Member Info for miles44

I m a subsriber to them - and I wouldnt pay if it was all dumb or bs - as I said they got a quick info about nearly all publicly quoted stock on this planet - which is great once you re interested in a company you dont know.

but their articles: FORGET it - not worth a read.

But just read it and get your own impression - if you take anything valuable out of it ... well ...

no, its a bs article.
content: no insider selling = good thing.
only some insider buying = doesnt indicate anything
but 2 warnings about the company, one of them serious - which is also bs as it only analyzes that cash flow doesnt pay interests right now.

sorry man - we all know simplywallst and its not that bad to get a first impression about a company you dont know but their "articles" are just a dumb summary of the published numbers everyone knows already

guys, dont get me wrong here: I m perfectly positive for PFC at current share price levels ... they re in a crisis and will get out of it. But as I already mentioned with corruption it is PFC that has to show that already at the time they had sufficient rules AND measures to control that these compliance rules are controled etc etc - and with 50 M of bribes being payed by "a group of individuals" including the head of global sales (not a local guy but a senior manager) I guess its very hard to show that everything was in place at that time to prevent it. Not impossible, but quite hard. So no reasonable investor should count on them not having to pay a fine in one way (DPA) or another. The question is just how much you factor in.

As for SLB: great company. The current CEO comes from SLB as we all know. Listening to their conference call today and them announcing around 500 M free cash flow from only Q 4 I thought: wow, they could buy PFC with just a quarter´s free cash flow now... this for you to see at what ridiculous level of a share price we are at right now....

If I d be SLB, I d wait for the SFO to announce a fine and then offer "help" to PFC by buying a huge chunk of shares (51%). I wouldnt incorporate PFC, but use it as a vehicle - with the former SLB colleague Sami Iskander already there as CEO ("Hello again"). Mr Asfari could still keep his 19% and the company would start growing again - as part of the big SLB family....

Maybe - once you think it over - that is exactly what might happen. With the 2 hedge funds being the dogs that bite down the share price for SLB to make a "generous" offer once the fine or DPA is out - for a nice price ...

interesting story and lets see what the next weeks are up to

the basis for the fine is the gross profit. That is multiplied, dependend on the degree of culpability/wrongdoing. There is an exact way to calculate these multipliers. Then - once calculated - there is a 50% discount in case that there s a DPA.
With PFC we now have 14 charges that Lufkin admitted. Projects in Iraq, SA and now also in UAE. Means that there are several projects in several countries and all the gross profit that company made in these projects are multiplied by ... lets say 3. So I personally dont know the gross profits of all these projects as I can only find revenues. But given that these contracts were fulfilled over several years, it means that all these year´s profits will be taken as stemming from the briberies. As for me I think that analysts might have a much better insight in these things and as that number of 800 M as a conservative estimate is out by Barclays ... well ... that might be realistic.
But of course that all depends on the company agreeing to a DPA. If they dont ... the amount might surpass their liquidity - so it could well be the choice over either paying 600/800 M within a DPA or not doing a DPA and having a fine of 1.5 bn announced.

The thing is: Just the SFO announcing the fee (even if PFC does not accept it) will create the obligation for them to build the necessary reserves and if they dont have that money... so it could be either "give in to a DPA with 700 M" or "get a fine over 1.4 bn and then see that the company going into Nirvana"

Currently PFC has no accruals for the SFO case, but the 1 bn of liquidity. With them currently being free cash flow negative, they ll still need part of that liquidity until the oil crisis is over. So I just guess that 800 M is the absolute maximum they ll be able to pay without further consequences...

means for me that - as I said already - they ll give in to a DPA... they ll have to. And honestly it might not be the worst thing as then the company can go on and do normal business again.

I m positive about all this as I already mentioned. SLB today mentioned the oil market in the US stabilizing and in the rest of the world growing in 2021. That will save PFC. Have a good weekend.

well - that would be a great symbol - but at least for now there s no insider buying reported. And starting Monday they wont be allowed to buy anymore (1 month before earnings). As there are 3 days in which insider transactions have to be published, it could still be possible we ll see some news about it till wednesday next week at the latest. ... (supposing these 3 days are working days) but lets be honest: management hasnt bought Friday or Monday and - lacking any publication today - not Tuesday either ... thats quite disappointing, not only for investors, but even more for clients. It would show that management has trust in the SFO outcome.

Now with probably no insider buying - what you want clients to think about this SFO thing and about paying bills later ... already, PFC had problems with clients finding excuses to pay later or not at all right now ... of course thats also due to the fact that they dont have much cash flow themselves right now ... but with management showing a lack of trust ... well .... one could have that feeling that management and short sellers know a lot more about the outcome than others...

If PFC gets a fine of 800 M that would nearly dry up all the liquidity left and put the company in a VERY vulnerable position... its true, Barclays said that their 800 M estimate would be "conservative" - but my lawyer friend was quite surprised when I said they re talking about 300-400 M - comment: really? only? normally these cases are resolved with payments of much more than a billion ... at least thats what I am used to ...

lets see

Just wanted to comment that management doesnt really help the company here showing support. Not only has the CEO not bought - all the board members havent and all other management hasnt ... thats a whole lot of people having NOT bought Friday Monday Tuesday..........

@Pokerchips I do bet it ll be kicked off the index. It also bodes well with the current "spirit" as XOM got kicked off the Dow a few months ago as well.

SLB Q4 conference call right now for those interested

with Halliburton having published their Q4 this week, the CEO gave an interesting update/judgment on the outlook for the oil industry:
„As we start the new year, we believe that the worst is behind us and look to the future with optimism. Oil prices are back to pre-pandemic levels driven by global vaccine distribution and unfolding demand recovery, OPEC+ discipline, and a declining production base. However, some caution is appropriate due to the surge in COVID-19 infections globally and the expected gradual return of spare production capacity. Our five strategic priorities will continue to drive Halliburton’s success as markets around the world stabilize and start to grow. We believe that aligning our actions with these priorities will boost our returns and free cash flow generation both today and as the recovery unfolds.

We set these priorities according to our long-term view of the market. As oil demand recovers, we expect to see favorable market dynamics and the beginning of a multiyear energy up-cycle. However, we believe this recovery will look different than prior cycles. International short cycle producers will have an opportunity to gain share. North American E&Ps will increase spending from current levels that will take a more disciplined approach to growing production in the future. We believe that the overall cost and environmental impact of producing oil and gas will continue to decline due to innovation and technology adoption. As a result, oil and gas will remain a critical and significant component of the energy mix.“

So yes the comparison with Anglo American in 2015 is not bad - we ll see PFC 10fold from here in 3 years

guys I said that as well to my lawyer-friend: ".... but they apparently dont want to". Well... in the existence of the SFO there were so far only 2 (!) cases in which there was no DPA and one company of these 2 was in liquidation so didnt fight anymore. Means what my friend said: "... but they all do a DPA". When I asked if the company could fight against a fine in court my friend wasnt even sure as it just never happens, but the answer should (of course) be yes. Just: if it would be wise to withstand ... well as I mentioned, it all depends on the conditions and they already spent 50 million pounds on legal counceling so they should very well know what to do
... and yes, what happens with the share price now could very well be an intended action from a shareholder or someone with influence to pressure PFC into an agreement... but I dont think so personally. If that would be the case, Mr Asfari would still be CEO etc etc - my friend told me that there s also the possibility that the SFO places someone inside the company to oversee their actions and to hinder any new corruption. And that normally companies avoid this at it costs quite a substantial amount of money. So... the SFO of course has some leverage on how to pressure a company, otherwise they wouldnt have a 98% of all successful cases doing the DPA.

So imo its either innocence/no sufficient proof or a DPA. And I just guess the shorters know it ll be a fine and I also guess someone already knows the details of the negotiations and us retail investors are the ones to walk in the dark.

I asked a friend who s a lawyer specialised in compliance. the point you guys made ("there has to be a case") is not wrong but in 98% there never is a "case" as normally the SFO first hears witnesses and brings charges against individual persons to court as we see with Lufkin. With the companies it is exactly as someone here explained: the company has to prove that they had and have sufficient internal measures to prevent bribery and if not, they are fined by the SFO. BUT: in 98% there is no "case" as the company and the SFO agree on a DPA (Deferred Prosecution Agreement). With a DPA there dont need to be charges, but the company itself agrees that it acted in a wrong manner. So one day in the next days or weeks we might wake up and Petrofac and the SFO will publish that they agreed on a DPA and Petrofac agrees to pay a certain amount as a fine. PFC replaced their COO in 2017 but now the CEO in December by someon from another (well reputed) comany (Shell). That (imo) could be part of the preparations for the DPA. You lower the fine and we replace top management. Then the new CEO will agree on the DPA so that the company can move on and do normal business again.

My bet: I give it 80% that there will be a DPA with a fine. 300 millions as mentioned could be ...someone mentioned 400 millions..noone knows, but as part of a DPA the normal fine is reduced by 50%. All rating agencies already count a fine in as a given for their credit rating for months and years btw.

PFC currently has around 1 bn of liquidity which under normal circumstances will be enough for a one-off fine-payment. So I see no danger for the company and its existance even though - as some people mentioned this - I was told by my legal friend that the survival of a company is NO argument for the SFO. But I doubt that first of all and it would of course be an argument for the company as for an agreement (DPA) you need the two sides to get together somehow...

So my guess:
1. fine +
2. managable +
3. survival +
4. announcement before the court hearing of Lufkin +

Or course its true that e.g. ABB (also part of the Unaoil procedures) never payed a fine and the case against ABB was dropped by the SFO... but the announcement of the SFO doesnt read like that and the actions of Petrofac (replacing the COO and the CEO) hint more in the direction that they wanna get everything ready for a "fresh restart" including a DPA...

Plus you count the action of the shorters the last days... for me it hints in the same direction: that we ll see a DPA in the next weeks, before the 11th of February (Lufkins sentence).

As the company should continue to make money in the future it should be ok paying the one-off fine with debt plus any extra future costs from its cash flow and move on.

to quote from S&P´s last rating update from May 2020:
"The SFO investigation continues to cast a shadow. The investigation into Petrofac's activities started in May 2017 and is still ongoing. In 2019, it expanded into additional regions. No charges have yet been brought against Petrofac. Should a fine be imposed, we estimate that the company could absorb a one-off payment of several hundred million dollars without affecting its liquidity and rating, all else being equal. Our main concern remains the potential impact on the company's ability to tender projects if charges are indeed brought. The reputational effect could weigh on the rating."

NOTHING has changed from this after the last SFO update - so no reason to go down with the share price.

Even more: oil prices go up, demand for oilfield work will grow for OFS companies - and the question about winning tenders and getting work not only depends on your "reputation" but first of all on the oil industries need to build up capex.

Just wanted to tell you guys I had contact with Petrofac IR this morning and I am feeling very much reassured about everything. And you should too. Let Rye Bay and the others sell the shares they themselves have to buy back and just sit on your positions and wait.

also interesting to see is the following: volume has been about 12 M shares Monday and 7 M shares yesterday, but with Rye Bay selling about the same amount of stocks that tells us that the amount of "real" sellers is drying up.

Which is quite normal. The ones who sold to protect their profits sold already. The ones panicking sold as well.

interesting that the info is published before 3:30pm today, so apparently it didnt come from the FCA but was published by Rye Bay. That tells me that they now want people to actively know their position has grown.

I uncovered someone from Rye Bay in here - a friendly "hi" to you :) and no, I dont say his nick - he knows it and its funny to see them trying to squeeze out the last retail shareholder now into selling.

after hour the fight bears v bulls goes on at BATS Europe stock exchange as in the last days, today between 112 and 114 ...

Haha funny @Dogsinbrazil and greetings to Rye Bay Capital ;)

You guys from Rye Bay shorted Carillion before it got bust - congrats to that :)

And so far you also made a good job here too ;)

So: Greetings :))

so far their strategy has worked. Friday we had around 0,5% officially reported short buying. Plus you count about 2 times this with companies dealing below the 0,2% reporting mark to stay anonymous, but that still only makes 30% of the shares traded Friday so there were many many sellers acting with "fear" in the market. Monday the official short trades were at about 13%, add the hidden ones so you get around 35% of shares sold by shorters, just rough estimates of course as "hidden" below the 0,2% mark stays hidden. Means to me that shorters are part of the game here, but I m quite sure some shareholding funds have been selling. Many funds holding substantial shares immediately act with algos reacting on key words published by the company. And YOU BET "SFO" is such a key word. So altogether: no real wonder things happened the way they happened...

"sold more shares" of course...

Rye Bay Capital sold more shorts the 18th, lifting their short position from 2.74% to 2.98%.

That just came out.

Same german page as yesterday. http://www.aktiencheck.de/exklusiv/Artikel-Petrofac_Leerverkauf_Attacke_von_Rye_Bay_Capital_geht_weiter_Aktiennews-12465195

as to @lilo s question: the current bidding pipeline does not include SA and Iraq