Posts: 12,025
Threads: 1,809
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
227
["Or perhaps we must face the fact that wall street in general is not interested in this stock. perhaps crediubility issues from the past are rearing their ugly head, but I donl;t see any other way than to just say it. When you own a stock that drops 7% on good news (or certainly not BAD news) you own a crappy investment. I think after 5 years i am finally catching on."]
I think JFT had it right this morning, although he was met with some stiff opposition from other posters, when he argued it's all about the monetization and the Total payments, depending on recertification.
Posts: 2,505
Threads: 219
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
109
Jdeo,
You may have hit the nail on the head. RJ had stated that Bobcat was supposed to be a major catalyst (I don't know why) and it wasn't.
Posts: 435
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation:
88
'admin' pid='53104' datel Wrote:["Or perhaps we must face the fact that wall street in general is not interested in this stock. perhaps crediubility issues from the past are rearing their ugly head, but I donl;t see any other way than to just say it. When you own a stock that drops 7% on good news (or certainly not BAD news) you own a crappy investment. I think after 5 years i am finally catching on."] I think JFT had it right this morning, although he was met with some stiff opposition from other posters, when he argued it's all about the monetization and the Total payments, depending on recertification.
Thats a cop out. JFt and others have said all year that we have great catalysts going forward. Everyone was anticipating the well results, and the fact of the matter is we are 5 points lower than we were after the Total deal was announced just over a year ago. Upon news of success at one of these catalysts we are off more than 7% intraday. This is a disaster and not even JFT can spin it otherwise. It may be manipulation, shorting, etc, but it doesn;t matter anymore. What matters is the PPS. Thats is ALL that matters. CAC has it right.
Posts: 12,025
Threads: 1,809
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
227
Although I really don't like to do it, but if someone forced me to rationalize a one-day stock price reaction it would be that IOC is a long-term play:
- LNG plant is years away
- Whilst appraisal wells and recertification (on which Total payments rely) are closer, there is still time. Stock prices can move in seconds..
So there is not a lot of hurry getting onboard today in what is a rather weak sector (energy), UNLESS, they make a spectacular discovery. They made a discovery, two in fact, with a third still pending, but at this time they're not sufficiently spectacular to get enough new people in and this has led to some relief by the shorts.
Posts: 12,025
Threads: 1,809
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
227
I think some time ago Hefi argued something similar, that we should forget the stock price, until we have the appraisal wells and a more realistic view of Total payments, or something to that effect.
Posts: 472
Threads: 10
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation:
148
'admin' pid='53097' datel Wrote:
[quote='jdeo1969' pid='53091' dateline='1418318071']
Because apparently this stock cannot take it. Closing price after the debacle of Dec. 6, 2013 $55.50. Share price after one year and a few days after closing the deal with Total and getting a rather sizeable check $51.58.
I have to agree with CAC in the Bobcat thread. We were promised better than this. Some here continue to spin the negative into positive, change the argument to fit their agenda and it's old. I haven't posted in quite awhile, but this is frustrating. $51.58. Over one year after the Transformational deal that the genius at the helm put together for we shareholders. Even more amazing is that talk of a buyout on this board is met with derision by deluded investors who still think 2 and 3 hundred per share.
Yes, it's inexcusable they made these discoveries public, or they shouldn't have waisted the time and money to discover them in the first place. They should also have snuffed Total, and Exxon, and everybody else, and everything would have been ok, I guess..
****
I don't disagree with your point, Admin, but what is our ultimate goal here? At some point is it not okay for JDEO to look at PPS on a pass-fail basis? I guess it really comes down to what you want out of an investment. Is it "good fundamentals and solid business execution"...or is it "an increase in PPS"? Typically, they go hand in hand, but when they don't (like now), is everybody okay having just the first? I want mangement to do whatever it takes (even if that is something beyond typical business execution) to get us the second...and that's all I care about.
Posts: 435
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation:
88
12-12-2014, 05:15 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-12-2014, 05:16 AM by jdeo1969.)
(12-12-2014, 05:11 AM)admin Wrote: Although I really don't like to do it, but if someone forced me to rationalize a one-day stock price reaction it would be that IOC is a long-term play: - LNG plant is years away - Whilst appraisal wells and recertification (on which Total payments rely) are closer, there is still time. Stock prices can move in seconds.. So there is not a lot of hurry getting onboard today in what is a rather weak sector (energy), UNLESS, they make a spectacular discovery. They made a discovery, two in fact, with a third still pending, but at this time they're not sufficiently spectacular to get enough new people in and this has led to some relief by the shorts.
Another cop out. This was not sold as a 10 year investment in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 or even 2014. We were told that a payday is just around the corner. We were told that countless times. i was personally told in a phone call in january by the company that we have many catalysts moving forward in 2014. You are changing the game just as JFT to rationalize a dismal performance annually by this company. WHat does it take for some of you to be crtitical for crying out loud? ANother 40% haircut? Would that wake you up?
Posts: 440
Threads: 58
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation:
198
It does matter that the stock is being manipulated. That manipulation is causing the pps to fall on good news, repeatedly. We have all seen this happen on almost every occasion when any good IOC news is announced. Because of this type of manipulation, no 'average' investors will see any reason whatsoever to buy IOC stock, until the pps rises significantly. Because there are no current additional institutional investors adding IOC, and because there are no 'average' investors in the mix, the hedge funds and/or shorts who are manipulating IOC to their advantage have and have worked at creating a very tilted playing field. The computer algorithms that their quants use can be programmed to produce exactly the type of results that we see today--as long as there are not enough additional players in the marketplace of IOC shares. That second point is critical to their success. Up to a point, they can offset a fair amount of traditional buying and selling with their algorithms. Only with a surge of additional buyers will their algorithms fail to hold the line on IOC pps. Looking back over years of IOC price manipulation, you can see how these types of drops are followed by pps rises soon afterward. The funds/shorts that can both anticipate and cause such price fluctuations stand to make easy money. This will, it seems, continue as long as there are no new institutional or 'average' investors to offset the ability of the funds/shorts to take such advantage of IOC good news. Personally, I believe that the main catalysts that will cause additional significant investment will be both positive arbitration results and a positive and higher resource certification, leading to a higher than expected resource payment. And I do not think the arbitration result alone will be enough. It will have to be both before we get solid investment from additional players. All of the other IOC discoveries will only reap their rewards for IOC, and us, somewhere down the (long) road.
As everyone says: use or flush
Posts: 12,025
Threads: 1,809
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
227
Keep some perspective. I realize you are disappointed, but I don't think anything I've said is irrational or untrue and I certainly don't see how discovering new resources should one to lead to criticism of the company
There were catalysts! Beforehand, nobody knew what they would find at the new wells, or how the investing public would react to them.
As it turns out, we did find new resources, but as of yet, these appear insufficiently spectacular to move the needle, leading to a relief for shorts.
These discoveries might become more spectacular as better locations are drilled, and more relevant as we near monetization outlets, but for now, they haven't moved the needle.
Yet it's undoubtedly true that discovering new resources adds value to the company. That insufficient amounts of investors are willing to pay up for that today is probably simply a result of time availability. And yes, this is a ex-post rationalization on my part, ex-ante I expected the market to move a little more favourably, I readily admit that. But such is the game of investing. You deal with reality as it unfolds.
Posts: 472
Threads: 10
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation:
148
I think JFT had it right this morning, although he was met with some stiff opposition from other posters, when he argued it's all about the monetization and the Total payments, depending on recertification. [/quote]
*****
I don't follow this, Admin. We needed a deal with a Supermajor in order to monetize E/A. We don't need another one for each new discovery. Presuming the E/A deal does not fall apart, we will already be part owner of a giant LNG plant. What additional hurdle would ther be to monetiziation? To me, that was just "JFT speak" that has little or no real meaning.
|
