Thu, Nov 27, 2014, 4:57 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed for Thanksgiving Day

Recent

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

Linn Energy, LLC (LINE) Message Board

fastball.98mph 15 posts  |  Last Activity: 1 hour 19 minutes ago Member since: Dec 26, 2011
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • fastball.98mph fastball.98mph 1 hour 19 minutes ago Flag

    There's an old saying about banks being institutions that lend you an umbrella when there isn't a cloud in the sky but when it rains they want it back...Without any net working capital the liquidity comes completely from the borrowing base and the bankers who govern it. So if you were the CEO do you stand still and risk the next two quarters of sub $70 oil and the deteriorated covenants that would follow, or do you try to get liquid now by selling assets at fire sale?

  • Reply to

    Back In

    by elkster08 Nov 19, 2014 12:37 PM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Nov 22, 2014 12:27 PM Flag

    The company is swimming in capital. First the IPO in Jan then a large bond issue in late summer. Production growth shouldn't be a problem. Not a substantial amount of acreage so they might have to spend a lot on additional leases and or acquiring a smaller E&P. Seems to trade at a higher valuation than most in the sector. However, that usually is the case with tightly held companies with relatively low floats...Just my take after quick glance.

  • fastball.98mph by fastball.98mph Nov 22, 2014 11:19 AM Flag

    I unfortunately got siked out with the pension obligation after interest rates tumbled. The underlying business is sound and throwing off a lot of cash.

  • fastball.98mph by fastball.98mph Nov 16, 2014 11:04 AM Flag

    In the BoA/Merrill presentation the CEO said most valuation models suggest that Utica is being valued at only $1/per share ($165m). Compare that to the valuations of RICE and ECR. Both combined have less Utica acreage than RRC but both together have a $6bil EV. Since Utica is virtually not priced in at all you can see what the impact would be if they can prove it up in short time...$6bil/165mil is $36/pershare.

  • fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Nov 6, 2014 9:33 AM Flag

    Owned this for a couple years now. So far it's not the operations or investing that has held this up. It's the Cayman tax structure.

  • Reply to

    It's Launch Time Baby

    by hoopervisor2 Oct 31, 2014 9:22 AM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Nov 1, 2014 12:20 PM Flag

    1. Top line growth is very strong and margins are intact!

    2. Net PP&E over nine months is up close to 40%, and still not a dent in the pristine balance sheet!

    3. 2015 CAPEX looks to be cut in half, which will free up a lot of cash to either pile up or knock down the share count...Cheers!

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Bloomberg fails to provide complete story

    by themid2001 Jun 27, 2014 10:03 AM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jun 28, 2014 10:21 AM Flag

    Right off the bat the article says Magnum's ebitda trails the debt load by 70x. And then says the industry average is 4x. The article isolated MHR amongst the Exxons, and Chevrons of the industry, rather than peers closer to its size. Also don't expect Bloomberg to mention that MHR expenses exploration cost on the income statement in one period, while most of the peers do it on the balance sheet over time. This has a dramatic affect on the income statement...If MHR drills a $10mil well that $10mil is expensed and shown on the next reporting statement. If MHR were to account that same well under the full cost method the $10mil goes into a cost pool and is expensed through DD&A over several periods. The difference could literally drop a few million onto net income and show MHR being profitable...like Halcon.

  • Reply to

    Upward movement

    by deathblosom Jun 17, 2014 3:58 PM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jun 21, 2014 11:18 AM Flag

    The mark of a superb company might be a quit message board...Something is a little off, when a company that has declining volume growth (TAP) is priced exactly at the same EV/EBITDA as a company with growth and a lot more run-way, as is the case with SAM. The recent trajection of TAP has been fueled by investment banks upgrading the stock, which therefore give's TAP's executives currency for M&A...and which gives investment banks fee's that carry very high profit margins. Clearly SAM doesn't need M&A for growth and so we don't have the same relationship with Wall St. However, for proper valuation, either TAP needs to reverse a bit or SAM should be over $300...Just my opinion...Cheers, and have a great summer!

    Sentiment: Buy

  • fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jun 19, 2014 9:56 AM Flag

    The executives are boosting their holdings. Selling 50k in the open market to fund an exercise of 200k.

  • Reply to

    Central block option

    by fastball.98mph Jun 14, 2014 10:49 AM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jun 15, 2014 11:39 AM Flag

    String, Other than from hearing on this board that Rampart's stock hasn't been moving, I have not followed Rampart of late. It could be that Rampart may opt not to exercise the central block. If that's the case Royale retains over 60k net, and still has a negative cost basis on the acreage position. The option values the central block at $100/acre. I would prefer that Rampart passes on it. If this acreage were to get half or a third(~$10K/acre) of the values that the some of the lower 48 plays have gotten in recent years, would put a value of $600mil or $40/per share. Laughable as it may seem this IMO is not too far from a possibility.

  • fastball.98mph by fastball.98mph Jun 14, 2014 10:49 AM Flag

    Rampart can purchase 75% WI on the 17,000/acre central block for $1.7mil. If they do this will bring in a total of $5.1mil from the JV. The central block option along with Rampart drilling and completing two wells by April of next year would effectively give Royale an average acreage cost of MINUS $45/acre on the remaining 52,500 net acres. If the play does nothing going forward, Royale still will have done very well. If however, the play gets hot you can't beat a $50 million market cap that holds 52,500/acres at a cost of MINUS $45 per acre.

  • fastball.98mph by fastball.98mph Jun 10, 2014 9:31 AM Flag

    Is that going to be the name of these holdings?

  • Bob Brackett - Sanford C. Bernstein
    Then what about Alaska sort of North Slope, is that somewhere you would look?
    Bill Thomas - Chairman, CEO
    Yes. I think probably not, I think operating cost in those kind of areas for a shale play might make those plays very difficult to be economic.

    Don't mistake this exchange entirely as a "bearish" one. First, if there's an E&P CEO handbook the 1st chapter would tell you NOT to show the public that you have interest in a play BEFORE acquiring leases, otherwise those leases skyrocket on you overnight. Secondly, the fact that Bob Brackett ( an excellent analyst who is very well connected with the lower 48 operators) is asking about north slope shale tells me tells me that it's beginning to get batted around out there, as the Bakken and EagleFord mature...

  • Reply to

    why Stephen Hosmer why?

    by rvcassociates Jun 2, 2014 9:55 AM
    fastball.98mph fastball.98mph Jun 4, 2014 9:45 AM Flag

    String, Selling 3500 shares against over 1.1mil is on one hand a non-issue. However on the other hand selling ANY shares after having gained a lot of attention is a stupid move, especially just $10k worth. Had he sucked it up and bought $10k worth I think the stock is holding up in the $3.20's...I think

  • fastball.98mph fastball.98mph May 28, 2014 9:15 AM Flag

    Not often that 12% dilution leads to a higher open. Nice to see CS confirm their $9 target. It's getting tough to value this stock.

LINE
21.95-0.78(-3.43%)Nov 26 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.