Member Info for StarBright

Rodders - revenue is defined BEFORE costs, therefore 1000*70/1.28*365 = £20m.

My reading of the uncertainty around the various SS proclamations is as follows:

The scoping report contemplates 20 year average production approaching 1000bopd from the HH site (Portland + Kimm) as a whole. Initially at 3600bopd (approx 16 tankers/day) production declines by 50% over 3 years and 80% by year 9.

I believe that this interpretation is the "line of best fit" with all the information that has been made available. It is acceptably congruent with the tanker schedule, broadly consistent with an NPV10 estimate provided in an investor presentation and also with what we have seen and heard SO FAR in terms of testing results.

Rodders - you can't apply a P/E multiple (your ~20:1) to a pre-tax profit. The tax rate for UKOG as an onshore producer will be 40%, made up of RFCT at 30% and SC at 10%. So in your example, you'll need to add in another $20/barrel for taxes.

3 wells, * 1,000 bopd
Brent at $70, costs at $20
1.28 USD to 1 GBP
pre-tax profit per barrel (GBP) = £39.06
less taxes £15.62 = £23.44
1000 bopd * £39.06 = £23,440 / day
49% share to UKOG = £11,486 / day
3 wells = £11,486 * 3 = £34,457 / day
365 days = £34,457 * 365 = ~£12.6 million / per annum

That's £251m mcap or about 5p per share - "bags" (in LSE parlance) from here, hence I will stay invested.

Yes - real news is the key, not minute-by-minute movements in the SP.

Many posters here seem distracted by old news being re-reported, and by "reports of reports". Neither of these are news.

Ironic - I have no idea whether the trade yesterday was SL or not, but the idea of "de-risking for a free ride" is very much a retail/PI construct. It's not typically the way professional fund managers think. It is important to understand that fund managers are paid to take risk with their clients money. Their mandates generally require them to be fully invested eg not sitting in cash, so they are looking for good risks to hold - not opportunities to reduce risk. This is quite a different mindset to the day and swing traders you see posting on here. In particular fund managers are (or try to be!) conditioned to be indifferent to their in-price, recognising that this is a classic form of behavioural bias. Once you own a share, all that matters is the current price and your target price. Most fund managers will have a strong idea of what they consider "fair value" for a share, and will divest and move on when that level is hit.

If they buy more than 1% they have to disclose this to the market.

It's the pizza question again! Focus the size of the pizza, not the number of slices...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkqg6HE888A

Miton and Marlborough funds both have (small) positions in ANGS. Marlborough own some UKOG as well.

It will be interesting to see if we can spot where any of the recent placing shares ended up.

seadoc - your explanation of the fees associated with stock lending is incorrect. Fees generated from lending accrue to the beneficial owners of the assets in question. In regulatory speak the lending fees are client money. Sometimes, the fund managers involved will agree with their clients the ability to levy a small charge for administering the lending programme but this tends to be for small %'s of any fees generated.

MM's are perhaps better viewed as "price finders" than "price setters". Remember, they are flow businesses - interested principally in facilitating two-way transaction volume. Sometimes they will move the price around in order to determine where trades are.

I'm out having sold into the spike at an average just above 21p this morning. I'm sure there will be plenty who are better at trading than me who hit the top tick ;>

I suspect that Flybe has attracted commercial interest because of its low price - it was oversold by fund managers exhibiting classic herd behaviour. A large part of that may already have been unwound. I don't think that the likes of IAG, Virgin etc will get caught up in the excitement of a bidding war, despite what the press might suggest. They will have disciplined views on value which they won't stretch too far on deal-fever. The airline industry is too tough for this, with its senior players battle hardened from long experience.

I will watch (from the sidelines) the story here unfold with interest. I hope everyone is able to hit their targets with this one. Good luck to you all.

But beware the uber-rampers on this board. They will continue to bombard you with promises of 50p, 70p, £1 etc. until they reach their own targets at which point they will quietly disappear. Don't be one of the many they will leave spiked when they have had their fill...

If your shares are held with one of the major platforms - HL, Halifax, Barclays etc - then they won't be being lent out to shorters. Have a look at the T&C document for your platform. All of the ones I have looked at in recent times have been categoric in stating that they don't do lending.

HL (for example) says: "We maintain detailed records of all your investments and assets for which you will at all times remain the beneficial owner. We do not lend stock held in our HL or PMS service."

Halifax: "10.10 We will not lend or deposit by way of collateral any investments in your account to a third party."

Short positions are closed by buying shares. If there are many shorts and they all try to close at once, this in itself can drive a share price upwards.

I haven't seen any negative posts on Flybe this morning caitlin1.

IAG's spokesperson with a "we don't comment on rumours..." has done a better job fending off press enquiries than Johan Lundgren - who may yet need to row back from his comments last week. Let's hope so, as it will be amusing to watch...

These situations have interesting dynamics. It is in the interests of Flybe (more accurately, the owners and advisers of Flybe) to flush out as many potential bidders as they can, as early in the process as is possible. This creates and intensifies competition. Evercore will be keen on building "deal momentum", so expect interested parties to be revealed one way or another - the current vogue route is via Mark Kleinman - during the coming days, despite everyone's best efforts to keep the toothpaste in the tube. Those named will look to pour cold water on any suggestion that they are involved, but don't be put off by anything other than categoric denials which are rare. It's all part of the fun of the game, and will make for interesting watching.

No short here harhoo. On the contrary, I am invested with an in price below 10p. And I sleep well at night because I’m not systematically trying to influence others through repeated posting on a bb. Was it 50 posts you made before midday on Friday..?

Perhaps my post - the body of which is a direct quote from the regulations - has made you think, and the stress that has caused has made you react in such an unpleasant way?

No, brown-dog. It isn’t. Here’s a quick explanation of why. https://blog.mint.com/investing/balance-sheet-10192010/

There are many assets a company may own that don’t show on its balance sheet. Where you do see intangibles, it is typically because they have been purchased, not built up over time. The value of a brand for example shows isn’t shown on the balance sheet of the company that built it, would be shown on an acquirors balance sheet if the company was sold.

It’s a bit of a long discussion for here! You should understand that certain assets have value, but are not shown on a balance sheet. This is normal, and will all be taken into account during the sale process.

brown-dog, you can’t “put” assets on a balance sheet in the way you envisage. The balance sheet isn’t a valuation of a company’s assets.

Management will always have been aware of the value. Why do suggest that they weren’t? What do you think they should have done differently?

I am going to interject here, as this thread is full of made-up nonsense. Why post on a topic where you have neither expertise or insight? Google is not a substitute for either btw. Anyone with professional experience in equity markets (there are a few here) will know immediately from every post in the thread that you guys have no clue what you are talking about. Have you no awareness of the perimeters of your knowledge?

Inexperienced investors can safely disregard the claptrap here about market makers, about the FCA (not the FSA “Food Standards Agency”!) taking a cut and about fund managers taking turns. It is just imaginary nonsense,