London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

Mommur - my post was not about the past; it was about the future. I certainly didn't intend to malign management and don't believe I did - rather the opposite in fact. I've always given them full credit for what they have achieved so far for shareholders (and themselves). SQZ has only been about BKR for the last 4 years, however. It's time to look beyond it and determine a strategy (with shareholders' agreement) that achieves the best outcome for all stakeholders. Its SQZ's shareholders as a group the directors owe their allegiance to, not themselves. I fear they might have become too risk averse and if this was true, it would probably be best imv to aim to get T/O when the time is right. Alternatively, they might consider appointing dynamic new management whose own futures depend on growth, with existing senior management aiming to "move upstairs" idc, so that their counsel isn't lost. Here's one for you to ponder and perhaps expand upon for discussion purposes, NewK. Imagine Andrew Austin at the helm of SQZ.

OK - I've always been a trouble-maker.

SQZ has been a great investment for me and I will forever be grateful to ACW (in particular) and his team for what they achieved in what was a small, unexciting , O&G junior . I liked it enough, however, to accumulate a holding of 450k shares (not as many as some others I know) at an average of 22p before BKR came along. Since then, using proceeds of some reasonably well-timed sales, I have built a sizable extension to my home and block-paved c.350 sqm of driveway. So SQZ doesn't owe me a penny. But that doesn't change anything in relation to how the Company must be run if it's to go on to achieve its potential within a timescale shareholders understand and accept. The rules are always the same, no matter which listed company one is looking at.

Imv we don't have enough clarity about SQZ's future direction of travel. ACW's & MF's strategy is unclear and it shouldn't be. I know we all appoint them each year to represent our interests, but it's taken as read they'll be open and transparent when it comes to telling us what's going on and what they intend to do with our money. At present, I'd rather have some of it back in the form of a special dividend. I might put it towards one of these: https://www.yachtworld.co.uk/yacht/2019-princess-f50-8030218/

jmofwiw

Enough from me on the subject. Back to the cricket. I'm concerned about what might happen in this afternoon's fixture. Please God, don't let it happen.........................................

This board has some great contributors, whose thoughtful and incisive comments help everyone better understand the Co they've put their savings in. I'm a LTH, but traders can also benefit from better understanding what affects the share price and why.

When I arrived It had reduced its level of activity to an 18% (?) WI in the Erskine Field, an unexceptional late life field in the CNS. Its CEO and CFO had moved on with ACW's blessing to pursue other opportunities. It seemed only a matter of time until it fell to T/O , thus leaving ACW (ch'man & sole exec director) to enjoy his twilight years doing whatever couples do in comfortable retirement. Sadly, as a result of bereavement, he was never afforded this chance. I invested because I liked the look of the BoD (SQZ: 1 exec, 2 non execs all 60+ - one with 17% of the shares). A quick capital gain seemed a possibility. It was a big surprise when the sensational BKR followed not that much later. ACW had pitched himself into his work and MF returned with the deal. Who knows why SQZ was chosen by BP, which seemed to be driven by a panic-stricken determination to put as much distance between itself and anything connected with IRAN as fast as humanly possible. It just was, which is what matters. There were some issues with the US OFAC, but these were dealt with swiftly and intelligently. Everyone knows the rest. Flegg and his team practically worked miracles seamlessly integrating 100+ BP personnel with SQZ's small existing team and set-up. More people were taken in Aberdeen, almost all focused on maximising recoveries from BKR at minimum cost per boe. Results were stunning.

Discussion boards that turn into fan clubs aren't much use to anyone. Objectivity should always be retained, so here's my tuppence worth. I've seen worrying signs creeping in of late and I'm uncomfortable. Everything is running smoothly enough and cash profits are there (or better be). But it feels to me almost as if it's stalled. Promoting the 17 yrs in place financial controller to director and CFO made my blood boil. Why? He's a block (however small) to a T/O; a potential fall-guy if hedging goes seriously tits-up; I could go on but won't. Point is, there's no commercial logic to it and it's not their money they're dishing out. Plus they're sitting on £100m+++, endlessly waiting for another BKR to come along, paying themselves £50k a month or whatever as they're less than transparent about the Rhum 3 cost over-runs and stingily increasing the dividend by 0.5p a share to loyal investors who've bought their shares using their own money, not acquired them via soft options.

I still think SQZ is one of the best investments in the market, but it needs to keep its focus and stay lean if returns are to be maxed. Today's RNS and the 3 days old criminal leak did for me. I'm 100% with NewK in his 13.13 post. It was idiotic not to update on cash to put things in perspective.

all imo/dyor

Nicely explained, poortiming. Even vc should now be able to understand :-)
The two Jersey based directors (AB & RL) only sold enough shares to cover the cost of the new shares issued by JOG which they were entitled to buy @110p per share, so it would appear that the exercise of options is not a taxable event in Jersey. Another reason to want to live there. There's no CGT to pay on share sales either. Maybe that's why they decided to become residents of the holiday isle? Mind you, you need about a gazillion pounds to afford a house there, so no doubt they'll be holding out for top dollar when it comes to selling the Company. Sorry: "if".

Re the removal of posts, I'm not totally sure, but I think that if a post is removed by the administrators, the whole thread gets taken down. So non-controversial posts disappear as well as the one/s that "broke the law". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va1oppIGs1E&ab_channel=BuddyHolly-Topic

And so the clock ticks on, as we all get older. I seem to have spent my life since first becoming involved with JOG in Aug 2015, wishing for tomorrow, next week, next month or next year. I don't think I'll look back on my period of ownership of shares in this company (assuming I get the chance to) with any great fondness. I hope I and all the others who've suffered - many in silence - as we keep getting told there's been an incredible increase in shareholder value (show me the money) - at least get to bank something worthwhile before we die. I'm a bit fed up with all the talk and could do with a bit more action - preferably action the rest of the world thinks is positive.

A thought occurred to me that many people appear to be convinced JTSouthern and Siggy on the other board are experts in the field of oil exploration and production and it has to be said the language they use and their familiarity with the subject supports the view they do indeed have a background in the industry and their views on how difficult it is going to be for JOG to find a farm-out partner should at least be considered. I'm lost on the technical detail as, I guess, are most others. I spoke with JOG about the subject recently and the comment I got was along the lines: "everyone is entitled to their own opinion. As we've made progress, we've set everything out as clearly as we can, made it clear what work has been done and by whom and the conclusions that have been reached. If someone has a different view and wants to discuss this with us we'll be happy to talk with them". I don't know if JTS or Siggy reads this board but someone (vampire/RBonnier/catswhiskas?) might suggest to one or both they pick up the phone to JOG (details on the website) and see if common ground can be reached. If JTS is actually trying to help, then why would he not do this and let us know what transpires?

I think I need to give it a rest for a while...........

dyor

LuckyL - naked shorting is illegal in the UK (and most other places). The only people who can go short naked are market makers...........but only if it is as part of its normal market making activities.

No comment.

Looking at the role pension fund providers play in the long term destruction of shareholders value via the shorting activities of the tens of thousands of hedge funds looking for exceptional gains for their already rich investors, I don't believe it's legitimate to say that shorting (by pension fund managers) is done mostly for hedging purposes. If a fund manager is holding a particular stock in whichever fund he's managing and he decides to sell part of it with the intention of buying it back later for less, perhaps because he feels exposed at a point in time or maybe because he thinks the price is 'toppy', why should that be called "shorting"? He's simply selling down a stock that's in his portfolio. Whether or not he buys it back later and at what price is academic.

So that narrows things down to the loan of assets (stocks) belonging to others by the custodian of those assets (whose conduct is supposedly monitored by independent trustees - laugh now) in return for fees that are either banked by the lender or, at best, shared with the beneficial owners.

As for those who say stock lending and shorting doesn't cause anyone longer term loss, that's a fallacy. Everyone knows that stock prices are determined by supply and demand. The stock market might be likened to a giant, water-filled fish tank, with the companies forming part of that market being the fish. Hedge funds whose interests focus on shorting tend not to be long term investors in companies forming part of the markets they trade in. Rather, they like calling in occasionally, taking out of the tank the equivalent of a pint of water each time they call. When they've gone, each fish has a bit less water (containing the oxygen they need to remain healthy) to swim in. Eventually, with no fresh water added, the fish would begin to die. In actual parlance, there's less money in the markets chasing the same number of companies, so prices fall (or fail to gain).

This is the clever bit. By legislating that people saving for retirement can only get tax relief by investing those funds in the stock market (almost invariably in the form of contributions to approved pension providers to supposedly invest their hard earned for maximum growth - laugh here too) the Government perpetuates the scam . A fresh supply of water is injected each year. Why does anyone think the performance of so many funds is so abject? FTSE 100 index today the same as it was 20 years ago??

Thousands of people in the City are playing the same game - how to get their hands on a share of the trillions of pounds of the savings of people like you and me. The City pays a giant chunk of all UK taxes. Message to incoming chancellor each time: "don't go there" - and FFS tell the FCA to lay off.

dyor

QC - I don't disagree with some of the counter arguments you put together. A common reason put forward by fund managers going short is to hedge long positions, particularly at strategic times (like cut-off dates for the working out annual bonuses?). I'm not aware there's a particular formula for sharing lending fees but you might be right. I've long since given up trying to get people (who are paid to investigate and stop abuse of investors by City outfits) to do their jobs competently and honestly, so I might not be right up there on the extent to which the unwary get skinned these days.

The moral justification you cite is in my view pretty thin. I know what's buried in the small print but the average punter won't. What's in the small print (why isn't it in bold?) hardly justifies what a lot of the guilty parties get up to. The pension fund providers justify their shorting activities not only with the hedging argument, but with " it doesn't matter much if an individual share price suffers a short term drop, because we invest for the long term and prices always recover". Poppy**** - what about investors converting to annuity at the time shares in their fund are returned damaged? And as for their argument that the lending fees help them keep fund management charges low? Ditto. I talked to enough pensions providers (in the days when I had the enthusiasm to do so) to know that what I'm suggesting does go on; I'm not a conspiracy theorist (I was a partner in one of the so-called 'Big 4', where my interests lay outside audit - I packed in early 21 years ago after losing my respect for the firm I'd been with throughout my career; I've never once regretted my decision).

I don't want to get into a long debate over the issue, QC. I've got mountains of info to back up my stance on the subject, accumulated over many years. You have your own views, which is fine by me. I always enjoy reading your thoughtful, well-structured and intelligent posts, so don't want to fall out over differences of opinion.

As a matter of interest, to what do you attribute practically zero growth in the investment value of Britain's 100 largest companies over the last 20 years (as reflected by the FTSE 100 index - the composition of the top 100 changes at regular intervals so that the list is always made up of the 100 biggest cos by market cap)?

Options (and spread bets) are derivatives, whereas shorting affects the price of the asset in question. To use an analogy some might find appropriate, those who buy put options on the Traded Options Market aren't seeking to dope the horse they're betting will lose. If I understand the situation correctly, put options are generally used for hedging purposes. Do you know if options are extensively used by (for instance) investment banks and pension fund managers, or is shorting a better way to protect investors' interests? Best not to talk about hedge funds and whose interests they're out to protect
:-)
all imo/dyor

Shorters have to borrow the shares they intend to sell, before later buying them back for less and returning the shares (now worth less) to the lender. Who on earth would lend their shares to these hyenas you might ask. Sadly, the answer is YOU - not that you'd know it.

Pension funds are the biggest lenders of shares and they get paid for doing it. They don't pass on their fees to the victims, though. They trouser them and the fund managers get bigger bonuses as a result. Investment banks are also frequent lenders - it's a nice earner for its morally bankrupt employees who are involved in discretionary funds management - particularly when acting in tandem with their low-life colleagues working on the trading desks, "Chinese walls"? Wtf are they?

I'm pretty sure internet brokers have now joined in on the bonanza. All those shares sitting in nominee accounts earning nothing? C'mon. You can instruct your broker (and pension fund manager supposedly growing your funds under his management) not to lend any shares beneficially owned by you and he'll agree not to. When he does then lend shares you own, he'll say he didn't lend yours; he lent someone else's. Get it?

The Government loves shorting. It can't tax investment income when it's in a SIPP or an ISA (or some other form of tax wrapper). Amounts involved are peanuts in any event and CGT earns only tiny amounts for the Treasury. Tax the profits from shorting made by UK investment banks and London-based hedge funds - and the huge packages paid to their scumbag City-based staff (all at highest personal tax rates), however? Now you're talking.

I wrote to Gordon Brown back in the day, alerting him to these immoral (at minimum) practices adopted in the City. I had a reply from a senior bod in The Treasury who told me that shorting is very healthy because it promotes liquidity and reduces dealing costs for investors. I wrote back saying the low-lifes doing the shorting wouldn't have the guts to short illiquid companies, so his response didn't make sense. He didn't respond to that or a reminder letter.

What of the the trustees of the pension funds run by managers who lend shares they can reasonably expect to be returned worth less? They're all cronies. They need to get sued for flagging it all through, but it would be a mighty difficult case to pursue.

FTSE 100 shares are the ones most often shorted. Look what happened in Oct 2018 and see how investment banks and hedge funds all decided together to help themselves around 10%investors/pension savers of their wealth, when there was no economic reason this should happen. Look also at the movement in the FTSE 100 over the last 20 years. Nil growth vs 300%+ for the FTSE250 (I know it's not a direct comparison, but.......).

Don't hold your breath re the petition (which I have signed in hope, not anticipation).

How much cash is SQZ banking a day, anyone? And how much does it add to SQZ's market cap per month?

all imo/dyor

In regard to what JOG states are (2C) discovered resources, it’s unclear (to me at least) what ppb its 170MMboe would be valued at by a potential suitor, either in a farm-out or an outright sale. This has been covered before so I won’t go over the same ground again. But, in summary, anything between about 1 or £2pb for decent prospects, to $20pb or more for “in production” reserves, would be my guess as to what UKCS interests change hands at today. JOG probably fits into the lower end of this scale, as it can’t yet call its 2C resources “reserves”. This should change when the FDP gains approval in 2022 (or whenever).

JOG’s (independent) “competent person” (Rockflow Resources – “RR”) gave JOG’s c.120MMboe of discovered 2C resources (Oct 2019) a NPV10 of c.$1bn, using a mid-estimate BC price of $62.5 and life cycle cost of $40pb in the DCF projections: https://www.jerseyoilandgas.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/CMD-Presentation-8-October-2019-vFINAL.pdf

Even before starting NPV calculations, an “industry standard” 30% reduction in volumes of oil (that's subject to valuation using DCF to arrive at NPV10) must be applied to cover the risk of any project not proceeding at all (this is reflected in the projected GBA volumes used to calculate NPV10). It was abundantly clear, however, that RR’s strong belief (I spoke at length with their main man at the CMD – he's an impressive character and clearly an expert) was that this volume of 33° API discovered resources isn’t going to remain in situ for long. This was based on the constant need for established players to rebuild, maintain or add to their reserves; the UK’s need for UKCS oil and the OGA’s commitment to MER.

What would JOG’s NPV10 be today? BC @ <$83, 2C resources of c.170MMboe and life cycle costs reduced to $30pb? Close to $2bn? What’s REALLY IMPORTANT to understand (in relation to Phase 1 development costs of £1bn and JOG's consequent potential inability to attract interest because of the costs involved) is that DCF projections to arrive at NPV10 only involve cash in and cash out. Nothing else. So, JOG's estimated (by me) latest NPV10 of close to $2bn is arrived at AFTER £1bn of Phase 1 development cash costs have been paid, not before. And the volumes used in the calculations are only 70% of the discovered 2C oil in the GBA. Seems to me this provides plenty of scope for discussions with other oilcos looking to farm in to a big project involving high grade oil in one of the best parts of the CNS, with the prospect of fairly rapid payback of initial investment. The more oilcos (or PE funders) that are interested the better the terms JOG will be able to negotiate.

tbc - sorry it's so long - there's a lot to cover

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for dickupham

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for dickupham

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Please enter at least 2 characters

No results found

Search results

Recently viewed

Trending