Member Info for damofarl

The Wednesday; that's my interpretation too

David Charles; ....."The problem seems to be centred around understanding what the point of the offer is.

....."

Exactly. Totally agree.

David Charles; so why the convoluted tender offer, that seemingly no one understands?

As you say, just buy on the market (although that is constrained by the excess cashflow ABS requirements).

David Charles; because they don't actually have $42m free in the bank to do market buybacks?

Aceofclubs; totally agree. I've always felt the much lauded asset sale was actually necessitated from a point of weakness.

But if the plan is on track, reduced production/income should be offset by reduced debt costs. We shall see!

The pragmatic thing to do would be to maintain the dividend. Many people here aren't receiving a yield of 25%, they are getting c11% because of the SP drop. To reward investors, for what is a non conventional investment that is a fair return,less wouldn't be. I also believe a financial performance warranted increase wouldn't be appropriate - use that cash to either join duce debt (RCF) or as cash at hand, both of which will positively impact sentiment (hence SP) far greater than a divgy increase.

If the dividend is reduced, the SP will sink titanically (it's hardly been a cruise lately), not because of the shorters, or the neersayers, or the pragmatists like me, but because to do so would destroy one of the tenets of DECs proposition, and highlight that it's other tenets, (manage/leverage debt, maximise/elongated production, protect pricing through volatility) are falling short.

The rns's/updates are telling us why.

Maybe a crowdfunder for those underwater would be a better suggestion.....

"Can someone set up a crowdfund for the poor shorters?"

You? Out of your profits?

I really don't understand the preponderance of interest/vitriol to shorters here, which has dragged the quality of this board down. Shorters like longs, have one purpose to make money. I don' get this fixation with shorters as the bogeyman. If, as a long, you are right, they will lose and you will win. Simples.

And if the fundamentals that you invested in are true, they are wrong, so why the concern, why the preoccupation, why the negativity.

If you believe the fundamentals will out, you don't need to shout, don't need to find a bogeyman to help you out. Just hold, and forget about.

Ps - the SP is above the date of the short attack, so not sure they are the bogeyman.

Dps1329; thanks your post.

'strategic' buybacks aside, the key for me is BGEO buybacks - where they continue CGEO's will, just as a function of maintaining their stated hold level. I feel no BGEO buybacks = no CGEO buybacks -.at least until the debt is cleared/ minimised.

Wow, this company makes money on every angle.... I'll buyback shares at at a discount to NAV to be accretive, then I'll sell due to demand the shares I just bought at 55c for 57.5c, whilst reaffirming buyback plan (rinse, repeat?).

The gift that keeps on giving

Asartara; Who got upset? Not me.

I'm a big fan of disprate views, and a fan of both the banks you mention (amongst others).

I personally don't think your view (on BGEO) is that alternative.

Neil777;

"The next results all point to being positive and is oversold due to that ridiculous 'short' report that was totally refuted by the management".

This statement suggests they weren't oversold before. I'd you believe in DEC, the assertion that a short report caused overselling, particularly in view of the SP at the time of publication and today's, is frankly ludicrous.

Are you suggesting they were fair value and not oversold prior to the short report?

Ethical; agree your points on BGEO and CGEO both of which I hold.

Whilst BGEO is a dominant fish in a small pond, ergo how much can they 'grow' there, I see this purchase as BGEO leveraging their capabilities into being a regional powerhouse, and as such there is more growth to come from BGEO.

The growth/crystallisation of value in CGEO will, in my opinion, be greater ithan BGEO's in the interim, because their other holdings are so unappeciated (currently). Holdings that I calculate back of an envelope style, EXCLUDING BGEO 's contribution, are already yielding the equivalent of around a 6% dividend

My strong opinion is that the pharmacy arm will be floated/spun out in the next 18 months, and like BGEO they will retain a large stake. Ultimately, I see CGEO morphing from a private equity style house into an investment trust, holding sizeable influencing holdings in a plethora of companies.

Both have been great to me, and both have more to offer. I for one, am also heavy Georgia, but I will remain so, as Georgia is not on my mind, Georgia, to me, has been kind.

Asartara; quality is rarely cheap. This is quality AND cheap.

Geochem; I hope you are right on the divvy range, albeit I feel it'll be around 75p, which I'm happy with, as I'm here for the long term. The investor presentation, an an analysts question on the free cash flow, seemed to flummox them, in particular to the Cos stated free cashflow to dividends policy, which suggested (due to project costs), such would reduce the dividend considerably.

The recent farm outs, and their proportional repaying of proceeding project costs may get us nearer to your projection. Either way we are cash generative whilst growing tomorrow's profits (dividends).

Nope. The company results of today, Oz time, specifically state no dividend, to maintain cash for Toliara progression

Machin; ordinarily I agree your point about buybacks. And particularly in view of your view "In my view, leverage has a greater influence over the SP...."

I sense (know) I'm considered a downer on this board (I consider myself pragmatic), but notwithstanding the Cos stated policy of maintaining minimum cash at hand, I have long argued that the sentiment that this is straitjacketed by leveraged debt is more detrimental to SP than the actuality (misunderstanding) of the debt, and that visibly publicised reduction of such, prioritised on highest rate, would improve the negativity on viability that the SP represents.

As one who has always felt that DEC's SAM is more about Smarter Accounting Management than Smarter Asset Management, the fiscally accretive nature of buybacks (however represented) is arguably the best money wise.

But I have long suggested, rather than buybacks, that a growing cash at hand (that could be deployed at choice to further reduce debt) would have a disproportionately greater positivity on the SP, in demonstrating that DEC aren't up against the wire. Interestingly my view has become slightly more nuanced on this recently, in that it is better for DEC to have that RCF in hand, for acquisitions, whilst showing probity and profitability.

On this board, I hadn't noticed any rough and tumble. Differing views, debate yes. I've not singled you out. I've singled out the hypocrisy of your post.

And I unstintingly question posters who focus in on the messenger, whilst choosing to ignore the message. I got your message - it's unviable without a white knight else it's administration.. What I didn't get was any context as to why you felt such. I prefer to focus on the fundamentals, good or bad here. I don' agree with a great number of the posts/views here, but I find the context invaluable in adding to my understanding/considering things I hadn't considered, precisely because posters give context to those (differing) views. I hope we can focus on the content, the context, not the poster.

404x; I don't think that's a fair comment. Canetoad didn't take your post out of context .We all got the jist of your post, the context, that you believe RGL is doomed. By quoting your grand standing end, and asking why, they merely highlighted the tunnel vision view your post holds. Nobody is doubting RGL is in a difficult spot. What you have taken out of context is the difficulties, by totally ignoring the opportunities. Many posters here have questioned the debt/viability. None with such nilhilsm and negativity.

I look forward to the oppurtunity to misconstrue/misquote/take out of context. Your opening post wasn't that oppurtunity.