Member Info for PUTUP

May as well start this thread now aye? Only a month away and I'm sure the *****ing will start well before.

Expecting $23.8 million plus $4.1 million in arrears (+/-)

Numbers bang on expectations. Snooze.

Add the dividend and recalculate

Srodgers Your trade clearly isn't 'normal settlement'. It will have been 'by negotiation' as to whether the price was cum-div or ex-div. (If ex-div the price paid would be adjusted for that.)

So on Wednesday we closed at 200.50p. Yesterday the stock trades ex-div and closes 190.2p. We're now at 192p as of time of writing. Dividend was 8.373p per share. Plus ca change. So much for those who don't realise a dividend just transfers money from one pocket to the other, taking it 'off the table'. Now we shall see whether people are true believers and reinvest their receipts in the stock.

"Providing you held the shares on the Ex-Dividend date you should be entitled to the dividend when it is paid as the register is based on the purchased date not the settlement date."

I would check that or at least the wording you provided. To be eligible for the dividend you need to be the owner of the shares on the record date (in this case today). In order to be the owner today you need to have bought the shares at least two days prior to today assuming ordinary trading T+2 settlement. The settlement date matters, not the trade date. Obviously the stock has been trading ex-dividend today and yesterday. (See designation XD on the LSE website.)

There's stuff that can/should be done immediately and then there's the big 'nut': expansion beyond 55k bopd. Both need the attention of management and board. The big nut likely requires, in my view, a complete renegotiation of the PSC, a more strategic solution to gas (likely involving other parties) and more. If all the 'expansion post 55k issues' can be sorted in a manner which makes for very attractive equity returns the company will have no trouble raising the capital for it, even if it requires some equity. Until then, they can run more efficiently with some very easy steps.

If one assumes institutional and UHNW holders don't sell into it, imagine the power of a 20% buyback applied to the remaining 50% (or less) of the shareholder base . That's not to say it will support the price in the face of changing fundamentals but it would sure help to mop up those selling now.

Onward.

And you will have noted the company's discussion regarding their 'engagement' with the MNR regarding a move to two month payment terms and a change to the recovery of past dues. I wouldn't be getting all excited just because today is the 21st of June but feel free.

" you still have $125 million"

Mistyped. Obviously 195-50-25=120

Two month payment terms...

"On a separate point; define what a sensible capital structure for GKP looks like."

At the very least they need to pay out all excess cash. The company had $195 million of cash as of 10 June. Subtract the $50 million scheduled to paid out and, say, $25 million for working capital purposes (I think this generous) and you still have $125 million that should be used for buybacks. The company has $65 million of receivables due and a further $45 million for April and May alone, while we are more than halfway through June. The company should be funding this year's capex with a working capital facility repaid from receivables as they come in. The current bond, while bearing interest at 10%, is not providing any leverage to equity returns because the company has excess equity capital. It would be very expensive to buy back. Currently just 5 months of cash flow repays the bond - there's no need to cover it with cash on hand. In short, they can comfortably buy back 20%+ of their share capital at these levels. (Obviously earlier price levels would have soaked up a lot more weak holders. While this wouldn't matter much for the company as a whole it would have been very good for those who have viewed the stock cheap.) That's the no-brainer part.

Anything beyond 55k bopd needs very close examination to ensure it generates appropriate returns on equity capital. In my view, given the risks involved, these need to be into the twenties per annum (based on sensible, base case projections that involve conservative assumptions on the future oil price and not any form of 'upside case'). Else they should not proceed. To get those returns they'll need debt financing. If the returns from expansion beyond 55k aren't there there's an argument for even greater debt-funded return of capital - at least until the R factor swings and cash flow dynamics alter significantly.

"So Easy To work out which posters are here for the benefit of Bondholders"

Says the guy that wants to give them their money back rather than pay it out to shareholders!!!!

"Ian Weatherdon only got 69% shareholder approval to stay on. Why?"

Perhaps... poor management of the company's capital structure allowing it to hold excess cash for far too long: not aggressive enough in returning cash particularly via buybacks once oil recovered from pandemic slump, not swift enough to transfer bought back shares to EBT and cancel balance etc. I can think of a number of areas where he needs to lift his game - a lot.

(PS Many here praise John Harris vs JF forgetting, conveniently, that he has - to date - merely been fortuitous in the timing at which he took the role. He still has to prove himself.)

And less than 50% bothered to vote at all. Good turn out chaps.

Not going to happen (nor should it).

Any expansion beyond 55k (if ever) will need to be financed with additional bonds.

No clue Opu is in for another disappointment

"Buy Backs will be kept offline ‘in treasury’ - awaiting a BONANZA of self awards to our management - when they eventually achieve that illusive milestone of 55kbbs/d."

Complain about the compensation policy. Don't complain about the strategy of meeting options exercise with stock purchased in a buyback rather than new issuance. This latter question is a capital structure one and unrelated to the first.

"A small proportion will be grudgingly distributed to shareholders - just to keep us satiated."

Huh? Stock purchased in a buyback aren't distributed to shareholders. Quite the opposite - they're purchased FROM shareholders; those wanting to sell. Tens of millions of dollars have already been distributed to shareholders via buybacks. Long may it continue until the company has a more optimal capital structure.

You can keep *****ing about historical messaging (I do have some sympathy for your view here although substance always overrules positioning) but I think it far better to look forward. The future, just like recent past, is bright for GKP shareholders willing to keep their VAR.

"if they have cash to throw off , thrown it in the Direction of the Shareholders" (sic)

Who (collectively) do you think gets the cash in a buyback? Who (individually) decides whether to take it or not?

opu still has no clue

"A buyback at £2 is hardly value for money"

So you don't think the stock mis cheap at £2? If you think it's fair value (or over-valued) at that level you can sell into the buyback. As far as the company is concerned it would just be returning capital to shareholders. Instead of returning it pro rata it is returning it to those that sell to its bid. The price doesn't matter to the company.

"Overall my only surprise is that the share price is still lingering around this level"

To understand this you need to consider a couple more 'downsides'. Small cap, low liquidity and (as you note already) sector mean that attracting additional institutional sponsorship is very difficult. Hence finding significant impetus on the bid side of the stock price is a challenge. Retail will bob it around here and there but it's not nearly the same as, for example, when Blackrock increased their stake back to 5% from below 2.5%. A buyback can help this and we should be lobbying hard for it.