BHP - BHP Group

[ducati916]

ducati
I'm not going to do more homework for you on the maths about copper utilisation in electric cars as the point I was making was conceptual.
However, I can see that your inability to grasp some simple concepts is going to be a continuing problem here.

moses
You hit the nail on the head.
Moreover, the point I have raised is not new, and is quite well understood by both motor vehicle manufacturers and base metal miners.

rederob

Of course not, that would require finding evidence to support your assertion, so best just use the condescention excuse, so much easier.

Conceptual or factual?
Rather big difference isn't there?

jog on
d998

 

[ducati916]

The evidence is found under the bonnet of EVs and HEVs.
qed

rederob

Having looked more in detail at the copper content of previous EV's, it is suggested that copper useage will increase in the following manner;

*12lbs-25lbs per vehicle in the use of copper wire 21%-45%
*8lbs-10lbs converting hydraulics [power steering, brakes] 14%-18%
Total = 36%-63%
Offsetting into the future, high recyclability.

This was the state of affairs in 1998.

Four points;
*Technology moves forward, thus this figure may reduce under present research, as affordability must be a consideration.

*Energy losses in electric motors fall into four categories:

Power losses
Magnetic core losses
Friction and windage losses, and
Stray load losses.


*The increased recyclability will offset the longer term demand. In the short run, I accept that copper demand will rise [offset with a fall in demand of other replaced commodities]

*The ranges are very heavily influenced by the size/weight & power output of the vehicle. Assuming that peak oil is the catalyst for this change, I suggest smaller lighter cars will be increasingly prevalent over the 4wd monsters currently in vogue within the US. It is primarily the US market that will have the greatest impact currently. If so, we are looking at the lower end of the demand increase, viz. 36%

Thus for BHP, the entire transaction based on various prices for the various commodities may well become a wash.

I'm in the innovation will overcome previous problems camp.

jog on
d998

 

[vishalt]

Please keep continuing this !

I'm seriously enjoying my BHP collection ranging from $18 - $32, keep it up, its so over-valued with its low P/E ratio, high earnings and cash-filled balance sheet.

 

[ducati916]

rederob

Continuing from your original analysis;

So let's do some quick sums, using only the USA as a basis. Present new car sales over 7 million units pa. EV uses at least twice average amount of copper wire as conventional ICA which averages 25 kilos per unit - therefore EV would average at least 50 kilos per unit. So if all new vehicles sold in USA were replaced by EVs an additional (mimimum) 175 million tonnes of copper would be needed.
However, that equation relates only to new sales, which would mean that all the other ICAs would need to be quickly replaced by EVs. Given there are over 200 million cars in the USA an extra 5 billion tonnes of coppper will be needed (over and above present needs) to ensure the Americans can drive around as they presently do.
Simply put, just to convert the US to electric vehicles would wipe out present copper inventories in no time at all. Then, of course, we need to offer EVs to the rest of the world!

Of course we have the already identified tonnes/pounds anomaly.

We also have the anomaly of kg/lbs
EV motors measure their copper content in lbs not kg
Thus, the calculation is incorrect by a multiple of 2.2

Thus you will grossly overestimate the copper requirement.

However that is also not taking into account that the switch from combustion engines to EV's would not [could not?] take place overnight. Typically when State, or, Federal legislature seek to instigate legal reforms to existing standards, there is always a period of grace.

This would relate to "new car sales" as there would be inventory considerations for the various manufacturers in addition to a potentially higher retail price. For older cars being replaced, there would also be a legal timeframe.

Thus the change would take place over a 5yr-10yr period. If oil was in crisis, possibly faster. However such is the lobby power of specialist interests [the reason for the initial failure of the EV] that even with an oil crisis, it would take some time.

Other countries, UK & NZ for example follow similar lead in times. You would not be required to change overnight.

Thus, correcting for your variety of lbs/kg/tonnes, correcting for your overnight quick fix, the impact on world copper supplies would be ....irrelevant.

jog on
d998

 

[ducati916]

Please keep continuing this !

I'm seriously enjoying my BHP collection ranging from $18 - $32, keep it up, its so over-valued with its low P/E ratio, high earnings and cash-filled balance sheet.

Obviously not following the thread that closely, how disappointing.
The E in P/E stands for earnings. The earnings have been high due to high prices for commodities not due to increased revenues or increased market share

This is a rather important distinction. BHP is a cyclical stock, and should be purchased as a HIGH P/E [when price and earnings are depressed]

Interesting that you mention cash filled Balance Sheet
A previous poster dismissed the working capital component as a negative.

Obviously you haven't read the analysis I posted [apart from being crushed] you would have realized that BHP's working capital position is below investment standard and that liquidity problems could force BHP to draw down on their $3B credit revolver.

That carries an interest charge.
Considering that if required to draw down, things would not be going to plan, added interest charges at this time would seriously impact the earnings. Falling earnings has a horrible consequence in stocks with speculative pricing, the share price tends to drop.

However, look on the bright side, should that unfortunate set of circumstances ever occur, you could add to your collection at much lower prices.

jog on
d998

 

[rostov]

BHP released their financials early last week. Having now had a chance to read through them in-between Jury service, there are some interesting things going on.

For a “Blue Chip” Investment, BHP does not come close to passing the working capital liquidity test [minimum = 2.0] It is almost 100% below the cut-off point minimum.

When the results were 1st posted, I was 1/2 way in a personal spreadsheet which attempted to apply, at the very least, Graham's checklists for defensive investments. Though I'm still learning, what blew me away was your post that my initial assumption to use total asset/liability ratios as the 2st litmus test could have severe shortcomings for defensiveness, instead of using current asset/liability ratios as:

Liquidity [Working Capital]
Total Current Assets……..$8776………………$11087
Total Current Liabilities…..$8661………………$10249
Net Current Assets……….$115.0……………..$838.0
Current Ratio……………….1.01………………..1.08

Before the ANN came out, Ratio was: 65.271/32.371 = 2.02 (pass), but a ratio of 1.01-1.08 is bad. To be truly defensive, I will adjust ratios using current to reflect each company's path forward. Honestly, thanks for that correction (I still have so much to learn)

$788M Floating rate due 2008
$788M 4.375% due 2014
$875M Floating rate due 2009
$625M 5.125% due 2012
$750M 5.4% due 2017

Thanks for this. When current asset/liability ratios are so dangerously low, it pays to examine how leveraged they are.

So what were the real, or adjusted earnings?
Adjusted figures………………………………$1.894B

Not quite the headline grabbing BHP version.

3rd test of Graham's litmus test is Earnings stability for the past 10 years. Though he was very very conservative (30% over 10 years increasse in EPS), here's the figures and deltas for BHP eps after the ANN. Forgive me if my figures are off somewhere.

1997 / 38.2
1998 / 34.9 (-8.64%)
1999 / 9.5 (-72.78%)
2000 / 47.5 (+400.00%)
2001 / 76.8 (+61.68%)
2002 / 51.9 (-32.42%)
2003 / 45.3 (-12.72%)
2004 / 78.2 (+72.63%)
2005 / 128.4 (+61.19%)
2006 / 225.4 (+75.55%)
2007 / 266.86 (+18.39%)

Notice that the above +18.39% increase in EPS compared to 2007 was what I derived (I hope I was right then) with the ANN out. Taking their EPS at face value, it would seem that 2007 was a year they could not earn as much as the period from 2004-2006, and their earning growth has been shed off about 4 times (+75.55% div +18.39%). [Opinion]This gives me a sinking feeling of unsustainability, as per what they (BHP) reports at face value.

With your modified:

Adjusted figures………………………………$1.894B

,however, this would mean this year's true EPS would be a mere $0.6486 per share. That is a lot of homework to do to truly work out the real/adjusted EPS and deltas for the past 10 years to get a true picture. I shudder at the true values being derived at the end of the exercise.

What worries me is that even without the adjusted figures, the 2007 EPS just didn't excite me much. Assume that we close 1 eye and take at face value their EPS and book value (some say NTA), further down the track in Graham's test already fail. Here's a few tidbits:

1) P/E ratio based on price divided by past 3 years of earnings is 6.20. Very healthy compared to Graham's suggestion of 15. (Note : we need to move on to below checks ... this can't stand by itself)

2) Price-to-book ratio at 31/8/2007 price of, say, $38.5 (approx!) is 6.44 (published NTA is roughly 5.98). 6.44 from Graham's cautions against 1.50 as a ratio is very scary : that's 4 times overpriced.

3) His moderate factor of having both the above (P/E of 3 years earnings multiplied price-to-book ratio) not being above 22.50 gives BHP a value of 39.94.

Based on conservative defensive holding investment litmus test of BHP, it already fails a few litmus factors even BEFORE one moves to examine RR and IRR ratios of the company or examining the sustainability of its business. One would need BHP to be around $28 at current NTA/book-value before it passes such litmus (#3 moderate factor, but still fails price-to-book ratio) to continue studying its true value (not price!) of BHP.

On the bright side, that means I don't really have to work out the real EPS values for the past 10 years. If one were to assume they would do anything to look good in front of major shareholders, taking the BEST CASE presentation from their ANNs and showing that they are overpriced is satisfying enough not to continue such work.

Criticisms welcome. I learn either way. Cheers

p.s. I'm NOT an accountant.

 

[BSD]

Perhaps valuation and treasury management techniques have moved a little since Graham and Co created these 'rules of thumb'.

We aren't valuing a corner-store here.

What does the 'interest cover' look like guys?


I find it interesting that some are worried about the liquidity of BHP when most (myself included) are focussed on BHP being insufficiently geared.

Will 'value' managers be wrong on BHP for another decade if the cycle 'amazes' the doubters and lasts for 20 years rather than 5?


BTW: I dont think BHP is 'cheap' at these levels

But I do believe it is of very high quality and a very attractive purchase when the Chinaphobes and Americans get all worried and sell their 'risky resources shares' to buy USD backed treasuries at 3.5%.


Getting set for the iron-ore negotiations with excitement in my bones!

I am assuming a 20% rise.

For yet another year this will boost the multi-billion dollar earnings of the iron ore businesses of both BHP and RIO.

Do any of the rear vision guys have an opinion on how the contracted iron ore price is going to look? Do your stencils have room for forward price assumpions?

Those Chinese sure do love their steel

 

[rederob]

Hello BSD
I just love some of the supposed analysis in this thread:

The E in P/E stands for earnings. The earnings have been high due to high prices for commodities not due to increased revenues or increased market share.

I'm wondering which part of BHP's 21% increase in revenue over last year ducati wants to parse next!
Then he trots this one out again:

This is a rather important distinction.BHP is a cyclical stock, and should be purchased as a HIGH P/E [when price and earnings are depressed]

If both price and earnings are depressed, there is little change in pe!
People who take the time to do the sums, and invest with up to a 12 month timeframe, will do handsomely well with commodity based equities if they buy when the pe is lowest. That is, if the commodity prices driving earnings are stable, and the share price drops, you are buying into increased value.
We can skirt around an array of other factors, but the certainty we presently have is continuing strength across the majority of commodities.
Matched with BHP's world class production costs and increasing production volumes in many of its key sectors, we are presently looking at BHP matching or bettering its 2007 numbers next year. My sense is that oil/gas and uranium (the latter being relatively small) will be strong contributors to profit.
I'm not in the "go out and buy" camp at present - a slightly lower price is inevitable in the short/medium term (I mean within the next quarter).
Tho I have set aside $12,000 for another thousand shares just in case!

 

[ducati916]

rederob

The part of the 21% increase in Revenues I didn't like was this part;

So if we take Revenues of $47.47 and subtract the contribution made by higher prices we come to $40.37 Billion which is a 3.2% increase in Revenues.

These figures [not the calculation] came from where?
Off the top of my head?
No, from BHP's initial Press release.

jog on
d998

 

[rederob]

Surprisingly enough commodity producers rely on higher prices to increase revenues, along with increased production and increased operating margins, and a host of other factors.
That's what makes them attractive to buy.
If you advocate or practice buying the likes of BHP when commodity prices are low, don't expect to be rewarded for a very long time, as even ducati realises the cyclical nature of these type of stocks.

 

[ducati916]

Surprisingly enough commodity producers rely on higher prices to increase revenues, along with increased production and increased operating margins, and a host of other factors.
That's what makes them attractive to buy.
If you advocate or practice buying the likes of BHP when commodity prices are low, don't expect to be rewarded for a very long time, as even ducati realises the cyclical nature of these type of stocks.

Revenue increases due to;
*higher prices/same market share
*static prices/increased market share
*higher prices/increased market share

BHP's increased revenues are primarily due to higher prices/flat market share
Thus it is fair to assume if prices fall, Revenue falls.

Also, due to LIFO, higher prices further leverage BHP's production.
The accounting standard also works in reverse, falling prices, increased losses of Revenue/Profits.

Addressing the P/E question as I didn't have time this morning.
When a cyclical company makes losses the earnings go to zero and into negative numbers.

The price however does not fall to $0.00
Thus the P/E ratio is high

This is the best time to purchase cyclical stocks, when the P/E is high due to losses.

BHP had losses in 1998 & 1999, just around the apex of the tech boom. Everyone then was buy XYZ.......was any one talking about resouces?

I'm sure some were.

Today's "tech" are resource stocks.
They are overpriced, just as tech was in the late 90"s

The tech boom was changing everything, you couldn't lose etc.
Sound familiar?

China, demand, commodity supercycle, 20+yrs to go etc.

jog on
d998

 

[Knobby22]

Regarding copper utilisation in Electric cars, this will not be a factor in increasing copper usage. As incadescant/halogen globes are being replaced by LED and fibre becomes the form of communication within a car to send electrical signals and battery technology changing the increase of copper will not be large.

Copper however is a very important substance for industrial societies, more in the form of transformers and electrical cabling. Aluminium is the alternative but it is a relatively poor one.

It is also the best readily available heat sink material for serious applications, so important in today's electronics. (silver is too expensive).

Copper is therefore a bellweather of industrial societies. If China or India usage stabilises then this would be a signal that the present resources boom is ending.

 

[rederob]

Over the past 15 years if one had bought BHP on high pe multiples - say, well over 20 times - a significant period of holding would have been needed to get a fair return on the investment.
On the other hand, buying BHP at pe multiples nearer 15 times (or lower), could reward the buyer handsomely and often very quickly - months not years.
This has been especially the case for BHP during the last 5 years.

By the way, my data provider does not show BHP to have reported financial year losses any time in the last 10 years, athough this is not integral to the principal theme of when best to buy.

ducati says:

This is the best time to purchase cyclical stocks, when the P/E is high due to losses.

The data says the opposite is true.
The best time to buy BHP is when sentiment is low, its share price is low, and its earnings are stable to strong: In a bull market.

 

[ducati916]

Over the past 15 years if one had bought BHP on high pe multiples - say, well over 20 times - a significant period of holding would have been needed to get a fair return on the investment.
On the other hand, buying BHP at pe multiples nearer 15 times (or lower), could reward the buyer handsomely and often very quickly - months not years.
This has been especially the case for BHP during the last 5 years.

By the way, my data provider does not show BHP to have reported financial year losses any time in the last 10 years, athough this is not integral to the principal theme of when best to buy.

The data says the opposite is true.
The best time to buy BHP is when sentiment is low, its share price is low, and its earnings are stable to strong: In a bull market.

The debate has centred around the investment quality of BHP and when would an investment purchase prove to be both safe & profitable
There have been numerous mentions from both yourself and BSD as to the advisability and safety of purchasing BHP circa $30

Now you are advocating trading BHP

From the loss in 1997 to the current situation in 2007 a period of 20 years, if you had purchased in 1997 your returns to date would have been;
Capital gains = 15.3% compounding
Dividend = [estimate 5%+]

A very satisfactory return.

 

[rederob]

ducati
The 10 years you mention show the value of investing very long term in blue chips.
I tend to buy and hold for long terms, but also am willing to take profits from time to time.
I checked my most recent forays into BHP and it shows that on 18/2/05 I bought at $16.94 and sold on 21/4/06 at $30.55.
I bought again on 30/11/06 for $26.10 and am still holding most of these.
I will let others define "trading" and "investing" as they see fit, but personally don't believe selling after more than a year warrants calling it "trading".
When I compare your theoretical 10-year outcomes to my recent efforts, I know what I would have preferred.

I'm not interested in a pissing contest, and I will always call things as I see them.
I regarded BHP as a buy last year, and I bought.
I even copped some flak at the time because the charts were not looking good!
I don't yet regard BHP as a sell, and may even be content to never sell it should the commodity bull press on for another 10 years.
Then again, if BHP creeps up to a trailing pe nearing 30 times in coming months I will definitely be selling.
And if the bull market remains in play thereafter, I will definitely be buying back if BHP hits a multiple below 12.

When this commodity bull turns sour, I will quit my base metal plays relatively quickly. I have already started moving more into energy-related equities, and anticipate more additions on price weakness (lower pes) in years to come.

 

[rederob]

Regarding copper utilisation in Electric cars, this will not be a factor in increasing copper usage. As incadescant/halogen globes are being replaced by LED and fibre becomes the form of communication within a car to send electrical signals and battery technology changing the increase of copper will not be large.

Knobby
This topic has moved to the "commodity" section of ASF.
Just be aware that "fibre" cannot transmit the voltages that operate car electricals, and thinner wires for any metal relies on higher voltages being run through them - dictated by the laws of physics.
Most of the extra copper I am referring to emanates from electral motors. These can be in motors that operate power windows, power mirrors, power doorlocks, power seats, wipers, pumps, apart from driving the wheels.

 

[ducati916]

ducati
The 10 years you mention show the value of investing very long term in blue chips.
I tend to buy and hold for long terms, but also am willing to take profits from time to time.
I checked my most recent forays into BHP and it shows that on 18/2/05 I bought at $16.94 and sold on 21/4/06 at $30.55.
I bought again on 30/11/06 for $26.10 and am still holding most of these.
I will let others define "trading" and "investing" as they see fit, but personally don't believe selling after more than a year warrants calling it "trading".
When I compare your theoretical 10-year outcomes to my recent efforts, I know what I would have preferred.

I'm not interested in a pissing contest, and I will always call things as I see them.
I regarded BHP as a buy last year, and I bought.
I even copped some flak at the time because the charts were not looking good!
I don't yet regard BHP as a sell, and may even be content to never sell it should the commodity bull press on for another 10 years.
Then again, if BHP creeps up to a trailing pe nearing 30 times in coming months I will definitely be selling.
And if the bull market remains in play thereafter, I will definitely be buying back if BHP hits a multiple below 12.

When this commodity bull turns sour, I will quit my base metal plays relatively quickly. I have already started moving more into energy-related equities, and anticipate more additions on price weakness (lower pes) in years to come.

rederob

It seems that we have moved on from discussing valuations, metrics, timeframes etc to your hindsight trades

Now of course, when hindsight trades are posted, they can illustrate any point the poster wishes to make.

It would seem on that basis, you very much wish to instigate a pissing contest, as why else would you argue hindsight evidence of your "irrefutable" genius?

Interesting that you make this distinction;
and I will always call things as I see them.

Certainly, but you feel that is your sole province?

When the commodity bull turns sour....and that will be signalled by?

Just a note on post 1109
That should read LIFO not FIFO [the edit button expired] <== N.B. Corrected for you{Mod}

jog on
d998

 

[ducati916]

Mr Mod
Thank's for correcting that error for me.


rederob

As regards BHP having losses in 1997 & 1998, two separate data sources confirm the losses;
*Reuters
*BHP Financial Statements [EDGAR database]

In regards to high Vs low P/E ratio's, here are a selection of ratio's;

..........Avg P/E... Price/ Sales ....Price/ Book..... Net Profit Margin (%)
06/06 ....22.10 .....8.13 ...............5.30 ..................30.4
06/05.... 22.60 .....6.29 ...............4.70 ..................23.9
06/04.... 37.80 .....4.65.............. 3.62................... 11.6
06/03.... 43.00..... 4.36 ..............2.88.................... 9.6
06/02.... 53.00..... 4.18 ..............2.78................... 7.3
06/01... 46.80 ......3.47.............. 3.41................... 7.2
06/00... 131.50 .....3.87 .............3.78 ...................2.8
06/99... 209.50... 48.97............. 4.24................. 16.9
05/99.. [-30.30]....3.23 ..............3.80................ [-8.5]
05/98 ..[-124.30]. 2.32 ...............2.79 ................[-2.4]

The interesting thing to note [when compared against the long term chart] is that as the price of BHP rises, so the P/E falls, yet all the other ratio's rise in contradistinction.

In the two loss making years, this is reversed. This is common with cyclical stocks, particularly the auto stocks [GM, F, etc]

jog on
d998

 

[ducati916]

Perhaps valuation and treasury management techniques have moved a little since Graham and Co created these 'rules of thumb'.

We aren't valuing a corner-store here.

What does the 'interest cover' look like guys?


I find it interesting that some are worried about the liquidity of BHP when most (myself included) are focussed on BHP being insufficiently geared.

Will 'value' managers be wrong on BHP for another decade if the cycle 'amazes' the doubters and lasts for 20 years rather than 5?


BTW: I dont think BHP is 'cheap' at these levels

But I do believe it is of very high quality and a very attractive purchase when the Chinaphobes and Americans get all worried and sell their 'risky resources shares' to buy USD backed treasuries at 3.5%.


Getting set for the iron-ore negotiations with excitement in my bones!

I am assuming a 20% rise.

For yet another year this will boost the multi-billion dollar earnings of the iron ore businesses of both BHP and RIO.

Do any of the rear vision guys have an opinion on how the contracted iron ore price is going to look? Do your stencils have room for forward price assumpions?

Those Chinese sure do love their steel

BSD

Regarding Interest cover the interest cover is good. Why?
Simply because BHP capitalise their interest.

Liquidity and gearing are not necessarily correlated, nor causative.
For example;

Low liquidity with high levels of long term debt, is not the same as low liquidity with high levels of short term debt [liabilities]

The two scenario's are completely different.

Currently, BHP has the latter, low liquidity due to high current liabilities. This while not immediately dangerous, as BHP has a $3.0Billion credit revolver, may necessitate in poor conditions a drawdown on said revolver.

That BHP in extremely favourable economic conditions for resources, has a liquidity issue at all is the major surprise [and warning red flag]

If you don't think that BHP is cheap at these levels then how do you reconcile your later statement that BHP is very attractive purchase when the Chinaphobes and Americans get all worried and sell their 'risky resources shares' to buy USD backed treasuries at 3.5%.


The two statements seem to be in contradiction to one another.

With regards to your anticipation to iron-ore negotiations and China's steel industry;

China's steel exports have started slowing down as a result of the government's control measures, according to the latest industry data.

Overseas shipment of Chinese steel products stood at 6.17 million tons last month, down from 7.16 million tons in April, show figures from China Iron & Steel Association.

This is the first month-on-month slide this year.

In the first five months, steel product exports surged 110.9 percent year-on-year to 27.44 million tons. But the pace was down from 132 percent in the first four months.

Meanwhile, growth of China's steel billet exports decelerated to 75.1 percent from 92.2 percent.

Chen Xianwen, an official from the steel association in Beijing, told China Daily: 'The slowing exports indicate the government's curbing measures are beginning to show.'

China, the world's top steel producer since 1996, has taken a raft of measures since last year to tame skyrocketing exports and mitigate trade conflicts with other countries.

On June 1, the nation levied 5-10 percent export tariffs on 82 categories of steel products and upped duties on overseas shipment of another 19 categories to 15 percent from 10 percent.

The move came less than two months after China cut tax rebates on overseas shipment of 76 categories of steel products to 5 percent from 8-11 percent and eliminated tax rebates on another 83 categories.

Chen said these measures are making domestic steel mills 'more rational' in the foreign market. The export pace will slow down further in the second half of this year because of the government's curbs, he said.

'However, we should be vigilant as slowing exports will add to supply in the domestic market and bring down steel prices, which will possibly spur producers to raise exports again later this year.'

Dumping and subsidy accusations against domestic steelmakers are growing from other countries because of swelling imports of steel products from China.

Last week, six steel pipe makers and the United Steelworkers union in the US appealed to the US Commerce Department to impose anti-dumping charges of up to 88 percent and extra countervailing duties on steel pipes from China that they claimed are being sold at unfairly low and subsidized prices. But Chinese steel pipe companies have refuted the accusation.

Crude steel production in China climbed 19.97 percent year-on-year to 195.62 million tons from January to May. The growth slackened from 21.19 percent in the first four months.

The steel association predicted earlier this year that 2007 production will reach 462-475 million tons, up from 419 million tons last year.

Thus I suggest projecting 20% price increases, may be slightly optimistic.

jog on
d998

 

[rederob]

ducati
Your pe data supported my case nicely.

My personal investments in BHP can be called whatever, and I guess I'm the only one that really cares about the outcomes. I believe that it's useful for anyone investing to compare what they have achieved with those others who suggest a more profitable path was possible.

I'm not sure why you would criticise some earlier statements in this thread that regarded getting into BHP near $30 was relatively safe, when clearly it has proved profitable to boot.

Given you regard BHP as doomed, and you fancy yourself as a dab hand with Elliott waves, perhaps a chart with timeframes could educate us to your estimations of "when" and "how low".

I guess asking you to keep it short and to the point is a tall order.
But you could always try.