% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Linn Energy, LLC Message Board

  • norrishappy norrishappy Oct 26, 2013 2:01 PM Flag

    All LINE owners can thank the OBAMA SEC

    for our low share price. Turns out LINE did make an excellent deal.

    But the SEC with nothing material to show after all these months broke it up.

    I am from the Obama regime and I am here to help you. So of course it is every one else fault things turned out poorly.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • "If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance, period." No satire.

    • For future reference, there are a lot of people who support either party. Keeping stock boards non political should be a goal. So in essence, your comment about the "Obama SEC" was not warranted and I for one would wish people like you would refrain from idiotic comments like that.

      • 1 Reply to hotputter5
      • For future reference I recommend ignore. I will do the same.

        Those that deluded themselves into believing deluded progressive energy policy is not central issue on an American energy board can not have any content lucid to share.

        The length and lack of this due diligence without any material changes to the finance statements cost LINE owners the BRY deal and most likely a $40 unit price.

        So yea it is very clear you have no clue. LINE owners have every valid reason to be angry not at the due diligence but excess length without material changes which in the end cost the deal. As the shorts hoped.

        Hope you improve your logic and tame your emotions in the future.

    • Just what has the SEC done for any retail investor lately-lets say-last 5 yrs?

    • exactly what did you post about when Bush was destroying the economy by handing out free RX to medicare and getting us into 2 wars we could not afford. I would think you would like the efficiency that Obama has displayed by killing Bin Laden for probably less than $1 million. Why didn't we just do that in afghanistan?

      • 5 Replies to johns.patrick
      • johns.patrick , this is not the board to discuss this but I just couldn't let the 1 million dollar cost comment go. Forget all the work that the Bush administration put in to locating Bin Laden. The Obama administration was in place for over 3 1/2 years doing the same thing. Spending hundreds of millions in that search. Just think about it for a moment. The helicopter that was left behind and destroyed during the raid cost upwards of 30 million.

      • I do love revisionist historians who do not know their history. It almost isn't worth responding to.

      • Because Osama bin-Laden was not in Afghanistan at the time. He fled eastern Afghanistan for the Federally Administered Tribal areas of northwestern Pakistan following the defeat of al-Qaida and the Taliban at Tora Bora on 17 DEC 01.

        Bush "getting us into 2 wars that we could not afford"? I agree with you regarding Iraq; although Saddam Hussein did have and use WMDs (Sarin + VX Gas) at Halabja, Iraq on 16 MAR 88 to kill 3,500 - 5,000 ethnic Kurds including children, women and men. Google Image the word "Halabja" and you will see the lie that the liberals espouse regarding Iraq not having WMDs.

        With respect to Afghanistan, as you know, or should know, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan on 7 OCT 01 to destroy al-Qaida and its Taliban protectors after 2,977 Americans were murdered by al-Qaida on 11 SEP 01. Bush had no choice. What is disgraceful is the waste, fraud and abuse of U.S. corporations who financially raped the U.S. taxpayers through the incompetence of federal agencies; mostly the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). In response congress created Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). If I were you I would not read what they have uncovered because you will be nauseated. And they only recently started their work.

        Sentiment: Hold

      • And then turning around IMMEDIATELY and outing the secret Special Forces Team involved for political gain, thus placing them and their families in danger, not to mention disclosing secret information. Do a little research on "Extortion 17" before praising your fearless leader. I won't bother to mention the several opportunities that Clinton had to kill or capture Bin Laden long before 9-11.

      • I am not going to go that far off topic with you, however I suggest you do a little more reading and comprehension on the topic of what led to the information to get him...

    • Oh Progressive voting makes it not true? Unfortunately it is true.

      Unless the Obama SEC finishes up with something material this was stealing from every LINE owner. Nothing less and nothing more.

      No matter how many of the reindeer hating CHUDs show up from Poor Jon's cave, to vote.

    • You're both right - Hedgeye and Barron's started it and the SEC piled on. It's inexcusable for the SEC to dawdle around forcing non-material changes to an S-4 and putting a merger at risk. Their priorities are as screwed up now as they've ever been. In the meantime, it may be more profitable for Linn to cherry-pick assets and potentially yield much higher rates of return than do the Berry deal. It may bring higher profits faster but, in the longer term, it brings higher risk if oil prices really go south. Global production is ramping so fast now that there is a huge imbalance between supply and demand. And, its only going to get worse as Libya comes back to full production, Iraq ramps up, Mexico & Brail push volume up and the US/Canada all by themselves will produce more that the aggregate increase in demand over the next few years. OPEC has already reduced output by 6 million bpd from their peak and will have to reduce another 1.5 million bpd next year. This is also why Linn's hedging strategy is pretty valuable as we may se additional declines in prices.

      Sentiment: Buy

      • 1 Reply to jad9000
      • "In the meantime, it may be more profitable for Linn to cherry-pick assets and potentially yield much higher rates of return than do the Berry deal."

        Make no mistake about it, the Berry deal if consummated is far better than cherry-picking select assets. Aside from the very high quality oil assets and high percentage of total production being oil, the deal was financed entirely with equity (and assuming Berry's existing debt). This equity for equity issuance was/is crucial to Linn righting the balance sheet. The other benefit is they get the corporate structure (people), which means a lot in terms of continuity.

        The recent Permian deal is likely very accretive, in large part because it is financed with borrowings on the revolver. Had Linn financed the deal with 50% equity and 50% long term debt (not revolver borrowings) the deal would have been marginally accretive.

        The lack of conference call is interesting, with many people throwing out both realistic and unrealistic scenarios. I think it is laughable though that Ellis continues to drop the ball, despite knowing that it was his time to shine.

        The continued wide spread between Berry and LNCO continues to point to either a collapse in the deal, or a renegotiation of the exchange ratio from 1.25 to 1.50x or even 1.60x

        I'll go on record that Linn will agree to 1.50x or 1.60x if that is what it will take to seal the deal. Linn needs Berry badly. It is very important to them. It pushes their oil/gas mix more towards oil, which helps them de-weight their dependence on gas (and their falling gas hedge book), it helps them right the bloated debt/equity, debt/ebitda ratio and lastly the size and scale are tremendous. Linn will boost up to the point that it only becomes marginally accretive just to close the deal and get the "first one down" and approved by the SEC.

    • Oh more BS. It was started by hedge eye and barons.

0.180.00(0.00%)May 23 3:59 PMEDT