Member Info for IanKellett

Indeed it has been a dog of a share. An absolute dog of a share.

Part of it was Macondo, but the utter drivel of "investing" in green 'strategies' is entirely management's fault. Goes right back to Baron Browne of Maddingley and ridiculously taken up with full vim and vigour by Cassanova.

The question is whether the last 10 years of abject failure, mean that the next 5 years must also be abject failure. The point of value investing is to spot inflection points. I bought shares last year before Elliot stake announced.

- The company has decided to ditch the green drivel, invest in its upstream and become a proper oil company again. Investing in the upstream to rebuild reserves and grow production - wit Brazilian Pre-salt discovery and investments in GOM (GOA) deepwater, Iraq and others.

- What the company really needs next is to remove itself from the clutches of the British Government (and its green nutter Energy Secretary, oh and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office..). Switching HQ to Houston and making NYSE the primary listing would be ideal - all we need is a Chairman with the cajones to do it - oh wait .....(I suspect he will find moving BP to USA harder to crack than a reinforced concrete bunker - politics - but I can hope).

Also buybacks with shares not immediately cancelled should be banned by new Chairman. This company's management has been too well rewarded for its abject failure and it needs to stop now. The CEO just said this company can and will do better for its shareholders - he should start with the buyback nonsense and lead by example. At these current share prices buybacks are a good plan, BUT all shares purchased must be immediately cancelled (not "held in Treasury").

I am not sure about disposing of a great brand like Castrol - whiffs of panic - they should only do it if the price is fabulous. Unless of course they are trying to make it easier for XOM / ADNOC - in which case I am all for the disposal.

The Q2 results show the early beginnings of self help, which are absolutely essential, but if XOM wants to accelerate the value "creation" for BP shareholders then they can have mine (for the right price).

So it absolutely has been a dog. That is as plain as the nose on your face. However, that is not the question (was it, or was it not, a dog?). The question is whether it will be a dog for the next 5 years. Over to you Albert.

Harmonica,

That's where the interloper analysis comes in.

- Chevron got Hess, so they are out, too busy with new integration.

- Shell have ruled it out so publicly that Wael Sawan would look like an imbecile if Shell were to counter bid. Shell cannot afford for WS to look like a total fool - it would destroy their share price.

- Totale? A French oil major taking over BP?? With Macron handling the politics (good luck with that), as opposed to XOM and Trump. Think of Trump and 2TK press conference at Turnberry - we all know that's one way traffic. If XOM bid for BP, my read is that Totale have no dog in that game, even if they wanted it strategically, and I am by no means clear they do / would.

- ADNOC potential bid for BP got told to foxtrot-oscar by a UK TORY Government circa 18m ago (off the back of failed Abu Dhabi - Telegraph bid, which is very very unfortunate geopolitics for BP shareholders, but it is what it is). Were it not for the prior Tory / Telegraph politics I strongly think ADNOC would be the lead bidder for BP and would have already launched their bid. Sadly, in the eyes of Abu Dhabi, the British (TORY!!????) Government told them to get lost once, and so would be perceived as likely to do so again - even though I do not necessarily agree. IMHO TB could turn 2TK for his very good (and fee paying!!) friend in Abu Dhabi (another $100m for TBA should grease the wheels). Still I think ADNOC will not lead a bid, but would love to support XOM bid as a joint, anti-trust busting deal.

- Private equity isn't going up against XOM.

I do not know the global oil industry well enough to foresee other potential bidders, and I would be pleased to hear of them. Most / many contributors on here understand the oil business / industry better than I do so I would be very pleased to hear how they would differ from the above. But with what I know right now, I don't see a single real interloper risk for XOM on BP. Hence, XOM should proceed given current valuation.

So who else should we sensibly have in our interloper analysis? I am no oil industry expert at all, but I am struggling to see interlopers, which is one of the main reasons that XOM SHOULD (not ARE) be so interested, given BP valuation base metrics.

This is all just armchair 'equity research', but XOM are up to something, and wouldn't it be lovely if it were us 'they were up to'.

Complete wishful thinking on my part. By way of disclosure, I am substantially overweight BP shares.

Yes M&A / corporate strategy teams always running numbers on others and deals, but CEO, ExCo and Board getting fully engaged is different level and therefore takes longer. Still I hope you are right Happy. Fingers crossed for an XOM bid in H2 2025.

It probably takes a bit longer than 4 weeks from Hess arbitration outcome - bank syndicate to line up on financing, synergy planning and analysis, board meetings, advisors revolving doors and infighting, interloper analysis, agreeing acquisition model. Plus they're probably after another target - but we can hope. My guess its another month or so at soonest before XOM proceeds with any deal, but we can hope its us.

Getafgrip, Also you are spot on. That is exactly what XOM management are saying. They are far ahead of their synergy expectations on the Pioneer deal - the level of synergies they found in multiple directions was far in excess of their model and they are likely to formally upgrade the Pioneer synergies publicly. They also said that the work to integrate is now done (ie we can go again now). This M&A focus "announcement" is not going to be about small infill deals, they would just do those anyway, this is a heads up to the market that they are looking at doing something big again. It needs to be big to move the needle at XOM. Could it be Occidental? Big Permian assets which would be good for XOM synergies, but I do not know enough about Occidental to comment. Others on here no doubt do. BP brings BPX in Permian & Eagle Ford, strong GOM opportunity and deepwater expertise, new Brazilian pre-salt discovery also adds a lot given 100% ownership. If there is a route via Trump and Putin to recovering some value from Rosneft that would also contribute to the takeover premium?? Who knows, but XOM are warming up to do something substantial in H2 2025 I would say, whether or not that is BP is anyone's guess.

Listen to Darren Woods on XOM Q2 results call talking up M&A to sell side analysts. I was a sell side analyst and in my experience CEOs do that very rarely. They are being very very clear that they are back in M&A mode and searching for deals. One other member of their 4 man ExCo made a presentation at a JPMorgan conference 3-4 weeks ago and same message was given. They are actively reviewing targets. Their primary criteria is shareholder value, not just adding scale (not volume for volume sake), but they are very focused on synergy benefits.

Exactly. And ADNOC have publicly said they want to acquire all of BP's retail business and the gas business, so a back to back would solve a lot of the anti-trust on US "gas stations" which otherwise would register too high on the Herfindahl index - and Castrol being sold removes that anti-trust too.

Next review of FTSE 250 index is scheduled for 3rd September I think. Will WOSG fall out of the 250? Looks like answer might be yes at current price, but there is a long way between now and September 3rd. Index funds selling ahead of change could be painful if it looks like it will happen. WOSG would be helped by rapid resolution of Swiss tariff rate in more ways than one.

Ah, OK , all clear. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth at all, I just feared I had missed something that I didn't understand. Thank you for clarifying.

IMHO (for whatever that's worth) the mkt cap here is so small that a few smallish investors like me and Real Value could soak up a half a billion shares quite easily - it was really easy to buy 17m one afternoon - did it in about 20 mins online - plenty of liquidity.

Was that to me? I am still missing why (say) top 25 by June 30 matters? I'm not being critical just trying to understand

@realvalue please explain. I fear I am missing something as to the meaning of this current thread. I own 17,000,000 bought some weeks ago, but why is being top 25 important?

I am a former equity analyst from a large investment bank so have some basic knowledge FYI.

Really not meaning to be a pedant, I appreciate your posts very much - thank you - but I think it might be Lydia from Barclays, just FYI

Moody's standard procedure operating manual when a bond has fewer than 12 months (or rather 365 days) to redemption. Not at all a call on Moody's credit view of TLW, just a technical factor

Https://www.ft.com/content/9fae64f6-7f0f-4f50-aedb-d4fa21f39502?desktop=true&segmentId=7c8f09b9-9b61-4fbb-9430-9208a9e233c8#myft:notification:daily-email:content

Ayatollah has until 7th May to sign agreement with Trump

Re no nuclear weapons. If not then it’s the military option. At least that’s what his letter seemed to say.

What makes you say USA / Israel will take out Kharg? Trump wants oil price down not up.

Interesting that new NED is SID at AAL - which is also an Elliot position, with the same Elliot portfolio manager running the position I believe.

Exactly

City code on takeovers and mergers prevents treasury shares being voted by management which is what I think was being implied. So whilst technically you are of course correct that if they remained they would have to be purchased, in practice they would be cancelled.

They would be cancelled and so the bidder would not have to pay for them