The former CEO of Proxama (PROX) decided to dump 110m shares last Wednesday. There’s a lock on 60m but the rest went to Peel Hunt at 0.6p. I think the seller has made a big mistake and that therefore a buy at the current level, c. 1.15p, makes a lot of sense. The general story is starting to gather serious pace.
One can understand Wafic Said taking exception to Barclays’ behaviour and I can also understand why Barclays took its decision to exclude Wafic Said.
I presume that Mr Said’s leading counsel’s advice that there is a case against Barclays arises because, I suppose, Barclays in the manner of its handling the release for its part of this decision may have defamed Mr Said. I do not know. Otherwise I have no idea how counsel could have devised a case.
Mr Said is now 76 and his dealing days are over. Further, he has lived in Britain for donkeys’ years and therefore the fact that he was born in Syria surely cannot be the basis of deciding that he is a potential money-launderer. So why have Barclays decided to close his accounts? I can only suppose that, since they were sodded the other day with a £50m fine for being party to money-laundering (on, if memory serves me right, c. £1.8bn of total turnover in its books) I suppose Barclays reckons that dealing with anybody located in fact or in the past overseas is a money-laundering case waiting to happen. This is ridiculous and is caused by regulators. Time for HM Treasury to intervene and rub these excrescences out. I doubt if they will though: HM Treasury wants to continue to waste money whilst claiming that the austerity programme reflects the fact that “we are all in this together”.
On a rather more lowly scale, I continue to pursue my brother-in-law’s case against Charles Stanley which arises from the regulators at CS classifying an investment in Watchstone (WTG) as a “complex instrument”. We think that CS has not got a leg to stand on. However, they have shuffled the matter on to the FOS. And we’ll see.
As part of my preparation for the case I have contacted the FCA for its definition of a complex instrument. They can’t help since they do not know. They do not even try to define the term. Just how the grovelling zombies at CS are supposed to know I have no idea.
Further, the customers of CS are not warned of this complex instrument factor at any point in entering into contract with CS.
I could go on and indeed I shall another day.
Listening to BBC Radio 4’s Moneybox programme on Saturday afternoon I heard an insured who when completing his insurance proposal in respect of his house in Carlisle said that his house was outside 400 metres from a river when subsequent enquiry showed that it was about 200 metres. He now has a bill for £90,000 and the insurer, (comically named) Integra, has voided the policy. The insured’s failure to answer the distance question correctly puts him way outside the law and the possibility of averaging down the claim does not begin to arise. That seems fair to me and is yet another reminder as to why one should always self-insure if it is at all possible. And why waders are de rigueur in Carlisle.
The Daily Mail is twaddling (as part of its policy of developing a daily hate) that a takeover of the LSE is a bad thing. Why should that be? A valuation of £25bn for a tnav of, say, £1bn supposes that a rival exchange cannot be developed for less than £24bn. I am sure it can for a tiny fraction of £24bn. Let the Germans/Americans have LSE: we’ll take the cash.
Surprisingly, given all the death-defying publicity on the run up, Victoria Pendleton did not die when riding in the Foxhunters’ last Friday. Elsewhere, she is, I am told, a seven pinter as opposed to an NBR (or no beer required). What can this mean?