Member Info for theoryman

Nobull, agreed but the broker will want compensating for the work they do, so fairest would be dividend minus a handling fee. There is something roughly the same with SB trading on FTSE. If you are Long, your running trade takes the hit but they compensate your account by a smaller amount.

sr2004, don’t know the answer but logically the answer seems to be No IMO.

This is to avoid failed transactions messing up the register when the buyer fails to have funds to buy or the seller didn’t have the shares to sell.

Typo, should read,” more weighting on the later data e.g. RSI and ema, then it is very noticeable.”

aej22, depends on your data supplier whether it was a gap down or up this morning.

Some adjusted the Close down last night to reflect the dividend. So 200.5p became 192.1p.

In addition every other price is scaled down by the effective % rate, so the.critical 157p to avoid overlap is now 150.4p.

The benefits of doing all this is that any indicator is using data which is fit for purpose and targets, support/resistance levels, gaps etc. are moved down as well.

If they don’t adjust everything previous down, then the calculation contains a number for today which has been hit by the dividend, which in the case of GKP in a non-trivial >4%, simply not mathematically justifiable but you pay for what you get. If the indicator places more weighting on the latter data e.g. RSI and ema, then it is very noticeable.

Nobull, are you questioning my interpretation of the workings of the PSC or referring to additional corrupt practices?

The model I use for the PSC is working to within 1% and has done for a long time.

Iraq and the Kurdistan region are amongst the most corrupt countries in the world and have been for a long time as well.

IMO that latter fact and the subsequent effect it has on the payment risk is well known by the market and is built into the price.

In theory there should be a very strong correlation between the share price and (PoO-21)…

Straycat, one of the fundamental components of a PSC when they were first introduced, was to allow the government to join in as a contractor, once the IOC had taken on all the risk and the field had been declared economic.

The idea was that selected locals would be trained and experience the problems faced by a contractor and hopefully set about disabusing the government wrt any ideas that it was easy money.

The KRG has not taken up that option so far. I wonder how many relatives of the rulers would have been employed to deal with the bilateral failure of the government to pay itself in both roles.

Historically there are a set of accepted %s that occur in PSCs. The ones that are in the GKP version are well within that the range, both before and after the R factor triggers the sliding scale.

Using the PSC and numbers that have occurred in Presentations, but not one that was tagged on the end of the full year results notes, the KRG pick up circa 53% of the total field production for doing nothing!

BB, go to the webcast at 07:45 where JH specifically says the questions can only be about the business of the meeting. Previously he says that the format would be different to the usual previous meetings.

Whilst what you have said about previous AGMs is true, I was referring to this one and the special conditions under which it was held.

The lack of questions this time is a by-product of the conditions not the lack of interest from investors.

BB, the Q and hence the A can only be about the factual content or procedural matters relating to the MEETING.

So for instance any questions about the arrears payments such as is the company asking for interest, wanting clarification about how they are proceeding, how about introducing penalty clauses if the KRG break the 60 day limit etc. will be blocked.

The issue is covered by “Engaging KRG regarding proposal to amend arrears payment terms”

It was an AGM not an exercise in helping investors shine a light on the deepest darkest workings of the company.

opulentia, you wrote, “ GLA LTH Glad I took the time to vote these deadwood Directors out,”

Did you find extra time to vote against the Buyback proposal?

Given your views repeatedly posted on here, IMHO it would seem strange for you to have voted for it or even abstained.

opulentia, the bond holders who set the 10% coupon rate under the original conditions GKP were in at the time, will demand compensating for you taking away their income under the present set of improved circumstances - penalty clauses!

How much have you costed that at after reading the T&Cs?

IANAA, agree but in one case you pay a fee to reinvest the dividend and in the other you pay a fee to extract your cash - the fixed fees involved do have a different effect depending on the number of shares held.

The point I was trying to make is that opulentia keeps referring to wanting a choice, both dividends and buybacks offer choice.

Just because one doesn’t suit your preference does not mean it wasn’t a choice.

The other point I’d make is that there should be more focus on Total Return within an ISA for example, both the Capital growth and Dividend are tax free.

opulentia, if you want the cash back for your ISA/SIPP from a buyback then sell some shares to reduce your increased % holding in the company back to its original level.

The company had no control over the market dropping like that but the good news is the fixed sum from the buyback bought more shares, hence you got a bigger increased % holding than if it hadn’t.

Buybacks are a way of CONCENTRATING the benefits of FUTURE benefits in the hands of those who choose to not sell into it. Those who want to use the cash in other ways still have the choice of selling into it as outlined in the first paragraph.

@PUTUP, the current model has a lower target of breaching that 199.4p but is constrained by an absolute maximum of circa 230p before there needs to be a correction.

So still plenty of room to move into.

Two unclosed gaps before this morning in a strong trend, smashed through that long running 188p resistance zone, what’s not to like so far?

From last night about the budget deal…

https://www.basnews.com/en/babat/695432#.YMjvJtnQ_N0.twitter

I cannot find one clause referring to anything that still needs to be sorted so it “must” be a done deal - if true, IMHO it is a game changer in terms of significantly reducing payment risk.

Minimum target hit, running model therefore seems justifiable and its task could well be complete. Every single key either/or outcome in the move up from 67p went the higher probability way - not often you get a run like that even though on one occasion it got very very close to falling apart.

Next stage is to see if it has more to give, there is still room, OR the more bullish model will start to deliver OR that was it in the short term at least.

@PUTUP, an unreserved apology will suffice LOL.

LS, system doesn’t know what GKP produces, who its customers are etc, it just looks at the patterns created by the humans who do and how they react to developments.

After 200p there are a couple of obvious previous resistance levels from the end of 2020, just below 220p and just below 230p.

The model I am running has a target of 230p max - it has served me and several others very well indeed. So far it has led to six consecutive opportunities where the outcome has been positive, sometimes exceptionally so.

Running in the background though are several alternatives. The most bullish is looking for evidence that it’s only just begun, whilst the least is watching for exhaustion before we even get to 200p.

The next bit sort of follows on from the Capital Growth versus Income dilemma.

Hopefully we’ll known to chartists and those who use Close data to generate indicators but maybe not to others is the ex-div effect. Usually it is trivial but not in this case because of the size of the dividend and the double effect.

All targets/exits/resistance/support levels on charts MIGHT need adjusting downwards due to the effect of the double ex-div effect of circa 16p. Once you realise that then anyone using say moving averages, RSI, MACD etc might go hmmmm…

LS, capital growth versus income, at 190p the combined % divi drops to below 9%. Bit miffed with this surge, will get fewer shares when i reinvest if the price stays up at this level. LOL.

Anyway, gap up this morning and then it didn’t close before the rise started, all the signs so far of a runaway gap in an already established trend as opposed to a standard one.

Since not all gaps close, let’s hope this is one of them and it never does, even after the two circa 8.3p dividends drops might make it appear that way - absolute versus relative viewpoints.

Region around 188p has been a long running resistance zone, will be interesting to see if this new info brings out the marginal buyers this time.

Hi LS, I don’t picture the combined dividends being 10%, I see them as two separate 8.3p pieces of income.

My % return depends on the price I paid for the shares, I am currently running 4 different chunks, each has a different WAV and therefore is returning a different %.

Next, it’s no good getting a chunk of income if the share goes ex-div by the same amount as the div and then remains there. The Total Return of Capital Growth + Income would be zero.

If however investors assume that the price will recover and cancel out the combined ex-div drops, then why are they not automatically re-investing the income the moment it goes ex-div and benefit from the compounding effect?

Grudgingly using the 10% figure, the above turns the Total Return from a passive 10% to an active 11.1%.

What I am finding difficult to comprehend is that some of the LTH want to remove cash or not have buybacks BUT some of us investors who are labelled negative, will re-invest every penny of the dividends and would welcome buybacks.

sp2, the correct way is to work through the PSC but there is still some uncertainty as to what version is being used and why certain numbers are being used.

A good working equation, usually correct to within 0.1 million is as follows, again I stress it works well but might not be correct and simply contains several self cancelling errors!

The company keep referring to changes to the PSC as being at least neutral, they never quantify how much better than neutral.

GKP net revenue =0.366 * Days in month * (PoO-21) * Av Bopd

The Profit Oil component is only 21% of the revenue, the rest should be past costs being reclaimed through current production.