Member Info for romaron

Hi Mike - thanks for replying. I was about to post that I did some research myself and am now happy with how they work. This was pretty helpful for me: https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-articles-1/post/auctions-uncrossing-trades-and-evidence-of-manipulation-291
I come from a FX background and attended Lira fixings at the Rome bourse. The banks would net out the clients who wished to buy or sell at the fix. The amounts on both sides could be huge but it is the net figure that went to the bourse.
You had to stick with the figure that you gave to Bank of Italy but it was possible if the fix was going one way to increase or decrease the amount (a bit naughty but it was Italy after all) saying you made a totaling error. They would then go for a kinda UT trade for the balance. London continued trading but paused around the fix. Where I was getting confused is that it is the DM participants who would only need to take their balance to the auction and net out internally. It does mean that occasionally you can catch participants unaware and scoop up all the offers or bids if your client gives you the flexibility. It would be interesting to see a screenshot of today's fixing/UT just to see the amounts that could be achieved. Fair enough there was an offer to sell of 1.5 mio at 20 but maybe there was (for example) a bid for 10mio at (say) 19.50.
I'm not interested in getting a blow by blow of trades as I've no intention of day trading. 27 years of being glued to a screen is enough for anybody. Trying to read too much into L2 can be misleading. Manipulation and protecting a price is paramount. If you wanted real size you wouldn't do it via SETS for example. It is amazing how many people would make a price close to what the SETS suggested. thanks again for your input. Much appreciated.

*I would add that the amounts at the Rome and Milan fixes were tiny in comparison to what the investment banks in London traded.

To clarify the fixing is similar but not exactly like what we understand happens at Sotheby's. I'd prefer if they called it a fixing. There isn't anything particularly brave in leaving an offer to sell at a price higher than where the price is dealing/fixing.

I suppose what I'm saying is that was there a screen offer of 1.5m that wasn't actually in the auction? My understanding of fixings is that it is to set a price to clear all auction trades. You can't have a trade uncompleted. I can understand an order book with scaled prices but if you enter into an auction you have to deal.

Hi NAV_Mike - thanks for that. Interestingly there was the opposite with EnQuest today where the price jumped at the closing auction. They have a TU tomorrow. It jumped about 4.5 percent whereas PMO was trading around 20p before the auction.
I can understand the 20p sell not being fulfilled but as it is an auction can they change the price and chase it lower? I was wondering if there are trades that clients and customers asked to be done at the UT price. In simple terms could you have had buy orders of (say) 5 mio shares and sell orders of 5,338,333 at the closing auction? By that I mean that can the bulk of orders can far exceed the UT at certain times?
Sorry to be a pest but trying to understand.

Hi Nav_Mike - you seem pretty au fait with the UT and maybe following the trades. In your 16.43 post you mention a potential trade of 1.5m. I'm trying to understand these trades better and at the moment I'm considering the UT as the final trade. Is it possible that during the UT period there are deals going through that exceed the final UT amount?

I'd love to know more about the UT. The amount shown is 69,031 but that is the NET figure imo if it works the same way as FX fixings at the local bourse did. A fixing has the benefit of getting a more transparent price that you get at an auction. It also enables bigger amounts to be traded and clients/customers less reason to moan. I'd like to know if any really large trades were made at the FIX/UT?
It could have been quite a clever trade. Beat the price down during the day and pounce at the fixing.
I think it only fair to give January 4.5 percent of his 10 percent on today's machinations. If we get a 5.5 percent lift tomorrow he does of course achieve guru status.

The tick is for your optimism January. A leap of 10% would take us into the heady heights of 13.8 pence.

Hi Therapist -you haven't seen me diss EnQuest's hedging. At its core hedging is a punt and you go from day punters who bet on oil to companies like BP and EnQuest at the other end who additionally have production to place or refineries who need to purchase etc.. EnQuest's mission isn't to get hedging right in the same way that Buffet and Soros aren't judged by their timing (both admit to being rubbish at it).
The swap at $31 from memory was during the early days of Covid when some were forecasting barrows going down streets crying "bring out your dead". There is a time to panic and bale out and that was perhaps behind it. Nobody knew (and he's perfect) what might happen and there really was fear in the air. OPEC turning the tap full on around the same time didn't help either.
I did FX swaps which basically go out to 1 year. The busiest trade is the 3 month date whilst short date activity (similar to WTI going negative) attract press comment and are either technical or because of outside interference (Govt, wars, sanctions). You can also use futures or options and get similar results. Swaps were where the biggest amounts were traded and retail investors weren't involved because of the size.
My point is that whatever we did would have a short impact and you then revert to the mean. You cannot, as far as I know, sell oil much further than a year in any quantity through hedging but I stand to be corrected. Just look at oil futures and you'll see what I mean; most activity/volume today is Nov/Dec. There may even be covenants and restrictions involve with debt to stop EnQuest becoming a casino.
Yes, I would have loved to have got a lot of production away at the highest price but it would have been a short term gain. We retail investors are aligned with all oil company managers to wish for a higher oil price. The mechanism to lift the price is complicated but providing Covid is under control we should see a swift rise.
Covid has created Darwinism on steroids so we may not have as long to wait as in previous cycles.

I don't usually speculate on the price of oil because I can make myself look foolish in many other simpler ways but if you twisted my arm I'd go for $10 higher for Q4. It's the kind of bet you have with a mate and the stake maybe a beer or a meal. My bet is on the longer run so hedging is largely irrelevant to me. Consistency is important though and I think EnQuest by and large make the correct decisions. Nobody's perfect!

Oil industry connections give incest a bad name. It could easily be Repsol Sinopec whilst his Talisman connections means he knows Jim Buckee an ex EnQuest chairman. This is a serious move imo and almost certainly has OGA support and Bill Dunnett was part of the MER initiative. Totally intriguing.

Your punt might win Patrm - Biden said today that he wouldn't ban fracking. He never did say he would but Trump said that he would so he had to correct the blatant lie. The market likes to have a reason to trade but smart money knows that Democrats have a variety of supporters in different industries who need placating.
That doesn't really affect my position with PMO as fracking has strategic value but they finally woke up to economics. Conventional is still cheaper. The market should sell oil as punters will leap on the news which isn't really new news.

Hi Patrm -I didn't say next few weeks. The RI isn't due to be announce until Q4. The next few weeks are Q3.

Hi SMW - .....so you think that UBS still has a target of 170 out there? This is the conundrum. It doesn't say when brokers think the target will be reached. I do fancy that with a bit of luck and a tail wind the price of oil could easily be $10 higher when the RI is announced. The news has been relentlessly downbeat across the industry. Sentiment does change.

If Rishi does raise it does that mean in the short term we become more attractive due to our tax credits?

Hi Goodman- just because it has FT in the title it doesn't mean that the data is reliable. Take the high of 167.02. I'd like that too but to even get close to it you need to use Peel Hunt (155 Nov19) and UBS (170 Sep18). Jefferies seem more pragmatic with 160 in Jan 2020 dropped to 30 in April. Like us they cannot predict with accuracy and it is often a wet finger in the air. UBS seem more stubborn than even the most avid TD fan. Perhaps they've stopped covering the stock. Life is too short to follow what is, to be cruel, often guesswork.

*figures from this page [LSE] Broker Ratings

Hi magmanus - in your 22.45 post you seem to hint that you know where the Richmond stake went. As there don't appear to be any announcements of a corresponding major holding does that mean the shares are held by a multitude of retail investors?

Hi Mark - thanks for that (14.26). I've never heard of them but that doesn't mean they're not bona fide. Being based in Abu Dhabi and the RNS you mentioned being diverted through the Cayman Islands complicates tracking.
I've found checking major holdings to be difficult. I think Markit are more accurate but unfortunately it is subscription. I use these free sites but they aren't really that reliable:
https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/profile?s=AMGO:LSE
https://tools.morningstar.co.uk/uk/stockreport/default.aspx?tab=5&vw=own&SecurityToken=0P0001DWW4%5D3%5D0%5DE0WWE%24%24ALL&Id=0P0001DWW4&ClientFund=0&CurrencyId=BAS
Only one has MIC (different percentage) and the holding of Aberforth is wrong for both if you cross check with Aberforth (I've got it as 0.70%). I'm splitting hairs here but for me this company has no significant Institutional holdings.

Hi Mark@1973 - you obviously know more about this stock than me. I wondered who was buying the sales of Richmond Group but cannot find any notifications from "Institutions". Where have these sales ended up?

Hi HateMMs - you wrote "2nd point is the institutions have dropped the holdings in this share by 50% over the last 3 months, again not a good sign at all in my book; i typically look at the institutions as they have the resource to examine a stock better than most PIs i should imagine;"

Where did you get the information regarding institutional holdings? I think their holdings are negligible and have been for some time. They were never there in the first place! Not looking for a fight but I think to bring "Institutions" into the debate is irrelevant with Amigo. They have {Institutions] avoided this stock for sometime. I agree that Institutions have leverage and can bring rectitude to a stock but in this case they have been largely absent.

Happy to be proven wrong or enlightened.

"Completion of the BP Acquisitions and the refinancing is anticipated to take place during Q4 2020."

The markets start again in September proper and that is still Q3. "During Q4" could be anytime from October 1 until (say) mid December. There's also something called an election happening in the US so I'm gonna stick my neck out here and suggest that current debate is all around the present world situation and as a result the price of oil. I'm predicting that it will change. If it gets worse (can it?) then the naysayers are correct. I think the world has proved resilient in the past whilst greed and selfishness will push productivity higher. Covid has speeded up the transition. I'm not talking about the transition from fossil fuels- I'm talking about the transition from clinging on to decent profitability. The shale era is over and a much slimmed down industry will remain. I think PMO is well placed to take advantage. Smart money always looks ahead.

Too true DD - I get p*ssed when an article calls PFG a "door step lender" because it is a much reduced division and relates to an era that is basically over. I get the odd doorstep delivery and often they ring the bell and run away leaving the parcel on the floor. People live busy lives and lately has probably been the best time to find somebody in but they then don't want to answer the door. I went out yesterday and to get a drink they now want your details but handily there are apps (QR reader) that make it simple. I was talking to a waiter who took my drink order. He chatted then turned away as another waiter was there behind him with the drinks like magic (you have to take them off the tray). He had of course tapped the order on his mobile whilst chatting. I was like the Amazonian indian being shown a mirror for the first time. Younger people don't use cash that often that even I have been weaned off using it whilst their alacrity with technology is amazing.
I also think that PFG have thrown in the kitchen sink with impairments and redundancies almost always boost a share price. People will always need loans but the older age group who grew up with doorstep lending are disappearing fast and normally budget quite well and have less need to borrow. The target market for PFG aren't techno phobic and if anything are probably happier with doing stuff remotely. Door step lending is over so it would be appreciated if the terminology was dropped. It does though show that NSF has no future and they also promoted themselves as being the second largest in guarantor loans. That's a double dose of bad timing. The guarantor loan system (AMGO No.1) has no place in a modern society. All they do is place repayment responsibility vicariously and play on family ties and sentiment. They deserve to go under imo.
The world is changing fast and if I could buy TikTok I would. They are amazing and will change retail big time. They are misunderstood by almost everybody over 30. Once again it is old people not knowing how young people behave and react.