"Bendine, speaking after giving congressional testimony in Brasilia, said he is not concerned about the ability of Petrobras, as the company is more commonly known, to raise funding from banks, investors and other creditors" - Reuters, 2:41pm
Quite a different meaning from "Petrobras CEO Bendine says asset sales will not solve debt." - Reuters, 10:58am
This is why you don't trust and parrot the headlines. Not even "neutral" news agencies like Reuters are any good any more. They can't afford to pay for quality reporters, and people don't stick around jobs to care much about their integrity in that role.
The headline could have read, "Petrobras CEO Bendine says asset sales *alone* will not solve debt problem *this year*"
But the "story" is far better as clickbait if they take the context out back and shoot it in the head, thus making it look as if there's a potential PBR default issue looming when there isn't.
I blame it not necessarily on ulterior stock manipulation motives (which it could be at times, though I doubt that here), but rather on a) incompetent journalists and b) irresponsible #$%$ editors who are trying to generate clicks.
Estadão has some detail. Rough translation:
Petrobras's President confirmed that the company is preparing a plan, which will be announced this year, to reduce the debt/ebitda ratio from the current 4.7 years to "something closer to 2.5-3 years." According to Bendine, the solution for the company's high debt levels won't happen this year or next.
Also, the same article mentioned PBR considering partnering with telecom firms to piggyback fiberoptic cable on their 14,000 Km pipeline network.
Yeah, I see that. I just don't know where they are pulling it from. Could be the horse's mouth, but I'd prefer to see the detail.
Yeah, I'm not finding this anywhere yet. What I have found is where he said the methodology they were using previously didn't properly capture the losses (and now it does). Will keep an eye open.
Barron's tolerates up to two typos in one headline. I wonder if the limit is three or whether their "journalists" could get away with four or five.
It's called changing the goalposts. When you call them out on their lies, they just offer new ones.
So what. This has nothing to do with it going bk or with short to medium term stock movements. The market doesn't give a hoot about what YOU think about PBR's executives.
1) no causal link between market cap and BK
2) debt to market cap relationship is meaningless. what matters is ability to service debt.
3) spending matters in context. says nothing about BK
4) Lol, that's a flat out lie.
5) can't speak to this. i doubt it's what would lead to bk, though
Lastly --- boogeyman!! booo!!!! be afraid!!!! They already secured the funds they need for now, you're way behind the news.
There are legitimate arguments against PBR, but most of these ain't them.
Options. You can sell covered calls and hedge in many different ways with PBR which simply aren't possible with PBR-A. PBR-A has only a few monthly strikes and no LEAPS.
I don't see a slam dunk benefit from rushing to jump from PBR to PBR-A, either. Yes, there's an arbitrage opportunity there, but right now with no dividend for another year, the common are better (voting rights, even if meaningless in practice), plus shifting means transactions costs, possible time shift problems (can't round-trip retirement account money in and out of stocks in short timeframes), possibly capital gains...these are other reasons not to shift over.
He had said he was. At least back in the $8 range he did. I'm wondering how many times one has to be taught a lesson for it to sink in.
seemed to be an attractive one here. I intuitively thought PBR would either drop big or jump big post announcement. (I'm just long myself, didn't try anything more sophisticated).
However, we stayed put. Is it possible that folks "selling the volatility" would work to keep the price range tight, just as we often see max pain at options expiry?