Member Info for QuintusCurtius

As I said the flow on the buy side needs to be sustainable NewKOTB. Three one off tickets don’t come near that.

If you genuinely believe this share is manipulated contact the FCA. It’s easy to complain (and fill a message board with posts about bot manipulation) ... it’s another thing to do something about it ; )

Thanks for your overview Mav.

I don’t buy the ‘it’s all a conspiracy’ argument. The simple fact is that there are not enough buyers out there to support a sustained leg higher in the share price. That is the fundamental issue. The increasing prominence of ESG/sustainability might also be an issue on the margin as some investors steer clear of energy. It may be that energy ends up like tobacco (trading on low PE, high div yield) as a consequence of investor preferences.

Final comment ... markets can trade irrationally for extended periods of time especially in the small cap space where daily volumes are relatively low. Patience is required. They really do need to do a deal that increases the market cap which would allow them to access to deeper pools of liquidity that might be restricted from investing in small caps.

All in my opinion only.

I’m clear on that Muckle. My point was that the existence of an OFAC license and its periodic renewal is likely to be a problem for any bank that might consider providing financing for an SQZ acquisition

All in my opinion only

Or it could be end of month liquidations by a fund or funds to meet redemption requests ... I don’t know. Small caps are inordinately affected by smaller trade sizes due to their lower trading volumes.

I think we all agree that it is in our interests that they get a (good) deal done.

upomega -- nearly 3x your initial investment on a ten year time horizon is not good enough???

Muckle - where the OFAC license renewal is most relevant is in terms of financing. The oil companies that are large enough have access to the bond market and the smaller companies ... struggle. In the increasingly ESG world we live in banks are stepping away from direct lending to oil companies so it’s very tough for your average small to mid-cap oil company to obtain a loan from a bank let alone add in a periodic OFAC renewal on a company’s main asset to the mix. I would think (IMO only) that this has been an issue for SQZ in getting a deal over the line.

Mitch has said they are aiming at deal size of around GBP 150 mln. So cir. 110 mln in cash plus 40 mln in an equity raise? I don’t know but they did go out of their way in the half year results to point out that is was 2013 when they last went to shareholders for cash so this could be a reason why the share price has been languishing (again in my own opinion only).

All in my opinion only and DYOR

PMO, Tullow and Hurricane are all deeply troubled companies (it will soon be ‘was’ in the case of PMO) and some of their strength over the last few days is likely down to short-covering. In these types of rallies it’s the garbage that jumps the most.

SQZ is a well run company with zero debt (unlike what Bloomie tells you) and a big pile of cash. It’s never going to be as high a beta play as some of the more leveraged oil names. That being said the share price performance over the last few weeks has been terrible relative to the market.

It is the long-term that matters. Look at the performance of the majors vs. SQZ since BKR. SQZ has outperformed and has been better at protecting investor’s capital which is the first and most important task. To paraphrase Buffett, don’t invest if you’re not willing to hold a company for 10 years ... I know some of you on this board might have already done that with SQZ.

In my opinion only and DYOR

NewKOTB, focusing on short-term price movements of a stock is a mug's game. There is no grand conspiracy of bots and bad actors keeping this share price at the level it is. Simple truth from the trading flow is that there are not enough real money buyers out there to support the share price on more than just a temporary basis. Its current market cap is a limitation on institutional interest and only another significant deal will change that.

Patience is required especially when trying to identify and negotiate the right deal in the long-term best interests of shareholders and the longer it takes, the more it benefits those investors with a truly long-term perspective which aligns with the type of investor the company wants.

In my opinion only.

This is a good point and one that has always been a concern for me. Always better when management has significant 'skin in the game'. I don't think they've reached into their own pockets to buy shares in a meaningful way and their holdings are merely the result of long-term incentive plans. I hope I am wrong. The optics on this are not good. Contrast this to Jamie Dimon who has a significant portion of his net worth tied up in JP Morgan stock that was acquired with his personal cash.

Those are 10K face value trades, Devon. How could they possible be 690K?

Big sales of the bond? I’m seeing down 20 bps at 69.98 mid. Hardly indicative of a imminent credit event.

Early this year the bond was trading below 40.

Your ARCM overlords will not pay you if your shilling is this bad LOL

No news on the ARCM auction either.

Devon - I find your comments their timing to be slightly suspicious. Additionally you blend fact with fiction in several instances which is concerning especially when the correct information is available from public sources.

First, ARCM are not selling their entire holding of PMO1. They are auctioning $200 mln and will retain $240 mln according to media reports.

I don’t agree with your comment that moves in illiquid markets provide significant ‘insight’. By their nature illiquid markets can be moved by very small tickets so how much informational value is provided when a mom and pop investor sells their £10K face bond and drop the bid as there is minimal flow on the buy side? Additionally if you read the prospectus for this bond you’ll see that it was clearly aimed at retail investors.

All in my opinion only

Devon,

You write that as a debt holder you have an interest in the future of the company. That’s not entirely the full story ... debt holders can make a play for the company’s assets and guess who stands in their way right now ... equity holders. So what needs to happen next?? ; )

All in my opinion only.

To be clear, the company booked an operating loss of 12mln. The ‘profit’ is due to a non-cash adjustment to future liabilities as a consequence of the BKR revenue sharing agreement because of lower commodity prices.

Market will also not like the slight reduction in the net cash position to 101.1mln vs expectations of continued build.

Even Erskine production was down.

Not a great set of results

I also think this email is 100% genuine. Bold? Most would say foolish in this market environment.

The mail also displays a total lack of awareness of the market’s potential to dash their plans and how precarious the situation is. The shorts will pounce all over this. TD and the Board need to get on the front foot or they will lose control of it very quickly.

If all he is doing is looking out for #1 then shareholders can hold TD and the board accountable by voting down the equity raise ... 75% approval is required.

If you are paying down debt from cash flows you are strengthening the balance sheet and creating value for your equity holders.

TD needs to do something in the next few days to defend the share price. From the Q&A in the earnings call it sounded like the first step was to obtain approval from 75% of the creditors first which they thought would take 3+ weeks given bank credit committees, etc. and then next up was the equity raise. In a month’s time there might not be anything left if the short sellers get ahold of this. Bottom line is that the creditors are in control of this and I think this is a play by ARCM to get great quality assets on the cheap and TD and the board have an obligation to existing shareholders to prevent this from happening

You are very defensive NewKOTB.

Re: the balance sheet I merely suggested that management’s ‘no debt’ message was lost on people who only looked at the balance sheet figures. Management also is exceedingly conservative in how they account for future profit sharing payments and I am not sure this is in the best interest of shareholders of which I am one. BTW, I was an SQZ investor years before I discovered this board.

As you are a frequent poster on here and deem yourself to be a gatekeeper of sorts, if you want to foster a community that encourages the participation of ‘articulate and astute’ people then it’s probably best not to respond to them with hostility and suspicion when they are attempting to engage the board on meaningful topics that they did not see fully covered previously. Those ‘articulate and astute’ people will find better things to do with their time.

Tom - The point is a simple one. If all someone does is look at the balance sheet of the company (or rely on information providers that pull that information) they are likely to miss the fact that the company has no borrowings. All they see is the fact that the company has 280 mln of liabilities of which 110 mln are non-current financial liabilities (as of FY19). Some potential investors never investigate further. Accordingly they never learn that a significant portion of these liabilities are profit sharing payments made on assumed future cash flows and they never take the various next steps that you outline because Serica is off their radar to start with. Anyway just my thoughts.

NewKOTB - Thanks for the warm welcome. I decided to start posting because I was under the (mistaken?) impression that this forum was about exchanging ideas, learning, challenging assumptions and getting at the truth which is what a dialogue amongst well-informed investors and people should be about. Nevertheless if suspicion is the name of the game then we ought to be more concerned about someone pushing the view that there is an imminent take out by Viaro looming (sub communication: 'you better act fast or you'll miss out') than someone who has the view that the SQZ story needs more time to develop as there are some hinderances ; )

Gareth - Have not reached out to investor relations as this looks like a management decision to account for revenues from the BKR profit sharing agreement in this way. The problem is that management’s message of ‘no debt’ which is clear in their presentations is totally missed by anyone screening on Bloomie and in fact they conclude the opposite. From our perspective as investors this is really a shame but it is an opportunity for those who dig a little deeper and discover this.