Member Info for damofarl

From the rns.....

....'The amount to be applied to the partial redemption of Shares comprises monies from the Company's existing cash balances....'

Only had a very quick glance, but note there is 17.1c of retained earnings over and above the dividend......

Write more fully when i get a chance, but digesting some of the detail, even happier with how this is panning out.

Davet1; if your daylight robbery view is correct, surely a resounding reason to be in GTE?

Jjhbev; thanks for your prescient post which makes some excellent/interesting points with with which I agree pretty much wholesale.

Whilst agreeing the desire for yield over growth may be a factor, I'm not sure it's retail investors who are minuscule in these kind of investments.

Hi kentio, hope you are well.

Each person has to make their own decision on whether to reinvest redemption, considering their own circumstances.

Personally, I actually added prior to both redemptions to maintain my initial holding, being both patient and believing the majority part of the NAV discount would be received through time.

Interesting to see Quilter reduce their holding from 10 to 5% - maybe they are impatient/don't believe that BGLF will deliver in the immediate future (missing out on the redemption).

And conversely that Borders and coast pension (the umbrella manager for numerous local govt pensions) has taken out a new 4% position - maybe they believe there is still money to be made here.

If 'professional' investors have contrary views, no surprise that we as private investors do too.

Hi guys, thanks for your contributions/number crunching today - most helpful.

With regards to the dividend being impacted by non earning cash and/or running costs, I don't see it as being material or impacting for the best part of a year. On the non earning cash - well in the quite long time I've been here, they have predominantly held cash in excess of annual dividend, which I have always seen them as holding pending their next 5/10 year investment - the point I'm trying to make is that they have long held non earning cash, hence not seeing this as materially changing/impacting.

Yes running costs will rise proportionally, but again don't think material for a while yet - they flagged such, the awareness of such, and actions they would take on such, at the very point of announcing the wind down. I've been a fan since day one, and for me they have delivered since day one. They are delivering now, on how they said they would wind down. Pragmatically, slowly, opportunistically.

I have noticed in the last reports no 'extra' closing out of loans/commitments beyond their normal trading churn, so I'm still unconvinced, that this 2nd bumper redemption is from a new found urgency in closing out loans. Yes be interesting to see if there is any commentary in the update (although I doubt there will be), I just feel that they were long earning interest above our dividend yield, but much of that excess was redeployed to continually propagate such - that they are no longer originating such means that excess is materialising, back to us.

On what will the redemption NAV figure be, market gyrations aside, it does also depend on how they 'account' they current dividend - ex date was the same day as October NAV valuation, so will that dividend be deducted from that valuation or deemed because of record/payment date to be after? If it's within, market fluctuations aside, I'd see €.88, if it's after, €.90 - we'll have to wait see....

Whilst we may not be uniform on how/where we perceive the root of the redemption/yield is originated/generated, we are one in agreeing there is free money here, between the current SP and the NAV.

I still believe, AT THIS POINT, these redemptions, and the yield, aren't from an advanced closing of positions, but primarily from the returns on previous excellent investments, unhindered by new investments and the contingencies(reserves ) required for such, bolstered by a constantly reducing risk.

This was one of the first 10 shares I bought in my self managed portfolio. From day 1 through this wind down they have always delivered what they promised. I'll be here at the end.

Glad that this has been one of the most boringly consistently enriching choices I've made.

Sad that I've got to find a replacement, that frankly I can't see meeting the mark of BGLF.

Jjhbev; agreed that is chunky.

Judging by this from the 3Q update, there's still upside here.....

....'Total common shareholders’ equity was $10.2 billion or $135.35 per diluted share as of September 30, 2024, compared to $9.6 billion or $121.29 per diluted share as of December 31, 2023. Adjusted book value attributed to common shareholders2 was $11.2 billion or $149.29 per diluted share as of September 30, 2024, compared to $10.8 billion or $136.34 per diluted share as of December 31, 2023.'

Has the record date to receive NRR takeover passed, and if not, when is it?

My view below on dividend being maintained is based on their announcement that the dividend for the year would be a MINIMUM of 9c - it was quite definitive, suggesting to me they had great confidence in their current positions ongoing income generation.

I also read it to be a reassurance to investors (who often get frustrated during wind downs), that whilst they patiently economically close down positions, the lack of expediency/size of capital returns is tempered by a healthy ongoing return.

Other than their professionalism, I do think their intertwined links with the Blackstone Group (who are growing/increasingly promoting their presence in this arena), means BGLF can't unwind positions prematurely, without taking a haircut, as Blackstone have no intention/desire to do such.

I do think this is/will be a factor in this being an elongated wind down

Jjhbev/Gavster-NBC;

I did notice the rns footnote, and whilst reassuring, from memory, they had already trailed such around the time of the 1st redemption, so I'd already factored in.

Yes previous discussion here as to whether last return was from asset redemptions or excess cash at hand/ongoing income no longer being redeployed, and whilst it is hard to know definitively, my belief is it was the latter, aided by time elongation meaning default contingencies are naturally and continually unwinding/reducing, freeing up cash.

The last NAV suggests wind down aside, they are still performing and income generating, so I'll be studying the 2nd return with interest, to ascertain 'where' exactly such return is coming from. My gut feeling, noting their (deliberate) lack of progress on unwinding positions prematurely is that any 2nd return will be measured rather than bumper - whilst reducing contingencies must be freeing up cash, naturally reducing/ending positions must also reduce ongoing income - and I sense they are planning to maintain current level of dividend for some time, so some of their natural redemptions will be 'diverted' to maintain such level.

All my conjecture of course, but whichever way it pans out, I still believe much of the NAV discount will be realised to the patient, one way or other

Pickledpeck;

'.....the question then becomes is the company taking on extra debt to maintain flat production, or is it acquiring additional production over and above that level.

You can see the perception of ever increasing debt to maintain flat production and revenue is a challenge, as the 9-11% decline rate is annual not a one time thing solved by one acquisition.....'

Spot on

Gavster-,NBC

Reassuringly boringly rewarding.........

Asp1; thanks your responses.

I get your house buying/leasing scenario totally, and I think many here will have found that very useful. I am totally happy with your 25/25/50 split for asset replacement.

However to say that gives a $130 mill buffer is not the complete picture either, as there will be increased interest/repayments for debt and increased dividends for new equity, and these will extend out beyond the 10 year period.

The other assets/opportunities you highlight are already in the price, their value/contribution recorded in the accounts - that said I have long stated that the golden goose, hidden in plain sight, is actually NextLVl. DEC don't seem to have truly grasped that ARO is where they can truly make money, if they make that the business, and wells merely the feeder to that. When they grasp that, the albatross will become a swan

Rrb;

"We use the 855,000 mcf/d of production......So, 500 million minus 120 million (interest) minus 170 million (maintenance) minus 55 million (dividend) minus 150 million (debt reduction on ABS's) = $5 million left over....."

Taken these figures as read, you highlight an extremely thin margin of error. Notwithstanding such, inadvertently you highlight that, as is, they are $5 mill per year sustainable. It is that small margin, on circumstances/execution that makes so many nervous about DEC.

Asp1; you make a pertinent point that rrb's figure presume a straight line interest and repayment cost, rather both reducing through time, thus doesn't take into account that free cash will increase, using rrb's figure, to potentially cover the ARO costs he deliberately excluded. The flaw, in that however is not making a concomitant reduction in the daily production rrb used, again on a straight line basis. So yes, interest/repayment costs reducing through time, but alas production/income.

I saw someone on here debunking the notion of this being a Ponzi scheme, on the basis that such worked by increasing/replacing losing investors with new ones, and that as DEC was paying a dividend, investors weren't losing, being replaced

Other than the SP capital loss suffered by too many here, which suggests that is selective analysis, if you replace investor with ABS, it does look like a Ponzi. Constantly taking out new ABS's to repay older ones, is new investors (ABSs) paying old investors (ABSs). To retire an older ABS, and replace with a new, higher rate cost ABS, isn't done by a Company from a position of strength - it's done by one walking the tightrope of margin that rrb's figures suggest, pushing out the obligation, in the hope, but not the certainty, that things will get better (gas price). There is no fathomable reason why you would pay more interest than you have to, to push out repayment rather than run to natural fruition - unless where they are on that tightrope necessitated such.

Rrb1981;

Thank you for your contributions, with which I totally concur - they may not be popular, or talking to the crowd, but that doesn't negate their value and importance.

I have an absolutely residual holding here, having been within the last 12 months, my single biggest holding by a long chalk.

I think with any investment, you have to be willing to move with that investments market/performance, good or bad, but this board, is overwhelmingly delusional in not doing so. I sold at quite a loss, accepting you can't win them all, accepting that loss, against gains elsewhere. If I hadn't, I'd have lost a lot more.

And what made me sell? Against the omnipresent stance here, of look at the number of wells, look at the protective hedging, look at the Smarter Asset Management (SAM), look at the future revenues, I too, like you, looked at the future costs.

Too many here lazily dismissed the 'green' campaigners reports as people having a beef, (which of course they do), without acknowledging some of the detail they provided, and it's impact on DEC's viability.

I did the maths, the maths you have listed on a number of occasions here, that a portion of newer wells were hiding the fact that DEC were deliberately 'running' a considerable number of wells at minimal production, and zero profit, just to avoid, prolong, push back, avoid their being categorised as requiring plugging, and hence push back (avoid) those ARO costs.

Yes gas price hasn't helped them, but neither has their hedging, because (as had been crucially highlighted before), it's not for their/shareholders benefit, but creditors benefit.

ARO, in this low price environment, will fold DEC, and DEC know it. I have previously posted that I fully expect NextLVL to be spun out, to be a highly profitable business, with DEC meeting (folding?) on it's debts but little else, within 12 months, with such being the phoenix that profits from DECs ashes.

Your views go against the grain here, as mine have before, as do Aceofspades, but their jist's forensic analysis of the number of wells that aren't producing profitably, that are being run to avoid costs deserve better acceptance.

Without a gas spike, and a sustained higher price, their is only enough in DEC to pay the ABS holders.

Simonm; thanks for that post about DNA sales - I had been wondering why we had been trickling up on no AA4 specific news. The read across is definitely positive.

NAV is up, which for something in wind down is pretty impressive.

Testament to both their professionalism, and that they have no intention of expediating run down wantonly.

Rylidan;

"Patience is required. They are investing a lot of their profit in development of infrastructure. Plus a great return with dividends. This is a company that is definitely growing, but in a careful controlled way to minimise risk. I love it!"

Spot on. Totally agree. The only inpatient ones are the margin chasers/day traders/5 bagger dillisunionists.

There are a lot of FTSE 100 Co's that could learn from PTAL mgmts pragmatism, social/environmental/community awareness, and thesis of under promising, and over delivering. Delivering long term sustainable growth - not by being hostage to fortune by spinning dreams of riches tommorow to inpatient spivs, who don't want to understand that spending money fixing river beds/banks isn't a cost, its an investment.

PTAL is quality, for anyone looking for a long term enhancing investment. It's only disappointing to the quick buck merchants , who are frustrated at not receiving a quick buck.

Latest factsheet is out.

Noticed they have rejigged the format, which more distinctly shows/breakdowns the credit ratings of their underlying loans, which is helpful.

Cash is back to 11%ish and Spanish property has reduced from 8- 7% in short time.

Note in the breakdown of "assets" that 45%ish is in equities - could a more knowledgeable mind than mine, explain what such equity might actually be/represents? I can't track it's appearance from previous factsheets.