Member Info for theoryman

bucephalus1, seems that you prefer the “old CCC” who sought out and posted lovely positive fluffy articles about GKP - not surprisingly I prefer the “new CCC”.

I did provide you with evidence that the two versions of CCC are almost certainly one and the same person - he has explained why he has changed.

When it comes to BroadfordBay, why do so many LTH fail to remember his spreadsheets on iii prior to the restructuring?

They were open, included all equations and assumptions, and looked at a variety of scenarios.

At best the outcome was borderline survival, guess what happened in every other case?

I took his idea and built it into a Monte Carlo model and reached a much bleaker conclusion in terms of what most people thought the probability of the best outcome was.

Guess what happened? A post declaring that two people, both using spreadsheets, must be working together behind the scenes to talk the price down - it got over 50 likes, give me strength!

To my knowledge BB was one of the first people to point out in early 2016, with open verifiable evidence, that there was a major hazard facing the company in the next 6 months - why do you not give him credibility?

When Opulentia let us know every time they had topped up, how. many LTH asked them to:stop doing so or made personal comments?

So repeated buying seems to be OK but repeated buying/selling isn’t.

Markets function through buying and selling.

Investing is about making money from buying and selling or selling and buying.

There are occasions when some of the LTH of GKP seem more like members of an extreme fundamentalist religious sect, as opposed to holders of what many years ago would have been pieces of paper with nice pictures on them.

My ProRealtime charts have not adjusted to the ex-div payment like they usually do.

My original account with them is through IG, from my spread betting days on Indices.

ProRealtime are saying that the problem with the charts is down to IG data.

Have the spread bets on IG reacted to going ex-div as per normal or has there been a problem?

Usually I could sort this out myself but am out in Cyprus using a non-secure connection, no way am I logging into my IG trading account ??

Einstein once remarked that those who understood compounding use it, those who don’t pay for it.

As previously stated I have been using spare cash to buy shares on the ex-div date, rather than wait for the payment to arrive.

The first two times this year the outcome was less than optimal because the price kept dropping, so by waiting I would have been able to buy more shares.

This time it worked to my advantage.

So what has been the overall effect of using the first dividend to buy shares, the new increased holding then got the second dividend, which then got used to buy shares, the further increased holding then got the third big dividend, which was used to buy shares?

Comparing a starting price of 202.5p to today’s Close of 205p, which is just above a 1% rise, the value of the increased holding has risen by just above 20%.

Now Einstein may have had a mental block when it came to Wave Theory but he certainly knew the effect of compounding.

Hi, if anyone wants to use the Total Return way of looking at the share then it’s just a matter of using Present Cash Price plus Total Dividends since the event you are comparing it to.

So for the High ~ 202p just add on ~34p to yesterday’s Close

So for the High ~302p just add on ~51p to yesterday’s Close.

It’s what should be done with every share really but most people and chart providers don’t do it - the dividend as a % of the cash price is small enough in most cases to ignore the effect.

With GKP, 17p compared to 200p is not a small %, hence with repetition it is having a major effect on what the chart should look like.

Normally people only look at the dividend effect when the share price returns to the same cash price as one say 10 years previously.

The Total Return is not zero in that case if there have been 20 dividends for example and the difference between extracting the cash or reinvesting it can also be significant because of the compounding effect.

markettimer, if you are going to refer to a 1 yr High then you need to add in the reduction of all the dividends in that period, not just the last one.

Those of us using adjusted charts have it way above the 202.5p on the unadjusted even before the latest dividend.

Is it over extended or in the process of extending?

Matter of opinion and I have changed back to my previous much higher hopes.

Evidence? Well on the adjusted charts there are now THREE unclosed gaps up in the last few weeks - if anything that points to the sub moves extending, which of course then drives the move they are in.

If it was over extended I would look for an exhaustion gap up that gets closed PDQ, no sign of that so far but…

BB, from FYr 2020 RNS.

“ During PSC negotiations with the MNR, it was tentatively agreed that the Shaikan Contractor would provide the KRG a 20% carried working interest in the PSC. This would result in a reduction of GKP's working interest from 80% to 61.5% and, to compensate for such decrease, a reduction in the Capacity Building Payments expense from 40% to 20%. While the PSC has not been formally amended, it was agreed that GKP would invoice the KRG for oil sales based on the proposed revised terms from October 2017. Since revenue is recognised on a cash assured basis, the financial statements reflect the proposed revised terms. Relative to the PSC terms, the proposed revised invoicing terms result in a decrease in both revenue and cost of sales and on a net basis is slightly positive for the Company. The Company is in dialogue with the MNR to confirm whether they would like to proceed with an amendment to the PSC or revert to invoicing on the basis of the PSC.”

I cannot see how they arrive at 61.5%, anyone got any ideas?

LS, remember this from over 50 years ago when dealing with making projections from data, “The sins of the fathers are passed down into the sons.”

The final figure used as part of reaching the value of £5.94 is based on an estimate from 4 analysts for 2022, then 3 for 2023 and then a series of estimated adjustments.

There are no values given for what % uncertainty there is in each value used and the overall effect of compounding them.

There is not a competent mathematician alive who would put their name to the outcome of £5.94, it is incredibly too precise - it is seriously unjustifiable IMHO.

A more realistic output would be of the form, the fair value is probably most likely somewhere between £x and £y but it might be an idea if you did your own calculations :)

Very detailed - worth having a look IMO.

Just a few extracts relevant to reoccurring themes on this board - fair value, DfE, share transfers and missing shares.

1.1 Fair value £5.94.

There is a small button labelled View Data which takes you inside the model they have used and the assumptions they have made - unfortunately they cannot do that last bit for the analysts’ data they have used.

They only give a single figure so we therefore know there is no attempt to build in complexity and uncertainty and run simulations, if they did that there would be at least a mean and say P10 and P90 boundaries.

So it’s a nice reassuring value to see but then reality should kick in and there is a need to be aware of its limitations. The actual figure could be significantly higher or lower and the possible distribution needn’t be symmetrical about the mean.

4.2 Effect of the DfE, great visual showing the restructuring. The Debt to Equity ratio is now only Satusfactory, wonder how they would have described what was happening prior to that event in 2016.

7.1 Not enough evidence to support idea that there has been recent significant buying/selling by major shareholders.

7.3 All 100% of shares allocated, therefore none are “”missing”. If you pay enough there are companies that will do a deep search - the shares are only missing if they cannot find them..

titan, try adding on three extra Fib extensions all starting up from 140p based on:-

A The whole move up you are using, I have that as a 123 move.

Split you whole move into 1 up, 2 down and a long 3 up - shows up clearly on weekly.

B Use the Fib extension based on the 1 up.

C Use the Fib extension based on the 3 up.

So now you have four overlapping Fib extensions, look for clusters where the different levels group together.

Might not be how you think as a LTH but others do use things like this to derive targets. If they start selling having bought much lower down then the question becomes who is going to buy at these levels to compensate?

Depends if you are using charts adjusted for the double dividend or not.

Unadjusted, 202.5p is long running resistance, with 188p as most recent support between the recent double equal High.

There is a clear short term rising support and a slighter steeper rising channel, which it has just bounced off the top line.

If using adjusted by circa 17p, then 202.5p is long gone and we are effectively in terms of Total Return at above 217p.

Using Fib extensions it has made its minimum target and is now coming across exit points for those trading on the two previous rises from below 50p.

Great Niece just arrived, wish us luck as we cope with a very active and loquacious toddler.

L99, might be an idea to rein in your expectations about when they will eventually reach and maintain production at 55k bopd.

From the HYR RNS, “ We expect SH-13 to come onstream imminently and expect completion and hook-up of SH-14 to take place in Q4 this year. We continue to expect gross production to increase towards 55,000 bopd in Q4 2021.”

Key word is TOWARDS as opposed to TO, but if everything goes really well or much better than expected then they might just make it.

Wish I could remember where I read this but it concerned when everyone was focussing on a company’s cash flow. Where is it coming from, how is it being generated and is it sustainable?

When it comes to the Cost Pool and recovery through the Cost Oil, pity we cannot have access to the following.

Imagine all the approved invoices for CAPEX sat there in chronological order with the oldest being paid off first in strict order.

What was the date on the invoice(s) that were covered by the CO component of last month’s payment? Never mind the month on them, what about the year?

TOM247, if the well didn’t’ flow oil in the first place it was a slam dunk Geological failure.

In whose world do they fit an ESP to try and convert a Geological failure into a Commercial success?

I have never come across a single example of this being done, have you or anyone else?

So just in case I haven’t made myself clear, those first two sentences in his post make no sense whatsoever when taken as a pair.

TOM247, the first two sentences are such that they both cannot be correct IMO.

This forces me to the conclusion that I agree with surreyscot on this matter, the emergency Help Line is busy but I will keep trying.

147king, it doesn’t matter it the company what happens to the share after a buyback or pay a dividend but it might to an investor depending on their action at the time.

Those who did not sell into the buyback were probably unimpressed by the drop that followed. Those that did sell into it, waited for the big drop and then re-invested at the Low.are now very happy.

After the last two dividends, those who re-invested immediately on it going ex-div were probably unimpressed by the extra drop that followed. Those that waited for 140p and then re-invested are probably dead chuffed with themselves.

Now in both cases if the price had rocketed after the event then the reverse would hold true.

Since at the time they return the cash GKP have no idea what the market is going to do, why does it matter to them?

From the abstract of one of the Chinese reports from 2018:-

“ In the Shakan oilfield, the productivities of the carbonate reservoirs are very different in different intervals and different wells, making petroleum geologists very confused.”

Old Hebrew proverb might apply when dealing with a complex field like Shaikan, “Man plans, God laughs.”

SS, did he give you more than those two figures, the least I would expect from the methods they use is a L,M and H value?

Are those two figures the P90 and P10? If they are how come they are so close to one another given the % uncertainties in the variables that would have been taken from the CPR?

If they are the P5 and P2 values which you have selectively posted from a series of values he gave you, then I can picture what’s going on - otherwise makes no sense at all.

SS, how about a level paying field?

You wrote, “You disagree with the £25-£35 valuation for GKP I was given by an expert past work colleague of
mine. So please give our own valuation complete with calculations.”

You have given your colleague’s valuation but none of the calculations and underlying assumptions, why should CCC be any different?

Onepoundfish, when questions were first raised about CCC not being ChocolateChipCookie from iii, we did the following.

I started a conversation with him on here and then transferred it to iii and then back to here. There are still some posters on here from iii, maybe one of them read it and can verify it happened rather than you having to accept my word on it.

Both parts appeared in their respective posting histories, the one on iii was still full of what many LTH appear to like. He was known as a “newshound” on there, lots of potentially positive news but no analysis or balancing negatives.

When he was on iii I wondered if he searched lots of sites and only posted the positive stuff or he only searched sites which were known to be biased towards containing positive news.

I think that as CCC he has become more critical of what’s going on and that doesn’t go down well with those who believe that everything should be positive.

Some might feel he has gone too far in the other direction but how can you do a risked analysis if you can’t set the extreme parameters?

I like your post on the 30th July following the one from CCC thot you quoted - at least there was no attempt to hide what you had done.

You took his framework, changed all the negatives to positives but kept in the grammatical mistake - that was a really nice touch.