Member Info for nicktheglobe

I think the US move is good psychologically. The Saudis want a quick victory over shale as they cannot afford a long-drawn out price war budget-wise. The US move means that the emerging surplus will be brought up on the cheap over say 1-2 months, meaning that the Saudis will have got nowhere in this time while suffering a serious loss of revenue.

Also worth pointing out there's a massive contango at present with October 2020 at $40.42 and higher prices through to $48.09 in May 2022, suggesting market thinks this is a short-term war, because of loss of revenue by everyone.

https://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/crude-oil/brent-crude-oil.html

Interesting article:
Real danger for North Sea FIDs as Opec+ talks collapse
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/227021/real-danger-for-north-sea-fids-following-opec-talks-collapseopc/
FID is Final Investment Decisions. Existing fields can operate at $40 but no new ones will be developed.

Same world over maybe so a spike will happen down the road. Renewables are going to struggle against such low oil and gas prices.

"Man made climate change has scientific consensus. Scientists are not perfect but most of them are interested in truth (it attracts that sort of person). They don't en masse defraud governments and the public for a few bucks of funding money."

IMHO you are a little naive. After all they are human beings. They are desperate for funding and 'climate change' is an area that presses a few buttons. Also peer review can be no more than a cosy group who review each other's papers. Some physical scientists are a little alarmed by the standard of some of the climate science: limited reproducibility, poor/optimistic use of statistics, almost wishful thinking at times. Climate science is a subject in its infancy.

Renewables still require subsidies in many cases and their true cost is often murky.

In Germany wind farm installation has stalled because of opposition from nature-focused groups, the local populations and removal of some subsidies.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/germanys-wind-industry-in-bad-health/

So I wouldn't write off well-run oil companies!

I find the quoted problem of refinancing the debt to be surreal. The language used is that applied to distressed debt. But PMO1 the retail bond is not distressed: it trades around par. Premier Oil can readily secure funding to replace the debt from many reputable sources, not just predatory hedge funds. They then pay off the existing debt in 2021 as in the PMO1 deeds. Ignore the scare story and wait for the trading update from Premier Oil where they may well expand on their financing plans.

Yes good move on retail bond today up to 92.25 offer. I feel having debt priced closer to 100 will be great support for the equity as it suggests the debt is manageable.

This is classical Climate Change 'religious' argument:

"Whenever I hear someone come out with such garbage my opinion of their intelligence goes right down.
I suppose it is human nature to believe conspiracy theories if the real theory is too complicated for them."

If all the advocates of Climate Change can do is start a personal attack on anyone who has doubts, then don't be surprised if they're short of converts!

Why would the institutions, who are the major holders, allow themselves to be duped? After all they understand the ins and outs of investment far more than we do. I've voted for the deal and intend to retain the BVS shares as a stake in house building and the New GFRD shares as a more risky but potentially profitable stake in a resurgent construction sector as spending on infrastructure returns to normal.

I had a similar circular from a broker. They are talking about the base valuation of the exchanged BVS and New GFRD for CGT, not their worth in the market.

Well the ENQ1 7% bond after doing nothing all morning has suddenly shot up 3.3% to 87 offer. Maybe if the bond could get over 90 the enterprise would look more robust. Having nearly distressed bonds is a worrying sign for many investors.

Gfrd holders will not get the next 2 BVS dividends. After that the Consideration shares rank equally with existing BVS shares from late May 2020.

An alternative way of looking at the value of the bid is to ignore the complex transitional arrangements and work on the longer term picture. Looking at the earlier example with 13812 GFRD shares becoming 7928 BVS. Then future dividend payments might be 102p on each BVS share and say 10p on each New GFRD so you're getting around 9.4k a year, not bad on a 100k investment. I think that GFRD holders who have not attempted to trade and have got the 35p dividend have not done too badly out of the transitional arrangements. The fall in GFRD and BVS on Friday was due to the BVS placing going through at a 2.8% discount to raise c£150m for contribution of BVS in cash to the New GFRD construction business. About half of the 80-90p dividends due on BVS, not to be paid to GFRD holders, is now to be done through a scrip issue, which is diluting but preserves cash. I'm continuing to hold long-term.

In isolation Boschybear you may well be right. But there's the bigger picture as from Bloomberg:
"After a red-letter day for U.K.-exposed stocks on Friday amid signs of progress in talks, all eyes turn to next week’s EU Summit. The U.K.’s FTSE 250 index closed the week 4.2% higher, posting its best day since May 2010.
Also BVS is not at an all-time high, that was 1301p in July 2018.
You persist in giving GFRD's fully-capitalised construction rump no value at all. Only time will tell whether that is right.

Looks like the sweet smell of burning shorts!

Well the construction business apparently doesn't have any value! At Friday's closing price for Bovis each GFRD share is worth 644p in its BVS equivalent plus 35p final dividend. GFRD closing price was a 10p discount to this at 669p.

Value for shareholders on Bovis bid appears to be (per share) 599p in BVS, 270p in £300m cash, 90p in £100m debt transfer, plus the value of the construction business, which GFRD is retaining. All construction companies are depressed but do have some value. COST for instance has an mcap of £183m, which might be a further 165p per share. So the current share price is at a significant discount to the total above of 1124p per share. Suspect that many current holders of GFRD do not want to own a pure construction company but COST is +5% today.

Just topped up at 655. Construction may be a dire sector at the moment but could revive quickly if austerity is brought to an end. Profit margins would then rise with the loss of competitors and continued caution on bidding.

What you say TakingMyTime is out of kilter with the current opinion polls on remain/leave which show 49% for remain and 44% for leave. This is why the Tories do not want a 2nd referendum. The opposition parties now have control of events with the Tories a minority party. The Tories are moving to the right with each passing day. They will face a very testing election in November as BJ has failed on his 31/10 deadline and his party direction is to the extreme right.

Whatever I think with these populist parties around, equities will need to trade at attractive prices to cope with the erratic governments. Maybe select stocks with high sustainable dividend yields and close your eyes for a while!

See Bumi Armada rose 35% last night in the far east. Wonder if it's Kraken related!