Member Info for damofarl

Just quick thank to the numerous posters for the really informative/insightful considerations in the last couple of days, on the EPL, forward looking dividend, ENI. The detail, the number crunching delivered takes time (I know having done likewise for other stocks I hold), and.to do such, to share such here so we don't all have to, is a true service. So thank you.

My tuppence, I'm a big fan of ITH. EPL or no EPL/replacement EPL they are laser focused on returns e and we will get such riding Delek's coattails. And the ENI deal sounds great, if only at the level of garnering economies of scale/efficiencies.

I'm not interested in what PTAL does to move the SP. Their Comms/agenda setting/pragmatism already leave many in the shade. If you are too lazy to read such, tough. Meanwhile I'll just take the money (divis)

VF Corp was the Co I previously suggested as an acquired.

Fevertreeman; I agree with your post (comparison to Birkenstock). The only little I would make, that I believe constituents a difference, is that Birkenstock haven't sacrificed the uniqueness/quality/heritage by moving to cheaper outsourced production (as far as I know). On the buyout front, agree this is ripe/inevitable at current valuation, albeit no chance of a Nike type doing it. I've posted before a couple of potential acquirers, and just today thought GIIi apparel (who produce some high end fashion names shoes) and Hannesbrands (who don't have ANY shoe brands). Neither are big enough I'd think to takeover DOCS but a merger of sorts could be advantageous - Hannesbrands 200 stores would no doubt help US distribution/sales. I don't think these US Cos even know who DOCS are (the potential, for them), but if I was the biss of Hannes, I would see a great opportunity, in DOCS, the profits of them, but also in selectively distributing their respected Haynes/Champion products in the bespoke UK centric DOCS store portfolio - call it a leverage into greater acceptance of their core in the UK/Europe.

As it is, I'm just a DOCS shareholder. But there is deep value here for the patient, and it's not if, but when, it gets taken out.

Particularly liked the accessibility, frankness and awareness of this comment in the boss' statement to shareholders:

The discount of our share price to our NAV per

share has remained too wide, despite our share

price increasing by 40% during 2023, and we

responded to this by buying back more of our

shares (perhaps the best investment we can be

making at the current levels of NAV discount),

and reducing leverage in the business

Great update, and I say that because their is no fireworks there, and no surprises. No promising the earth, but never being sidetracked by the realities/variances concomitant with their locale. Just boringly delivering predictability.

And the SP may be moving barely/sideways, but I like that. Because the mgmt culture is such not to promise the earth, a ine off 5 bagger, but be disciplined and deliver a healthy sustainable long term return.

Evidenced by spending a fifth of their mkt cap on capex a year. By projecting on $77 bbl despite reporting figures where based on a realised price of $81.05 (down from $84.95) and current oil price being above their $77. By their not spurting production upwards, before managing/diversifying product routes to market..By reducing their bonds. By retaining £70m cash for eventualities. By maintaining the dividend, at a healthy level, but retaining flexibility with cash for eventualities.

This is a mgmt/CO whose discipline/pragmatism is to under promises and over deliver. Frankly, and delightfully, i've filed this holding in the boringly predictable put away and forgot about draw.

No boom or bust here. In long term enriching income, I trust

Youhavingalaufh; I'm a mong term holder and fan, but my fan is wanting. The points you make are pertinent, which increasingly I'm agreeing with you on. Is it jam for you and me tommorow, tommorow, tommorow, or funded pet projects for scientists and healthy remuneration for mgmt, whilst ticking over, but only supporting those ambitions/costs and not returns to shareholders?

Darientaylor; agree you are buying at a massive discount to NAV, which I think is probably valid. But you don't have a comfort of such, is the SP, in 18 months lost more. At full realisation, (of NAV), you'd still be underwater. And even if you bought today, that NAV comfort blanket is only warming if it is returned materially, fiscally to shareholders.

The buybacks abandonment of dividends shows their is no focus, or urgency to prioritise profits to shareholders

Ha ha Biscmark; you, me, and everyone here!

I've been here a long time. And long learnt to understand 'Nigeria Time'!

Edwardseaton; totally agree. I WANT the energy transition, believe it is right, needed. But I'm in TGA, and many other 'dirty' energy producers because of the price disconnect caused by the timeline realisation disconnect. Dirty stuff will be needed for 30 years, and thereafter always needed to a minimal point. Dirty stocks are priced as if their product is going to be redundant/run out in 5 years.

On the results - it is obvious that mgmt are clear that their product has lifespan, albeit within a reducing market (and also within a reducing supply), and they are managing that acceptance. It is also warming to see that, irrespective of a particular years profits, that their focus is to return whatever those profits are.

This will be my last post here.

I've been in DEC a couple of years. Initially attracted by a 10% yield, then further attracted by their proposition. I'm not tree hugger, but I am inherently green. And in DEC's proposition, I didn't see any hypocrisy. What I saw, was someone making something inherently bad for us environmentally, less bad. And undoubtedly better than new production, by stewardship, management of damage already done, and minimising ongoing damage (by utilising resource, by plugging it where necessary rather than let it just seep).

I was a big fan of that proposition; if they can deliver that proposition (I'm skeptical), I will be delighted. I think DEC IS undervalued if they can deliver on their projections, but I think their projections are skylining.

DEC was in recent times my single biggest holding, I believed in their offering that much. It is now an insignificant holding. I sold mostly out at a not insignificant loss, but at a point, where that sale looks like a genius decision now. I wish well for DEC, and it's holder's but I don't believe their 30-50 years production, and certainly not at levels that are profitable . What I do see, is a capping business that will provide a low margin but high volume long term sustainable, societally appreciated (hence SP appreciated) profit, utility like. The value in DEC is in their leveraging/IPOing/metaphorphasing into that, into long term sustainable income, rather than dirty, societally questioned gas production.

I'm not going to further post here, because, I don't want to be part of a happy clappy DEC to the moon cult. And it's prevelance here does investors an injustice. I'm not interested in likes, I make my contribution to aid understanding, not for fandom, but when you make a serious of posts discussing the fundamentals, barely acknowledged, whilst a more gungholy positive post receives considerably more 'likes', you have to accept you are speaking into a void.

I'm not here for fandom, I'm not here to contribute pointlessly against a euphoric cult. And there is a blind cult here.

Ace of clubs; just like to thank you for your posts. The content of which first alerted me, that DEC wasn't the Euphoria I thought it was. I've been maligned for my posts here, but insignificant to the vitriol you have received. Thank you for your pragmatism. And thank you for speaking against the cult, and saving me a fortune.

And Bismarck, I should say, I do think gas will rise long term, and whilst I think their may be a 18 month dividend reduction/hiatus, the debt/debt cost, falls away sharply over that time, meaning FCF will actually be free (dividend) cash.

Bismarck: you are welcome! I believe. Say what you see. And your posts here, and those I've seen elsewhere, are pragmatic. Not shouting to, or down the crowd. Always respectful. And in such tone, make people think a little more. Make people consider the post not trash the person, sadly rare on these boards.

Always happy for anyone getting a multibagger! Albeit, I do think a reduction/temporary hiatus on the dividend front may extend your timeline!

And thanks too your acknowledgement.

Bismarck; totally agree your post.

Current income (dividend) is protected by their in the money hedging - but it isn't all hedged, and the current spot price is less than their current cost of production, so they are losing money on unhedged production. And the 18mth forward price, just covers debt, it's not providing debt AND dividend cover going forward.

Blacksteel; I should further clarify, that they are overpaying on their 2030 timeframe, which in itself, is earlier (overpaying ) on the actual contractual end dates. So their is slack there - they could tone down their overpayments.

But I don't see this- I see the first ABS being settled, for the reason I mentioned before, but also because it releases them from the condition that they must pay in excess of the minimum requirement a (considerable) percentage of the FCF.

If you work that backwards, it's actually a positive - in that they do have FCF, just it is contractually prioritised to the debt. Clear ABS1, and you increase free FCF.

I don't see it as a major concern, just as you say, something that needs fiscally ma aging/prioritising.

Blacksteel; totally agree with your response.

I run a calculation on the ABS amortizations, through the last 2 financial updates, and they ARE amortising at greater than even their own stated 2030...from what I could discern, they were doing so on a straight line basis - I've previously posted that I didn't see a focus on prioritising overpayment of RCF/later ABS's, and minimising earlier (cheaper) costs, and that for the normally financial fleet of foot, they were missing a trick on this.

I mention the first ABS because it has been running the longest, and was a lower value, so wouldn't warrant a great amount of FCF to free up the assets, for frankly, reselling/re ABSing off books.

Sturm; totally agree with your comment, which is what I was trying to purvey.

I have a strong personal ethical whilst PRAGMATIC core. I want to make a profit. But I want to make a profit, not at any price. I want ALL to see benefit.

I don't avoid natural resource companies, I do avoid those that profit by raping and pillaging land and communities (Trafigura comes to mind).

I've been here about 6 months. Yes the production/profit/dividend profile attracted me - but most it was the community fund that cemented me buying. PTAL's inclusiveness/awareness/consideration, juxtaposing the prevent exploitative world.

Further further....

What I think you will see, to alleviate the crunch, is temporarily the dividend being cut, to divert the FCF to settle the first ABS (despite being below the average cost of debt). This freeing the covenant other assets, to facilitate an identical transaction to the last, selling the assets to a PE outfit, retaining a small stake/operator ship, and loading up with a new SPV ABS.

Further to my post below, whilst DEC hark on about 50 years of production, I see more like 15 years of profitable production, and on my time span, I previously calculated that DEC need a price of $3.33 to pay dividends at current levels, retire debt, and retire assets.

The current 18 month average is $2.907, so I don't see the forward hedges supporting the dividend going forward. Even an acquisition at those forward prices wouldn't alleviate the crunch that is coming, unless spot prices rise soon

Good to see some thoughtful, insightful posts today. Thanks Bismarck/Blacksteel. Makes a change from wading through "time to average down/burn the shorter posts" for the nuggets that actually help us all, whatever our view.

Bismarck; totally agree the yield is irrelevant and the FCF is pertinent. Also agree price (today's is below cost of production) and volume likely to be down. Production reduction may positively surprise (the YouTube Bod explaining how they had benefited from buying wells that just needed turning on), albeit why would you maximise production at current price (at a loss)?

Blacksteel; agree your points too, and yes they are deleveraging/reducing interest cost at a gallop.

Generally, I feel the hedges covering the period are very much in the money, and support the next dividend, but with the current/18 month has price, they will be struggling to cover the debt and dividend (not the debt, but both). So I do see the subsequent dividend being halved (which looks an easy decision on its current 'yield'), and appearing within their stated policy on dividends not being set in stone, but related to FCF.

Ghgo; think you've rather nailed the reason!