Member Info for tmnky

* Should read 'predicted longer term electricity prices' not 'forward energy prices' which might suggest something entirely different.

Stewart1964

I hold a number of similar funds/trusts/reits all trading at large discounts to NAV. I am convinced that it is simply the unloved UK market versus US big tech this last year. There might also be perceived political risk/tax risk.

It may also be true that the NAV is understated with the use of high discount rates and the use of forward energy prices which are very much lower.

Imho the dividend is secure so I'll just hang on.

Tigertouch

I'm not sure if it is exactly what you are looking for, but this bloke covers the financials of a few of the alternative energy funds e.g. SEIT. You may need to trawl through older blogs for more articles.

https://theoakbloke.substack.com/

I find him quite entertaining too.

As I recall, gg said he had DEC shares but went on some family business in Texas where 'experts' told him how there wasn't as much gas as claimed. Hence the stuff about having to buy gas to meet obligations. Also something about lawsuits. Apparently Rusty was running a scam and had cost him money with his lies.

Strangely, while shouting about chapter 11, I believe he was saying he hadn't sold. No idea if he did.

A quick look at his oldest posts shows he seemed to be berating Afren holders for being scammed. No idea if he got burned there too. That would be very unlucky!

Someone observed a while ago that rrb seemed to be working from a script so maybe short, or maybe something to do with the landowners case about capping wells. Can only guess.

That trade is only about 1% of shorts outstanding by my reckoning. A long way to go yet.

Jim

Going back to our chat on Monday re shorts in UK and US, I spent some time searching but couldn't find what I needed.

But here's an interesting thing, in the first 2 weeks of July when short interest in the US jumped from 2.3% to 5%, the change in FCA SSR was only 0.34%.

Given that the two figures are compiled in entirely different ways, it might not be fair to compare, but I am leaning towards the idea that the two figures are separate unless an industry insider tells me different.

That could mean we were still at 6+5=11% short interest. A very long way to go.

Jim

What? You mean? What have I done???🤭

According to the FCA, about reporting for anyone above the threshold, "It requires holders of net short positions in shares admitted to trading on a trading venue in the UK (unless they are exempt)"

Does that then exclude the NYSE traded shares?

Interesting! Could we be talking of near 13% short?

More reading to do!

Hi Jim

Yes, it's just easier for me to think of it as all the same shares. Some here, some there.

What is intriguing me now is that where finra regulates the US brokers, FCA regulates UK brokers. Could it be that the FCA only get figures from it's members? I'm trying to find the answer.

By the way, if GG reappears, please thank him for me. I was drawn here to see what all the fuss was about, maybe short a soon to be bankrupt company. Ended up tucking some shares away for the divs and a nice capital gain. They're not for sale until the shorts are gone. Hehe.

Did a bit of checking and it seems it is the FCA, but it is not clear to me who has to report. I'll do a bit more reading.

Hi Jim

The no of shares will be the total declared by DEC. Some sites maybe out of date or some other error. The way I think of it is there is only one class of share, just some are in us broker accounts, some in uk.

Someone else will have to confirm but I imagine any short seller above 0.5% will have to report so the total us+uk would be 7.7% as reported by lseg. I could be wrong.

Jim

The table in tazed's link is likely the twice monthly reported figures from finra which are compiled from us broker/dealers. So should be US only.

Hope that helps.

Happy

I agree, BP is undervalued, but it wasn't an analysis of value but an observation of where BP tends to trade.

I can only buy and sell in the market we have.

Oops,

8 is where we are. Would be 10 for 460 I think.

Oh dear hope my simplistic view is wrong.

It's one way to look at it. :)

As long as I can remember BP trades on a pe of mid to high single digits. If I take 8 then that's about 460p, I think. Dividend slightly above 5%. That's what I am looking for on recent additions.

Monaco,

Yahoo finance simply use the reported figure which you correctly repeat at 13p ttm. But it is of little help.

More useful is the replacement cost eps which for Q3 was 13.89 cents and likely to be near 60 for the year. Last year was just under 80 cents.

Lucifer

As I'm sure you know, in the subsequent chat between nss and myself we cleared that up and moved on.

You referred to us as 'those ... who have misunderstood'. That was not only inaccurate but also inappropriate.

Now you double down with a carefully selected link and an arrogant smart a*sed comment.

I learned a lot from another board on lse where my knowledge of the industry was a little light and where there are some very good posters. They too suffered from idiots but ignored them more than I would.

Once the toxic culture on this board had seemingly vanished, I think people will know what I mean, I thought I might give something back. My nearly 40 years experience and knowledge might be of help to some. But no.

I came here yesterday and today with the intention of continuing to share and discuss with nss (as he requested) my research on the Bank of America swaps which has come on a lot in the last few days. Nss seems a nice person with a genuine agenda. But it was interrupted by your ego massaging. I will therefore leave it to you to explain it to nss - the boa swaps, that is.

I know you will have to have the last word. It's how it is. Be my guest, I won't respond. I honestly don't care if you remain the smartest mud-skipper in the lse swamp. I'll go back to the couth places I came from.

'For the benefit of those on the board who have misunderstood the LetterOne situation, it is this :- they can convert their shares to ordinaries when the "sanctions situation" concerning their shareholders resolves.'

That's what we said. Misunderstood? Not me and nss as I see it.

'The point was if by some miracle they were able to convert within the 6 month lockup period, the lockup would apply to the converted shares.'

Yep we both said that too.

Seems there's some misunderstanding going on!

I think there might have been other restrictions in that they would have no day to day dealings nor take any profit from the co. which I read as including dividends. I might be wrong on that though.

Letter One themselves are not sanctioned so would receive the dividends but would not pass them on. A bit like BP can't take the Russian dividends.

Maybe they wanted to apply for sanctions to be lifted and it gave them a window to try. Does seem unlikely as you say.

My understanding was that they could only convert if/when the Russians were no longer sanctioned.

It was the bondholders/creditors I was thinking of. GIC went below 3% a while back so not sure where they are now. I'm sure you are right about lock-ins long gone

Stupmy

Yes, it always amused me when the Nasdaq falls and the FTSE follows.

I don't lump the mag 7 together they are all different in terms of value. But with the s&p 500 at 30 times earnings something should give. I have sold most of my US shares recently and am building up index shorts in anticipation of a reset in the coming months .

Nss

I think we would have to know who is boa's counterparty to know what is going on. Didn't some pmo bond holders get shares with a lock-in. I'll have to go back and look at the prospectus.