Member Info for PaulCurtis

Janbo

‘@PC...you didn't say 'improves for the New shorters'. You said 'improves for the shorters'...that's fact.’

I said (copied from first post)

But the really big question is why aren’t new shorters jumping in with the shares at 32p? If a fund raise is so odds on?

Makes no sense. If there is to be a large asset sale, negating the need for a raise, why aren’t existing shorters now buying back but if there is to be a big fund raise at say 20p, why aren’t new shorters piling in, selling at 32p?

mary

‘ lse is a welcoming forum on the whole and the majority of posters are sincere. many are investing with funds that they do not want to lose (only invest with what you can afford to lose is my m.o) and to read mainly negative posts or dressed up posts from you’

a welcoming forum! lol. you **** me off, with no good reason, just for disagreeing with group think. i always try to explain my thinking but you lot come up with this crazy crap about me being a shorter rather than debating the facts.

it’s like lord of the flies! or lob ‘stone the blasphemer’

so forgive me if i respond aggressively to yet another barrage of mindless ‘shorter’ nonsense

BC

‘ Paul, shouldn't the bond trade up if the restructuring was going well?’

Yes, this is odd as well. The bond price has been flat since the last RNS despite the shares rising over 30% since. My guess is that potential buyers are worried that any restructuring will involve PIKs. And of course the risk that in order to get the restructuring across the line BH’s will have to give RCF’s seniority and/or use sale proceeds to pay off the RCF’s

I said those who said my post was negative are too dumb to have understood it!

So explain why it was negative? Show me why I’m wrong rather than all this brainless Short Paul crap! Address the facts.

I said as the share price rises, so the risk reward improves for NEW shorters? What do you disagree with? How is this negative.

However there have been no New shorters. I said this was a positive. Again, do you disagree?

And yes, everyone inside will have signed up to NDA’s but 99% of the time, if there are enough different parties, something leaks even if it’s just nudge nudge wink wink.

Those of you who think today’s post is negative are simply too dumb to have understood it!

It is beyond obvious that as the share price rises, so the risk:reward improves for the shorters. Does anyone disagree?

So no new shorters must be a positive?

As a couple of you have said, maybe no one knows. Maybe nothing has leaked. Imo this is verging on the impossible. For example there will be a consortium of bondholders and RCF holders who have to brought inside in order to sign off the restructuring. They will have a very good idea about how it’s going in terms of any concessions they may have to agree to.

Imo there are too many individual holders for this not to leak. Not the detailed terms but yes it’s going well versus we’re struggling to agree terms.

This current rally could be either PI’s chasing the price higher based on ‘trend is your friend’ or there really could be fire under the smoke.

If there is to be a highly dilutive equity raise, then why aren’t existing shorters increasing as the share price rises? Perhaps they are at the limit of their risk exposure in case of a shock takeover.

But the really big question is why aren’t new shorters jumping in with the shares at 32p? If a fund raise is so odds on?

Makes no sense. If there is to be a large asset sale, negating the need for a raise, why aren’t existing shorters now buying back but if there is to be a big fund raise at say 20p, why aren’t new shorters piling in, selling at 32p?

As we wait for news, the end of day short positions becomes more and more interesting as the share price rises. Tonight’s will be especially interesting

Thanks StockNor

‘ You guys can call me a shorter all you want lol, but if you think PC is a shorter, I think you are wrong. A lot of his comments make sense, but some of you seem like you don't want to hear it, even if it's true’

If I’m researching a new stock I’m always much more interested in well reasoned negative posts so the ‘shoot the messenger’ attitude here is odd. Most of the content I post is simply regurgitating broker comment.

However I must confess that I’ve been very wrong about the recent price spike which I’m very pleased about, even if I don’t understand why the shorters aren’t closing. I’ve said before that there are lots of different parties involved so very likely to be leaks. Hence this price rise is encouraging and hopefully based on something tangible.

Could the shorters be buying back via CFD’s so not disclosing? If current shorters don’t want to increase their exposure, new shorters could still jump on board as the share price rises. This is not happening. It’s weird!

There has to be a sale or an equity raise. And what’s more, a sale that equity has got wind of but not the shorters

Good article in The Times today re the dangers of group think

Logically an 11.4% short position is a concern but group think here thinks not!

Also that I’m a shorter when, if you can be bothered to check my posting history on ADVFN as GHH, it’s all property and infrastructure REITs. My portfolio is Petrofac bonds, Metro bonds and high yielding REITs. I’m currently buying SDCI (epic SEIT) at 56p, NAV 90.6p and dividend 6.25%.

Slift - to answer your post.

Do we agree that the larger the capital raise the better off the bonds will be? And that the higher the equity price, the easier this will be to achieve? So our interests are clearly aligned?

So why are bonds trading at 52 cents? Bondholders are worried that PFC will struggle to achieve a large enough capital raise and will therefore hit them with a D4E and/or PIKs.

And I think extending the RCF will be trickier than you think because at the moment the RCF is pari passu with the bonds in a wind up but effectively have partial seniority because they redeem before the bonds. They are likely to demand full seniority if they are to extend and bondholders will not want to accept this. Just as you say, bondholders won’t want to sanction the asset sales (to pay off the RCFs) since it’s part of their collateral. So messy?

You discuss the JDS vessel and make a good point about the contract extension. However capital values have been whacked by interest rate rises - look at Taylor Maritime (TMIP), another high yielding big NAV discount IT I’ve been buying. Trading at an all time low but I’d have thought Red Sea disruption would be improving rates/values.

But whatever, BV was $56m so let’s stick with that although selling a 10% interest a bit tricky?

IES assets - you say over $170m BV but BV was $69m and depreciating as you say?

It’s possible that they could sell the EPS assets but this is a core part of the business. Perhaps sell a minority part?

‘ For your future reference a dictionary definition of ominous is 'giving the worrying impression that something bad is going to happen; threateningly inauspicious.'

For ****’s Sake a 12.4% short position is because these funds are expecting a fund raising!!! That gives me a ‘worrying impression that something bad is going to happen! ie a fund raising!

What bit of this don’t you understand.

But of course these 7 professional funds are all idiots, they have completely misunderstood the situation and so nothing to worry about. Oh, and all the analysts are wrong as well when they say they are expecting a capital raise.

All I’ve said is shorters buying back is good news, shorters holding firm is bad.

Red

The Bonds are senior. PFC can’t legally issue new bonds that are more senior without the consent of the existing bonds and the RCF..

You say that you know more than the 7 professional funds who are shorting PFC. Do you really believe this?

It is blindingly obvious that PFC need to sell something or they need a capital raise. There’s no magic dust to sprinkle on the RCF to make it disappear or to free up the guarantees. Only a new cash injection via a raise or a sale will achieve this.

Red

‘The cash position has got worse, agreed, but marginally not dramatically - per the update.’

But this thread started with Tuan claiming the Company said they needed to find $450m. Perversely I was the one saying it’s not that bad!!!

It appears some of the muppets are upset my use of ominous in respect of the shorters not selling.

Just as it would be a big positive if the shorters started closing, it must follow that it’s a negative if they don’t, unless you have **** for brains!

Red

Thanks for a reasoned reply.

The cash position has got dramatically worse because no guarantees. How does PFC free up these guarantees and extend or pay off the RCF?

I think we can agree that the 7 shorters expect a capital raise?

So it’s your opinion versus their collective judgment? Are they really all wrong?

I was really hoping that at least one would have started closing by now if there was a good chance of a takeover

Mary

If you actually try to understand what I posted it is mostly positive. Someone posted that PFC needed $450m and I pointed out that this probably included RCF and guarantees. Hence equity raise limited to how much is required to free up this cash.

Does it not worry you that the shorters aren’t closing?

This can ONLY imply that they think they are going to be able to buy back via an equity raise?

Can all 7 of them be so wrong?

Please explain your thought process?

So you statement that none are closing is not just incorrect it's purposely misleading. You are a total scumbaggg

Shorters are at a record high? Yes or no?

There are seven of them? Yes or no?

How do you think they will close their shorts without a short squeeze?

Would you not view them starting to close now as highly positive?

I’m genuinely interested to understand your thought process!

Tuan

$450m could include releasing performance guarantees and extending the RCF topped up by non core asset sale. I’ve said before, the non core assets are small potatoes.

So how much cash do they need to raise to entice the RFCs to extend? This is the crux. Partial asset sales raise cash but reduce bond and RCF collateral. Ideally if they could sell an equity stake in PFC we would all be laughing except the shorters

But the fact that the shorters aren’t closing, that’s none of them, is ominous…. Are they all wrong?

I bought the bonds last year at about 60 cents because they are yielding 9.75% on par of 100 cents! Luckily I sold some at 75 cents last September when Israel crisis blew up. Bought some more at 40 cents a month ago.

I don’t want a D4E because I want the income. My dream result would be a takeover by a much larger player which could see my bonds trading at par of 100 cents.

Failing this, I want PFC to raise as much money as possible so that they are very obviously financially secure. This would re-rate my bonds. Obviously the higher the share price the easier it is to raise a large amount. And I’d like to extend the redemption date beyond 2026.

So my interests and your interests are reasonably aligned insomuch that I want the equity price as high as possible

Cheapboy

Obviously if it was that simple there would be no need for a restructuring. PFC made clear on the 20th that the restructuring was ongoing.

But I agree the Tennet contract was a big positive although it didn’t stop the shorters

‘Paul, you missed a renegotiation of short term lending arrangement’s from your list of options.’

No, this would be in conjunction with a equity raise. Extending the RCF will have been the first thing that PFC attempted. Clearly the RCF lenders were unreceptive, hence this current restructuring

Dan

‘ Do you believe an equity raise is going to happen Paul? (Yes/No) I know the answer could (And is) be more in depth, but as we sit right now.’

PFC clearly have to do something and options are limited to an equity raise, a significant partial sale or a takeover.

The 11.4% shorts implies a fund raise but recent share price movement suggests the latter.

Blue tiger - sorry but are you saying that the 11.4% is completely misleading and that there is no significant short position?

Bluetiger

As someone clearly well informed, how do you rate my claim this morning that, if the likelihood of an equity raise has diminished, then at least one of the 7 shorters would have been running for cover yesterday?

And do you agree that at 11.4% in total, the shorters must be expecting an equity raise in order to buy back?

If there is no equity raise (ie a partial sale/takeover) then the shorters are playing with fire?