The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I see andy p trying real hard to raise suspicious on advfn. ADG doesnt realise that andy posted multiple thousands of posts on here during refi and all was deleted conveniently when he was proved to be completely wrong about the behaviour of the SP after the refi went through. Could get his head round the fact that the sp had to go to 104 for conversion. But he did scare off a bunch of people from pmo. And they all lost money. Anyway, dont listen to me or fkrs like andy. Make ur own decisions. PMO are doing the right thing short and medium term. The market doesnt think about whats going to happen in 5 or 10 years but it is interested in last, this and next year. Getting debt to 1x by 2022 is the target. Refi in 2022 looks forward from that date. ARCM trying to get people to dump, get SP down but it seems to be hangin in around this mark. Oil dropped tp 50 this time last year, it does tend to drop during winter. 54 for wti, shalers must be chitting themselves. 40 billion in debt due this year and 200billion over next 3 years. And exxon can only afford so much permian considering it was their worst performing segment last year.
OPEC + playing a blinder.
As a legitimate stakeholder with a significant personal shareholding in pmo, I will take arcm, s invitation to get involved. I will be asking them :
How is it that all other creditors have approved the SoA except arcm.
How is it that after the Rns announcing the asset purchases that the sp went up almost 20 per cent if it was such a bad move
How do they reconcile advocating risk reducing actions to delever the balance sheet when they have bet against pmo share price with their record short
How can they be an advocate of pmo, s best interests when they will benefit from a fall in their sp and have failed to comply with the shorting disclosure requirements
Email to be sent their pr agency tomorrow for answers. I'll post the response but not expecting one. Let's see
Cheers
I hope ARCM can also reveal to the public when their short position exceeded 0.5% for full transparency and also for a quick decision for the authorities to impose their fines or sanctions.
I think there is also a need for the other parties involved to be fined as well. i.e. the banks that were involved in these derivative instruments that ARCM have revealed as they surely are aware that their clients position have exceeded these reporting thresholds.
"Asian friends" but do we really know who are behind the facemasks?
So ARCM lose the court case and now have to resort to trying to scare the other lenders - they know the game is up, roll on the 12th .
ARCM were unaware of the rules of the world's leading Financial Centre. Understandable, Andy.p didn't know the rules of hockey, either.
Our Asian friends are clutching at straws... hope they don’t play poker...
I find it hard to believe they posted that tosh about cashflows being BP,s. Then again maybe the loons are running the asylum over there in HK, a year of unrest and all the experience has moved on, or they have the chinese fever.
By the way, I think the transaction date has to be 01/01/19 as that's when the reserves report was done.
Looks like they are letting kids invest hard working peoples money.
Unless I'm missing something, the answer to the first question is obviously NO. Ive pasted it below. This seems to make most of the remaining questions kind of pointless I think.
It's explained clearly I think in the webcast, PMO only expect to pay $500m because transaction is backdated, but they have a bridging loan in place just to be sure. However, I'd say they should have good idea how much FCF assets have made from beginning of 2019 to date, and that's most of the period of 01/01/19 to mid 2020.
So BP assets are being bought with the $500m capital raise, no new debt should be necessary. No new risk to lenders, so I can't see how an institution thinking as a lender instead of a shorter would object.
Obviously it's their short that they are really worried about!
"1) Since the transaction is back dated to January 1, 2019, is it accurate that cash flows until the closing of the Andrew and Shearwater transactions (estimated to be 2Q-3Q 2020) will remain with BP?"
I love the smell of freshly half-baked Hong Kong phoeey bull**** in the morning.......
ARCM FAQs - Never read so much nonsense in all my life.
Media, shareholders, creditors and investors clearly disagree with BS they are spouting.
This is the part I love most .."Until the recently announced proposed acquisitions, ARCM has never objected to any of the Company’s consent requests for investments since becoming a lender in 2016."
Ok, let's take them as a good honest Company and I'll help them rewrite it "Until recently .. we purchased sheds loads of debt during the last refinancing at an absolute bargain price and we also shorted the Company to b*ggery whilst not declaring our position (as we know nothing about FCA rules as we are mere lowly investors). We have made massive amounts of money so far and we are really upset that PMO are intentionally trying to stop us making more. For the benefit of all the stakeholders, we would like the judge to rule in our favour and ignore all the other lenders, shareholders and PMO themselves as it is just not fair that we may have to buy back all of our humongous short position at prices where we would actual make a loss. Why should we make a loss when so many others could share that loss between themselves and we could come out super rich! It would be absolutely tragic if the FCA actually find some teeth, slap us with a massive fine, force us to buy back our short with immediate affect and the judge rules against us. It would be a double whammy and it would show that the Law is ineffective and inept in helping out the people it should be helping - the corrupt, scheming and manipulative."
Good luck ARCM - you are clearly very clever and have done well, but this will truly be a battle to be written about and you risk jeopardising your reputation and other investments. You have gone large on this and taken a gamble; should it not work out for you, the money flow out of ARCM will be make any loss on PMO look inconsequential. Please carry on ..or consider your own exposure, minimise, take a hit (which is merely a reduction in profits on the Bonds) and move forward with your reputation and success still intact. Really, for all this effort, it would appear to the mere mortals amongst us that you are, indeed, more over exposed than you would like anyone to know. I hope you read this and can answer one simple question: without holding an amount of debt with could block the SoA in its own right, why would a court possibly rule in your favour? It will be a well watched case which, undoubtedly, will involve the FCA et al.
I think i have no choice but agree.:)
Quite amazing that a fund with so much cash under management, didn't know the rules surrounding one of the biggest shorting hedges in european history. They are just a concerned citizen. The lack of DBNO on here, even with the oil price falling combined with PMO treading water even under a $4 fall in oil, gives me more confidence that ARCM are looking at a serious problem.
Search green brook pr arcm which takes you to a different website where you don’t have to fill in any personal details
Courtesy of another Board (many thanks) ... https://arcm-premieroilscheme.com