Member Info for Kev7722

With a stop loss I thought you could set the trigger price but also set a minimum execution price? For example - stop loss triggered if SP falls below 20p, but I won’t sell them for less than 16p...? Either way, like others here I set stop losses in my head on AIM shares. I do suspect BPC will follow a similar pattern of spiking and retracing on good news re. a deal with the major, and I would suggest LTH’s seriously consider top slicing soon after the news is released, even if you think it has further to go.

I wonder if Moon realises that if we struck a deal where the major 'make sure they get 90% of the PIE' (and obviously that wont happen), then the 10% we're left with would still be worth more than 7p a share... if he's trying to scare monger then he needs to try a bit harder

Pred, that reminds me - did you check out my tip in the end? Up 41% since I suggested taking a look last month... I'm still feeling cautiously optimistic for more though.

Kap does have a point though right? Most LTH here accept that by Xmas this will likely be 5x or 1/5th current SP, depending on whether we strike a deal with the major... very little chance of it still being in the 5-8p range IMO. New investors / potential investors need to be aware what they are signing up for - this remains a big risk, hence the potential upside being so great

If this multi-bags on a deal then you could always cash out a decent profit and ride a free float with the balance? 25% is much better than ‘normal’ was the point being made there...

Hi Pred, yes I did thanks - although admittedly not as brave as it seems I should have been (more to do with where it’s listed than the company itself)... but certainly it looks like I’ll be having a beer or two on you when they do get a main market listing! Re. the below comments... if we’re not allowed to speculate on the future SP of stocks we’re invested/interested in then I’m not really sure what the point of the boards is to be honest

I doubt he's short here to be honest - I've been in and out of WEB quite a bit over the past few months and he's been pretty accurate in his predictions there...

FWIW I have to say the RNS that killed the SP on Friday was a really odd one - in terms of what's actually in the public domain now re. actual and projected performance there's very little to go on. Other than that nobody can rely on what they gave us in September, they've essentially just retracted everything... the implication is of course that actual performance to date and short-term projections will be well under that original forecast, but at this point a lot of people seem to be holding on for a DA takeout based on the potential of the product, so maybe the actuals don't matter that much as long as Tern is viable as a going concern?!

So far today you've said it's going to be 10p, 25p, 24p and now 26p... what are you basing this on?

It's a great point actually Amtech - there's so much focus on getting the major to sign on the bottom line but at the end of the day if it's a bad deal you'd hope that our side would be brave enough to be prepared to walk away from that... or would you? Maybe in this case no deal is worse than a bad deal, given that a bad deal is probably still going to make a lot of holders pretty rich?!

That article, or at least the tracker, actually predates PASPA - more likely it was last updated on the 17th. Most likely it’s just a coincidence to be honest, as there’s no change in terms of what the article says about California; as most now know - takeover aside - California is much more significant than other states to Webis

In literal terms, yes - 10x initial purchase price. The term ‘tenbagger’ is used more colloquially though to describe scares with explosive growth prospects... like this one, i.e. if a deal is reached with the major we’re almost certainly looking at multiples of current SP within days, not a gradual appreciation in the SP over an extended period.

Non-existent I would say - as per armatrading, if they were that close to closing a deal why extend at all? The 3 months isn't up yet.

There seems to be a lot of people on this board that were assuming this would be a done deal within 3 months, but I'm really not sure why.

As others have said, an oil major isn't simply going to throw away $250k a month, so if going into the exclusivity arrangement they anticipated the process taking 3-6 months then why wouldn't they want to structure the deal as 3 months fixed and then the optional 1-month extensions? If the deal takes 5 months then great, they save $250k... if it's clear early on that it's simply not viable then great, they can walk away at the end of the initial period.

The fact that they didn't walk away is encouraging, as it clearly means that there are constructive discussions still happening in the background, but beyond that I'm not really sure that this extension was 'news' at all. What is useful to know is that we have a maximum of 1 month to wait for the next update.

In other words, if you think that there's say a 25% chance of a good farm out deal being achieved in the next 3 months, with a target SP of 35p and a 75% chance of no deal being reached, with the SP dropping to 1p then your fair value for the SP is around 9.5p - making this a great investment.

Obviously as an isolated gamble most people aren't going to be happy with a 75% chance of losing most of their capital, but if you're spread over a number small-cap shares with similar upside potential then you could be comfortable with the level of risk.

I mean... if you're long then the downside is only ever going to be at most 100% of your capital investment, whereas the upside on a stock like this one is clearly multiples of your investment, so... yes?!

Although my point was that a lot of investors wont be comfortable enough with the risk to their capital if a deal isn't reached, and so they're likely to come onboard following a farm out announcement. They'll effectively be trading a lot of the potential upside for a significantly de-risked share... everyone's on the risk-reward spectrum, I just think investors are further towards the 'safe' end than BPC is currently.

I don't think you can use the current SP to reverse-engineer the probability of a successful farm in agreement... certainly not easily, or with any degree of accuracy.

Bigsi2's point on the ADVFN board is a good one - "The biggest risk to your capital is being invested now !!to many investors capital retention is more if a priority than missing potential returns." Ultimately markets don't like a lot of uncertainty, and the reality is that BPC remains quite a gamble until we get more news... What we do know for certain is that there will be news (good or bad) in the next few months, and I'm certain that towards the end of the year the SP will either be 30p+ or back below 2p

It's also worth bearing in mind that the £5.6 / share (conservative as it may be) is simply a very rough approximation of the total expected future revenue (over how many years?), rather than being a sensible target for the share price... I think I'm on a similar track to other holders here in that I'm targeting 35-40p following the announcement of a 'good' farm out deal.

I think the gap between the current SP and 30p+ is probably a fair approximation of the likelihood that the 'market' places on a deal being reached in the next 3 months... it's really for us to decide whether there a greater than, say, 20% chance of that happening. Personally I think it's a lot more likely than that, and as such I view this as being significantly undervalued at present (IMO)

Sorry... I mean a factor of 100, not 10

I'm not questioning Shore's 6p valuation, there's obviously factors and uncertainties beyond the basic maths. That said, you may want to take another look at your calculation:

1.6bn x $30 x 25% = $12bn / 1.6bn shares in issue = c. $7.5 per share, so you're out by a factor of 10

It's the sheer quantity of oil at stake here (billions, rather than millions) that people are getting excited about

The calm before the storm...?