Disagree. That war is one of the reasons (of many reasons) why oil went to $140. Iraqi production was depressed for a few years afterward and the instability that it created in the ME added a premium on oil. But Iraq is producing now at greater and greater rates and is now one of the reasons oil is dropping. They will continue to increase production for several years until they achieve a rate that is commensurate with their reserves. But I do agree that war was one of the terrible blunders in history -- just for different reasons than you do. Oil has always been a boom and bust commodity, so I always take it with a grain of salt whenever someone has an opinion about where oil should trade.
Book value will take a hit with the drop in oil prices. Properties are not worth what they were three months ago. We will start seeing ceiling tests in the oil industry.
Not just one country, one family -- a family that promotes a pernicious intolerant extremism around the world. We always hear about iran but it is the Wahhabist saudi ideology that al Qaeda and Isis follow.
Your numbers are wrong. $60 oil is 1.18x, $50 oil is .95x according to LINE's own information. No guidance number is given for $40 oil as far as I can see. Sure, LINE will go up if oil goes up, but the inverse is also true. They gave no EBITDA guidance, which is important for their credit facilities. How does $40 oil affect their debt/EBITDA ratios?
He's right that the distribution guidance announced was based on $60 oil and 3.50 gas. At $50 oil they do not cover that distribution. None of the commodity price assumptions they gave seem likely to hold up for 2015. Line needs to strengthen their balance sheet. That should be their number one priority, not distributions.
Exactly. Gpro is just an overpriced, overhyped stock of a nice company that makes a nice product with no significant barriers to entry.
Aapl does not have a monopoly of any kind. They don't even own the largest market share in smartphones or tablets or computers.
Oil will definitely hit $100 again -- but maybe not for several years. Contrary to what CNBC tells us, peak oil is very real. American shale production is a tiny blip on the giant Hubbert curve. Saudi has plateaued in their production for many years. All the while worldwide demand has been rising. At some point, their production will start to decline and when that becomes obvious to the world, oil prices will shoot up. They've been pumping sea water in Ghawar for a long time and when the decline comes, it will be hard to hide it.
Yeah people tend to defend what they perceive as their interest. I fully understand that and I try not to be a jerk about it.
That said I think it's clear that linn's strategy is to lure small investors with the promise of stable high yield with a business strategy that is clearly not sustainable. Just read some of their presentations -- where they brag about a huge enterprise value and ignore debt/equity. They brag about their access to capital and their ability to use loco as a currency to acquire assets. None of these things necessarily help unit holders.
I am not short. I covered around 12. I was short and pretty much asking these same questions when the stock was in the 20s. Honestly, I think the company does not have a future past a few years due to an ever increasing debt burden and the cost of rolling that debt in a few years will be much higher. Also, BX is not in the business of giving away money. That's a red herring in the report. LINE is trying to shift some of the risk in their properties and reduce capex -- in exchange for reduced profits. It's not some kind of BX endorsement of Linn's business model or a direct investment in Linn. To me, it sounds like an admission that their capex program has been unsuccessful to this point and they can't be adding to debt forever to make up for that 14% decline rate they have.
I know this is a yahoo message board where longs always defend their stocks no matter what, but if you are long, consider these questions, and at the very least try to get answers from management. Management is supposed to be answerable to you.
1) What happened to LINE's business model? They clearly state that their business model is to acquire and develop long lived, low decline energy assets, and to hedge against commodity prices. So how do you think they performed, and if they did perform, did it help the stock at all? They seem not to have been able to hedge oil 100% for 2015 (which btw, if you read any of their investor prospectuses, this is definitely an integral part of their model), and hardly at all going past 2015. Why is that? Why were they not applying their own business model?
2) If production will decline in 2015, shouldn't all of their capex be categorized as maintenance capex?
3) IF NGLs can't be hedged, then they probably shouldn't be including NGL earnings in forward DCF guidance, right?
4) Why does LINE add to debt every quarter? This is, of course, the crux of the problem. If "DCF" is always close to one or greater, shouldn't all that growth capex have been adding up to a growing distribution? Instead all the production growth has come from added debt and newly issued units used to acquire more assets (which have not added any value on a per unit basis, the only thing unitholders should care about).
5) Why do longs continue to defend this management team?
FHA cutting premiums. This will make PMI less profitable. Hence the weakness today. There seems to never be any good news for GNW.
The market calls the shots. And this is the start of a price war. The street hates price wars.
I was thinking the same thing. The market probably thinks that no matter what comes out of the review, that it is already priced in and then some. Of course, based on history, you never know what to expect from this company.
Not a myth but book value is just not useful for drillers. The carrying value of equipment on their books probably doesn't represent actual liquidation value, esp for newer rigs and esp now that crude prices are down 40%+. This is an extremely cyclical business and nbr has benefited from a lot of small e&ps ramping up drilling. Many of those will be getting wiped out in this downturn and the oil majors are going to be cutting capital budgets so the cycle is still on the downside. Trying to find a bottom can be treacherous. I would suggest waiting for oil to bottom first before jumping into the oil patch. Not to mention there are higher quality companies than nbr that you might get at a discount.
Do you stay up at night "pondering" stuff about jcp? Really? I was long jcp earlier this year and I remember you posting constantly. You need to take up a hobby or something. Go buy yourself a bike. Fwiw, I bought shares today, having sold at 9.50ish earlier in the year. They're not going bk.
Anthony Petrello. That's right -- higher than XOM and CVX even. And look at that wonderful stock performance over the years. Isenberg before him took a $300M parachute. Then, after much publicity and some shareholder activism last year (and after some terrible earnings performances), Petrello agreed to an incentive-based salary structure. But guess what? The company had to BUY OUT his entire 4 year contract in order to give him another contract. So it was basically a HUGE RAISE.
I spit out my coffee when I read this from Bloomberg:
“Our long-standing philosophy has been to pay top people at or below market level cash compensation and to have a high degree of equity exposure that reinforces that alignment throughout industry cycles.” Denny Smith, director of corporate development at Nabors, said in a phone interview.
Is he joking? Does he not remember the activist investor? Or the voting down of the compensation package? Or the fact that they pay more than any other CEOs, including much larger and more complex companies? Or that Nabors has performed terribly by almost any measure compared to its peers who pay much less to their CEOs? And top people? Look at how those "top people" have served investors. That's not even to mention the shady dealings involving subsidiaries. The only "long-standing philosophy" at Nabors is to rob shareholders whenever you can.