Member Info for Obsolete

Here’s the article
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/the-surreal-but-also-real-problem-of-britains-gas-glut-12614797

I don’t know how much Hbr sells at spot, if any at all but if prices have been as low as 30p then those hedges at 60p might have actually provided a bit of relief from the lows.

Sure perhaps the starting points between these stocks look different, but I was looking at it from the perspective of the drop from the highs rather than where we are now versus a year ago. Sqz having no debt would be the obvious difference between Hbr and iog and may account for their relative outperformance over the year. It just serves to highlight how crucial it is for Hbr to get its debt down as soon as possible to let the brakes come off. It should be all the more noticeable when the oil hedges drop by two thirds next year. Hbr is set for a period of outperformance and it’s just a question of waiting for the ducks to line up in a row. The whole North Sea tax argument seems a red herring to me as their appear to be loopholes to get out of it by investment, although I can see it is doing little for sentiment right now. Just my view.

The weakness seems to be to be a result of U.K. spot gas prices which have collapsed. There appears to be a glut in North Sea gas at the moment and the U.K. doesn’t have the infrastructure to sell significantly into other markets where prices are higher. There seems to be little storage facilities here either. Sky wrote a fairly good piece a week ago on this topic.
The forward prices are however still very strong so there are plenty of catalysts that will see HBr recover later in the year as the glut dissipates and the exchrysoar investors have sold. A look at GIC website shows that they have jumped on board lots of green initiatives so I guess their stake in Hbr no longer fits their investment criteria.
Sqz and IOG have been hammered lower in recent weeks and Hbr then followed. Conversely perhaps they will be the first to turn the corner higher later in the year. Either way I see this share price weakness as nothing more than a summer lull and there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic for H2. But just my view.

Other shareholders that have released TR1 include

Marshfield Advisors 4.75%
Schroders 5%
Goldman Sachs 6.5%

Oh right I see where you got 56m from - that’s the VALUE of the UC not the actual amount of shares.

All in all it’s really encouraging to see that demand is strong enough to absorb these sized orders. GIC will be fully exited pretty soon at this rate. Then we should see a rerate.

16:35:23 469.80 11,834,623 Sell* 56m UT

So todays UC was 11.8m shares. This is almost certainly GIC and would have been on the book all day. Anyone buying today would have probably been matched against this large sell order.
11.8m shares is obviously over 1% so I guess we will see another TR1 from GIC in the next 4 days which will take them below 4%.

Todays volume was 15,799,712 shares according to the lse
Not sure where the 50m came from but it’s roughly the size of GICs position before the recent sale to below 5%

It’s an algorithm run by the LSE within SETS that crosses off remaining orders on each side of the order book.

Often confused with what market makers used to do before SETS replaced them.

The danger of using RNS to update the market on operational issues is that the company can become a hostage to every detail and then get roasted for missing details which may or may not actually be material. Companies are required to asses whether they are in possession of inside info that needs to be disclosed on an ongoing basis. My view on some of the recent announcements is that some have been rather unnecessary and akin to providing a running commentary rather than disclosing inside info.
There is a fine line between PR and regulation.
For those that remember, Autonomy got into trouble about all this 10 or 15 years ago I think. This is worth a read
https://www.ft.com/content/b7abd542-2ca8-11e0-83bd-00144feab49a

Btw am a holder average at around 33 and just as miffed at the recent fall.

@ Neversell I agree. GIC have sold 1% and crossed through into the 5% area. They will need to report on the way down every time they cross another percentage barrier. As I think this is a sovereign wealth fund they will need to keep reporting until they pass below 3% (for fund managers of multiple funds it’s 5% I think). All of this recent weakness and the drop from 538 is probably due to GIC. At least they dont have much further to go.
Northern Trust is just the custodian.

Rookie I might have managed to sell out of SQZ at 3.80 a month or so ago but put most of the proceeds into IOG and a little top up for HBR. IOG are now down a whopping 35% from highs. Their overhang problems are even worse than HBR with 28% held by a top shareholder in administration. I only hold it on the possibility it will get taken out - probably by SQZ.
Makes HBRs 10% fall from 538 look a bit less painful.

I see some big late trades in HBR being reported. My guess is this is GIC selling into strength and once it’s cleared we will pop higher much like it did back in March.

Absolutely. The RNS is principally a channel for distributing regulated information to the market to allow all participants to see it at the same time. The obvious types of information being disclosure of inside information, company results, shareownership, director dealings etc amongst many others.
Using the RNS to claim no understanding of share price movements could be viewed a breach of rules and so I can quite understand why management have not made such an announcement. It doesn’t really serve any purpose.
If the directors want to create confidence they should buy stock as was mentioned earlier, not use the RNS channel to try prop up their shareprice.

The share price reaction today has been very similar to the FY announcement in March. Back then the price reaction was muted on the day but suddenly gained traction over the following days. Perhaps the same will happen again. We know that GIC is still in the back ground with 5% which is likely to be sold given previous history. Their large sell orders seem to peg the price at certain levels until they have been worked through.
The update was largely as expected with actually very little new news and was more a confirmation of what most had already worked out. The lack of any news on Mexico and Indonesia was a little disappointing but will come in time I guess.
More patience required. It could be worse - look at SQZ!
One

The disclosure and transparency rules specifically prohibit companies from using the RNS channel for non regulatory information such as advertising, marketing or putting out any non sensitive information that may be seen to be trying to influence the share price. I realise this is an AIM stock and so regulated by LSE rather than the FCA, but I expect the AIM rules have similar guidelines. Therefore putting out an announcement of “we know of no reason for the share price movement” would be against the DTRs as there is no regulatory information contained in that statement. Statements like this would appear to be designed purely to “support” the share price and therefore attract the unwelcome gaze of the regulators.

Looks like it’s gone into auction already. Gap up?

Excellent update as largely expected. Debt reducing at 200m a month is the highlight. Chop another 200m for April and end of year payoff is a real possibility. Tolmount cash flow will give a decent boost to the gas side.
I’m surprised at the 140m tax charge which presumably is a pre merger and chrysaor related given the pmo tax credits.
Looks like we will need to wait a bit longer for news on Timpan.
The shares really ought to re rate back into high 500s on the back of this announcement. Might take a few weeks but fully expect to be in the 600s by the mid summer.

HBR trades on SETS so there are no market makers setting the price. It’s an open order book and it looks like a big sell order that has pegged the price to 500p has just cleared. Hopefully whoever the seller is (GIC or similar?) won’t add any more.

The RNS (Regulatory News Service) is the channel for regulated information rather than the announcement or statement itself. It would seem that in this case the company and its advisors have come to the conclusion that the news of Tolmount starting up does not meet the tests for inside information and therefore does not require disclosure via RNS. Given that is has already been announced that startup would be in Q1, it’s more likely that an announcement would have been required if the deadline had been missed rather than a confirmation that it had been met.
The fact that their PR people were talking to Reuters yesterday and there was no price movement would seem to suggest the company’s analysis of the (non) existence of inside information is correct and that no confirmation via RNS was required. News of the startup is now a PR issue rather than a regulatory one and their actions show that the company has a very good handle on the regulation that it is operating under.
It does appear that news of Tolmount starting up is already baked into the shareprice. Had the shareprice moved on the back of the Reuters article then the company would have got its assessment wrong and would have had to issue a statement via RNS in the wake of a positive price movement. All these rules and requirements for disclosure are contained in the European market abuse directive if anyone fancies some light reading.

I would imagine the BOD are also getting a bit nervous incase one of the other North Sea producers with bulging cash balances doesn’t make a direct approach to LOG for their stake. To be able to buy 27% in one fell swoop would make getting a deal over the line very easy. There are a number of potential suitors that spring to mind that ought to be interested who may also be worried about being a target themselves. I expect lots of activity and consolidation in the North Sea in coming years.

These meetings are as much about management gaging the temperature of investors as providing opportunity for investors to research the company. From the company’s point of view they would need to stick to a closely observed script and not divulge any new price sensitive info that may give rise to selective disclosure concerns. In effect it’s just a PR exercise.
Hopefully the investors that did go related their frustrations on the unresolved LOG issue and the slow start up for Southwark.