Member Info for damofarl

"GLA LTH Are you really a shareholder??????????????"

Of course i'm not; my singular purpose for being here is to wind you up. I look forward to your agenda on the AGM in due course.

31p

QED!

And no; i've enough tea and biscuits stockpiled......

i've not seen a single post in the last year that has even suggested there would be no revenue in 4Q; what is the agenda in promoting such a falsehood?

opulentia; i think it's a bit disingenuous to accuse others of promoting an agenda whilst doing so yourself; some may be pragmatic on outlook/income others euphoric; those holding any of those views all have an agenda surely?

Frankly whatever way it doesn't aid the debate, our understanding , to ignore and dismiss those with differing viewpoints, it only has potential value (to the accusser) if such agendas are devaluing their own?

PUTUP; i'll bow to your suggestion that the bond's terms don't allow early repayment, which rather surprises me - if correct all the more reason not to enter a new bond that doesn't facilitate early exit.

opulentia; i don't see the debt as a deterrent at all, especially as you suggest we have the cash to pay it; surely one negates the other enterprise value wise? And the KRG/Iraqi politics is already the 'deterrent' you suggest is the debts purpose.

Instead of servicing a debt we could (should) pay, why don't we rein in/reduce divvys to pay? As for a new bond issue, why? I certainly hope not. Again i'd be happy with reduced/reined in divvys to build a war chest towards any FDP, not withstanding that any FDP costs won't all be incurred on day 1 rather incurred whilst income is still incoming.

I still don't get why we would pay a cost (debt servicing) that we don't need to.

nobull; ........"Paying out ‘excess’ cash when you have debt finance increases the financial risk"

Ordinarily agree, albeit i don't think currently that's the case as the current divvys seem to be paid out of ongoing income generated rather than depleting the 'excess'. Personally i can't fathom why GKP don't clear the finance to eradicate such 'risk'. I don't see the rationale/benefit of having that debt when we could clear it. Why don't we repay it?

hi opulentia; thanks your response.

I used 10%, as being conservative in nature, that's what i believe the yield will be going forward in the next couple of years factoring in no progress (production increase), ~10% share of profit oil and dividends being prudently matched to profit. Whilst aware it is currently well in excess of that, my expectation level is still a very comfortable place to be, leaving me looking more at upside than downside from that point. I too don't see takeover, for the reasons you highlight, but also lack of appetite ESG wise from major oil (although i do think a mega merger of all the indys to create a Kurdish major is the likeliest outcome in that regard).

opulentia; i feel (and am happy for you to correct me) that we are polar opposites on how we view GKP, bar both believing it is undervalued.

I believe there is tremendous potential here but see it (and am happy for it) being released slowly but surely, i feel you see it's potential being realised quickly/imminently, either SP rising/rocketing and/or takeover. With your numerous 'positive' posts can i ask what your investment criteria here is.

For my part, i see basically, a 10% dividend yielder with long sustained life, with the potential for growth, a eureka moment, but indifferent to a rise as long as the yield is comfortably maintained; hence i'm positive but conservative on GKP's SP appreciation. Without further 'progress', (increased production, new fields, diversification), my factoring is that GKP is effectively a very high yielding utility/infrastructure stock. Without progress, i see the SP rising 10% year on year, not catapulting upwards.
.
I'm genuinely interested, (not questioning) what your investment rationale is. Is it long term value, short term value, a trading proposition, a yield proposition, a growth proposition.

Love your positivity on GKP; i share it. I feel we differ on our desired outcomes, me steady, predictable, sure; you quick short term uplift. Interested in your reasoning

nobull; ........"Think of a company overdoing the dividends – after a while it might get de-rated to reflect the risk of having to do a dilutive placing at a share price not of its choosing.".

A fair point that but only IF the dividends are overdone. Whilst currently generous (substantial in my mind) i don't think they are currently overdone, as the current income (profit) is more than covering them. If they continue in excess of such, yes agree would cause a rerate.

Personally i feel GKP is in an assert churn phase, lacking any urgency (or real desire) to kick forward and grow/diversify and whilst oil price/supply considerations are what they are frankly they could continue to throw back such dividends to investors whilst they are throwing off cash. It's not what i wish, but frankly the lifespan of the field just on a churn to dilution basis would facilitate such divvy generosity without a rerate.

I'm no fan of buybacks (struggle to think of one that worked), but i don't think they are an accretive investment - it is merely recycling value already in the SP. Ditto divvis, which in simplistic terms are merely paying out, hence reducing such.

However, what many here, and the market seem to have missed (but will one day catch up on) is, whilst ordinarily paying 30p out in divvis should reduce the SP by 30p come ex divvy days, because it has reduced the total value of the company by such amount, this isn't taking into account that in that period (from announcement, to eligibility, to payment) GKP has earnt such, and accordingly the value inherent in the SP hasn't actually changed downwards. That said whilst i do think GKP is undervalued, i don't see it noticeably rerating upwards whilst it maintains it's 'churn' phase, and effectively pays out all it's income.

I see great value here. Personally i value divvy distributions as it allows me to diversify/not concentrate what is, despite the potential still a stock of risk. I'll happily take steady and sure churn over boom or bust

opulentia; i don't follow PANR just GKP, but what your post suggests to me is that PANR are overvalued AND GKP is undervalued.

I'd rather have 10% of the real cake that is GKP each year for 10 years than 100% of the unbaked cake that is PANR in 10 years time.......

Wonderfully boring results; income receipts up in 1Q, continually rotating into higher yielding/quality loans; reducing finance costs whilst extending life of a number of loans due to expire imminently, with new undertakings due to make first income contributions imminently. Ukraine/Russia region almost immaterial impact, albeit a note of caution that cost of living/inflationary pressures are building, but thus far costs by the underlying loan beneficiaries are being passed on. Focus is on paying high dividends, not SP appreciation albeit SP below/at NAV will instigate the management fee rebate being used for buybacks

headdrer; a good article that. Key mentions are the attractiveness of the assets, and the legal position regartding first rights.

I believe Seplat is on solid grounds; the technical distinction explains why Seplat stated in the RNS acquisitions that MPNU would be run on a stand alone basis - ie the company (name) that is party to the JV is still the same company hence no change of partners, ergo no preemptive rights. Clever.

And as has been said, even without MPNU, Seplat is very undervalued. Heads you win, tails you win more is how i see it.

ccooper; you must be the only person on this board that believes the board knows what they are doing. If they have a plan, they are not showing it, to shareholders - maybe that plan isn't for shareholders - only partners.

The vast majority on this board see incompetence/nepotism/self interest and are only here, not because they believe in it's future, but holding on to salvage something from the wreck this business represents. And i say that as someone who has held, never sold a share, in 2 years.

This is the most elongated takeover ever. Why?

Why does a company that provides professional services as a business not display such professionalism/diligence to their own compliance - because they are average at best, in reality incompetent. And when you show such incompetence in your own affairs, it is hardly a positive marketing tool for prospective customers.

When your communications are either non existent or only to report a failing, that communicates incompetence.

There are many here like me, that believed this was undervalued, believed in the value of the business proposition. The mgmt handling, the naivety of the mgmt of this 'takeover' merely red flags the inability of the mgmt, the lack of a plan.

I just hope there are more people like you who believe the board know what they are doing, so i can take something better out of this - until then i will hold, written off as a loss. Frankly this is so poorly managed, so indifferent to shareholders, i hesitate every week, whether to just take the loss, move on, rather than suffer nothingness for the next 5 years...

jamrock; i fundamentally disagree with you that falling house prices are the Govt's aims; they are ambivalent/indifferent to such. Yes they will adjust interest rates to manage inflation/recession, but with no specific focus on housing at all. The recent term govt support (Help to Buy/covid stamp duty relief) have not benefited first time buyers, it has fuelled increases in house prices that have compounded a lack of affordability, and benefited primarily those already with a home (of their own), or those fiscally already able to afford - it has been a financial inducement/tax bung predominantly utilised mainly by the already comfortable, not a true helping hand to those on average/below average incomes aspiring to own their own home. The other beneficiaries bar those already fiscally/housing comfortable, are shareholders in these housebuilders like me, who (irrespective of the current depressed SPs) have profited from Govt subsidy induced heating of the market. And the Govt, in increased company tax.

The lack of social housing provision supported/mandated means the FTB's will never see a lowering of price, as the total housing provision (lack of), will mean those subjected to the avarice of rental, will always be looking for a first property (as cheaper). But these are individuals stuck on a 'lowish' income, who can't warrant a income multiple mortgage on that 'low' income despite it being less than their rental. The Govt in my lifetime has never addressed that, and until they redirect, focus subsidies from Help to Buy/stamp duty relief etc to, say ONLY people on UK average or below income, to address that the price will only increase, hence housebuilders profits.

The ending of Help to Buy will barely impact HB's. Whilst the Govt/councils don't build new social housing the shortage demand dynamics are reinforced, the desire for those trapped in market rentals, to buy a house on a cheaper monthly mortgage will reinforce demand. And hence price.

The cladding costs are a blip in time, and frankly, should be paid; some HB's have been better at addressing, some are in denial. It's a cost of business, like materials, wages. And capital gains changes will have not an iota of difference on private landlords, they won't sell, as the income they are earning is sustainable, predictable and growing - just as the struggle for low income wannabee homeowners frustration grows.

arsenal; thanks for the ANOH post.

There's some great insights/debate/information on this board, but my there is some baloney too. I know it's the nature of the beast, but i don't understand why there is such vitriol to a differing view? Why there is such attacking of those holding differing views. We all have our motives for being here, we all have different perspectives/aspirations/targets but those differences in their manifestation shouldn't necessitate vitriol. For the most part we are all here because we believe in GKP, both in the moment and going forward, and i wish going forward we could acknowledge and celebrate our commonality rather than our differences.

Not everyone here is sitting on a 200% gain, some very very long term holders are only drawing close on level to their pain. It's okay to celebrate our fortune, but we shouldn't be blind to another holder's misfortune.

Whilst we may wish this is going to shoot the lights out, we shouldn't be blinded to the pragmatism of some who think it will be a very comfortable earner long term shining star and not a big bang.

We shouldn't dismiss/belittle takeover talk, nor should we dismiss those who see 10% a year for 20 years as better than a 1 off 50% fillip.

We shouldn't dismiss posters personally, we should focus on the facts, insights and knowledge sharing - dismiss, question, learn from them as necessary. I really hope we can get back to focusing on the production, the profits, (the KRG politics) and not personas.

dazzle1000; thanks your kind words, and thanks your thoughts too. I think DEC's buying of a plugging firm showed that the green/dirty energy debate isn't black and white, and absorbing your post, actually, DEC could build/morph/spin off a world class clean up business out of that by receiving state/govt/departing producer fees.

Jim800; yes the fundraise peeved investors, was ill considered, and damaged the SP; as has been said though, they did acknowledge such , and make a tacit acceptance that they wouldn't repeat such. For me a mistake, however as with the leaking wells expose, their acceptance of such shows they are/do learn from such.

Good presentation on their website; well worth the read.

What struck me is the absence/abandonment of the 55 production figure - they are targeting/ suggesting 50 by year end, and for the billion $/5 bagger fantasists, the timescale on ramped up production.

On the positive side, the stated field life at current production bodes well for realists like me, and a sustained yield for many years to come.......