Member Info for Obsolete

@laidback
Using the year end figures then we could be debt free by November so only 7 months to go? If thats the case then I think we will be at 800p by then and surely considering some big M&A. Maybe a tie up with Neptune will resurface but more likely something smaller.

As feared the outlook has disappointed the market. It’s all very well making oodles of cash and serving up a gestural dividend but sitting on a pile this big in a high inflation environment and whimsying about a share buyback at record high share prices smacks of a management that has run out of ideas. SQZ needs growth and ought to be looking at transactions to increase production either from new licences or buying up smaller companies with proven reserves.
I’m biased on who they should buy but IOGs largest shareholder with 27% is in administration which will take months to sell into an illiquid market. They are a sitting duck, struggling to get into production and a perfect match for sqz.

That’s called retirement!

Anyway thanks for your views.

Sorry 1.80. It matters not though.
Just out of interest, do you have a view on HBr and IOG?

Sure all oilers will do well if the Russians stop the gas which is looking increasingly likely. A rising tide floats all boats. Sqz could easily double in that scenario if the gas prices go crazy but then so will all the others. My point today is more about specific drivers. I still hold sqz. First tranche bought at about 2.80 last autumn. More later sending my average higher to 3.28. Advocates (and I am one of them) of this stock are all sitting on great gains but holding onto them and knowing when to trim back is just as important as knowing when to get in as we all know. Of my three current stocks SQZ is the one I would sell first for the reasons stated which were intended to produce counter arguments so thanks to those that responded. This is afterall what an investor board is for.

Strong trading update against backdrop of increasing uncertainty and macro problems. Not sure if it’s enough to reverse the downward trend in sp so remain on sidelines for now. Bought my original stake at 70p in 2019 but sold most of it way too early around 150p. Great company but lower entry points seem likely.

The blandest of bland updates this morning. So dull makes you wonder why they bothered. Still no motivation to re-enter the stock even at these prices.

Results look very mediocre and unlikely to win over any potential new investors. Profits down, growth down, Eps down nearly a quarter. Projects division struggling and debt covenants almost at the limit. Bright spot of improved recent order book but will need to see much bigger improvement to see any meaningful recovery.

Sure there will be a bump up if Eigg is deemed commercial but production would still be a long way off. We could be in a global recession by the time it came on line. Or it may end up not being commercial. If it had already been proven and a rig was on its way out there I’d be much more tempted to stay in for the short term. Meanwhile IOGs Southwark rig is in place but they just havnt managed to get it up and running yet.

YE results are widely expected to be very strong and therefore some of that expectation must surely already baked in to the share price. The question for me is whether the outlook has enough scope for continued growth or whether we have plateaued. Baring a ban on Russian gas I’m not sure there is much on the horizon that will keep SQZ moving up in the short term. I’m sitting on 40% gains here and in HBR and while I can see catalysts for HBR doubling, I can’t see SQZ doubling. IOG has been the laggard among my oils so thinking of switching out of SQZ into there. Shame the SQZ management can’t come along too and knock some sense into the IOG team.

New TR1 released is a total shambles.
The requirement in dtr5 is to disclose when the 3% threshold is crossed either up or down. So to disclose a 2.96% holding would assume that it is a threshold cross on the downside ie a sale from above 3%. In which case where is the original disclosure showing the holding when it was over 3%? This position ought to be included on this form as well but has been left blank. Even worse, a holding of 6509690 shares isn’t even 2.96% - it’s 0.7%!
To top it off, it has been reported 4 days late to HBR having been executed on 5 April and not reported until 14th.
Ooooops

Nice to see a rise up to 538 this morning even if it has dropped back since. My guess would be that GIC are continuing to sell down, having sold half their 12% position over the past month. To do that and see the shares rise by 20% in the same period suggests that there is plenty of demand and that once this seller has cleared, gains should be maintained. If it takes another 4 weeks to clear their remaining 6% then we will be at the trading update on the 11th May which should be very positive and be the catalyst for the 600s. With a potential 15% share buyback and potentially oil over 100 for the rest of the year, I am targeting 700 to 800p this year and 1200 to 1300p next year once debt is paid off and the hedges unwind.
Andaman looks to be a game changer if it comes in. Hopefully news on those drills and results on Tolmount flows will be in the update.

I agree that “POLY has done nothing wrong” but it is a victim of political circumstances that are a direct consequence of the war. The FRC maintains a list of all the third country auditors that it will accept as equivalent to U.K. IFRS. If the auditor is not on the list then the accounts are not acceptable to the FCA under the DTR. If they are on the list they risk being removed if they annoy the FRC. The regulators have thought of every turn. They write the rules and apply them as they see fit.

Auditors are regulated by the FRC who are answerable to the Secretary of State. It would be highly likely that any potential new auditor would consult with the FRC to see whether it thought taking on POLY was a good idea or not. Does anyone seriously think that the FRC would approve of this? Any major accounting firm signing up to POLY would surely suffer enormous reputational risk let alone the damage from winding up the regulator or UKGOV, so the chances of POLY getting a new auditor are practically zero. All the regulators consult each other so the FCA is bound to be working away in the background too. POLY will go the way of EVR and neither will be returning to the LSE in my view. It’s just a matter of time.

@jezz sure, HY are not required to be audited but I don’t know of a single premium listed firm that doesn’t.
If POLY HY are not audited then POLY would be obliged to say that in the announcement as per DTR4.2.9 (2). They have not put that in their previous statements so the previous HY results would seemingly have been audited. Who knows how much capability POLY in house team has at putting together a HY results statement without the help of an auditor. The suspension risk is the failure to produce HY and therefore Its a risk worth considering for the investment case.

@swampie
I don’t see anything in the RNS about changing auditors. It seems Deloitte have walked away. POLY have about 8 weeks to find a new one before an inevitable chain of events will set in motion.
Tick tock.

Listing Rule 5.1.2 - Without audited accounts the U.K. listing will be suspended. So POLY have a few months to find a new auditor before they need to start on the HY results in June, which if not made public within 3 months ie September will lead to suspension. I guess people buying today don’t see that as a problem.

Im not sure where the figure of $1.5bn debt for 2020 came from - perhaps its Chrysoar historical figure but gives the impression of increased debt when in fact since the merger its been falling fast. FCF of 100m a month will see debt drop dramatically this year.
Opening share price hugely disappointing and has to be a result of the ongoing overhang selling into share price strength. I guess HBR are frustrated by this too and thats why they announced a share buyback - to try and speed up the reduction of this blockage. Seems a good idea and should clear the overhang.

Law student - in answer to your question. There is a huge amount of misunderstanding and misinformation on this thread regarding the regulatory environment and confusion between being listed on the official list which is up to the FCA and being admitted to trading which is the LSE. A UK domiciled company needs to be on the FCA official list before it can be admitted to trading on the LSE. Therefore it has to go through arduous checking (in the listing rules) by the FCA before being allowed onto the official list and has to behave itself once it’s on there. The FCA has absolute discretion and can suspend any time it likes for pretty much whatever reason it wants to. It can’t be sued for its decision. It has a whole stack of rules contained in the DTRs and Mar against which it monitors listed companies behaviour and compliance. Once the FCA suspends a company’s listing, the firm is basically at the mercy of the FCA and all platforms including the LSE are required to halt trading. That’s how the UK regime works and it’s the discretion of the FCA that helps keep companies from misbehaving knowing they can be taken off the list at any time.
You may recall a load of Russian companies (about 25) were suspended by the LSE a week or two ago. The reason why the LSE executed the suspension was because these are Russian listed companies regulated by russia (not the fca) and their shares are only admitted to trading on LSE but not regulated here in the UK. That means far less investor protection and less scrutiny (ie the FCA is not keeping an eye on them). Similarly EVR I think is admitted to trading in the US (but it is not listed there) so US investors buying over there rely on the rules of the FCA given EVR is under UK authority.
One possible option available to EVR is to move from being uk domiciled and reapply to a different counties authorities - some here have suggested India. However no market has the same prestige as the UK and the FCA is one of the worlds leading regulators despite what some people’s perceptions of it may be. India’s standards are not in the same league, liquidity is far lower and they simply dont attract the same class of investors as the UK. The tax regimes are probably different, the employment laws etc etc. It would be a huge loss of face for EVR to move there and many investors would sell as they wouldn’t hold pension mandates that allow them to invest in companies in less scrupulous listing regimes.

GIC is I think a legacy Chrysoar investor while Northern trust is just the custodian of the shares