Some of the articles on linn give the impression that production is declining. Here is Linn's reported production for some of the recent quarters:
796 MMcfe/d in the 1st quarter of 2013
800 MMcfe/d in the 4th quarter of 2012
782 MMcfe/d in the 3rd quarter of 2012
471 MMcfe/d for the first quarter 2012
Linn's yearly production for 2012 was reported as 671 MMcfe/d compared to 369 MMcfe/d in 2011. Of course, the debt is much higher than it was in 2011, so how you feel about this depends on how you view oil and gas.
I do hate their reporting in MMcfe/d. They used to use BOE/d.
You can argue over the value but to say that LINE is worth only $8 or is worthless, is just ridiculous.
I do not think the SEC is going to find anything scary.
More numbers, as reported by Linn, with my queries in brackets:
[earnings release on 4/25 caused drop from $38 to $34 share price on 18M shares vol.]
--q1 distributable cash flow $0.64 =
coverage of 0.88%. [Including the put cost for q1 ($43 M) the coverage ratio was 63%.
Linn says will no longer buy puts & use swaps instead. Is it fair for Barrons to cut q1 DCF by cost of puts extending through 2017?]
-- projected DCF 2013, 2014 and 2015, pretty flat 2013 to 2014, then Linn says only a little growth in 2015.
--expect coverage to average approx 1.07 for the 2nd half of 2013, assuming 6 month contribution from Berry [= none or 3 month?]
--Adjusted net income for the first quarter of 2013 was $0.16 per unit.
if any oil / gas firm does not keep drilling wells, it has declining production. LINE attempted to keep doing that with BRY deal before #$%$ shorts decided to release word of Barrons articles in advance so that some people could trade huge quantities on the news that was not yet news. They should be behind bars by now. If LINE does not make acquisitions or do more drilling, they will effectively be a royalty trust owning working interest in wells.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Increased volume on the first Friday before the Barron's issue came out was due to the Howard Weil analyst questioning Linn's accouting, and Linn's disclosure that a short seller had issued a paper on them.
The second Barron's issue (May 4th) there was no increase in volume the Friday prior.
The third issue (June 14th) there was high volume all week, but it was due to Hedgeye publicly coming out earlier in the week and Cramer and McCullough battled it out on Twitter.
There was no "leakage" as you allege (or wish) had happened.
Speaking of Barron's, they said in their June 15 article that Linn's Dcf should be reduced by subtracting the $43 million that Linn spend in the first quarter to buy puts, and they came up with a distribution coverage of 63 percent instead of Linn's 88 pct. Is it fair to subtract all the cost of the puts which extend through 2017 in the quarter in which they were bought?
In Forbes' article about Linn's "derivatives" they were careful never to identify them as puts, so that the reader could think it was some scary synthetic derivative as in 2008. When they said Linn's assets were "allowed" by law but "questionable." they were careful never to identify them as oil and gas. They wanted the reader to think Enron and nonexistent, intangible assets. Ruellia