Member Info for damofarl

raxfactor; yes, some good contributions from seatank - i'm almost identically aligned on his thinking/investment both here and in this wider arena.

Your thoughts are none too shabby either. So thanks for them , which i am also pretty much aligned with!

So refreshing to see posts on a stock BB that are there to educate our understanding, our investment decisions, rather than the ****ging of individuals, that are focused on SEPL.

slice

Putup; thanks your response...i think!

- "value of buybacks" - they have no value (just like dividends); they distribute value. You can't expect a company to create value by paying money out of the company. -

If i'm not a fan of buybacks, that is suggestive that i feel they have no value, and you do seem to have missed my emphasis there.

-"i don't see that capital/worth reduction you highlight" that's because what has been left in the company has been undervalued -
.
Whilst to my mind it is undervalued, irrespective of such, to pay divvys out is not reducing the capital, IF the income in the period of such payments is equal/greater., which bar a Rizla paper it is..

- You guys spend too much time focusing on the excess capital being paid OUT of the company than focusing on the value of what's left IN the company. -

I don't at all. I'm very long term focused on the value in and out, however you shake it about, of the Company. You partly have yourself to blame/credit for that.

- Why would you want to fund the working capital need of the FDP with expensive equity capital? Your equity capital and certainly mine is going to be a lot more expensive than any debt. -

I don't. Nor do i want to pay 10%+ debt costs. And i did check what the FDP projected (gross) costs were hence asking your opinion. Your receipt projections to October alone would substantially cover those stated costs, even if the FDP was agreed, started today, IF they were all retained and not paid out as divvys/buybacks. To suggest/dismiss i'm advocating high cost funding and then state pretty much what i'm suggesting (that income without debt/capital raise) would substantially cover the costs seems conflicted.

I believe, advocate, that this sweet spot of income should be retained substantially to avoid funding costs, to grow/sustain into the next 10 years. As the FDP seems forever tomorrow/seemingly never, i'd prefer a pretty fixed 10% yield rather than the outrageous current yield until agreed, growing the firepower whilst rewarding patience for growth.

bradfordbay; thanks for forensic detail/links on the bonds, and your other recent contributions.

putup; rarely disagree with your prognosis, bar the 'value' of buybacks . But i don't agree with some of this:

"March/April receipts will be circa $91m"........."Currently I estimate May-Oct receipts at circa $310-315m"

to October $400 millionish - i don't question that, i do question,.... "But as more capital is returned, so the capital/worth remaining in the company is less...". Whilst the recent/announced divvys are great/exceptional, from the date of announcement to date of payment, they have generated the same or more, so i don't see that capital/worth reduction you highlight; without the new cash generation i'd agree 100% with your point, and post the yearish end, without 'progress' i'd agree; at current receipts, without such (in a reasoned market!) the sp/market cap should increase.

"They should fund the next FDP with new debt."

I have long argued to use the current cash to repay the loans; i would certainly not want any further debt to fund the FDP. I'd rather they cut/stopped divvys.

We don't know what any FDP will be, but value your detail in your posts, and stab in the dark, what sort of amount would you think GKP need at day 1? Be really interested in your thoughts/numbers on this last point - my personal view is no further divvys would provide the firepower to start such FDP...

Just read the accounts; happy days.

This is an esoteric investment are, and not for punters, but this from the accounts, is all you really need to kniow:

"The Company had no single major financial instrument that in absolute terms and as a proportion of the portfolio could result in a significant reduction in the NAV and share price. Due to the very low exposure of the Company to public equities, and having no specific correlation to any market, the equity price risk is low. The portfolio as a whole does not correlate exactly to any Index."

from my post 2 April - looks like i called this right....an offer from an infrastructure investor

"Against that, the level of bureaucracy, the sheer volume of levels of mgmt, eat into costs (profits), and dynamism, but if you want a static SP and consistent but not blistering divvy i think going forward this will those infrastruture style characteristics."

Great to see the monthly money in. Great to see the special dividend announcement.

Anyone here should see the potential, just as they should see THE risk. Without increased/new production one has a long term high yielder, with it, a growth stock as well.

Unique to my portfolio is that, in the absence of any (production) progress, and in the sweet spot of elevated oil prices, GKP are returning, quickly and directly, that fortune, their elevated income.

Credit to them for that.

seatank8300; spot on. Should be a pinned post, so all see. All you need to know about SEPL.

jc123; i've mentioned before, in GENL's RNS, they were quite specific about the difference oil price made, and its continuance (its risen since) and the impact, and the consideration of returning to shareholders such. It's coming, not to the extent GKP holders are seeing, but it its coming.

jima; so pleased for you. Just don't sell out, there is more to come...

playingFTSE;

can't speak for the consensus, although i feel it is to reinvest dividends.

Personally, more like you, i have always taken the divvys and diversified elsewhere, and will continue to do so. I've never sold down because my conviction in GKP's progress is so strong, and i believe its SP will continue to grow (albeit im surprised at its recent strength/rally). GKP has/is been a golden goose for me, and believe that is the gift that will keep on giving. That said, one should never discount that one bad political RNS could half this - by taking the divvys and reinvesting elsewhere in staid but predictable entities, (M&G for me for example) if that was to happen (unlikely as i feel it is), i have already secured any such 50% drop and will still be break even.

It all depends on your circumstances, your timeframe, your risk reward threshhold and only you can decide that. I'm risk averse, opportunity aware. By maintaining my holding but not increasing through divvy reinvestment, i am enjoying it's fortune, without being hostage to its fortune. One should consider very long term holders, who were equally 'excited' about GKP's prospects many years ago who are still waiting to break even. They too believed this would go to the moon. Some could be making that same mistake today. To me divvy diversification as opposed to reinvestment, gives you the best of both worlds.

dubiousinvestor; in my conservative way, i don't see either of those events happening this year.

That said i do agree with your assessment of each's impact on the SP.

herminator; i don't think valour/honour from Exxon comes into it, and as for damaging their reputation, well it's barely a smudge in the context of their group, hence no announcements from Exxon or the MPNU unit - it just isn't significant to them. One would presume clauses to cover eventualities, but i couldn't find in the acquisition RNS's any mention of a default/penalty fee, which are commonly mentioned.

The SEPL letter requesting authority, in parallel to the Exxon request has precipitated this, having rankled the commission. I think SEPL submitted more as a courtesy to reinforce their excellent relationship, naively. albeit i do think the commission are using this as a technicality to procure the assets, having realised their mistake in passing up at auction (and the surge in OP exaggerating that mistake).

I'm sticking with the timeline.....i think 16th commission states authority declined/taking 1st rights, but 18th the oil minister publicly congratulates SEPL on buying MPNU. I just think we are stuck in the politics of Nigeria realising they missed a trick and using authorities to correct their mistake......

Irrespective, even without MPNU, we are going to do great. And nobody should lose focus of that.

flashheart; yes can be difficult to get hold of....

Probably because, with the recent Bank of America declaration, 75% of the shares are held by just 5 bodies, which only leaves 25% for anybody else to scrabble around with. The plus side to my mind is that is a vote of confidence from some serious investors.

erratum/johnbiles;

ouch what selective balderdash bile; without dissecting your selective comments, there are only 2 things to consider here.

1) it was an Ince do, a do and circumstances that rather than refuting outright, Ince internally raised an investigation into

2) irrespective of social nuances/interpretations/standpoints, for a professional company not to act professionally at all times when associated to the name of such a company, suggests to prospective clients/investors, it is far from.

Nothing in your post alters that.

temple of doom; "Why would Exxonmobil object to being paid more for their assets?"

Indeed; they must of been kicking themselves at this ESG induced divestiture when the OP rocketed, and frankly i'd argue they'd be rubbing their hands to have it derailed and then re auctioned, ergo, if it is true/comes to fruition, the govt first rights taking, I wouldn't see Mobil vehemently defending their SEPL deal. If true though, surely the first rights only matches the current deal and Mobil would be no better off (bar a saving in legal challenge costs)?

Personally feel it could go anyway, it is Nigeria after all! That said if i wanted to form a (state owned) national champion i think i'd rather spend the reputed $2 billion, on buying out SEPL (at a 50% premium) thus getting both Mobil and SEPL assets....

ingridcold; thanks your excellent post. Particularly enlightening & instructive to hear from very long term holders. Your honesty on being sucked in by hype is a lesson that deserves wider acknowledgement & acceptance within the indy oil/gas/minerals investment arena. It is a refreshing antidote to the hype still omnipresent here. As someone who has been invested here only 3 years, i'm mindful that whilst i'm already ahead of my expectations, to some degree that is at the expense of VLTH's such as yourself. Your patience in not jettisoning your loss also has lessons for investors, and i truly hope & believe you will get your break even. I'm not sure i would envisage a headline 580p SP in 5 years but I DO see that in combination with the dividend throw offs.

My viewpoint? I bought 3 years ago, just believing that the constant cash generated relative to mkt cap showed deep value. Aware of the political situation, & despite being very green orientated, felt there was a 20 year gap in the ESG transition, & that that ESG mantra so sexy with institutions was falsely driving down both the valuations of producers & the price of oil. I just took a contrarian view that there was a mismatch between the desire for green energy without considering the need for dirty energy to get there. Whilst i stand by that investment belief, i too was a little naïve, green behind the ears to the totality of GKP. I've learnt much from the contributions on this BB, (particularly PUTUP as unfashionable as it to say so!), which guides where i believe this will go/my expectations going forward for the next 5 years, & indeed has guided the numerous other stocks i have in oil/gas/mineral in unsexy/politically challenged environments; negative to my initial euphoria of earnings, i've learnt (beyond the current elevated OP) where that throw off has come from - basically the payback of costs VLTH's like you incurred long ago, & that will drop; learnt that soon the agreed terms mean GKP will be getting a small percentage of production going forward, a& without ';development' that income will drop. On the plus side, even without production uplift/progress/development that small percentage of a large amount has 20 years to be the gift that keeps on giving, albeit not in a euphoric 5 bag 6 month bubble up/takeover, more as a 10% yielding 'infrastructure' play.

In summary, & crucial to your break even realisation, if i was to examine GKP afresh today, would I invest? Hell yes. I still feel there is deep value, albeit that i now see it more as a reliable high yield 'infrastructure' play & due to geopolitical reassessments now less of a contrarian play. With the long promised but seemingly elusive increased/new production this would constitute a growth, value & high yielder all at the same time. I hope there is no takeover - i believe GKP could become a minor major in it's own right.

tartine; fair point that.

That said the costs of any projects aren't all met at once/upfront, so agree use the current elevated cash flows rather than bonds to develop/diversify. I'd be happy with the current excellent yield maintained if they did that, alas, i don't think they have the ambition and/or skillset to do so; they do seem happy to churn the asset, which is no bad thing, but in the absence of 'progress', i'd prefer that excess cash progressed to shareholders.

tartine; they key words in that RNS are "PRIOR" to the invasion and associated increase.....and, "this figure (quarter of a billion) is expected to increase SIGNIFICANTLY"

so disregarding such uplifts, effectively income will equal mkt cap in 3 years with no progress.....whats not to like?