Member Info for Boyobach

...... and not too good. It is difficult to post tables on these BB’s but here’s an attempt (accuracy is not guaranteed and should not be relied upon) at summarising TGPT Revenue. EDBITDA and sp on the last four 12 month periods:

FY 2018: Revenue: £21.9m, EBITDA £4.9m, sp (entry): 140p
FY to 3/2019: Revenue: £28.1m, EBITDA £4.8m, sp (25th June 19): 140p
FY to 3/2020: Revenue: £40.9m, EBITDA £4.7m, sp (3rd August 20): 110p
12mth to 3/2021: Revenue: £29.1m, EBITDA -£0.3m, sp (1st June 21): 47p

In view of this, I don’t think today’s sp is surprising. There’s something odd about the relationship between 2020 Revenue and EBITDA isn’t there? Perhaps someone here can enlighten me. This presumably caused at least part of the drop in sp to 110?. The target of doubling revenue over five years isn’t exactly new or spectacular is it? In the 2019 FY there’s a quote that the company had achieved ‘Revenue growth of 28.3% with Compound Annual Growth Rate over last five years at 21.5%.’
I guess that kind of performance was what made it worth 140p in the first place? If so, then just getting back to 2019 performance would theoretically push it back over 100p wouldn’t it?. However, something is obviously not right: can it all be due to COVID?

Yeah - I'd rather see a less spectacular yield and a higher sp, personally lampedusa,
At, say, 200p the yield would have been around 5% and indicative of market confidence and a fairer company valuation.

Not looking good at first glance Rangor. Busy today - will look closely this evening.

we are second best div company in the energy sector......
When was that statement made and what was the yield at the time?
Obviously the yield has risen substantially in the last few weeks from around 6% to 8% with the fall in sp, the BoD might think that the low sp isn't justified and that share buy-backs or debt repayment would be a better use of the cash.

'near term for me is by the end of June btw....'
Ha! I was deliberately being a bit vague, bunks - short, medium and long term often depend on the context don't they?
However, if G climbs in a similar fashion to February, which was fairly typical for G when it is in a good uptrend, then yes it could make it during mid June to mid July. The thing here is 'good uptrend' - we know that G can be becalmed for days on end and I fear that it may get trapped again around 150, which would be a pain. On the plus side, this is Memorial weekend in the US - so the start of driving season. This should underpin OP and maybe even give it an upwards shove with any luck.

There’s hardly been a breakout today but at least, on a15’ view rather than a daily tick, the sp has walked sideways out of this week’s downward trend, giving some respite and the possibility that 135 might provide the support it didn’t find in the 140’s: https://invst.ly/uz4m2
It’s not out of the woods, of course and still the runt of the litter this week: https://invst.ly/uz4ne
At which point it’s interesting to think about the proportionality of G’s fall from174 (the price immediately before ex-div day). So re-running that last comparison to cover the last fortnight from the close on Wednesday 12th May:
https://invst.ly/uz4uv we can see that G has lost about 17% more than GKP - ie about 30p, of which 7p was due to ex-div - and about 12% more than DNO which is about 21p, of which 7p was ex-div. So, averaging those two, G appears to be about 18p below what might have been expected today, giving good reason to expect a recovery to at least 155-160 in the near term as the ex-div discount unwinds.

Relative to 18th March, when the 1060 ‘fund raise’ price was established at the open, CWR has generally performed in line with the NASDAQ CELS index: https://invst.ly/uz0po
Bear in mind that CWR gained 132p on that 'first' day and has dropped back from that level since - hence the chart shows a fall of -9% to date and also the CELS index here reflects yesterday’s US close as the market there is yet to open..

Pokerchips observations re China are entirely correct.

Meanwhile, the effect of the Hague court case on RDS' sp should be measured in context. Was RDS affected by the judgement more than Chevron? Apparently not. Over the last month the two are trundling along in sync: https://invst.ly/uy-pj

I think ESG is a factor for investment decisions in the sector as a whole. Tacotaco, but I'm not convinced it has much influence on those investors who'd be interested in G. Having said that, G appear to have done their bit in reference to green issues. The recent drop, which has been pretty severe, has more direct causes and the speed of recovery will, I think, be governed more by sentiment relating to perceived risk to cashflow (and future dividend) than ESG issues. At least there are some very tentative signs that the sharp drop in sp is levelling out: https://invst.ly/uyzc2 (15' view). If it bottoms out at the current level it'll be consistent with late December performance: https://invst.ly/uyzdh , with RDS not doing much better, as can be seen here: https://invst.ly/uyzhr . It's been sufficiently encouraging for me to re-acquire the tranche I sold a couple of days ago.

Hi RG.

I think each investor’s strategy must depend on their personal targets, risks etc. as well as their own view of what the sp is likely to do both short and long term. My only regret is that I didn't act as soon as it went below 139, as I'd intended.
The override (RSA) is separate to the more recent receivables recovery - and it’s the latter I think you were talking about? Firstly, no one pulls the wool over the KRG‘s eyes. Is Ashti H still involved somewhere in plain view or in the shadows? The fact that OP is higher than anticipated quite rightly accelerated the repayments - bearing in mind that the KRG was sharing in that improved cash-flow on an equitable 50/50 basis. But, this was apparently not enough for them and they decided to grab some more. From recollection, G has about $300m of debt at a fairly high coupon - about 36% of which is effectively being used to provide credit for the KRG currently. So I hope G are charging appropriately for the facility.

Yes, the KRG are apparently cash strapped (although the elites within it don’t appear to be) and whose fault is that over the years? The KRG started reneging on payments to IOC’s seven or more years ago - before ISIS was a ‘thing’ - and were constantly in dispute with Baghdad over oil revenues and share of the national budget. They are not a sovereign national government so, as I understand it, cannot directly get IMF support, so where do they go for cash? They simply take what they want off the IOC’s and have demonstrated, time and again, that they don’t think twice about it. They deal with the IOC’s in a similar fashion to the way they deal with Baghdad - agree one thing but do another. This time I think their excuses and rationale have finally been seen for what they are and the sp is being hit accordingly - because, one day, the oil will be gone and there’ll almost inevitably still be outstanding debt: so the ‘pump to get repaid’ scheme will eventually come crashing down around the IOC’s.

I agree with Jim and bunks, not sure about it lifting the gloom, Klassic. I'm pretty gloomy as you'll see:
It’s been useful to see the numbers today and confirmation that they now expect to receive $31m for March production rather than the $36m they mentioned in the AGM statement.
So, $5m down per month for eight months (this one and the seven remaining) is a shortfall on expectations of $40m plus the fact that one month’s revenue out of the twelve (April) has already been cut, that’s a further $35m off expected revenue (more if production continues to rise and OP firms up) so it’s reasonable to estimate that G will be around $75m down on the company’s previous expectations for the year - effectively 15-20% ? Mere tinkering by Malcy’s standards.

I started to sell G today, quite a sizeable chunk, and will progressively sell more unless the trend reverses. It’s a no-brainer for me because, whilst I’m in net profit, each tranche I sell effectively lowers my average cost per remaining share. If the trend reverses then the cost of re-acquiring (assuming I’ll want to) is like a hedging expense. The 15' trading chart looks dismal: https://invst.ly/uy53n .

Just to clarify that last comment about GKP - here are the group, including GKP, since the low point around 19th March last year: https://invst.ly/uxsa-

Thanks for the DNO info bunks.
The less uncertainty the better as far as being realistic about G is concerned.
For all my negativity, I'd have to acknowledge that the sector as a whole is performing poorly at present and that G was doing well until this latest set-back beyond their control. As a reminder here's G v Major oil co's since end of October: https://invst.ly/uxrxu
GKP has been spectacular over that period but it must be remembered that it was trailing G very significantly throughout last summer and, in that context, has only caught up with G recently .

Time will tell regarding payments, Klassic, but it seems best to expect the worst and feel lucky if it turns out better. In terms of updates, I think we are unlikely to hear much between June and the August half year statement: there was nothing in June last year as far as I can recall.
I don't have many positive thoughts: after falling below 143 the sp is in the last-chance saloon as far as I'm concerned.

Looks like GKP found support but G hasn't, GKP is overlaid on G in this 15' chart:
https://invst.ly/uxiin

Klassic: 'Maybe the amendment to payment terms applies only to the arrears?.....'
It seems not, given that there's been no payment yet.
We should bear in mind that in 2019, when payments were last regular and in compliance with agreed terms, they were usually made in the third month following production. For example: I believe August 2019 production was paid in the November.
So the current payment schedule is arguably no worse than it was historically but that does not, of course, excuse the fact that the KRG appear to be around $110m in arrears by my reckoning.

... or inaction...
Apart from the first ten days of May, G ‘s sp over the last month has been a massive disappointment when set against the general sturdiness of Brent (15’ trading view):
https://invst.ly/ux5he
In comparison, even RDS has managed to maintain a positive trend (also 15’):
https://invst.ly/ux5k6
Just picking up to 147 would be significantly positive at this juncture.

Ha! - Just a feature of the system bunks.

Interesting to see that, as I suspected and just confirmed - when the LSE system fails to put a 'post' up on the BB it can remain stuck until the poster puts another message up.

No message here: Just testing the LSE system.