Member Info for PUTUP

Jeff, I sought to answer the original question you asked: "if the board are in possession of sensitive information which would affect the price" would "the company would be closed to purchasing stock"? I suggested that you read the press release carefully as it very clearly answers the question there.

You ignored my attempt to have you gain a very clear answer to your question (and save me having to retype the bulk of the relevant sections of the press release). Instead, you responded on a complete tangent - "Are you saying the company has already informed the masses why they are not buying." This has nothing to do with your original question at all. I asked whether you had read the press release in order to gain an answer to your original question (and answered your question in short form.) I chose not to address your tangential follow-up.

At this point Two-Planks piped up with the same incoherent dribble he's been babbling for weeks now. He simply fails to understand that the reason why no further stock has been purchased is because the stock has traded above the limit/instuctions set in the buyback agreement. Not because of any "close period."

Of course, the company hasn't said whether or why they have limits in the broker agreement on the buyback price and what those limits are. Why would they? To do so would be stupid. We can only speculate as to what they might be (and why). I have offered my views already. Back on October 15th I said "expect the company to be more picky as to when it buys back stock this time around." That's been proven correct. BSMonitor probed for more detail on my thinking and I responded to him on the 17th of October. (You were active on the forum at that time.) I added more of my thinking on 4 Nov 2024 15:40. If you read those posts you will have MY views on why I think the buyback has been set up the way it has and, since the stock has remained solid since the announcement, why no further stock has been purchased since the 17th of October. It all boils down, in my view, to the stock not being cheap enough. And I agree with the strategy.

Only one would come out alive...

I recommended you read the press release carefully. Simples. Then two-planks got involved.

Have a great evening.

FFS Straycat you are clearly thick as two planks

Jeff's question is answered

I will leave you to fester in your own moronity...

My God are you for real?

Jeff asked a question that had been answered a mere 12 posts before and still he hasn't bothered to read the press release.

The press release is clear as day on the issue he enquired about. The buyback "may continue independently of and uninfluenced by the Company during any closed period to which the Company is subject and/or if the Company comes into possession of inside information."

Why? Because the buyback is being conducted "on an irrevocable and non-discretionary basis."

Yes, "the Company may elect to terminate the non-discretionary nature of the mandate" "so long as the Company is not in a closed period to which it is subject nor in possession of inside information (an "Open Period")". But had they done so you'd expect another RNS saying they've terminated "the non-discretionary nature of the mandate." There has been no such RNS.

THAT addresses his question and repeats a large portion of what I had posted earlier.

As to your broken record question, if they haven't bought and there's nothing preventing the buyback from continuing then clearly the current price is not "within [the] agreed parameters".

"reaffirmed in October"

Nowhere in the October press release is there a mention of management thinking the stock is undervalued.

Therefore, we can conclude merely that the current stock price is above the limit in the "agreement with its brokers, Canaccord Genuity Limited ("Canaccord Genuity") and Peel Hunt LLP ("Peel Hunt") (together the "Brokers"), to carry out on-market purchases of Shares up to the Maximum Amount within agreed parameters on an irrevocable and non-discretionary basis." You can speculate all you want on why that's the case i.e. why the limit is less than 130p per share and seemingly at 125p per share. I've offered my views previously. And I agree with the likely instruction to the brokers.

I'm on a mission to get people to read company announcements.

Did you bother to follow my suggestion to read the press release?

"If the board are in possession of sensitive information which would affect the price, the company would be closed to purchasing stock"

This is incorrect

Nope. You should read the press release very carefully. All of it. I quoted relevant portions below but reading all of it carefully would be good practice.

At

130p

it's

clearly

not

cheap

enough

And yet it was easy to buy what I wanted. Volumes over the last 10 days have been appreciably than the few months prior.

"can somebody please explain the lack of buybacks at this sp?"

They already have. Asleep in class?

No BB, they have plenty of excess cash.

I'm always amazed that it appears few people read things carefully, including the RNS which announced the buyback.

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/gulf_keystone_petroleum/news/rns/story/ryny73w

It's highly likely the current stock price is not "within certain agreed parameters, including the price parameters". Conspiracy theorists will likely have failed to note that the buyback "may continue independently of and uninfluenced by the Company during any closed period to which the Company is subject and/or if the Company comes into possession of inside information." If the company elected to terminate the non-discretionary nature of the mandate when not in a closed period I would have expected an RNS to that effect.

"So long as the Company is not in a closed period to which it is subject nor in possession of inside information (an "Open Period") the Company may elect to terminate the non-discretionary nature of the mandate. The Company may subsequently choose to reinstate the non-discretionary mandate of the Buyback Programme provided that the Company is in an Open Period at that time."

The 2025 Surplus Remains Unresolved

Uncertainties around the Middle East and US presidential

election are past their peaks for now, which leaves the outlook

dominated by the expected surplus in 2025. As demand

continues to come in below expectations, this surplus remains

on the horizon. We lower price forecasts modestly to reflect this.

November 12, 2024 07:00 PM GMT

Key Takeaways

We lower our full-year demand forecast from 0.95 to 0.8 mb/d for 2024, and from 1.1 to 0.95 mb/d for 2025. In total, our 2025 demand estimate falls 0.4 mb/ d.

Still, we also lower our OPEC supply estimate by a similar 0.4 mb/d in 2025, based on the one-month delay, better compliance in Iraq, and lower exports from Iran.

In turn, this leaves our estimate for a 1.3 mb/d surplus in 2025 intact. Whist this surplus remains on the horizon, risks to prices probably remain skewed lower.

Looking ahead to the 1 Dec OPEC meeting, our base-case expectation is that after the recent adjustment, the current OPEC+ agreement now remains unchanged.

The outcome of the US election can impact oil prices considerably over time, but offsetting effects make the direction hard to call, probably for a while.

New Brent price estimates:

1Q25 old 77.5 new 72

2Q25 old 75 new 70

3Q25 old 72.5 new 68

4Q25 old 70 new 66

2026 old 75 new 70

Still plenty of sellers out there. I added on today's dip.

That aged well. Down 1.5% and trading by appointment only.

Did you read the note?

Two upticks for a question 🧐

The financial accounts would be a good place to start. Note 14 deals with current liabilities. Offsetting these against the receivables due would not be a good outcome.

"320 🤤"

Yup 9th of June '22

If I were a master trader I would have sold the lot. But I didn't.

?? ha! I still have my original position less those I sold at 320p...

Nah, I just jump on stupidity. There's a lot of it around here.

LOL. That's absolutely hilarious. Execution of zero cost stock options. Simply Wall St are simply sh*t.