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.
WOW. Simple you're embarrassing yourself, I'm cringing for you. CA will also when they see your snidey, snitchy, trouble-making report hahahahaha. In between laughing at you.
Zoom out for a minute Simple. You have made a serious report against someone for saying on a forum that EPL clarity will give CA clarity to make decisions. That's it. Hahahahaha!
Not once was it said this meant direct decisions on HUR's strategy, anything illegal or underhand, just "decisions". Your embarrassingly weak argument is that by repeating his original statement this confirmed your cynical, 2+2 = 1,000 interpretation to be justified.
Decisions is a very generic term. Decisions on whether to sell could be one of them, but also decisions on how to leverage their perfectly above board influence via seats on the board.
Seriously, get a life!!
Lame (selective) rebuttals.
To stick with the car analogy - what if the person insisted your car could not be repaired and the ONLY option was to scrap it for 5% of the value you paid for it?
But you obtained a 2nd, more authoritative and balanced opinion which advised you that this was not the case and there was a real possibility it could be repaired. And it was indeed repaired (but not before a great deal of personal stress and cost).
Would you trust the person who crashed it with the future stewardship and control of your car? And to make all future decisions about your car on your behalf?
Didn't think so.
P.S. And don't forget, many shareholders (understandably) trusted the BOD and opted to sell out for close to the scrap value, only to see that value increase 12 fold in a matter of months. Try convincing them that the CEO and CFO have played a blinder....
5) Your hailing of the old BOD and crediting them with the recent meteoric rise in share price is utterly laughable. THEY drove the share price into the ground, and the market corrected the price after the courts exposed their unnecessary and premature doomsday scenario for what it was, aided of course by rising commodity prices (which was always a distinct possibility, hence why it was such a ludicrous plan).
Would you give such credit to someone if they crashed your car to bits then got it repaired to roughly the same condition it would have been in if they hadn't crashed it? Hahaha
Simple, like yourself I also feel compelled to make my first post on here in response to recent posts, after merely following from the sidelines But those recent posts are yours.
I do not wish to sound too disrespectful, but I laughed / winced my way through many of your posts. Mainly the egotistical, self-promotional and hypocritical ones, but also those riddled with inaccuracies and lack of knowledge yet conveyed with such unwavering conviction.
I've dissected a sample to illustrate...
1) Shoe-horning into the discussion, at the earliest opportunity, that you helped save humanity developing covid vaccines, hold various directorships and have extensive knowledge of the oil industry. Yet in the same breath have the audacity to criticise others for ego-driven posts!!
2) Claimed you didn't post previously because you were too busy developing vaccines (hahaha), then a few posts later sarcastically asked "Do you work 24/7/365 without time off?"
3) As pointed out by another poster, you quickly discredited your claim to extensive knowledge of the oil industry when you referred to Hurricane having "a single rig moving towards its end of life".
You then doubled down on this blatant lack of knowledge, even after another poster clarified that it is an FPSO, with the following (rather ****y) response:
"An FSPO is a storage vessel. I asked how many offshore platforms does Hurricane currently have in active operation. You believe the answer to be zero, so what use is an FPSO if it is unused? I would reconsider your answer if I were you."
You evidently don't understand the differences between wells, FPSOs, rigs and platforms. As the other posters have advised, there is 1 FPSO, 0 rigs and 0 platforms. And an FPSO is not merely a storage vessel.
4) You claimed that "The share crashed to less than 1p (0.6p) due to a updated CPR".
Incorrect, the share crashed to 0.6p after the BOD announced its (wholly unnecessary) plot to wipe out 95% of shareholder value.
I don't understand it. 120m net assets. No debt. Return to profitability going forward with carefully managed contract bids.
Primed for a takeover bid at this price - maybe that's the only thing that will give us the return we're hoping for!
Does that not double count the £100m loan transfer?
Say the loan wasn't classed as held for sale. The assets held for sale would be £1.1bn instead of £1.0bn.
£700m - £1.1bn + £501m including loan notes proceeds gives £101m post sale.
It's unusually complex with the timing of the sale, wish they'd just done it on 31 Dec! We'll have clarity in 3 days at least!
Most of the cash balance will be offset by current liabilities - it's not all excess cash. I would imagine they've deferred VAT payments etc, so we're basically holding cash that belongs to other parties.
Not meaning to dampen everyone's spirits - I'm invested here too but just trying to be realistic :-)
Yeah remember the £700m NAV at 31 Dec included £1bn net assets of housing arm and the £100m loan notes.
Received £400m so NAV post-sale £100m. Less 2H losses of approx £50m and it's not as rosy as you might think!
Still, no bank debt and strong £3.2bn billion order book - even if they can average 1% margin that's £32m medium term profits
SauerKraut, I'm hoping you are just being mischievous and not so desperately ill-informed to think the recent PMO share crash was caused by the known loss.
If it is the latter, suggest you read up about the MUCH higher than expected rights issue terms, the uncertainty surrounding it, and expensive debt restructuring they announced that day
I assume the 10p price being discussed relates to the following excerpt from the Annual Shareholders Meeting agenda:
10.- Approval of a reduction in share capital by means of reducing the par value of the shares by € 0.40 each, to € 0.10 per share, to increase non-distributable reserves
This is just a change to the nominal value of the shares in their accounts and has no impact on the market value of the shares in issue - and it will be the market value which determines the RI price. This is my understanding but happy to he corrected
They sold their housing business so mortgage concerns not an issue. Main issue is profitability - expected loss of circa 60m before exceptionals for y/e 30/6/20. That could take a few years to make up based on expected margins. Still seems undervalued though...
Encouraging update on the whole. Particularly pleased to see they are maintaining high cash balances (but as I said yesterday, a good chunk of this will be needed to meet ongoing liabilities - it's not all excess cash).
5% operating loss expexted though - that's about a £50-60m hit I think...
Yeah but easy enough to roll forward the working capital position from 31st Dec to 3rd Jan I think - extra £300m cash which still leaves a net current liability position. Paid off short term bank debt but that just nets off within working capital.
I just noticed in the notes, however, that they also received a "further working capital cash adjustment" as part of the sale, but can't see a value. Hopefully that will have addressed my concerns!
Clearer picture tomorrow morning I guess, GLA
Wouldn't say it's pointless - it's the most up-to-date info we have on their financial position! And that was pre-covid.
They paid off their bank debt yes, but still had significant trade creditors which were not covered by trade debtors and the admittedly large cash balance.
We have to hope that they got their short term liquidity / working capital under control, otherwise the 100m cash balance people will need topped up somehow!
Yeah after saying some people are overly-optimistic, my post perhaps came across as overly-pessimistic!
I still feel the sp is undervalued (hence why it's my biggest investment) but I'm thinking 150-175p is a more realistic target in the medium term.
Hopefully you're right about month end cash balances re liquidity. Perhaps much of the current liabilities at 31 December were related to sale and hence non-recurring. That's what I'm hoping for anyway ??
Hello all.
This is my single biggest investment but I do think there is a lot of over-optimism on here, caused largely by misconceptions on the value of having 100m cash and the fact the cash balance is roughly same as market cap.
100m in cash doesn't mean much if overall current liabilities exceed current liabilities - it's effectively our creditor's cash not ours. I think Londoner has made this point before - cash balance only worth writing home about if it's EXCESS cash.
In latest balance sheet, current assets were £645m and current liabilities were £972m (does not include housing business, such assets and liabilities are shown separately on the BS). Even after the £300m cash received for sale of housing business, there is still a net current liability position - which is very precarious.
Net assets at 31 December £700m, of which £1bn was housing business subsequently sold. £400m sale proceeds went to the company (rest to shareholders) so net assets after the sale would be around £100m - largely made up of goodwill and investments.
This is just my understanding and I could be wrong - happy to be corrected if I'm missing something!