Member Info for Jim800

That’s going to confuse the youngsters….

Hamilton - yep NY really smashed the stock down just as you predicted. It’s only up 7plus % on bigger than average volumes in the US and just over 8% here!

Any other insightful advice?

You chose the metric - I said it wasn’t any good for Q on Q comparisons. 😀

Early onset kicking in or just confusion?

Terry,

You posted:

"I guess what you are saying is that we should use the FCF of 69.5 not the 143 you used earlier today, care to re-gig you FCF per share and yes I know you are using the unadjusted FCF which is meaningless when there are such large one offs and as said is not profit from the O&G business."

As per my earlier reply:

I'm not saying we should use the 69.5 - so you're wrong once!

No I don't care to re-gig (whatever that means) - so you're wrong twice!

I'm not using the unadjusted FCF - I'm using the adjusted FCF - so you're wrong three times! A hat trick in a single sentence - congratulations.

Whether it's profit from the O&G business or not is immaterial - it's profit and part of the acquisitions. Should we also discount carbon capture, Next LVL profits, methane credits, tax credits etc etc as well?

There are going to be large, irregular inflows and outflows; if you want to ignore them all feel free but as they are costs or income I'll include them.

Time for a lie down?

Terry - words again - they're really confusing you again today aren't they? Adjusted and unadjusted are two different things 😊

I'm not saying we should use the FCF of 69.5 at all - that's why I clearly stated I was using the Adj FCF (Adj is an abbreviation of adjusted).

I used the adjusted FCF because that's the cash that came into the business this Q3. If you want to discard $74 mn because it suits your gloomy narrative then crack on but it's real income and should be included. I also clearly said that Q on Q FCF/Share wasn't a good comparison because of these bumpy inflows and outflows but that was the metric you were banging on about after parroting AoC. Do try to keep up.

Glad you're managing to find things to be miserable about - what a ray of sunshine you must be!

Terry - just read the Q3 report. DEC clearly give figures for FCF and Adjusted FCF complete with a note to explain the add in of land sales.

This isn't some big secret or conspiracy unless you can't read.

OakBloke does mention it - conveniently in the paragraph titled Land and Contract - FFS!

Hamilton,

Definitely a one off - well except they sold $95 Million of land in 2023, $59 Million in 2024 and $144 Million to date in 9 months of 2025.

Oh, and they've only got 8.6million acres left, 56% of which is still undeveloped so no impact on output if sold.

Have to defend Terry a bit! His point about total shareholder returns being abysmal over last few years is absolutely correct. Where we differ in views is whether this is due to a poor strategy and Rusty (his view) or a good strategy that has been poorly implemented on occasion and which DEC struggle to prove is effective and working (my view).

Decent financial results are but step 1 in the process of convincing the markets (both US and UK) that the deals are adding to the bottom line as promised and that they will provide shareholder value. This Q3 report needs to be followed up by much more financial reporting showing an improving picture before long term holders get back to a positive return overall.

GG on the other hand is filtered but I guess still an idiot looking for a village to call home.

Excellent looking results indeed, especially the reduction in leverage to 2.4.

For Terrys benefit:

Adj FCF / share for Q3 2025 =143/78 =1.833

Adj FCF / share for Q3 2024 =55/48 =1.146

Looks like an improvement in your most wanted metric - happy yet?

Adj FCF used to account for 70plus million of land sales. Given future land sales and likely one off acquisition costs in various quarters, the FCF / share will likely be bumpy and thus not an optimal metric for Q to Q comparison (as per my earlier post).

All explained in the non IFRS9 measurements section of results for the hard of thinking. 😀

Terry - your narcissism knows no limits!

Do you really think it is normal to assume anyone who disagrees with you is “obsessed with you?”

Add in your “This is why I have had a far better prediction/trading record than you have managed” based on no information whatsoever is getting towards the certifiable end of the spectrum. Seek help!

You said DEC never reported FCF / Share - you’re correct so I told you why - simples!

Not sure why you then had to expand to relationship with HH and share price performance - guess as you’re old you’re easily confused and a bit forgetful - hopefully you’ll feel better after a good sleep.

Terry - see penultimate table in H1 report!

“The following table presents a reconciliation of the IFRS Financial measure of Net Cash from Operating Activities to the Non-IFRS measure of Free Cash Flow for each of the periods listed.”

They then calculate yield based on market cap - which is obviously a factor of SP and No of shares.

A straight FCF / share when they have large, irregular capital expenditures on acquisitions is meaningless until you get comparable quarters, halves or years.

Stop parroting AoC and think for yourself. 😀

Q3 results after US close today with presentation 1330 GMT tomorrow.

Proof of absorption of new assets and improved financials or more smoke and mirrors????

Ice “Everything I’ve said has been backed up with logic, evidence, and actual numbers.”

Well….. except for the fact that in Feb you were bleating on about how forecast FCF was so nailed on that the shares were worth more than £1. Even when it was pointed out the numbers were generated by a CFO who lied on his CV you couldn’t accept you might be wrong!

Then about two months ago you promised you wouldn’t post again til accounts dropped - unfortunately you did - several hundred times!

I hope your plan B scenario is correct - but you’ve been wrong multiple times to date. Emojis don’t make you correct, they make you look a childish tw-t!

I do love a bit of groundless optimism - but “new highs?”

Really??? 😀😀😀

Redacted. Two figures at play here: what KRG owe Genel for oil supplied and not paid for and what Genel subsidiary owes KRG post failed arbitration.

Both figures are not really pinned down but will offset.

Tartine - think the income / cashflow DNO are getting for local sales (paid on delivery) is way better than the exporting IOCs who get nothing til 3 months after delivery.

DNO’s hold out may prove beneficial to the bottom line in the short term.

Evidence on KRG back payments?

£10.02 for a £695k UT at close 😀

Everyone holding tight or selling before likely pullback tomorrow?

“Make of it what you will” indeed!

Not sure whether that was an analysis or an advert for their AI tools.

Main objective comment in there was 47.7:1 risk / reward at current share price. But as you say, likely made better or worse by the content of Q3 results.