Member Info for Boyobach

Crusade against the shorters? Good luck with that.
I'm here to make my cash work for me, not to chuck it onto a bonfire at the barricades.
Meanwhile, agreed - 120 to 125 should be the next level given the momentum.
122 could be a bit of a barrier. Beyond that, 140 appears as a support that's previously slowed the sp on the way down but it's never offered much resistance on the way up as far as I can see. https://invst.ly/tlmxe

I agree about the write-downs of intangible assets buried under the ground, they don't affect cash flow and can have accounting benefits. Regarding the pursuit of greener energy, RDS needs to either have a long-term strategy which takes into account human evolution and development or, alternatively, to accept that it is purely O&G and maximise its prospects whilst managing eventual decline.
The smart move seems to be to invest in modern fuel technology and infrastructure rather than pursuing expensive exploration and drilling projects in challenging locations for a resource that may not be needed or where returns are marginal.
It’s not so much about dividends versus green investment, it’s more about directing the very hefty research, exploration and development budgets historically needed for fossil fuels into future energy systems.
The earth we live on will provide a habitable environment for many thousands of years before the sun eventually destroys it but the human race, through wasteful consumption of finite resources is degrading that environment at a fast rate. The brutal question is whether we much care what happens a few generations after our day. I accept that many of us do not but that doesn’t mean that pursuing greener energy can’t also be profitable.

Sure - at over a quid a share gain I did likewise on Monday.

Whitehat’s notes on the analyst’s call make interesting and sobering reading. They do explain the rather deep pull-back from 180. They are a reminder of the perpetual ‘jam tomorrow’ narrative that has kept many of G’s investors hooked, some since the RTO ten years ago. There are always excuses for the set-backs but they never manage to fully recover from them before another one or two come along. And the ‘big resources’ get written down rather than becoming producing assets of more tangible worth.
For the avoidance of doubt - I mis-read Whitehat’s comment about the token scale of his continued investment, so my comment that I was similarly invested was misleading - I still hold a significant value despite sharing his reservations. How long that will continue, however, very much depends on progress with some of the grey areas mentioned by Whitehat. I do need to see tangible progress in revenue and FCF over the next twelve months.

Char888 mentioned ‘the 3rd time [RDS] nearly got to £15’ ….
The brutal truth is that it is getting less close to £15 at each attempt. Since the massive drop in March, there have been five basic phases in sp for all oil co’s :

1)The initial collapse.
2) A recovery to the first perceived ‘norm’.
3) A slow decline as the reality of results (loss of divi etc.) sank in.
4) A second recovery driven by ‘vaccine optimism’
5) A further decline due to unfulfilled optimism

In each case, the swing has diminished, slowly condensing the price around an apparent ‘consensus’ level.
Indeed the peaks for RDS have reduced since April as the price has progressively narrowed towards what might prove to be a ‘new normal’ in the region of 1350.

Next week’s results may provide an indication of whether the company agrees with the market’s assessment of its value. https://invst.ly/tl4ps

With 2020 unaudited results due from all four over the next nine days, here’s a snapshot of how the sp’s have moved since the last set of results for RDS, BP, Chevron and Exxon: https://invst.ly/tl1nw
And here are the same group since about this time last year: https://invst.ly/tl1u2
It’s not hard to see that the US pair have outperformed the other two over the last twelve months, although RDS and BP have held their own over the last quarter. Exxon had fallen well behind Chevron but has seen a revival since earlier this month, following some prominent analyst recommendations. There’s little doubt that ecological concerns weigh heavier on the non-US pair and they are the only ones to have reduced dividends.

This will be closing much higher tomorrow £1.18 to £1.25.....
By spring early summer this will be back to 200 plus.... (the rest is a bit incoherent tbh).....

So that's good news but are they just opinions or are there some facts/data/indications to support those thoughts?
Not to worry if not.

Hi Bunks
The short answer is I'll wait for a reversal at the bottom of a drop -wherever that is in the 140s.
The long answer is: I'm actually at my planned long term level with G and until very recently had determined not to add and to reduce my trading activity in G too. But, like a NY Resolution that gets inconvenient/boring I can see myself going overweight in G again if the price is right. Regarding trading G, the criteria are that I must not exceed a personal target in terms of net cost per share (which, with appropriate stops, ensures a minimum profit level) and I must avoid topping up unless it's in a rising trend or has convincingly just reversed upward. Those conditions should occur if the price moves below 150 and reverses at some point above 140. If it were to drop below 140 then a whole lot of other stuff potentially kicks-in which may even cause me to start selling. Ha!
Hope that answers your query.

Whitehat - this is rushed and overly brief response to the excellent summary you presented. I totally understand your frustrations with G - I think we all share them. I also don't wish to find myself 'making up excuses and explanations' - your points are well made and only time and G's progress can provide a response. Where there is vagueness about repayments, over-ride agreements and Bina Bawi I think that that is either due to ineptness or the fact that they are discussions which they cannot go public about but which could be positive. However, I've read too many people on boards like this that implore investors to 'keep the faith' - simply daft. I'll remain invested in much the same way as you appear to be intending and I doubt that our expectations and scepticism differs very much. I wish you well and rather hope you do drop by from time time - especially if there's ever a reason to celebrate your break even 250. ATB

PFC broke out of the five day trend today, fell back to kiss the line and then moved up again. As good an indication as anyone could have expected today. 15’ view:
https://invst.ly/tku3i
The result was PFC’s most positive day since the SFO thing - and against a generally falling market too. There were sufficient positive indicators to encourage more prudent investors than generally seem to post here and for me to raise my tracking stop-loss. One should still watch out for the longer term falling trend from March though - hence my stop loss: https://invst.ly/tku3x (daily ticks).
PFC might well have broken out from it a week ago had not the SFO news not intervened. Unfortunately the lower line continues to be a reminder of where the price could head if things turn sour again whilst the upper represents a hurdle to beat in the recovery path.

there are any number of companies that could take out PFC....

Which would include the liability for any fines wouldn't it?
So maybe not an entirely attractive proposition until the SFO wraps things up. Two Unaoil execs were convicted back in July but, as we know with Lufkin, more charges can take years to emerge. One key ex-PFC person linked to Unoil appears to remain without any charges having been brought.

It's certainly significant, especially given the state of the market.
https://invst.ly/tkphm
Holding 106 or higher at the close would be very positive.

There’s a lot of ire directed at the institutional shorters but the fact is that PFC was within a downtrend even before the SFO announcement, although there were some signs that it might break out of it:
https://invst.ly/tknta (daily ticks)
The SFO news plunged it back and so there’s a natural pull downwards to the bottom of that trend, particularly as the market is under some pressure anyway at the moment. You only have to compare with RDS, for example, to see that it isn’t just about the shorters:
https://invst.ly/tknvn (15' view)
The question really is whether the nominal 100 support will hold - there’s little doubt about the pressure PFC is under.

Re: 'It won’t go to 80p'....
Perhaps 70p then?
https://invst.ly/tkn9k
If some stop-losses get triggered.....

…..anxious the share price will sink another 10-20-30% more after they have bought. So what?

Whether you are a trader or a LT holder you should manage your capital prudently: 20% here, 10% there and, before you know it, your capital has dropped by 85% or more (as PFC has done over the last four years). So it’s not about timing the bottom for me, it's about being prepared for things not going the way you hope or expect.
103 would not ordinarily be an issue for those who confidently acquired at 110 but, in the case of a share with a very poor record, under pressure on the very bottom rope of its historic support, 103 could be seen as something of a cliff edge, especially with many talking of a market correction. I’m neutral about the possibility but prepared for it because Friday’s price action and closing auction were not particularly encouraging.

But you are invested here Boyobach aren't you?
Fair question Paddyboy and yes I am (although there is absolutely no reason why you should believe me or anyone else on social media).
I did so earlier this week (after ditching PFC around a year ago) and without the full set of reversal indications I've talked about.
So, yes, I'm invested (for now) and very interested in a positive outcome for PFC but I would not consider adding at this stage. I have plenty of 'dry powder', as they say, but PFC has broken south of a very fundamental level so I must consider an exit or sticking to the bottom (on the basis I genuinely think it will recover to at least 105 and zero loss for me). I've pointed out that PFC does not have a brilliant track record on recovery but I'm inclined to think that 150 isn't a too demanding target (it may well be capable of more but that would be a bonus for me). I've invested a small amount as a pure punt - I'll double-up if, and only if, it falls sufficiently further to make adding worthwhile AND if I see indications of a strong reversal of prospects. I would rather chase PFC up during recovery than down during uncertainty. If I stick with PFC I'll take another look below 180 (I think you mentioned that level?) but there'd have to be a strong positive trend emerging - averaging down without some positive 'reversal' indicators is a mug's game in my view. ATB.

what is the relevance of a 5 year chart to what happened in the last 5 days?
Well, as he clearly explained, Captain Hindsight was pointing out possible future limitations that PFC might encounter when it has escaped from the effect of the last five days. I find that thinking ahead with investments is usually a good idea, especially when others are thrusting money into something they confidently imagine will be a multi-bagger. 2x would be good going for PFC in the foreseeable wouldn’t it? especially when it’s historic track record has shown it has failed to fully recover three times out of four in similar circumstances over the last few years. Still, fifth time could be a lucky one...

Also, because 15’ charts can apparently be a bit confusing or hard to read, here’s a day tick version that simplifies how last week went, showing the trend that PFC is currently (not historically) following and a suggested indication of the level it needs to capture (that means stay above) before there’s a reasonable basis to claim it is recovering. Obviously, that level will track downwards if PFC continues to drop https://invst.ly/tk7dy . So, if it does fall further, the bar for PFC will lower along with the sp and eventually it must come good … Right?

One golden rule I’m reminded of at times like this, is: ‘Never bet against professional shorters’

your charts are all 15 minute based,...

What the 5 year one? I don’t think you are paying attention. And over five days you’d use daily ticks for accuracy in a fast moving situation? Bright!

The falls here are because of pure manipulation…

Nothing triggered by the SFO news then? Really? And what difference does that make anyway? Isn’t shorting a valid market activity which investors have to assess and react to? It does not last indefinitely and it has the plus side of puncturing overvalued stocks and providing buying opportunities to those who read it correctly. PI’s can’t fight it and moaning about it serves no purpose.

Captain hindsight….

So for PFC to recover it doesn’t need to break above the current trend? And if I look at a map and tell you where there’s a cliff-edge you wouldn’t listen? Smart!

I’m starting to see why QAnon is a thing.
I prefer to make a profit from my investments and have found that facts usually provide a sounder basis than instinct, wishes and beliefs. Put it this way: PFC could go either way over coming days and, whatever actually happens, I know there’s a way of tilting the long term odds in my favour. Or I could just take a leap of faith and trust in some unsubstantiated opinions.

It’ll be interesting to see if 1360 holds. RDS has been moving ahead of OP of late, which is not unusual but $55 looks like it might hold or even be improved upon as an average for the year.
Subject to the chart showing RDS support holding, 1300 would be an attractive re-entry point for me. I doubt that I would bother at a higher level, especially as increasing talk and possibility of a market correction makes cash quite attractive right now.
https://invst.ly/tk6mu

'like a broken clock MF will always be right on occasions'
Totally correct. Motley Fool is a publication that declares - as if it is a recommendation - that it will publish a range of views. So, by definition it is not going to deliver a consistent unbiased assessment. My main problem with it is the formulaic approach of the articles and headlines from writers who's main qualification appears to be that they make a living from writing articles that are predictable 'click-bait' eg "Why I think Acme represents stunning value ' 'How I'd invest my spare £xxx' etc etc . Whether they turn out correct or not, Motley is probably right about 50% of the time and wrong for the rest. When they put a footnote giving their current, independently verified, 'success rate' it might be worth reading their stuff but until then they are about as useful as the average horoscope.