Posts: 12,025
Threads: 1,809
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
227
Well, they can't win, can they? Many clamour for information and get irritated at the long period of silence, then they issue some and others argue it's a Mickey Mouse PR...
Friendly advice: If you only see mud, there is little I can do but suggest you read some of the stuff published here as there are people who see more than just mud, begin with that excellent Westlake report..
Posts: 177
Threads: 14
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
21
'admin' pid='23070' datel Wrote:Well, they can't win, can they? Many clamour for information and get irritated at the long period of silence, then they issue some and others argue it's a Mickey Mouse PR... Friendly advice: If you only see mud, there is little I can do but suggest you read some of the stuff published here as there are people who see more than just mud, begin with that excellent Westlake report..
I did read Westlake and everything else carefully. Again, why the press release? And the press release muddled the message, the company muddles and then Westlake and Morgan Stanley brings the color. Yes some of us want news but not half news.
Posts: 8,568
Threads: 1,342
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
380
IOC has to follow guidelines set by the SEC. I assume the IOC lawyers decided O'Neil statement was a material event and had to be commented. Since it involved Exxon we can assume they agreed and helped write the P/R. I think persons are upset about the wrong things. This is Exxon. this is monetization. ,this is IOC surviving as an independent co at least for awhile. With this I bet Exxon buys all of IOC some day. One person stated "Best possible result" we wait.
Posts: 177
Threads: 14
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
21
'jft310' pid='23077' datel Wrote:IOC has to follow guidelines set by the SEC. I assume the IOC lawyers decided O'Neil statement was a material event and had to be commented. Since it involved Exxon we can assume they agreed and helped write the P/R. I think persons are upset about the wrong things. This is Exxon. this is monetization. ,this is IOC surviving as an independent co at least for awhile. With this I bet Exxon buys all of IOC some day. One person stated "Best possible result" we wait.
This is Exxon, this is a $20 dollar downdraft from the opening, somebody didn't like the message or manipulated it.
Posts: 148
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
40
'admin' pid='23070' datel Wrote:Well, they can't win, can they? Many clamour for information and get irritated at the long period of silence, then they issue some and others argue it's a Mickey Mouse PR... Friendly advice: If you only see mud, there is little I can do but suggest you read some of the stuff published here as there are people who see more than just mud, begin with that excellent Westlake report..
Admin, you cannot win either, no matter how hard you try to remain balanced and neutral. I believe that IOC merely attempted to provide its shareholders with some much needed information/update regarding the status of the on-going negotiations......the fact that it has been narrowed down to XOM. Now the focus is on the details with XOM. The next PR will be the one we have been waiting for so long. Westlake and the others, to include those on this board, are speculating based on this PR. Everyone wants to be the "oracle" in order to be able to say later on that they had it all figured out before the big announcement. The discontent comes from the fact that there is no information regarding the details of the "exclusive" negotiations with XON........why would there be?
Posts: 8,568
Threads: 1,342
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
380
Per Mr Bumble ,our new London poster.
Over 70,000 option contracts were traded on Friday
That's manipulation
Second over 1.1 million more shares were shorted Friday
That's manipulation
If Mr Bumble knows this then IOC knows this.
If IOC what would you do????
Nada is not possible
Something is possible.
Would you get the details of the deal out quickly.??
Would you burn the shorts???
Posts: 12,025
Threads: 1,809
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
227
'kerekesc' pid='23080' datel Wrote:
'admin' pid='23070' datel Wrote:Well, they can't win, can they? Many clamour for information and get irritated at the long period of silence, then they issue some and others argue it's a Mickey Mouse PR... Friendly advice: If you only see mud, there is little I can do but suggest you read some of the stuff published here as there are people who see more than just mud, begin with that excellent Westlake report..
Admin, you cannot win either, no matter how hard you try to remain balanced and neutral. I believe that IOC merely attempted to provide its shareholders with some much needed information/update regarding the status of the on-going negotiations......the fact that it has been narrowed down to XOM. Now the focus is on the details with XOM. The next PR will be the one we have been waiting for so long. Westlake and the others, to include those on this board, are speculating based on this PR. Everyone wants to be the "oracle" in order to be able to say later on that they had it all figured out before the big announcement. The discontent comes from the fact that there is no information regarding the details of the "exclusive" negotiations with XON........why would there be?
Haha, thanks kerkesc. I hope there is more virtue in trying than in winning, and as admin, the least I can do is trying..
Aand yes, I share your assessment of the situation.
Posts: 549
Threads: 16
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation:
119
1) per IOC, the PR was not in reaction to any public statements. They were required to announce it as it was determined to be a material event. Not the leak. Something had to have been signed. Lack of more details or a better explanation makes it very frustrating.
2). Blatant manipulation around options expiration ahead of a long weekend and potential news about the real desl
3). I agree with Tree that this is simply an OT deal, but again, the sequencing of events is curious athough,I'm sure XOM wanted to make sure they got thier gas first. XOM needs a specific amount of gas versus a % of the resource, which could be revised up or down, and I think explains some of the PR.
4) per IOC, CAs still in effect. The inference I draw is other bidders still at the table, this could have been explained better as well, IMO.
Posts: 2,904
Threads: 58
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
259
Someone explain to me why the press release was needed? Policy was no comments until we have a deal and details, right. O"Neil says something, big deal, no comment at this time. What was so pressing and urgent. Once again a Mickey Mouse press release that evokes a discussion of whether this is the deal or not the deal or part of the deal.Clear as mud.
[/quote]
Here's my take: O'Neill's comment forced the press release. Perhaps O'Neill even forced IOC's hand. Regardless, when the PM with all of his authority says 'jump' IOC is obliged to jump. They couldn't very well deny a quoted directly from ONeil.
Mickey Mouse? I suppose if there is something you have to criticize that might be just about as far as you cant justifiably go. Some on other boards are saying Exxon isn't trusting inflated IOC resource numbers. I suspect Exxon just wants to be certain there is plenty of gas available without stressing theexisting wells so whether delineation or productoin it matters little. IOC will have plenty of cash to move immediately. There is also the issue of condensate and with only a single horizontal having been drilled to date the word delinieation may have as much to do with condensate recovery as the location of the field closure.
FWIW (nothing) that horrid price action yesterday may have been something as elementary as buy on the rumor and sell on the news. That, and who the hell knows what kind of trading algorithms are out there monitoring IOC. Anything can happen when you can trade in milliseconds.
Posts: 53
Threads: 8
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation:
19
'SamAdams' pid='23086' datel Wrote:
.........
4) per IOC, CAs still in effect. The inference I draw is other bidders still at the table, this could have been explained better as well, IMO.
Yes, when I saw the CA's were still in effect, I figured the only thing the PR had to address was what O'Neil revealed at this time, and the rest of the 'secret sauce' would be revealed once all parties have been dismissed or accomidated.
Being a bit of a policy wonk, I never mind parsing exercises, beats crossword puzzles.
Since I am the newest of the Newbies here, for disclosure purposes I will admit to being an optimist when it comes to stocks I follow (usually doing a 50/50 between stocks and buying call options/Leaps) but, lol, I am comfortable with the level of risk here because...
|
