Palm, I don't know why you put "crackdown" in quotation marks, since I did not use the word and they haven't done crap on any of it yet. Just the "attention" as I said it's been getting recently, and the fact that the SEC is formally looking at or researching some of it seems to have put a damper on volume in recent months. From what I've heard and observed volume has declined in recent months outside of IPOs and buybacks. The volume trends over decades or even years, including your linked chart for volume since the tech bubble peak of 1999-2000, and related demographics is not relevant to the conversation I thought was occurring here and my comments on it, and I have no interest or time for engaging in one on the former, which I am already well aware of. By the way, however, there was a market high but no "tanking" or "crash" in 2007; that did not occur until late 2008.
I am also WELL AWARE that IOC does not "operate in a vacuum" and that Tuesday was a definite down day in the market and for energy in particular across the board, which I think I actually referred to in another thread. Too bad it had to coincide with our AGM, which made it worse and easier for the shorts to "operate". However, there was reason to believe and indication from one of our market gurus that shorts were doing just that.
I'm not sure I follow all your logic on the current pps and the Macquarrie and RJ valuations, other than you're trying to support your apparent belief the current pps makes sense and is where it ought to be, which I still disagree with. RJ obviously disagrees with you but provides little detail at this point. Macquarrie's report is pretty complex, but my reading is that they disagree with you also. They seem to be saying there should be SOME present value for the prospective assets as a whole, although discounted and heavily risked. They do NOT 100% "assume an LNG plant will get built" as you say, since they also show heavy risking to that valuation, as well as discounting to a PRESENT VALUE now, and I think the current pps should certainly reflect SOME value to a formal binding agreement with a major to do that as compared to not having such an agreement, with it being just a matter of how much. Normally, the market does look forward and reflect some value or discount in a stock price for future outlook and prospective catalysts, positive or negative. That has certainly occurred with IOC in the past, probably to an excess on the upside, and now not reflecting the outlook and current value adequately, IMHO.
With respect to Hession, the pps "ballooned on hopes" for multiple reasons created by him last November and then got hammered big time. Then he gave too rosy an outlook on drilling timelines. Now he seems to be going too far in the other direction. I think the pps should reflect the appropriate outlook to a reasonable extent, subject to unanticipated surprises as with most stocks, and I think Hession is still looking for the proper balance with respect to the extent and nature of communication and does NOT have it "under control" yet, to our detriment this week.
I am also WELL AWARE that IOC does not "operate in a vacuum" and that Tuesday was a definite down day in the market and for energy in particular across the board, which I think I actually referred to in another thread. Too bad it had to coincide with our AGM, which made it worse and easier for the shorts to "operate". However, there was reason to believe and indication from one of our market gurus that shorts were doing just that.
I'm not sure I follow all your logic on the current pps and the Macquarrie and RJ valuations, other than you're trying to support your apparent belief the current pps makes sense and is where it ought to be, which I still disagree with. RJ obviously disagrees with you but provides little detail at this point. Macquarrie's report is pretty complex, but my reading is that they disagree with you also. They seem to be saying there should be SOME present value for the prospective assets as a whole, although discounted and heavily risked. They do NOT 100% "assume an LNG plant will get built" as you say, since they also show heavy risking to that valuation, as well as discounting to a PRESENT VALUE now, and I think the current pps should certainly reflect SOME value to a formal binding agreement with a major to do that as compared to not having such an agreement, with it being just a matter of how much. Normally, the market does look forward and reflect some value or discount in a stock price for future outlook and prospective catalysts, positive or negative. That has certainly occurred with IOC in the past, probably to an excess on the upside, and now not reflecting the outlook and current value adequately, IMHO.
With respect to Hession, the pps "ballooned on hopes" for multiple reasons created by him last November and then got hammered big time. Then he gave too rosy an outlook on drilling timelines. Now he seems to be going too far in the other direction. I think the pps should reflect the appropriate outlook to a reasonable extent, subject to unanticipated surprises as with most stocks, and I think Hession is still looking for the proper balance with respect to the extent and nature of communication and does NOT have it "under control" yet, to our detriment this week.