Member Info for bluerill

thankyou alaric, you put it much better (and briefer) than I did or could. I will try to be more civil generally

thankyou, Bandit. You absolutely proved my point. You touched no nerve, nor provided no insights. You don't want me to be 'humble', you want me to place your musings on par with my research, and I won't do that. The market keeps me humble because it is the ultimate arbiter. You don't get to claim any other measure of humility is relevant.

and another thing.....if you want to (really) discuss the 'risks' of Tosca at 70%, rather than the potential at 75% to pass special resolutions, how about the risk of them getting to 90%? At that level - dun dun duhhhhh - they could 'squeeze' out minorities. Surely that has to be a concern, after all 'squeeze outs' are bad things right? Don't small shareholders get shafted in those things? Well....yeah, sometimes. But the rules state that in order to do a squeeze out - necessarily part of the current squirrel-related 'creeping takeover' scenario - the buyer, Tosca, would be obligated to pay a minimum of the highest price they've paid over the past year (i'm a bit rusty here, but I believe that's the case). So, in order to get the 15+% to get to 90%, Tosca would have to drive right through Jite Okuloku, Brandon Hill and a whole bunch of rich, sophisticated shareholders. On that basis, whaddya think Hughes would have to pay those guys to persuade them to sell and get him over the 90% threshold? Personally, I haven't a clue, but I am pretty sure it would a price that no one on this board or anywhere else on the share register would object to as Tosca would then be forced to pay at least that price for the remaining minorities.

Now, I would never - in all my imagined 'ramping' efforts - think to point that out because it is the sort of quality problem that I don't traffic in, but if it serves to make a higher point - ie., that having a super-majority shareholder laser-focused on extracting shareholder value can also be a (very, very) good thing - then I will, very reluctantly, do it.

whatever bandit, whatever. Not once, not one single post - ever - did I dismiss an 'alternative view' that had any merit, only ones that were ill-conceived (is that nicer than stupid?), silly or of rather dubious intentions, which are more often than not guilty of being ill-conceived and silly. Fwiw, you won't get me worked up in any way by calling me insignificant or pompous, or any other jacked-up insult, but you have motivated me to point out the following, since you seem so interested in form rather than substance: 1. i've pointed this out in the past: one's writing style, pompous, arrogant, whatever, is of no consequence whatsoever relative to insights and facts. Just because these boards carry the general label of 'social' media, doesn't mean they constitute some kind of digital coffee klatch where we all share our feelings along with our latest share tip. If you don't like that I'm sometimes pushy or even condescending, tough. Then don't come on and share your feelings along with some general musings if getting corrected then makes you all sad and stuff; 2. You literally did not read what I just written, particularly about how a big fund like Capital might take such an uneconomic decision. Literally. What am I supposed to do when you ignore my explanation and share thoughts from your 'gut', pat you on the back for being skeptical?; 3. I don't have anything that's 'ahead of the curve' or any other mis-used cliche. I know more than you and others because I've been doing this a long time, and I'm bloody good at it. As I said, if I come off wrong when I share, tough luck. Focus on the merits of your argument(s) and not on my style; and finally [all caps coming]: IT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED OF A NEAR-70% SHAREHOLDER, -BUT IF YOU WANT TO THEN TRANSLATE THOSE SUSPICIONS/CONCERNS INTO THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS, YOU HAVE TO SHOW YOUR WORK. My overall point here is that right now, our interests and Tosca's are completely aligned. There is no reasonable motivation for them to de-list the company, etc., when a progressive policy of capital returns already hinted at by the company, and the attendant share price appreciation that will inevitably occur is precisely the outcome they would be looking for as a fund manager. Furthermore, Tosca - as I also explained - are a smart buyer taking a block from a dumb seller in Capital, and that is the end of it. And I'll tell you one more thing for free: if you think having a 70% shareholder in one of your small companies is concerning, get used to it. The abandonment of this space by traditional funds like Capital and Fidelity is profound and the San Leon 'model' - in my oh-so-amateur/ insignificant view - is set to become much more commonplace. Viewing Tosca and their intentions with skepticism at times is healthy. Trying to insult me for pointing out the flaws in your argument, just on the basis that Tosca 'must be up to something' however, is not.

sorry, in the previous posting, I seemed to be referring to previous comments in just one post, but in fact the information on Capital's fundamentals-free sales and then laying out the case against Tosca taking any 'de-listing'-type actions are contained in my previous 2 posts....

I'm back...First, as Alaric correctly explained, the 25m block must have been Capital. There is simply no other possibility. The difference between their last posted holding and 25m is likely sales done over the past 6 months that were not adequately reported. Trust me: US fund managers especially do not sweat position change disclosures unless they breach a major threshold, which clearly Capital didn't until yesterday when they went to 0. For that RNS, be a bit patient. Foreign funds do, have a few days/week cushion in the rules. I'll bet anyone a steak dinner that we'll see Capital put out an RNS in due course.
Bandit, the rest of your post is a bit all over the place, but overall, I did find it a little frustrating. I went to great lengths to explain EXACTLY what likely has been going on with Capital's selling. In fact, if you had read it carefully, you would have understood that your most basic presumption - that 'fund managers do not blindly make what on the face of it is a poor decision like this, unless there is clear justification for it as they have to defend it to their own investors...' is precisely what I set out from the start to refute. I specifically explained that positions such as in SanLeon - because the companies at some point 1-2 years ago were deemed too small/micro cap and/or the positions themselves too illiquid - were removed from the main fund manager and placed in a special account where they were designated for sale. From that point on, on any particular day, all that mattered was what kind of selling the market could bear (ie, how liquid is it?) in that name and NEVER again, consideration of fundamentals. In effect therefore, there is no one left to make ANY decision on fundamentals again about the shares, good, bad or indifferent. From there, it should also be obvious that there are no 'investors' for Capital to answer to in these sales because the shares are not sitting in any fund that anyone is any longer invested in, and so any gains or (mostly) losses on their eventual sales is simply a profit or cost to Capital's corporate account.
The rest of your post is a bit difficult to follow as I think you have hold some misconceptions about de-listing and Tosca itself. First, Hughes now has the better part of £125m in SanLeon. Trust me, that's a significant position for the fund and will take pride of place in Hughes's investor letter for the foreseeable future. As for the possibility of Tosca engineering something as ridiculously counter-productive as a de-listing, please - again - re-read my observations because I went to some trouble to explain just why this is so unlikely as to be beyond the pale. As for your 'negative' experiences with de-listing, they were 'negative' because healthy companies don't get de-listed; that fate is almost always reserved for very very unhealthy companies, with balance sheets unable to support a public listing. Ergo, your negative experience(s).

'we' is a shorthand for all those on this board who are doing their homework based on published information, nothing more.

As for Tosca's holding pre and post tender, while they may lie near a ownership level which would allow them - as you say - to table special resolutions, if you could paint for me please, a single scenario where say, de-listing the company would benefit them - as they would immediately have to suffer a massive mark-to-market loss, deal with investors would would doubtless eviscerate Hughes for that, then have to deal, I assume, with selling/running(?!?) a now private company in Nigeria, etc, as opposed to leaving it as a public entity, with limited retail free float, escalating capital returns, the potentially parabolic share price appreciation that that combo would suggest, while leaving himself free time to do other things like running his fund (!) - because I would love to hear it.

pc01 - pls read my post below. there is nothing machiavellian, etc going on here. no one is trying to game the shares or buy back in post-tender or anything else along those lines. A smart buyer traded with a dumb seller. Period

Tosca bought Capital's shares, not Suntrust's. In fact, Capital's selling has the been primary cause of underperformance of this share for well over a year or more as the primary fund manager at the time was forced to divest his fund of ALL positions in smaller cap companies (probably an arbitrary cutoff of anything below $500m market cap. In other words, the divestment had nothing whatever to do with the quality, or not, of any particular position, sle or otherwise). We know this has been going on because Capital, which originally held just under 40m shares, have periodically announced material reductions in their holding. Funnily enough, these reductions occurred right around a major announcement by sle, which then inevitably led to cries of 'why doesn't this share do better considering how good the news is...!' or something equivalent, often by squirrels who would love to use the seeming underperformance as evidence that crazy bulls of the share were well, crazy. The reason Capital would initiate their selling around announcements however, was likely for a much more innocent reason; namely that when major announcements are made, it tends to expand the investor base and create more liquidity. Furthermore, because we now know Capital chose to sell their balance BEFORE a tender that would very likely have allowed them to get a very material portion of their holding away at a price (46p) almost 40%(!) above where they have sold to Tosca, proves just how irrational and therefore damaging to our share price they have been for some time. The removal of this particular player is an important uplift to the very foundations of our share price full stop. [I would go further: I believe that Capital's decision a couple of years (or more?) ago to reduce/divest holdings based soley the company's market cap and/or the share's daily turnover, has been a cause of stress on AIM generally, but thats for another day and another forum].

For the record, I agree with the comment that Tosca buying this stake reduces further the possibility that it will tender.

I 'started' it? Come on, you're making this too easy!

of course you find any challenge to your posting hegemony threatening. but get used to it, girlfriend. no more unchallenged, conspiracy-theory drivel for you

bluerill mostly=your worst nightmare. an genuinely experienced investor who knows this company's assets every bit as well as you who also happens to have your number. Schauspieler!

How funny, Junkie. I teach night classes too: in 'Ethics in Journalism and How to Navigate What's Left of Your Life After You've Forsaken Your Last Shreds of Dignity and Integrity. I could offer you a volume discount

i should have written, 'EVEN IF steady-state production rates blah, bllah, blah.....' my bad

omg, no! i was just trying to point out that EVEN if the flow rate is meh, its still terribly positive that the well is flowing well enough for the company to be confident enough to hook it right up and test it that way. I though I was just being conservative!!!

not often you see a company put a well right into production. sure, the steady-state production rates may not quite come up to predecessors, but who here is going to claim that this share price was discounting ANYTHING out of this well??? Not only is it flowing, but it's doing so sufficiently that Eroton is able to hook it right into production. At a minimum, I'd say that qualifies as 'better than expected'. Oh yeah, and they've moved the rig on to drill the next well. Just like a real O&G company......

http://pdf.reuters.com/htmlnews/htmlnews.asp?i=43059c3bf0e37541&u=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20190228:nRSb3497Ra

It rhymes with muppet

Don't forget the article from today's Irish Times for which mclean has provided the link, Alaric. Unless Tosca, for some reason, denies the journalist's contention that it will not tender (very unlikely of course), I think it will prompt new, hedge fund interest in the shares which will likely take out some pesky sellers and push us materially higher early next week.

So now its George Bernard Shaw's fault that you're a lot quicker to correct OandW's minor error than you are to address the total evisceration of your pile of fabricated accusations against the company? You think if you use some abbreviations like 'MLPL' that the average shareholder may not have heard of, and then follow-up with a couple of weighty-sounding terms like 'refinancing' and wrap it all up in ominous innuendo, you're going to give your tire fire the air of credibility. Well, my fine fellow (of the Institute of Chartered Chickenhawks), you are very much mistaken this time. This time you have to show your work instead of ranting mindlessly when you feel like it and then claiming a personal integrity you clearly don't posses that precludes you from engaging in a genuine debate on the facts. A fantasist AND a coward. Bernard Shaw would be so proud.

more reason to be ashamed of what's left of yourself