Member Info for PUTUP

Of course. I was merely responding to Rizzel's polite question. To answer yours, about the same. Last buy was 20k at 38. 20k at 42.70 before that. Penalised by hastiness before that.

My position is very modest for now. Only about a 100k shares. Doubled in size these last few days. Doubling again at these levels would likely make sense but I have been very wary as I do my work and would like to see some price stabilization here. My early buys around 50p or so were far too hasty and against my own better judgment. Patience is rewarded.

I can see this being a 3-4 bagger but the wait will likely be long - late '25 more likely '26 (?) and the risks are significant. (I'm also bearish on the UK generally which makes going too long into this play difficult.) In the interim, it can be fun calling/playing the current wide trading range. There needs to be a lot more churn of the shareholder register and a big boost to fundamentals before the stock can go materially higher beyond that. There are too many retail AND institutional shareholders that have been long and wrong from way too high levels.

You are accusing them of blatant market manipulation. That's unfounded. People always seem to want to blame some big bad actor when they've simply got things wrong themselves.

"Given that the trading update is out of the way now, the only way is up. "

Well, as has been demonstrated several times already, it could go either way. I'm betting on a steady recovery into the mid 50s. I will be selling above 60 unless fundamentals dictate a significant change to the trading range.

Petr_, theAccountant is talking through a hole in his head. I guarantee he's never worked on an institutional sales and trading desk. He's likely also unaware of the Market Abuse Regulations of the Financial Conduct Authority.

undermoons, we've no idea at what price they acquired the 3% stake. All we know is that they crossed the 3% reporting threshold on the 7th of November. They could have acquired most of the 3% significantly earlier and at much higher prices. All we know is that they bought at least a little more than 0.11912% on the 7th. And good on them.

The notion that "MMs" dumped the price so they could have their fill at retail investors' expense is preposterous. (The notion that your average retail investor is stupid isn't.)

what a load of *******s

Much better to get "36% of gross sales paid upfront (as long as CRP allows)" off a higher price via export.

In fairness to BB, SOMO will be in control now and not the KRG so if they wish to define the export blend they certainly can.

And they merely went through the reporting threshold. What they had before that isn't known.

Without that bid perhaps retail bottling would have sent the stock even lower. There's no conspiracy. Just an opportunistic buyer taking advantage of blood on the streets. I agree with their strategy.

MaryBr190 at 53.20 "Adding the dips again."

That ain't as dip. This is a dip...

"it obviously reckons vanquis need 35 mill in provisions hence why 35 mill was knocked off its market cap since court case when writing"

KBW estimate £30 million.

Market has not priced in the positive re the deterrent to CMCs raising claims with the FOS. Claims cost the company £25 million in the first half alone.

"City minister Tulip Siddiq told the industry she supports plans to start charging claims management companies to bring complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), in a letter seen by the Financial Times."

While individual consumers would still have free access, this would help curtail spurious CMC activity. (According to KBW research two CMCs account for 43% of claims against the company and only 19% of FOS claims are upheld.)

Good to see the article in yesterday's FT regarding the government rejecting protests against the implementation of a £250 per claim fee to submit a claim to the Financial Ombudsman Authority. Should help by adding a disincentive to place a spurious claim.

@starsalign, the bigger question is given "Oil produced in the region must be promptly delivered to SOMO or the Federal Ministry of Oil" what is now the status of local sales? On-going in contravention of the accepted budget law or stopped?

Retail capitulation more like it

What makes you think it's fixed? And what makes people think that if actual costs are lower than $16 per barrel the IOC gets to keep the difference? The $16 per barrel is merely an advance payment from the ICG to the KRG with final settlement after a consulting company review of costs. There's nothing in these articles that suggests an IOC will get $16 per barrel and certainly not regardless of actual costs. We continue to wait...

"the Federal Ministry of Finance will compensate the KRG from sovereign expenditures for the production and transportation costs of oil produced in the region and received by the State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO)"

Key words: compensate the KRG

"Production and transportation costs for each field will be estimated fairly by an internationally specialized consulting entity, as agreed upon by the Federal Ministry of Oil and the KRG’s Ministry of Natural Resources, within 60 days of the law’s enactment."

Keep words: each field

“will submit estimated production and transportation costs to the Federal Ministries of Oil and Finance and the KRG."

"Production and transportation costs for each field will be estimated fairly by an internationally specialized consulting entity, as agreed upon by the Federal Ministry of Oil and the KRG’s Ministry of Natural Resources, within 60 days of the law’s enactment."

"The Federal Ministry of Finance will provide an advance payment of $16 per barrel to cover production and transportation costs, with final settlement occurring retroactively after the consulting entity’s review is completed, the statement continued."

Key words: advance payment....with final settlement occurring retroactively after the consulting entity’s review

[Hint 1: lifting/opex costs, direct Shaikan G&A, head office corporate overhead. Hint 2: costs recovered will always be equal to or less than costs incurred. (If less than, GKP has to invest capital while it waits for recovery - it "invests in the CRP".]

You've been asleep in class. I will let someone else school you in detention.

[Hint 1: lifting/opex costs, direct Shaikan G&A, head office corporate overhead. Hint 2: costs recovered will always be

Now that's some severely wonky arithmetic 🤣🤣🤣

"I held this share since 2018, and participate in Rights issue, when share price was around 400p."

So you had no stop loss? No level at which point you said "I've clearly made a mistake and need to cut and run?" Even with an average of £1 you're still down 60%. Where do you expect the stock could rally to? Given you're prepared to risk a 60% loss, your perception of upside above £1 must be very significant...

From my understanding of discussions to date, one would not have the Profit Oil component in that equation. But everything remains up in the air. We will have to wait and see.