Member Info for devonplay

I can't seem to get the LSE's to show me that Phil, but that would have been prior to the June test date, so if they failed the covenents at that date then things change. The company had breached it's agreement and so the creditors give it the opportunity resolve that issue, in this case they extended the re-test to later in the year. So you could argue they had given agreement to the terms (given I can't get to the RNS), which the company then couldn't abide with. If you get my meaning. That's why they've again been extended until the 5th of November for testing again. That, I think explains the situation. I guess you only have an agreement if both parties stick to the terms. No?

I'll try and have a look at the Phil, but I thought it was just an extension to the test date - memory hey.

You've given us a novel concept "loyal creditors ", we have to remember they have their own needs to return profit on their capital. They aren't a charity, so will act in their own benefit. It's true to say they try to avoid pushing companies into admin, in most case, but not all. But they will also be willing to do that if there's an exit that means they get their capital out, and that's the only way they will be prepaid, if shareholders try to block them.
Like much in business it comes down to confidence. I suspect what ever of that was left the Board sqaundered it.
There's a much quoted Wall St saying " if you want a friend, get a dog" I'm sure soemthing similar applies to the concept of shareholder/creditor loyalty. Company's shouldn't expect it, as stakeholders we should cherish it enough to not give it to any old Tom, Dick or Harry PLC.

At times like this, I'm always reminded of what Buffet says about farms....
If you buy a farm, you don't call the real estate broker up everyday and ask him for a valuation.
I'm sure there's a good chance a large number of us own a property, so just for fun, try it with your local estate agent and see who get's fed up first LOL
Property, last time I checked, unless you are a developer you don't buy it for the short term. ;)

"support the refinancing earlier in the year"
Is that true Phil? As far as I know, they agreed to extend the test of the cov's dates, but didn't ever get to vote of the refinancing of the company. There's difference as far as I'm concerned. They still haven't, but they will before the rescue deal is put to the shareholders to vote. That's how I understand it any way.

Understandable broker, there's nothing ever easy about debt, the Prospectus are even the returns.! I've had some strong comments about my using YTM on this. In my defence, I always think in yield to maurity terms. I think most participants do.

"Pmo paying off Arcm"
I said that last night, they paid them to bring the short back inline with the long and support the BP deal. They did the short bit, but I we'll never know about the other part. I suspect they did, then realised it wasn't going to happen and that prompted the 50% auction of their debt holding.
PMO's Board, I think, were distracted by the most active stakeholder and forgot to being the rest along.
All specualtion of course, but I think it fits the timeline, ect.

upto 75c on the dollar.
Like anything actual returns will depend on what they bought the debt at, what income they've taken/accrude/conciliation fees there's been along the way.
Time ago, someone posted that the 15% holder had built their stake at 50% of par, not sure how they know that, but anyway that gives you quite a decent return if you've been taking other returns along the way.

It maybe true, I sold when I started to belive there was no consenus between creditors. For a company in PMO's position, that can be perilous. So, I may be biased on this point.
But the Company, in theory, is still managed by the Board (and owned by it's sharehoders), but only on the confidence extended by it's creditors. Hence, I say theory.
In practcice rejection of the 3rd new strategy they tried in as many months, and the discord there must have been in the background since Junes, means I think there's very few chances of that happening. Another change would evaporate what little confidence remains. My opinion of course, but I thinks rational.

"can the creditors just not be sensible and we go back to the situation pre the bp announcement."
They are getting their money out, I just think it tells you what they believe about the long term prospects for the oil sector and the ability of the company to sevice it's debt if it kept just being kicked down the road. In the end they've got to a point where they are unwilling to keep bailing out the shareholders.
What's not sensible about that if you think the long term prospects for oil have changed?

I guess it's all academic now, 46%, 56% or even 74% in reality.
I agree, it would be very intersting to be a fly on the wall at the Creditors Committe, to be fair to him TD must have been under a tremendous amount of stress for months.

Hi Mr Solo, as you know I agree and I'm in the same boat.
Everything tells me that "regionai' and "local" will be the real long term echo of the pandemic and that, alongside the very good management, plays into the hands of holders of NNR. Even the housing market is shouting that people want to live in smaller communities, there's real up swing in the price of property in places with less than 11k inhabitatnts, and it was the community focused retail that first pulled me towards this crowd. It's going to take a very long time for Amazon to offer me an alternative to popping out for a bottle of milk whic gives me an excuse for fish and chips and pint in the pub next door.

"we were told large majority of creditors were onboard."
My understanding is they needed 75% once the cov. was breached and I thought the company only ever reported 45%, so it was a minority, not a majority?

"Now pmo is a cash cow."
It's been a cash cow for creditors for a very long time, the tragedy is some shareholder hadn't recognised it, so their expectation were out of line with reality. You cans ee that from the chart, I think I'm wring saying the debt was beefed up in 13/14 and that's when the demise set in.

"... pmo woulda kept paying for yrs even if the principal amount was pushed back 10 years."
That just tells you what they though of the long term prospects of the oil game doesn't it?

he doesn't need to sell either wife or baby, when he can sell his shareholders....

' they are probably more than confident of the equity in the new co will cover any short fall aswell."
There's a thing about that you have to take into consideration.
Fixed Income investors invest for, you guessed it, fixed income. They participate in trading debt to make capital gains, but there nothing to suggest a tiger changes it's strip, so they could very well be net sellers once the lock-in has passed. Realise any capital and then move on to what ever other fixed income cash stream they can find.
If PMO1 holders alone did that, and they may no have the same lock-in, it's what ever they elect/take of the 150m.

"I'm sure many of the old institutional debtholders would have agreed to roll over for the cost of a decent 3 course lunch"
ESG, you have to put that in the mix, the long term debt financing market for the better part is controlled be a small group of banks, as you know, and they are coming under increasing pressure to step away from these type of holdings.
Hedge funds less so, so you have to expect them to play a greater part ( in parts) of the debt market going foward. It's why listed companies with tradeable indebtedness look very interseting if you play volatility. PE has always loved debt and IPO for it's exit, throw hedge funds into the mix as debt providers and it gets very interesting indeed.
Now, who does that sound a bit like LOL

I can really illustrate this, but I've been buying the debt of Punch (83% of par) & Stonegate (96% of par) - I think Stonegate has declined a little this month, but I don't have a figure - that sort of suggest the debt market isn't so pessimistic. Granted there's Leins and security in it for them, but I think there's slighly different view on the future of pubs, and to some extent the stock market, than news paper headlines would lead you to believe.
If I'm right, the pubs are priced in, in the most pessimistic way.

Hi Edwina, besides the comment on NRR's sales discount - with the ever possible fat tail - I've been reading about the general commercial market over the last few days. I follow Modus (from RiC's) Savilles etc and starting to form the view that sale discounts aren't as bad as expected and the market is starting to move again. AltFi also has some interseting comments the other day from LendInvest (which I also own), so might it be possible when we get a rebound it's going to quite vigerous? If the real economy is discounting by 3% could the stock market discounting at 40% be very wrong indeed.