Member Info for damofarl

Yes definitely something up; i previously highlighted the specificness of a recent RNS/presentation, the tone of which seemed to have changed from, 'we constantly look for opportunities...' to ' we are considering opportunities' (my lazy paraphrasing), and felt that they had a specific target in site. I do feel something is coming to fruition on an acquisition.

That said, it could just be an investor(S) new to the opportunity/value GENL represents, and being tightly held, such buys have had a disproportionate (positive) affect - i've seen such sharp gyrations many a time ive been invested here on almost insignificant volumes/news.

Gut, somethings cooking....

Personally, i think more the former, as i've seen such sharp gyrations

i note that payment punctuality is slipping away again; true of GKP too, but noticeably more so here. Part and parcel of this investment sphere i know, but concerning nonetheless....

slickmongoose/jim800; yes, great link.

I previously posted about DEC's leveraging of Bloombergs bad story into positive PR and a business oppurtubity; this article supports my suggestion then that ultimately this will be spun out as a stand alone company. Brad Gray DEC's COO states (about the plugging), ......."We're extremely excited about this business, ".

Just another reason for us all to be likewise...

Some excellent considered thought provoking posts today. Thanks posters.

I've consistently felt, irrespective of political machinations, that the Mobil deal would go through, a belief based on govt announcements of wanting to better utilise/leverage/professionalise the country's oil resources, with a 'Nigerian 'champion. SEPl's presence (and their proclamations to the same effect), and their quite impressive use of local procurement/labour ticked the 'in the driving seat' box to me. A pre existing partner whereby (through the Mobil deal) they could concentrate (exert) control over the nations resource whilst still saying we are open to inward/plc investment/modernising. My gut feeling was yes, this was a good deal for SEPL, but actually it was a good deal for Nigeria.

I know think this is a dead deal, and if i'm frank, i think it is singularly because (as i recall Seatank highlighting) SEPL are NOT willing to play the kickback game, so long standing and so easy for US majors to disguise/dissapear, play, and the politically connected are concerned their gravy train will terminate. From a societal perspective, i'm quite disappointed in my view, in that i think SEPL could be the champion, could provide the stewardship of assets to better benefit all Nigeria. And i do think it's failure is in the SP.

That said, i first bought SEPL before the Mobil acquisition announcement, because having run the numbers, factored in the politics, the leakage/theft etc, it still shouted sustainable yield AND growth opportunity just by sticking to it's knitting. In that I haven't changed my mind; this is still a bargain without Mobil, and the pipeline alone will only incrementally increase their profits.

I've patiently invested here for 4 years now, seen the SP gyrate nigh on 100%. The Mobil deal may be uncertain. The fundamentals, the yield consistency have gyrated not an iota.

agreed;

a progressive dividend policy whereby a fixed quarterly divvy, with any excess cash on books above a set floor, returned as specials would have removed the NAV discount. That mix of certainty and upside would have engendered more interest /loyalty.

if, IF one takes the view that these buybacks are at a discount, and working, there must come a point where the actual cash at hand will grow. What then? a special divvy? so why not just do straight away?

billbursio; that's such a lot of codswallop it's not worth dissecting. And people invest/trade on the basis of such 'info'? Bonkers.

Gavsternbc; i don't think the buyback is great, but without an update its hard to illicit if it is beneficially masking dropping performance. I don't think it's a means for a large seller - i mean the realisation shares gave that option.

Reading across from NBMI's update today, they highlight a positive September/October, with no defaults/lowest default rate for years, and underlying companies with strong and strengthening free cashflows. I hope FAIR fares as well albeit NBMIs performance is related to short duration loans whereas ours are longer fixed durations, and we might be getting squeezed on the higher day to day lending cost against a (now) lower long term loan rate. If that is the case, the flip to that is that it should make the underlying borrowers more sustainable having a competitive loan cost advantage.

As the investment manager rebates 50% of fees when SP is under NAV, i would have thought the focus would be to eradicate such so do feel these buybacks are aligned with all parties interests - until the next update i do just worry that the discount will only reduce because of reduced NAV (performance).

jenselhman; seems you run your manners through the limit of your phone too.....

lucywu; why?

And thoughts on GENL?

jenselman; thank you for the Simplywallst post.

I do however note your selectiveness in quoting it, notably not including this bit...."....We infer that there could be other factors that could be steering the foreseen decline in the company's ROE."

The inclusion of that bit shows what a lazy bit of 'research' this is - i mean anyone that can read a GKP rns and has even a cursory understanding of Kurd/Irag/oil politics would know, not infer, the factors that impact the company. but apparently not simplywallst. You or I, even opulentia could write a better research note than that. in it's whole their piece is meaningless to informing our investment decisions, and your cull distorts such too.

$9mill

Well to answer that question you have to ask, why is a company that has got a guaranteed $16 mill coming down the line imminently, only got a market cap of £2 million.? From what i can see, the new deal was identical to WEN's, (presumably including cost contributions, upfront loans etc), so any delays/unexpected costs aren't an issue for SCIR, so why the disparity between their marketcap/SP and the soon to be realised cash? Why don't SCIR shareholders value it at $16 million? Genuinely curious to know what their concerns are, beyond seemingly a mgmt that enriches themselves even more than ours does.

And having lost 70% SP value in a year, a takeout of double SP would allow a bailout of losses for shareholders, which i note is small shareholder heavy.

We missed Ruvuma on pre emptive rights, but what i don't get is why we don't just buy SCIR now. I know that would probably not allow a reversal due to change of ownership, but it would allow us to receive $16 mill, for what, a take out of £4mill.....what am i missing?

stt1; - "As previous, watch the demand decrease and supply increase"

Yes, but a decreasing demand of a tight/finite product doesn't equal no demand; and the fundamentals have not changed, a shortage of houses being built year on year; that hasn't changed, the timeframe may have for housebuilders profits.

If we were to agree on 20% less sales, 20% less selling price, well TW and others in the sector have fallen by considerably more than that so more than factored in. The increased supply you suggest merely alleviates the shortage; it doesn't change the fundamentals. An increasing of costs/reduction in margin yes. Concern? No.

terrm1; whilst i get you point re Bloomberg report, i feel differently about it.

Their report may have been scathing, but for the most part was accurate, accurate in reporting a long standing industry problem, an industry DEC was part of.

Where i differ is that i feel it focused DEC, focused DEC on taking an industry problem and turning it into a Company opportunity. Their responsive RNS (to report) was a masterclass in addressing issues and awareness of the issues, and has turned their modus operandi PR wise from a opportunist dirty oil player towards a green champion. Not only are we going to cap/remedy a greater percentage of leakers than anyone else, but we are going to do more than legislation requires us too.

And in this focus, they not only bought specialist companies to remedy, they are utilising govt funds to do so, and in honouring therr own corporate responsibilities, are incidentally building a capping champion that i see becoming a spin off company of value in itself.

Inadvertently, that report has done DEC, and us shareholders, a great service. As someone who is extremely 'green' orientated, but pragmatic, I think the mgmt have demonstrated their ability with aplomb here, and shown there are a lot of hues between dirty oil (gas) and green turbines and refocused carbon adverse institutional investors that making dirty cleaner is commendable/investable too.

One of the things that caught my eye was the specificness of 'targeting', in that they didn't say we will have $500 mill for acquisition opportunities ,their nuance being that they have something in line of sight. Targeted is very much more specific than considering/opportunistic. Feel that's the most crucial part of update.

Especially when taken in tandem with a previous RNS that clearly indicated that if income was as projected (it is) that elevated income would be returned to shareholders - they are now stating a confirmation/continuation of current divvy payout. There not looking for anything going - they have a specific target. Let's see.

latest factsheet suggests no concerns; highlights the volatility induced by the Truss non budget.

Yes NAV down 5% on the month, but this suggests business as usual, albeit not ebullient...."In Taurus’ portfolio there is currently no indication of any systemic deterioration in leveraged loans and the small number of idiosyncratic issues in the underlying risk remains unchanged during the month for the CLOs in which we are invested...."

victor384; have i been in a lengthy coma, or drinking too much Buckfast i mean this is talking about 2006?

Has it happened yet? Have i missed somethin or am i still under the cosh?

trouts; as a shareholder, i'm delighted with your experience.

Different companies will price their offering differently, chase different markets, have a differet business model.

What you find concerning as to success/profitability of DLG warms the ****les of my heart; i'd rather we sold 50 policies at £150 and made £3 a time than sell 100 policies at £100 making a £1 a tie - which appears from your experience to be DLG's modus operandi. Love it.

alph; thanks for the informative posts. In addition, the new year US pricing/inflation link should increase unit price too.