablested the link to the original source!"It is not a natural inference at all, it is just your opinion that this may be the case. No mention that the NCA is investigating Parkmead in the press release whatsoever.please carry on being the legal eagle on this board.FilteredGLA
blouson blouse
08 May 2018
Re: the long shadow MM and KillermanJI'm going to respond because I think it's important that followers of this BB understand how potentially significant this could be, even though clearly none of us have the full picture. I believe this area is a big red flag which should be factored in to any decision to hold shares in PMG.My only agenda is to use these BB's to gather and share knowledge- and for reasons that should be obvious ( and I mention below) this information is of relevance to shareholders in PMG. I haven't misquoted a press release, I've simply drawn a natural inference from it based on information in the public domain but which people may not have connected. If I wanted to mislead I would hardly have pasted the link to the original source! I had assumed that owners of PMG would know that the 'HBOS Impaired Assets Division' was inextricably intertwined with Mills and Quayside in the frauds for which Mills and HBOS bankers were convicted. Whilst it is possible that a fraud unconnected with Mills and Quayside ( and hence PMG) was ALSO taking place at HBOS Impaired Asserts that would be an extraordinary coincidence. The much more likely explanation is that if there was other fraud at HBOS IAD then it involved Mills/Quayside /PMG. Hence the inference I drew.As Killerman suggests will be the case ONCE PMG is actually named in a press release I think this is a risk worth considering NOW. As no details of the number or value of the other frauds being explored is yet known I'm unsure how anyone can assess the potential hit to PMG if they result in prosecutions, or even only the release of information which leads to civil actions by former PMG shareholders . It may be nothing or it could be existential. Hence why I think it is something which should not be ignored, just because understanding the impact is challenging, but should be researched and be something that shareholders should share information about as more becomes public, whether explicitly or more subtly.That is a sensible use of this BB. The court seemed to acknowledge that the criminal charges were merely examples of wider bad behaviour so the latest development is consistent with that and no surprise. As you say MM, companies are generally responsible for the actions of their directors and you give no reason why that principle wouldn't apply to PMG. I endorse your reference of Ian Fraser. He's knowledgable, forensic and tenacious.Drawing attention to a dark period in PMG's history, that is still reverberating and could cast a very long shadow on PMG isn't 'tarnishing' PMG. It's the events themselves that caused the problem. As you say Tom Cross and David Mills shared the board for almost 9 months. You mention Core Enterprise Management but that seems to contradict your view that this is irrelevant. CEM is another link that may cause PMG shareholders concern as it (amongst other things) indicates the close relationship between a PMG director called Gordon Ashworth and David Mills. Ashworth was a director of PMG until Jan 2010- overlapping with Cross for over 3 years. Despite the carnage that Mills caused PMG in 2006/7 ( which you estimate to have been £8m ) Ashworth was on the board of CEM with Mills many years later suggesting they were quite close despite what Ashworth knew of Mills past form! It's opaque and clearly there are many questions that need answering. There may be no financial exposure for PMG but personally with so many other shares out there I wouldn't take the risk. PMG itself won't guarantee the market that it can have no possible exposure because even they cannot know.
wikkid22
06 May 2018
Re: Scott Platform Either i am out of touch with PMG and so is is he company and it’s brokers or you are telling LIES AGAIN? Maybe you know more than the company but I think your telling LIES again. Let’s see what the competition says next announcement?
callsignzulu
06 May 2018
Re: Scott Platform Kid: You’re out of touch with Parkmead ! Goodbye....
wikkid22
06 May 2018
Re: Scott Platform You posted ‘1 billion barrels of oil to be produced through Parkmeads assets. ’The article says several times about 80-90M. Not one mention of 1Bn. All that’s asked is for you to back up your posts that are always lies but you can’t. Your proof says 80-90M the same as the company and its broker numbers. You’ve never answered this lie.
callsignzulu
06 May 2018
Re: Scott Platform Kid: A billion barrels going through the hub...... read it properly please !
wikkid22
06 May 2018
Re: Scott Platform So your proof is a 2015 article that only speaks about an FPSO and states clearly that the reserves are 80m? That’s good proof of 1Bn barrels CSZ. Keep up the lie!
callsignzulu
06 May 2018
Re: Scott Platform Kid: Read all about it in here [link]
wikkid22
06 May 2018
Re: Scott Platform You don’t seem to understand logic well do you?The lie part is to do with your claim about 1 Bn barrels. The company and its broker are very clear that they have 80m of reserves at about 20% recovery at present and less than 1Bn in total oil in place. YOU keep the lie about 1Bn barrels of oil to flow. Only you say it, not the company in its communications or it’s broker communications that get posted on its website. You keep up the lie.
callsignzulu
06 May 2018
Re: Scott Platform Kid: Options are open for the hub 1: to go through the Scott platform. 2: FPSO The choice is easy tie into the Scott platform by construction on the platform itselfOr a jacket along side or a monocolumn. These options are far cheaper and more economical than a FPSO..
wikkid22
06 May 2018
Re: Scott Platform 1 Bn barrels through PMG assets? You keep up the lie CSZ. It was 1Bn through Perth hub before? They have 80m reserves so only 920m to go to keep you right.Keep up your lies CSZ but board members need to know the truth. PMG and their broker tell the truth a pity that you don’t like it.
callsignzulu
05 May 2018
Scott Platform Design options for Perth and Dolphin....Hey does this include Lowlander ? 30th licence round results to be revealed shortly. 1 billion barrels of oil to be produced through Parkmeads assets.
