focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
I have just recently (for a year) read and written on share forums or chats. Out of question, BUR forums are the extremely rare exception, where almost never can we read personal remarks, where you cannot find neither lunatocs nor those are eager to be THE right. Many valuable contribution and opinion. Some professionlism. And mutual respect to each other. This trend
should be maintained.
Br and Gl.
I dont really get it how anyone can quote muddy waters again...
BUR could easly make cash flow by selling to third parties its holdings but why would they? Their aim was to overweight their self funded (BURF only) cases to maximize profit in the future. Could easily substitute the soutce of finamce of hese self funded (or bond funded) cases with external capital (funds).
At least I think thats the case.
Arg stated before that they think 4-5 bn (instead of 16) would be fair. Thus the present valuation in the books cannot be exeggarated
Non seller holders dont have any effect on SP, as they dont do any transaction. The level of shorts should be compared to the turnover or daily volume, not the ehole market cap or free float. Especially if the part that is considered free float kay also partly belong to the "non-seller holders". Its true that shorting shouldnt have any meaningful effect in theory, but with a low daily turnover, lower really freefloat ratio, the time differemce between the effect of opnening and closing the shorts has. When opening shorts additional supply or selling pressure is created, thus has a preassure to lower the price, as demand or buying power is limited, then when the may unleash the closing wave of shorts, it wull have a lifting effect on sp, both has much stronger effect than in case of a normal, liquid, lower risky, higher real free float etc. share.
In theory.
Ponzi, dont get me wrong, your comment style is the joke . A bad kind.
Why dont you try some less certain claims on why and exactly what levek the sp would drop. In a few days time.
You could be taken more seriously by others.
Could become a valuable contra - thought for the enthusiastic longs. Etc.
Br.
I dont want to be too off, but its worth taking a look at GBU chart... when a financially stronger sovereign is waiting for a ruling.... with EU and other organizations membership, not paying is not an option... I have just come across recently a few example of arbitration against sovereigns (RML, GBU, MON...) and started to feel what a promising branch of finance where BUR is market leader.
In case the jury find that YPF is liable, that devision is alse appealable, or thats a final thing?
Thats a huge risk for Arg. YPF wouldnt be able to export normally, would have difficulties in making financial transactions abroad.
And privatisation would be impossible.
In case an investor with solid long term aim in the company may shift the price effect of his demand to a later date. And borrows from a linked or similar company, with long term intentions, who not deals with the sp during this time frame, as also being interested in fundamentals and core operation not what the share price is.
How can you have the sp stayed low while buying up a company, with low liquidity or volume per fay?
In paralell with executing the buys, open similar ammount of leveraged short, so that the demand and supply remain balanced, and then, when you have gained the aimed volume of shares, start to close the shorts? Maybe do this once but for longer period, or several times continuously. Is that the appropriate method?
Https://www.yetanothervalueblog.com/p/the-curious-case-of-plce-and-the
Bradford your thoroughful arguments are quite convincing, thx for.your thoughts.
You mentioned that cost recoveries aim is essentially a fund return to the company for its previois capex, investments. But this case at least to the present capacity its is already invested, isnt it? Thus that should.be considered whether the investment need such capacity can be built again is high or low compared to the comany's metrics. And at least to the extent previous production level, invesment has been done, so positiv cash comes in the future. Am I wrong?
PUTUP regarding cost inccurrance, the case isnt that instead of examineing each firms uniq real costs, a standard number is determined (6 or 10 or 20 usd) which is pertained to each company regardless their actual costs incurred?