Member Info for BouncyDeadCat

Whimax,

The purpose of taking out CFDs is to get leverage (up to 30 times) on price (either appreciation or decline).

Covalis recently sold 45% stock but only 6.5% of their CFDs.

CFDs are expensive, high contract fees need to be paid to keep them open. If Covalis are the distressed seller, as you suggest they are, then why are they opting to sell shares which cost them nothing to hold over the CFD that have a high cost to hold? If they were leveraged long the price of CHAR (via CFD) as well as being distressed financially like you say, then one needs to ask; why are they opting to maintain a heavily underwater leveraged position that's costing them high fees to keep open, whilst selling the no-cost non-leveraged option?

I'm not excluding the possibility that Covalis are just really poor traders who don't know what they're doing, however, if one were to assume that, as a hedge fund, they know how to hedge, having a leveraged CFD open at a lower price than what they hold stock at, then they would be making money.

There's a reason Covalis chose to sell CHAR stock rather than their CFDs, which remained largely unchanged at last disclosure.

We can't be sure what that reason is, although there can't be that many explainations either...

Hard to believe the heresay (which is all it was) about the seller being distressed.

A distressed seller wouldn't take 4.5 months to sell their position(s).

Just because some people repeat 'distressed seller' in every other post, doesn't make it true.

Gooner,

Why are you assuming they are selling at a loss? If you have a leveraged CFD open, then selling shares to lower the price would be making you a bucket load of money.

There could have been a fabled ‘distressed seller’ as rumoured in some social media groups, but as yet, there is no evidence to this being fact. Any such ‘distressed seller’ would also be a terrible trader as to buy anywhere near a 4% position in the company would require buying during the equity raise(s) (18p & 14p). That means they would hold a 14p+ average. To then sell out at 8.25p doesn’t make sense, at least, it doesn’t from a trading perspective (unless of course, you had a leveraged short CFD position on at the same time).

If this were a distressed II then they would likely be beyond the point of being ‘distressed’. Being forced to sell at a -45% loss or more, they’d have to be on the brink of bankruptcy. It doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense, just like being told by an ‘anonymous city trader’ not to buy at the recent lows because of a distressed seller (when this would be the absolute best time to be buying in order to take advantage of an opposing trader who’s ‘distress’ means they need to accept a low price - from you the buyer - for their stock) doesn’t make much sense 🤷‍♂️

Anyway, whatever the reason the seller had for selling, hopefully this is the end of it and the SP can start finding a more realistic price level without such a dominant player manipulating (intentionally or otherwise) the sell side.

"We are delighted to start working in Morocco, where we hope to repeat our previous successes in the Mediterranean - enhancing domestic production, helping to meet the country's growing demand, with the potential for exports for any surplus supply, and facilitating both energy security and long-term coal reduction," said chief executive officer Mathios Rigas.

https://ir.q4europe.com/Solutions/Energean/3784/newsArticle.aspx?storyid=16063329

Q2 there will be news and updates regarding the imminent onshore Loukos drills.

Q3 there will be news and updates regarding the massive Anchois East drill offshore Lixus.

It's going to be a very busy year for Chariot.

The official Energean sign off would have passed through the hands of a lot of bureaucrats yesterday.

Whimax,

Hardly. I said the guy who had already left was full of BS. And he was. I'll never stop calling BS on BS.

And to say it wasn't what I was saying but the way I was saying it that got me banned makes it sounds like it was some woke group that needed its safe space. Which it very much wasn't. I don't buy that as an excuse in the slightest. The truth is, the discussion and my posts were being deleted as quickly as I was able to write them. For whatever reason, some people in there didn't want the information discussed.

Anyway, it's the groups loss.

GL to the genuine investors still left in there.

I'll leave people with this...

A CFD is not an investment in a public company. They actually have nothing to do with the underlying company at all. They are simply betting contracts or rather bets on a particular shares 'price'. Nothing more. It's akin to betting on a football team, you can bet on a football team to win 2-0 one week and lose 3-1 the next. Betting on a team winning or losing has no effect on the actual teams performance, unless of course, a player in the team is doing the betting (as their performance has a direct effect on the team winning or losing each game).

So say someone or an II holds a long position in a stock and a short position on that same stock in the form of a CFD, if the selling down of their shares were to aid a decline in the share price, then their CFD short would be worth more. If the CFD is leveraged 2, 3 or 5 to 1 (as they often are) then the CFD would be worth a lot more than the loss on their underlying shares sold. You can leverage CFDs all the way up to 30:1.

CFDs can be long or short and they can be long for a period of time and then switch to being short or vice versa. A CFD can be individually written to enable specifics to be added. Looking in from the outside it's a murky world as very little of this information needs to be publicly disclosed to the market, officially or otherwise. CFDs are banned in the US for this reason. Going short on a CFD doesn't need to be publicly disclosed as no underlying stock is being borrowed because it's essentially just a price betting contract.

Could you now imagine how incentivised someone would be to discourage others from buying if they had a leveraged short CFD open? How would they act and participate in the market? Would they be buying more stock or would they be constantly selling their stock in order to push the price down because they've a leveraged bet on the same stock at a lower price that's worth way more than the underlying stock they own?

Whimax,

That's absolute nonsense and you know it. The guy claiming to be getting the inside info and having private lunches with AP and telling people not to buy until he gave the go-ahead had already left the group by the time I claimed it all to be BS. Maybe it's best to just admit - you were one of the people to be well and truely suckered into the BS.

Whilst he was telling everyone in the group not to buy, I made my biggest Char purchase in 3 years @ 7.57p.

Gooner,

It was fairly balanced until it got weird and people started claiming to be calling AP on the phone on an almost daily basis ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Thebold,

The fact that my posts were deleted as soon as I was booted says it all really.

Over the target.

Selling stock affects the stock price. CFDs don't impact share prices, they only respond to the changes in price.

The fact that they've sold 40% of their shares whilst their CFD position has only changed by 6.4% shows the position they've taken in the company. i.e. it's speculative and hedged and likely short-term.

Also, be careful what you're being fed in Telegram groups. 'Don't buy until I tell you it's safe to buy' should be a massive red flag to anyone invested.

It's funny how, in these share groups, people are immediately kicked out as soon as they question the admins claiming (or supporting those who are claiming) to be having lunches with AP and telling investors to stop buying 'until it's safe to do so' (on his say-so of course). It's straight up boiler room tactics.

It's also a blatant sign of guilt when dissenting voices against such claims are immediately silenced (booted) rather than those propagating the claim(s) having to defend or prove them in any way.

Just be careful and don't believe what anyone is claiming in these groups. They are only claiming to know more than you because they are working through their own trading strategy (rather than, as they claim, trying to help you with yours).

Peace ✌️

Lol. I've just been kicked out of the Chariot Telegram group for refusing to believe that some of the people in there are having personal phone calls with AP - the CEO of Chariot - about the trading of Chariot shares, including the selling of those shares by 3rd parties.

No CEO is his right mind would be discussing the trading of company shares with random investors on a one-to-one basis.

Please don't be one of those people who believes someone, just because they tell you something you WANT TO believe is true.

Holding RNS was 3rd Aug.

On second thoughts, Covalis could have gone short on their CFD and sold real Chariot shares to help lower the share price, in which case they will have made a lot of money 🤷

Hard to know as we don't know if Covalis was long or short Re: their Chariot CFD.

Jimmy,

It looks like they have sold a 1.33% stake in the company to cash settle the CFD.

I suspect they took out a leveraged position on their CFD and it went against them, so they had to sell (real) shares in the company to cover it (and lost money in the process). Only a guess, but when a leveraged trade goes against you, you need to find the cash from somewhere to cover (cash settle) the negative margin position it creates.

Original 6.24% Holding RNS by Covalis

% of voting rights attached to shares = 2.79%

% of voting rights through financial instruments = 3.45%

Total = 6.24%

Latest RNS by Covalis

% of voting rights attached to shares = 1.68%

% of voting rights through financial instruments = 3.23%

Total now = 4.91%

Onshore snippet from presentation:

Widening gas supply/demand gap to industry at Kenitra:

2021: Industry Demand was 10mmscfd. Local Supply was 7.5mmscfd.

2022: Industry Demand was 10mmscfd. Local Supply was 5mmscfd.

2027: Industry Demand anticipated to be over 15mmscfd.

CNG Benefits to Initiate Development:

Lower CAPEX to suit an initial, smaller but scalable development.

Fast and manageable option with reduced permitting & construction.

Multiple financing solutions available (vendors, offtakers, local banks).

CNG Benefits for Loukos

High quality gas = simple treatment and decompression facilities.

Proximity to market at Kenitra with very high prices.

Modular contruction, enables rapid growth.

Assets re-deployable to other markets once pipeline constructed (Rabat & Casablanca).

The Stifel presentation puts a bit more meat on the bones from a business and monetization point of view.

As I suggested last month, the longer term plan must surely be to connect Loukos gas to the Kenitra pipeline using funds from trucking CNG at the initial stage of monetization, which the latest presentation appears to confirm is the plan.

Industry at Kenitra requires 15mmscfd, so if/once Loukos gas is able to exhaust the industrial market demand in Kenitra, it can pump any extra gas they find into the GME. By which time the CPF will be online (GME will require a slightly cleaner grade of gas than industry).

Currently Chariot is priced at Energean refusing to take the additional 10% and Chariot having to find alternative funding for offshore Loukos. i.e. it's very negatively priced. Onshore Loukos potential is not priced in at all.

Presentation also confirms that Vivo Energy can't supply the industrial sector at Kenitra with the volume of gas it needs and also suggests the gas assets feeding that region (Rharb) are also running out.