alertmeipp

The market is focus on cash flow to debt ratio, your plan will make it worst.

are you guys worry about widening differential?

>>Everyone who likes to focus on cash flow are simply trying to distract you from the fact that they don't make money I agree partially. I think you will need to look at a few other variables. Still learning on this business.

So, if you can choose, how would you rate buying the common vs. this convert? The convert seems much better deal than common?

I have been waiting for a correction for yearssssssss.

I like the DRIP plan because you get to buy a deeply undervalued stock at a 5% discount without trading costs at an unusually high dividend rate. I found analyzing the financials difficult. One short thesis was that the company puts too much expenses into capital so expenses are understated and gradually accumulate on the balance sheet. I was unable to judge if this were true or not but the exercise brought two points to mind. First, even if it were true that expenses are capitalized you can see a steady improvement in the capital as the infrastructure on the fields improves. The older plays start out cash flow negative and gradually become cash flow positive as the same assets are used more intensely. Second, the argument that expenses are overstated looked false. Over time the economic value of the assets are increasing as improved cash flow increases the value of the plays and as improved techniques increase the reserves from 5% recovery to 15% and hopefully to 25% eventually. The expenses include a substantial expense for depletion as supposedly the purchased reserves are used up which reduces the acquisition costs on the balance sheet over time. But the reserves are growing substantially. The economic reality is that there should be a non-cash accretion to match the non-cash depletion. This argument applies more so to LTS than other oil companies because of the low field recovery and the substantial improvements. We value investors are supposed to care only about intrinsic value and ignore the accounting misstatements. Consider Norman Wells. After 40 years production the field has more oil than "discovered" despite 40 years of depletion expenses. I think the same thing is going on in LTS. I want management to buy as much land as they sell because they seem to be able to acquire land cheaply which is also worth more to them than others. Keep buying new plays so long as you can continue with the present strategy but cut the dividend so you can do it faster. The oil plays will be cheap so long as the juniors have trouble raising capital and you are able to buy plays where you enjoy this accretion effect which is not reflected on the balance sheet but exists to be captured on the financials only when you sell developed plays at a profit. I think Canadian will like DRIP at this price, but does this become unfair to non-Canadian holders?

When I was 25...i almost have -ve net worth.

np, Green, just wondering, what decline rate do you have after year 1 in their properties?

better if we can do a poll on age vs networth

Thanks you i get the story now, but how do you see it from public information ? Does one just need years of experience in the sector ? I've looked at the balance sheet three times now i am drawing blanks. :-[ Many smaller O&G companies will collapse if they stop drilling, this one is actually one of the better one. Their gap is very manageable. One would argue the best way to get out of the hole if to borrow as much as u can and have a long duration, see TW-era SD. IMO, it makes sense for asset rich company, it's efficient is cost of debt is low. But nobody like it these days.

i don't think they are risk takers if they target to low the ratio to 2.

I think the comment below on possibility about issuing equity spooked the market. I got a bunch today. We are currently finalizing our operational and financial plans for next year and remain committed to improving our sustainability ratio (cash outflows compared to cash inflows), lowering our debt to cash flow ratio and improving our liquidity through the many options available to us, which include, but are not limited to, modulating capital expenditures, selling assets, terming-out debt, altering our dividend program or issuing equity. Over the long-term, we continue to target a sustainability ratio of 100% and a debt to cash flow ratio of 2.0 or l

Drop like 10% on higher gas output. Ridiculously cheap now.

ATPG, lost money on different capital structure on that POS.

At 8 bucks, I think it's a good arb opp on both Prem being able to and willing to put the deal together and potential another bidder coming in.

In my opinion your whole answer just proves how difficult it is to invest in technology and, I would add, in fashion too. You write: Sure! But the problem remains the same, if even the CEO or the board cannot predict the outcome accurately enough! And that is just the nature of the beast with technology and fashion. You also write: Those are good questions… in hindsight! What was BBRY to do instead? The only thing I can think of is to become a BRK: to buy new and completely different businesses, using the free cash generated by operations that were going to die… Come on! Let’s face it: BBRY is (or was…) in the business of selling mobile phones, either you succeed or you don’t. If you want to run the risk, you do whatever it takes to come up with the best product you can. Vice versa, if you don’t want to run the risk, you use all the cash you generate, until you can generate some, to change business. Could have Mr. Watsa taken the decisions required to follow the second course? I don’t think so. And despite the existence of a wonderful device like the i-phone, it seems that Samsung is doing pretty well, isn’t it? Therefore, to compete with Apple might not be easy, but neither it is utterly impossible. Or so it seems. giofranchi To be fair, when BB10 was released, the market actually think it had a fighting chance.

Nothing hurting the business more than if its own existence is questioned . As mentioned by others, Prem put the deal together to stop the bleeding and he is out now to do the same thing. I suspect part of it is also trying to save a Canadian story.

I heard some compare BBRY buyout to FBK's. While there is similarity, one key difference between the two is FBK actually got a superior offer from MERC. RFP's offer is superior only to those who hold significant larger position in RFP. BBRY - no one is buying it except Prem.

Not sure how, but it will be a combination of cost cutting, asset sale, smarter spending on capital, better WTI and differential pricing.

10? LOL I actually bought some. Wonder how much cash they burn last Q. Paying $3.5 (net cash) for the everything with Prem trading a pull off a deal seems not a bad bet. What a screw up for Prem.

It has been cheap for years on price to book basis and the old management had not been executing well. I bought back in mainly because of the new team which is focus on ROE.

I think that's the light oil producer thread Cardboard was mentioning about. I recently bought into PWE.

... I thought I should focus on "assets" here .... He was careful not to say US, so i am guessing Canadian .... someone earlier suggested it should start with a B (i don't know how they got to that, but it fits with my guess, so including it as a rationale ;D ) .... He still didn't answer if it was written up on the board. I am assuming it was. BAM was also written up ( so are many others, but this also fits with my guess) I said "something started with B". I agree with you, it could be one of BAM, BPO or BPY. Isn't BAM too large of a co to warrant this kind of secrecy?

RFP? Cant be SD, he already said it is his largest?

interesting, the question now is how much? 15?