Sdajii
Sdaji
- Joined
- 13 October 2009
- Posts
- 2,120
- Reactions
- 2,246
Read their recent investor presentation and it seems mgt is going to try to run a leaner operation and to keep costs below revenue. Oil production is 80% hedged at $60/bbl in 2019. They plan for SEA to be self funding and cash flow neutral or positive by EOY 2019.
Sounds great, but then I've never read a poor investor presentation. I'll wait for the instos to start buying in order for me to get interested. SEA has got to be near the bottom. Worth putting in my reversal watch list.
SEA quarterly report was very reasonably but where is the snag that market fails to recognise and keep on reducing the stock value ?
1. Same old story, fundamentally fantastic, operations are coming along steadily,
2. It seems likely that we're going to sit heavily undervalued like this until there's a takeover,
Hi1. What is so positive re. the fundamentals? I had a look, didn't like what I saw. What might I be missing?
2. That is a possibility, what sort of price would you envisage?
jog on
duc
1. What is so positive re. the fundamentals? I had a look, didn't like what I saw. What might I be missing?
2. That is a possibility, what sort of price would you envisage?
jog on
duc
Many times I've seen oilers have their prices smashed down irrationally despite good news, shorters working hard, and after a strange, unexplained, sustained price much below the fundamental value, a takeover bid pops up.
Indeed …… The start of my long road to trading recovery many years back was when Adlephi Energy (ADI) after what seemed an age was taken over around 42 cps from memory … I think it was trading at 6 cents at the time.
Oilers can be really frustrating and you have to be very patient/long suffering at times
I hope this plays out as you hope in the end Sdajii … You've done your research on it so I'd say back your judgement
1) Assuming average oil prices of anything other than a dramatic and sustained drop, the company will generate profits justifying a much higher share price. Net revenue is increasing and will soon be sufficient to reduce debt and eventually generate either a lovely cash position or potentially dividends to shareholders. Alternatively, just looking at the potential sale price of their assets, they could sell up, pay all debts, and have a cash position of multiples of the current market cap.
What don't you like?
2) If someone wanted to take over right now they'd easily snap us up for less than I paid,
If a takeover was successful, it would easily be possible for the buyer to then flip the assets for a significant profit above what they paid, assuming they paid anything under 50CPS. Compare the price of the recent sale SEA made to what their superior and much larger remaining assets are clearly worth.
your reminder of the ADI takeover is quite apt. Thanks for the pleasant and relevant memory.
Things I don't like on the Income Statement:
i. Still no net profit; and
ii. Rising COG; and
iii. Consistently high 'unusual expenses'.
On the Balance Sheet:
i. Very low cash position; and
ii. Increasing Receivables; and
iii. High Net Liabilities.
On the Cash-Flow
i. Low cash from ops (reflection of POO); and
ii. High depreciation (in a resources company, this can be an issue)
iii. Very high cash-flow from financing; and
iv. Very poor free cash flow.
Those are my issues. If they are accurate, then how do you see this as a takeover?
jog on
duc
1. Some of this is irrelevant or I disagree with it (increasing cost of goods?), and in some cases you've just found ways to repeat the same thing trying to sound like you're saying something different, but yes, the two relevant issues are debt/cash position and price of oil.
2. If anything, cost of production should continue to decrease as shale technology improves. This has been an ongoing trend, including for SEA.
3. Definitely, the reduced oil price has hurt us. If oil was still sitting at $65+ SEA would probably still have a share price of over a dollar, and at $75+ we'd possibly be over $2. The reality is that oil has taken a dive and seems to be floundering around the mid 50s. This is the reason everything fundamental has slowed right down for SEA and the share price has collapsed, but even at this price SEA is set to begin reducing debt just by plodding along with their existing business model continuing along. As the profitable business continues and debt reduces, interest repayments become less of a drain and positive cashflow increases. Do you agree with that or do you think they're never going to become cashflow positive, and if so, how can you justify that position?
4. The debt/cash position is almost completely irrelevant to a takeover. If anyone has enough money to buy SEA out, they presumably have enough money to cover the debt. This means they can simply buy the assets, pay off the debt, and utilise the assets without being hindered by debt repayments, clearly turning a nice profit. SEA's assets are already generating a lot of income, the only problem, even at the current low oil price, is that SEA must put that income into debt repayment. SEA is not struggling to generate income from its assets, it's already doing that swimmingly, it just needs to increase that income so that it is enough to cover debt. Even in this challenging set of conditions, SEA's income is indeed increasing and any time now it will exceed all expenses including debt repayments. The only remotely likely problem (and this one possibility is more than remotely likely) is a significant long term drop in average oil price. If you think WTI is going to average $20-30 over the next 2+ years then yes, I agree, SEA is probably going to bite the dust. If it's around current prices or better, SEA's proven existing model will generate healthy profits. And again, if someone else is sufficiently funded to buy SEA and pay the debt, they can just enjoy the income without the debt issue. The most unfortunate issue here is that the interest on the debt is very high. Bad for SEA, not for a well-funded buyer.
5. While oil prices are where they are and SEA's share price doesn't seem like jumping up too much too soon, potential buyers are probably going to play it cautiously and just sit and watch. If we get a takeover bid I'd say it will be in 3+ months, likely 6-12 months.
You posit POO needs to be $65+. While oil remains lower than that price, SEA are selling oil at a loss.
Duc, I had a quick look at their recent preso …. I could be wrong (Sdajii can confirm) but their break even oil price is $30 per barrel and their 2019 price received was over $61 per barrel of oil (including hedging) and their Boe was just over $41 …..
The POO has ranged between $45-85 over the last 2 years so any mid term future hedging looks ok.
They should be making plenty of cash on those numbers?? If the POO gets a wriggle on over the next 12 months, and they knock the debt down, it should start to look fairly healthy.
1. Some of the issues are more pressing than others. I haven't prioritised them, simply highlighted them on their various statements. As such, some are interrelated, that is the function of statements, to provide a cross check.
2. That would seem to be a reasonable assumption.
3. Here is my issue with the 'bolded' part of your response. You posit POO needs to be $65+. While oil remains lower than that price, SEA are selling oil at a loss. This is where the depreciation charge becomes an issue, which is a using up of the oil in the ground, thereby reducing the value of the assets, although there will be debt reduction.
Therefore the important question is: which is progressing faster: (i) debt reduction or (ii) depletion of oil reserves? This would be an issue for anyone buying out the company, although they would have much better disclosure.
At current prices I would tend to agree that the depletion rate is probably in favour of a purchaser at the current depressed price. That however begs the question as to how high a premium to the current price remains, making it an attractive takeover target?
4. The cash position is critical. Currently, SEA is having to 'finance' current operations. That is an incredibly risky position to be in. The 2018 numbers demonstrated a massive increase, to the point where solvency must be a risk contemplated. There are some $34M in short-term investments as a cushion, but that is a pretty thin cushion.
5. So this becomes a highly leveraged play on POO. That is quite interesting to me.
jog on
duc
These figures are wrong, and you've also misrepresented what I said.
I did not say that they needed $65 to be profitable. If we knew without doubt that oil was going to sit where it is in the mid $50s for the next several years, SEA would clearly be worth multiples of the current share price/market cap. I listed multiple scenarios, just one of which was $65WTI which would justify a an even higher price.
Solvency is not a likely issue. It's not out of the question, but WTI would have to reduce significantly and stay low long term. Because of the heavy hedging, SEA could withstand very low WTI prices for a year or two before solvency would become a potential issue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?