Member Info for johnychainlocker

I believe the price has fallen so much 'cos shorters are betting against the debt re-structuring talks.

Apparently the talks are constructive however and I'm betting with all the new orders achieved recently they should be ok in reaching agreements with creditors

"To find buyers, you drop a price"

What is the converse of that statement?

If it were that simple, eh!?

PFC !

Charlie, that is !

Poker

"It was overpriced at 80p , hence the fall"

Well, not according to most if not all the analysts out there.

Take your point though that the share is only worth what people are willing to pay for it, however in this particular circumstance there would appear to be far more to it than just this

Followed suit @Oilhead and pencilled email to IR -

"As a long term holder in Petrofac I am of course, like many other PI's, very concerned by the rapid fall in the price of PFC stock for what appears, on the surface, to be no apparent reason.

PFC are under no obligation, in such circumstances, to release sensitive information, however, you are under an obligation to release information of any kind that you are aware of that would materially affect the share.

The absence of any generalised statement, such as for eg, "PFC are not aware of any reason for the substantial fall in the share price of the company seen over recent weeks", lends credence to the belief that there is indeed some material information circulating, the result of which is the rapid deterioration in the share price. A nondescript response such as "waiting for the trading update on 20th December" is not sufficient.

It is not only the least to be expected from a responsible board of directors, but what all stakeholders in your company deserve!

If received, will also post reply. Not going to hold my breath but at the very least adds pressure

Well put, will follow suit - we need a barrage of emails

Agree @Onsolid. The more I think about this the more I am convinced we are witnessing naked short selling going on with MM's

Not really Darren , the 'IF' says it all, but GL anyways!

Al4, agree (mostly), but which 'big' players are running for the hills?

No RNS from Schoders etc, so where do you get that info. from?

Don't disagree with you Darren, but trading on charts I just don't see. It is just stating the obvious as it's all in hindsight. You can't be anywhere near confident enough by looking backwards to tell anyone what's going to happen sometime in the future.

Yes, a lot of people, pro's alike use charts and 'charting', but when you read anything they always have a reason for why 'something' happened, but always an excuse when what they predict (if they ever do 'actually' predict anything) doesn't happen.

We can all make guesses. We all, LTH's that is, think there is a great potential bounce on the cards (or tea leaves), and we can all see what's happened in the last months etc.

Not calling you out on anything Darren but where do you find your confidence for the 'future' in charts?

So what's your chart telling you where we will be this time next week, or in 2 weeks?

Agree Happy. I believe HMS PFC has a significant leak well below the waterline, and my own "guess" on all this is that they may have breached covenant and are currently re-negotiating. We'll know the result once 'deep-throat' lets his mates in on it

Me too Mary, (nice to hear from you again)

Boll_ cks! bob - your best joke yet!

Nice one Willie

Agree SB

The shorters are taking huge advantage of closed period, no news and scaring the life out of the ditherers.

I have just topped up and am staying put

P'raps there is another interpretion Snappy ? You say “split approximately equally between Petrofac’s and Hitachi Energy’s scopes”…….
The Scope of PFC element could be anything it may be £50 million pounds…….


Let's say there's £500 million in total (just for eg), Hitachi's scope is £450 million and PFC is the remainder, that is £50million (I think that is what you are trying to say?).

NOW the wording is - "split approximately EQUALLY between Petrofac’s and Hitachi Energy’s scopes.

So to look at it this way - if Hitachi's scope is £450million then PFC are due 50% split =£225million,

and of PFC's scope of £50 million Hitachi are due £25million!

That still fits the RNS, which, as Poker said earlier, is a tad badly worded, opening up for interpretions by the likes of you with a real axe to grind!

Also Snappy, could I just ask what is the purpose of all your railing against PFC. I don't know whether you've already owned up to not holding any PFC shares, (and to be quite frank I can't be bothered, or find any interest, in trolling back through your posts to find out) - are you interested in everybody's financial well-being here? Is it some crusade you have in saving us all from financial doom? Do you think any of your posts have an effect on other posters here and that they will be persuaded to 'sell' or 'not buy' because of you?

I honestly think you should seek some help Snappy to help you get over whatever history there may be between you and PFC - were you sacked Snappy, looked over for a promotion you thought was coming to you but didn't?

Open up Snappy, tell us all! I'm sure it would be far more interesting than the rest of the stuff you post

@knitpicker - Nail on the head, as they say

Snapper mate, it's no good trying to convince people of all the woes you repeatedly put forward when you are merely copying and pasting VERY small snippets from the PFC HY trading report. There are much more positive comments in there that you could also copy & paste but choose not too for your very apparant agenda. Give it a rest ffs

No-one's having my shares and I can and will wait.

@sMikeSO2-

“so let's say you buy in at £10 and the price drops to £6, ie a 40% decline, then just to get back to the £10, the SP has to rise by 67% “

- correct, I can understand that, however that only covers the ‘maths’ and ignores the concept of trying to make a buck.

Starting with your £10 share price and , let’s say you had bought 100 shares = £1000 outlay. If the price drops to £6 per share you would ( on paper at least ) have suffered a 40% loss, and would then need the 67% rise to get back to £10 per share, as you rightly say.

BUT, if you subsequently added another 100 shares at £6 per share for a cost of £600, you would then own 200 shares = £1600 outlay, at an ave. cost of £8 per share and would then only need a 25% rise in the share price to get back to £10 - sell a 100 shares THEN and you get back to your original holding , of £1000, No?

(The wisdom of buying more when the price is falling is another subject of course, and I understand the point you were making)