The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
"Did they kill Paul off". No idea, but it will be good to have this thread back to discussing GKP; my only post for a while, made yesterday from a train, which didn't discuss GKP, was removed, but if it stopped the thread being spammed with posts intent on ...
I like to read a wide range of views, preferable ones that are credible, and I like to hear from people who trade the stock too, even though I don't. I remain long and look forward to the next production update.
"Can anyone explain the ex dividend process. I was expecting this price to drop to an ex dividend price today". The shares are supposed to drop by the amount of the dividend on the day they go ex-dividend, all other things be equal.
The exact size of the dividend was unknown yesterday as that maybe depended on the closing $/£ exchange rate yesterday. The share price did not drop the full amount of the estimated dividend size, probably because the oil price went up on Wednesday night in the U.S. and in the Far East on Thursday morning before London opened. A decent newspaper, e.g. the FT would probably show the effect of 10p share price drop when there is a 17p dividend involved as "up 7p" on the day.
Ex-div is a description of a product that is being traded, and the price quoted is for that product, so if you had bought on Wednesday, you were buying different product, GKP cum dividend. Yesterday, people were buying GKP ex-dividend. It is not normal to show CD on a contract note because that is the default. There may be some nutters who want to buy CD on the XD date, but they would have to do so by special negotiation with the market maker and would have to pay a higher price than everybody else who is buying the xd product. You don't need to be concerned with the mechanics of record dates - that's the broker's problem to make sure you get the dividend you are entitled to if you bought CD.
Putup, you won't get an answer from Surreyscot, unless it's a broad brush "you're talking all hot air" riposte. He has his back to the wall. Bigotry (negative outcomes are impossible to contemplate for these types of poster) and strong insults (mofo, slimy sods) are required to clear off the realist posters who discuss any alternative valuation framework to the "there's always a fool who will buy my shares off me at a higher price than I paid" method of valuation. They are attracted to stocks with high share price volatility, high trading volumes, chat boards with inexperienced investors, and stocks with no stamp duty payable on purchases. GKP ticks all the boxes. Thanks to all the posters who have contributed to a more nuanced understanding of GKP. "Another one binned" is a great example of a self-identifying bigot: they can't take on a an alternative valuation method: discounting uncertain future cash flows annoys them. JMV.
"To qualify for a dividend, you will need to purchase the share at least two days before the ex-dividend date"
No. If you buy the day before the stock goes xd, you are by default buying a different product, the stock cum dividend. The fact that the broker may not get your name on the shareholders' register before the record date is irrelevant. You have bought the stock cum dividend so you get the dividend even if the company sent the dividend to the seller by mistake. Of course there may be a small delay in getting your dividend if it is sent to the wrong person, but the fact you bought cd even if it didn't say CD on the contract note (because that's the default) means you are entitled to the dividend. I have no idea how spread betting firms deal with these things, so they might be very different.
"It surely is.... Unless one listens to the scum that prowl the board in an attempt to suppress anything positive.... Same slimy sods..."
Thus spoke a frustrated bigot trying to make the business model “there’s always another fool willing to buy my shares at a higher price if I only allow positive posters to post” work. One can’t expect a nuanced understanding of the meaning of "speculative risk rating" from an ox head can one?
It’s no wonder our chairman thinks we can be palmed off with “the buybacks were value-accretive” nonsense. Speculative means our shares go up and down more than most, and mercifully they are in a up-trend for now. Long may it continue. Fingers crossed for 55k bopd.
"SS... Indeed, and they keep talking to each other as if they have some sort of consequence... Laughable, it really is.." Attacking people and not the arguments, which is to be expected if your MO is to create plausible reasons for a bigger fool to buy your shares for more than you paid for them. Rational, risk-averse investors consider the cash flow stream and the risks attached to it, not whether they can scam somebody fruitfully.
A takeover can still happen on a low probability. It is still possible, but it's better to get excited about more probable events, and if a takeover happens because one has invested for the growing production profile, well, that's great.
I never said a takeover won't happen; it's certain over a ten year period, but it has a low probabilty by time apportionment of occurring next week. Is it worth bothering to invest 10 years too early for a takeover? And if it's only got a 1 in 520 chance of happening next week, is it worth getting excited about it? A better reason to buy GKP is for a more probably outcome, the successful expansion of production to 55k bopd. JMV.
Continued… The strength of the ad hominem these fraudsters throw out at posters who call them out is, I wonder, directly proportional to the level of difficulty and frustration they have in executing their scams fruitfully. The greatest compliment I’ve had is to be called, by Bucephalus, a “mofo”. Yes, as a new investor here, I was taken in at first by how learned some of these posters seemed to be. Not anymore.
Broadford Bay, hi
Thanks for all that interesting info. The mid 2043 date for expiry I got from an email from the company, the text of which is below:
Apologies for the delay in coming back to you. Please see attached the byelaws pre the 2019 amendment. As per the 2019 AGM notice of meeting (see pg.5, special resolution 13), the amendment was a technical matter regarding treasury shares.
The PSC expires mid-2043.
Best
Yes, the above text doesn't explain where the 2043 date comes from, so I'll have to ask more questions about it at the next AGM, if I am still a shareholder then. Yes, I can see that the date has to correspond with the terms of the PSC - I'll just have to check if the date is plausible or not. It sounds possible if the PSC started in August 2013.
Yes, I agree there are some disputes outstanding (sales of oil before the PSC started - e.gl who gets the revenue?). On the matter of what our %age WI is of Shaikan, I am satisfied it doesn't matter for two reasons:
First, the invoices are prepared on one WI basis and are paid on a different WI basis and, this is the crucial part, a higher deductions regime for the higher WI method.
Second, I recall doing the calculations both ways, one with the lower WI, and the other with the higher WI, and I got the same entitlement, probably because the higher WI method comes with deductions that bring the entitlement figure into line with the low WI method.
Third, my calculations seemed to correspond with JF's statement that any change to the PSC would be "value-neutral", something he stated in an RNS, so that would mean jail-time if it was incorrect.
Fourth, my layman understanding of law and contracts is that they can't be changed unilaterally,as a rule, as if they could there wouldn't be any point in entering into a contract. There are some exceptions e.g. by 'custom' and by 'usage': if you are told to accept a lower payment, and you accept it without protest, then that can become the new 'contracted' remuneration - the purpose is maybe to stop new contracts having to be typed up and signed the whole time so a contract can be changed just by acquiescing in some disadvantageous new terms, I wonder, without actually signing a new written contract. Then there is the situation where one party can repudiate a contract by declaring force majeure. Check out "by custom" in a legal dictionary.
It's interesting how we are exposed to such variety in the MOs used to execute competent frauds: the 2 guys on Twitter change the conspiracy theory every other week to support a higher share price, using plausible corporate finance and law lingo; the multi-avatar guy just changes his avatar three or four times a week to pump out the share price lifting nonsense, while Surreyscot changes low probability share price boosting events into high ones, deleting the associated trail of failed predictions under his ADVFN highlander7 moniker. Continued...
"55k bbls a day for 334days a year for 80 years." It's only worth (to a logical investor) the present value of the cash flows from the oil that can be got out before the PSC expires. It expires in mid 2043. Because of the risk of the PSC being repudiated (we are operating in one of the most corrupt countries in the world), the risk of the oil price crashing, the risk of payment defaults, etc. a very high discount rate needs to be applied to those cash flows, and that's probably why the share price is what it is today, what with the shares trading on an earnings yield of nearly 20%.
A lawful unilateral contract annulment (e.g. if the PSC was found to have been improperly obtained in the first place) could send the share price down to half net cash per share. Maybe that's why our chairman won't invest his own money?
I recognise your modus operandi, Surryscot, namely, the reason to buy this share is because there's always going to be another fool who will pay more, and you are particularly well qualified to supply plausible (to fools) reasons to buy while you trade against them.
Rational, risk-averse investors look at the cash flows and discount them appropriately, and they also look at the risk rating, which is SPECULATIVE. Got it? The best reason to buy these shares is for a production increase to 55k bopd and for reasonable analysts' eps forecasts to be achieved in the short term, recognising, something you don't do (like most bigots, fraudsters and, sadly, some deluded people) that events can occur that upset even the most well reasoned analysts' forecasts.
Calling your fellow longs "trolls" is maybe a sign of your frustration at making your scam successful, I wonder? You need to be more polite to people with differing views otherwise you self-identify as a bigot and a fraudster. JMV.
"This company report contains some beta features." LOL. " A perceptive remark. I agree with Putup's assessment, and most of his posts, except about buybacks before a slow down in the the growth rate is priced in or a change from profit maker to loss maker is priced in.
Shortsqueezer, even I agree that were a takeover to happen that we could be taken out for £4, assuming the bidder wanted 90% control to do a squeeze out on the dissenters. Why would they offer that much? Perhaps to get the exploration upside for nothing. There are many share price outcomes possible here from an Iran backed Shia militia group rocketing our oil deposit, a PSC repudiation, a successful increase in production to 55 bopd, another oil price crash, etc. I am not clever enough to know which event will happen, but I am here for the most probable event, a successful implementation of the production expansion programme.
I don't think it is good to get excessively focused on analysts' forecasts. They are less likely to correctly forecast future share prices, the riskier a stock is. We have a speculative risk rating. Fingers crossed for good news on the production increase soon.
"No bull and Ccc what do you think the share price of GKP should be?" I think the shares are fairly valued on the basis of the info that is in the public domain (oil price, US$/£ rate, Shaikan development progress, etc.). I would expect the shares to move up when the RNS comes out confirming they are now producing 55k bopd. Because i expect the shares to go up on good news, that doesn't make them 'cheap' now: it just makes them fair value for what is known now, not next week, or next month. I'd expect them to fall to half net cash if the PSC were repudiated: that doesn't make the shares overvalued now. They are fair value for what is known in the public domain NOW. Got it?
Surreyscot, I am long as you know perfectly well from when I first started to post here. I was disturbed at our Chairman's and then CEO's failure to buy when the oil price curve was in contango and that's why I asked the Chairman about it at the first agm I atttended online with this company (June 2020? I posted my agm questions here). I took no notice of the bearish posts from bigdog and mcfly because they could be expressed succinctly as "exploration risk, dilution risk, production risk and oil price gearing risk, problems which all oil companies have, although GKP had those risks more than most at the time I bought for my relative, and I wondered why the bears weren't posting about these risks on other oil company chat threads, as I would have expected if they were trying to save people from losing their money.
You owe me an apology for calling me a liar about the risk rating this company has. I posted the proof, showing this company has had a speculative risk rating since I bought, and that the risk rating is unchanged. You have been in denial about the low probability of takeover in the short term e.g. next week: it is 0.002 if it is certain to happen in the next 10 years, and your refusal to disassociate yourself from your multi-avatar mate pumping out tosh about the company being worth £25 a share in a takeover situation (changing his avatar several times a week but pumping out the same propositional content), and your otherwise informative posts under the highlander7 moniker on ADVFN showing oil field development knowledge, make you a competent fraudster. JMV. I am not surprised you resort to ad hominem when confronted with reasoned argument that challenges your fraudulent posts. There are many other things you owe me apology for, but I'll spare this blog the details, and I can see your modus operandi at work with other posters e.g. Broadford Bay - you don't deal with his arguments but just label him instead with a derogatory moniker. I expect CCC has suffered too in the same way.
Very well said CCC. Thanks. Yes, it's clear there is a small group of boiler room scammers who do not want investors here to have a nuanced understanding of the risks or to have the opportunity to read well reasoned posts, like Putup's, describing the value here in great detail: it's difficult for the fraudsters to justify the "£25 a share takeover tomorrow" twaddle when you get people posting excellent stuff that shows a detailed understanding of the PSC e.g. some of Putup's posts. Even he has been attacked by the multiavatar poster on ADVFN for posting 'negative' things. The attackers self-identify as investment bigots. It's remarkable how some people, yourself and sbb1x for exampe, just happily trade this stock without trying to defraud others, and yet with others it's a whole different story.
"I find it quite bizarre that you have chosen to comment on users..." I bought shares in this company despite their comments, and they haven't called me a liar for stating that the risk rating has not changed since I bought. I posted the screen shots to prove what I was saying was true, and PhuketScot just brushes it under the carpet: he doesn't answer. Competent fraudsters need to be investment bigots: they need to attack posters personally rather than deal with poster's well reasoned arguments and they need to deny basic maths reasoning. PhuketScot does that, and I am not the only person he has verbally abused. Reasoned debate is the last thing these people want, and ideally they need posters to be full of misconceptions.