Member Info for miles44

as far as I see it, with the revolver alone, TLW now has enough cash on hand to serve the debt due at the end of H1/2021. So the immediate liquidity issue should be resolved with this. And with the further offering, the bond due 2022 should be dealed with as well. As TLW says the whole transaction is net leverage neutral, the new bond offering is just a prolongation of the old one and with brent oil at 66 USD I dont see why the bond should not be over-subscribed at around 6,2% interests. As the CFO said it lately, TLW doesnt have a cash flow problem going forward, it was just the timing issue of the two bonds due this and next year. And this should be resolved with this news. So: good news. Always a good sign for a stock when you see shorters publishing articles on seekingalpha as one of them did lately - always a sign they´re panicking to find some dumb persons selling their stocks to them to get out. Wouldnt wonder if we see shorters buying this and next week...

good news that is - thanks for the link :)

morning Poker ;)

btw I especially liked the statements about SFO from him. In many ways, investment means to trust someone. Its still too early to say of course. But at least I consider he might be a person one can trust. Lets see. As for the group´s performance, I agree with the mixed outlook: 2021 will be another tough year for PFC, but still: the company will survive and therefore should re-rate the level of other oil service providers once the SFO thing is over. I ll keep my small position here, wont add more for now but not sell either.

How s your impression of Sami, guys? I like the open way he´s talking. About the SFO case, about the market ... talking about problems and also explaining the outlook and the plans.

As for me, I have a positive first impression. The guy seems to be competent.

results are as expected. PFC had been priced like a bankrupcy candidate lately and as one can see, insolvency isnt an issue. 2020 was a difficult year for the oil service industry and 2021 so far is, but with a clear uptrend towards H2. PFC has the ability to stay solvent, will solve the SFO case and make profits again in 2022. I expect prices to be volatile, but more or less stay where they are in the next weeks. Further development of the share price depends on SFO and order book, which cannot be foreseen right now.

just a short question to the forum: anyone knows when the Q1 numbers will finally be presented? in February they said it´d be in April ....

Greets to all

@Pokerchips I agree with your assumptions on the SFO - I mentioned end of January that I talked with a lawyer who is specialized in this area (compliance law) and that lawyer told me that the change of management is quite probably part of the procedures the company is well-advised to follow to show to the SFO that the current company has learned from its past. This can and will reduce the amount to be payed within a DPA. But of course a DPA also requires the company to admit some sort of errors in the past. Its all a black box: the company holding out and risking major contracts to be canceled right now can have many reasons. One thing is sure: they spent so many millions of pounds on lawyers the last years... that one has to suppose they are at least legally well-informed. So I guess the best thing right now is to trust in management. And not to invest too much as we dont have sufficient informations...

yes - and nice to see you re still active here :)

I m in again buying a small portion. I ve bought and sold this stock twice with a profit and after the last time put a reminder on my investing.com account in case it drops under 100 - so back again. This company is a black box right now as results will be published only in April, the SFO story drags on etc etc you all know that, nothing new. With the lack of current info on major themes, the stock market doesnt like it and sells. As for the actual news it was about clear that with Lufkin pleading guilty to charges in Abu Dhabi, of course naming some people there as those who accepted the bribes (as @Pokerchips correctly supposes) ADNOC would have to react. Its the same story in SA and Iraq. For business it doesnt really matter if Lufkin did it on his own, if Petrofac will have to pay sth in the end etc etc - the damage is done because people in these countries having accepted/demanded the bribes are of course still in control of business and dont like to be named publicly. Besides this, though, the current evaluation of PFC means that its either gonna go bust or at least triple in the long run. And looking at the oil price, the need for service and work in the oil industry has only just started to reboot. So even with the UAE, SA and Iraq off the table right now, the world needs oil service companies and will need them even more so in the future. And this here is a highly (!) speculative play of course... but putting in some small % of my portfolio ... why not :) Management and the board could show more commitment to the company and currently dont... but the fact that these guys dont have the courage to put their private money where they work right now... can also just mean they dont get the timing right. Lets see... I m relaxed.

@Pokerchips
nice to see you and thanks for the advice. I admit I got quite emotional, just got angry by some people bashing me, I know I should take that in a cool way. All the best to you as well - liked to read your comments.

@johnychainlocker I invested knowing about the SFO thing of course. The reason I sold at 170 was just because I thought the oil price would go lower, thats why I call it "luck" because I sold 2 days before the announcement. I then bought again, not seeing any major problem with the SFO case as I also knew the last rating comment of Fitch in September, not calling it a problem for PFC, thats why I was still confident. I then saw the stock going down further, we all know the story, it was at 105 at a time. I got worried and called that friend who explained me that he d be really careful about this investment, telling me to maybe invest some small money but that it would be more of a gamble right now as it would be quite probable that the company would end with a costly deal or a fine. I then first sold 80% of my investment, but decided to sell it all and buy SLB with the money (which I did). Hope that explaines things a little.

@Bladey - agreed. It might be difficult for them to say things publicly right now.

@Dr_Kaboom and @longfell:
I perfectly agree that in a bb with most people writing with a long or short agenda, the one person not owning shares, not being short and just posting a critical comment because he thought of some nice past conversation might be quite a fool. If I were you I d as well ask myself: why the ... is this guy posting? And the truth = that this person just posted exactly what he did and what he thinks just to add a comment - could be too hard to believe.

Got that.

Why am I posting once again? Just because I dont think I merit to be called a clown. You might have your doubts about me having an "agenda" - some of you read my posts in January about my phone call with a friend who s a compliance lawyer ... just search for it if you want... some havent. All cool.

But next time you call bash someone a clown or sth else... just think twice. Not everyone s a bastard running around here :)

funny guys :)
just read my comment about the SFO case in January when I explained the phone call I had with the friend of mine.
And as for any "agenda" - I admit that sometimes telling the truth in a forum where kinda everyone follows an "agenda" might be the craziest thing to do as most people will not believe someone posting not being long or short or having any agenda.

Thats perfectly agreed :)

Lets leave it to this: I posted my critical comment. You all read it. Some here still know me and therefore will know that I try to add value here sometimes. And as for the others... well, at least it would be nice of you to stop bashing my person, thats the only reason I write here once more: I do not merit to be called a clown or someone with an agenda. Wish you all the best in the coming weeks - even those being kinda ... not so nice.

Cheers

I bought PFC in December at 140 being very confident. I sold - just by pure luck - at 170 and re-entered with an average of 115 but then sold again at 122 after having spoken with my lawyer-friend. I first wanted to only sell part of the investment, but I m out for now.
Some people here think that once you are positive about a company you have to stay 100% positive for weeks and months. This SFO thing makes me worry and so I am NOT invested - neither long nor short.

I wanted to be open with you about these worries, but apparently some of you stick as much with their bull-story that not even do you not want to listen to someone critical, but you call this person mentally ill or a clown.

Thats the way to make huge money guys... like all the "hodl" guys holding tight no Gamestop.

And no, I dont say PFC is GME. Not at all. Its just that I always try to respect people being critical about what I do. They might be right.

But I ll leave it here, as I said I m not invested, I just saw that announcement of the postponement and as some of you seem to be nice persons, I wanted to give my critital comment on it.

If PFC rises: all cool - wish those of you staying long all the best.

I might re-enter this trade, but only once the company gets transpartent about the SFO case.

No "manic depression" but take it from someone who exited PFC twice with a gain

@speedygon - yes, Fitch has a BBB- rating on PFC. That was the main reason for me to be reassured as they dont give these BBB-ratings lightly. But now I am getting seriously worried. Didnt expect them postponing for 2 months.... that tough news, tougher than many here think... but agreed: lets hope the best as always.

yes and no: the thing right now is will they be fined or will they make a deal with the SFO. So as long as there is no deal and no fine, there is nothing to report. The thing is just: it might either be a deal or a fine as we already discussed. There is a reason why PFC has no accruals for a possible fine and that is because they are not allowed to build any accruals. As this is quite an important question (why no accruals) I asked this question directly to PFC IR a few weeks ago and was given that answer. They also said that their liquidity of 1bn would de facto work as financial "reserves". So that means that the survival of the company is dependent on the question if the 1bn is enough or not.

Until 2 days ago I thought that it would be.

Another thing is that the CFO in December also talked about talks with banks to restructure some debt being due in 2021. He said that he was currently in talks with them.

So even imagining for a moment that the SFO would be content with less then 1bn - there could still be a problem with banks not willing to restructure the credit line for a company with (after the SFO payment) little liquidity left and probably currently a negative free cash flow...

Guys, I ll stop writing, just wanted to bring to your mind that the postponement could be due to a major problem. And as far as I could see it, this wasnt discussed here.

Dont wanna be all "doom" here - hoping the best for PFC of course! But us retailers better be aware of any hidden dangers. Maybe the company will not see the April presentation anymore in its current form...

agreed that once you postpone things you can report about more things that happened after the year end. But thats about the same for every company worldwide: the later you report, the more content. BUT the market has a right to see the numbers in due time. Remember guys: management has the numbers already, some fund managers might have them as well, the reason for the obligation (!) to publish numbers is that the company is publicly traded. Its not a free decision like "oh, I d like to wait a little more for some more news" - they have an obligation to publish results in due time and now let us wait a FULL 2 MORE MONTHS. I am not really willing to kinda "excuse" this with nice sentiment. This is extra-ordinary and not in a good sense. And the fact that they use covid as an excuse ... well ... this makes it "legal" as I very much suppose that there is exactly this exception-clause for a late publication "due to covid" - but as I said... no-one normally ever used covid to postpone and PFC hasnt postponed their Q2 or Q3 2020 due to covid neither ... so ... for me that doesnt look good here... my best guess is that the company is fighting for survival right now.

@shortburner just to make one thing clear: i dont like shorters as well. And as you are maybe new in this forum, you cannot know that I am active here since December. No need to get aggressive against me therefore. We all sit in the same boat and that is to wish the best to PFC and all the stakeholders including shareholders of course. But the question I am asking the forum is for real of course. Everyone knows covid so no need to discuss the disruptions. But everyone as well knows that up to date I dont know a single company (also those acting globally) that postponed their earnings for a full 2 months. And one might remember that during the conference call in December the CFO announced that in February the new CEO will present the 2020 results, so there was no planning for a postponement even though covid already existed. So yes - it MAY be that some "numbers" are still missing so they dont feel fit for their publication (which would also be quite astonishing and show a lack of internal financial orga), but the other possibility is that its due to some major things going on with the SFO right now.

I would like to discuss this with the rest of the forum and I know most of you want a construtive discussion and no bashing of anyone asking a critical question. Thanks :)

Hey guys, been I while since my last post... have you already discussed the delay in the results presentation to April? Imo thats not a good thing. Explaining it with covid isnt very convincing as other companies like SLB, HAL, BKR etc all managed to get their numbers together worldwide. So it must be news outstanding relating to the SFO case, which - as we know - will be in Court the 11th of Feb ... and maybe or probably the company wants or has to take into account a possible deal they are about to make with the SFO - or a possible fine ... your opinions?

exactly, @pokerchips

its AI generated