Yes you are right in that they could have timed their trades correctly.
But its also true that sometimes hedge funds and traders get it wrong, awefully wrong.
There are numerous examples of this in the past, some funds manage to die by wrong bets. Albeit, I suspect they get it right more often. Its well known that index funds that simply track say the Dow jones or ftse have outperformed hedge funds past many years. This means their bets go sour frequently.
Incorrect assumptions, veksi. I acquired this one at numerous prices in the range you mentioned.
The question was a genuine one - we know that AQR etc are able to short - but are we certain of their timing? There's a presumption expressed here that they are 'hurting' - I'm not convinced about that because I think there's been sufficient volatility for them to have done extremely well and for them to continue to do so before they return the stock they have borrowed. Am I wrong in supposing that that is probably the case?
"Excellent opportunity to drive the price down"...
Well you clearly seem to prefer price to fall?
There was an excellent opportunity to buy at 350-450p.
I suppose you missed it?
But current little falls would offer you the chance to buy in - but I get the feeling you aren't interested in buying .
Well go short then and good luck with the gamble.
Please excuse my naivety on this but, regarding AQR or any others that have acquired shares or other instruments 'on loan' with the purpose of shorting : whilst we may know the number they have at their disposal, I'm not clear we know exactly when (or if) they use (sell) them. An instance being Blackrock recently - obviously acquired a few 'on loan' as the price was increasing but presumably waiting for a suitable opportunity to sell. On that basis, I'd imagine that the current rise could offer an excellent opportunity to drive the price back down. Is that fair or total nonsense?
It's still cheap. I'm glad I loaded up below 450 and didn't listen to doomsters. After Sfo is cleared big if, this should fly. Anywhere between £7-£10 depending on the outcome.
Brokers stuck in wrong targets. They'll be embarrassed to add 20% to current prices after missing the boat.
If a stock is solid, buy low sell high.
This doesn't apply to Carillion as it's not solid.
surprised how little comments on here, given we finally broke higher through £5 and onwards so far...
its tempting to take profits but this could be the start of the recovery back to £7...with crude at $70. Its still all about the news on what happens with the investigation really...then we tank or fly
There is a lot of buying activity via shorts closing their positions. AQR is buying back. Their stake come down from over 5% short to 3.49%.
I think they are feeling painful. Total shorts still stand at 7.7% so there should be more buying to come from these.
Add the bargain hunters and it looks good.
"At around 460p, the @GB:MCX:FTSE 250 shares of oil & gas engineering and construction services group LSE:PFC:PetrofacÂ remain under a cloud as a Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation continues, mainly into the Unaoil bribery scandal. Yet this ..."
As I've said many times, until the results of the SFO enquiry are known and what the effects on PFC will be, no one can really know what the correct value of the business is. From what we know about the business and its earnings then the sp still looks cheap, but no one really knows for sure.
I'm sure short term traders may have some success playing trends, and any new contract wins may help raise the price, but anyone who is confident about where the sp is going longer term, is probably delusional. (Unless they work for the SFO.)
That is the order backlog Nov 30th.
Ever since a billion $ worth of work booked so the quoted figure is lower than the actual.
Also at 450 I do not understand your pessimism.
Perhaps at £10 per share I would take your point but at these levels, put it into context of the low sp and high yield, the results are excellent.
it had a reassuring tone to it; and "We have seen a recovery in new order intake in 2017" & " Tendering activity remains high" both suggest PFC's markets have a positive outlook.
They intimated that securing $5.2b orders during the year as positive, as is having a $10.3b backlog. However $5.2b is less than their annual turnover and the backlog is shrinking, so I don't see those figures as quite so positive.
Not clear what PFC's role and scope in this is but it sounds a lot of scope for 160m if they are responsible for all of it
Petrofac secures US$160 million award from Basra Oil Company
Petrofacs Engineering & Production Services (EPS) division has secured an award worth US$160 million from Basra Oil Company (BOC), previously known as South Oil Company, for its Iraq Crude Oil Export Expansion Project (ICOEEP). The new two-year extension reflects Petrofacs continued delivery focus and five-year track record as the incumbent operations and maintenance service provider.
The facility, which is responsible for a significant proportion of Iraqs oil export, is located 60 kilometres (km) offshore the Al Fao Peninsula in Southern Iraq. It comprises a central metering and manifold platform and four Single Point Moorings which facilitate oil export onto awaiting crude carrier tankers. In addition, Petrofac is responsible for almost 300 km of subsea pipelines,1800 metres of subsea hose infrastructure and a marine spread comprising 14 vessels.
Mani Rajapathy, Managing Director, Engineering & Production Services East, said: We are delighted to continue with our role in support of this key crude export facility. Since the start of our involvement in 2012, we have exported more than 2.2 billion barrels of oil while retaining an impeccable safety record. We have also remained focused on adding value for our client through the deployment of innovative and differentiated solutions.
Ihsan Ismaael, Director General, Basra Oil Company, said: Petrofac is a key partner for BOC. The team has supported us over the last five years to significantly increase export from the ICOEEP facility and we look forward to continuing our relationship into 2019.
I suppose its good that iii has a large pessimist representation, keeps things real.
If its feel like we barely moved, it will though, and the move this week was pretty good. Although its only good if we now stay above 450p from now on.
Nice to have an early RNS plus trading update on the same week.
If the SFO thing ends up well this is a £10 stock, if badly its still worth £7-8 so lots of upside potential. Shorters help the market with these bargains sometimes. Each to their own.
"Is there a whiff of this take-over coming to fruition?"
I doubt it, suspect the following may be a factor.
Brent crude jumped above $65 a barrel for the first time in 2 1/2 years- Forties pipeline shut because of a crack, expected to be down for "several weeks". Normally carries around 445000 bpd, 80 platforms shutdown.
Shares in Petrofac Limited (LON:PFC) edged higher on Monday following weekend reports that the oil services contractor is preparing a potential sale of its North Sea business as it aims to reduce its debt pile....
It has hired consultancy Bain & Co to explore the companys options, according to a report in The Times,
The report follows other recent reports that larger oil services groups such as Schlumberger and Halliburton were among potential acquirers of the London listed Plc.
Regarding prosecutions, I wouldn't make any assumptions based upon what is in the public domain. Going after individuals is both logical and strategic - guilty parties may be in a position to divulge information that potentially incriminates others. There are obvious hints of guilt through association here but evidence has yet to emerge into the open.
Does anyone have a view: it seems that after almost 2 years the SFO is going after individuals but not at either Unaoil or SBM? Is this because they need the individuals to be found guilty first before they can try to prosecute or charge the company?
Also, is it fair to assume that as they went for the Iran related contracts, the Kazakh ones are harder for them.
Last point, there was a Sunday Times article yesterday commenting that PFC was going to dispose of its North Sea business to reduce debt.
It seems that the SFO are going ahead with prosecutions of former SBM employees connected with the Unaoil scandal. This relates to "allegedly corrupt dealings with Unaoil between June 2005 and August 2011"
The Bribery Act 2010 came into effect 1st July 2011, so maybe this prosecution was enabled by the duration or the activities allegedly extending 2 months past that date. I'm no lawyer but suspect that there may be some basis for prosecuting or punishing activities before that date such as. Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, though maybe not with the same unlimited fines etc.
I suspect PFC will continue to bump along the bottom until this matter is sorted, one way or another.
The Serious Fraud Office has charged a pair of oil executives at services group SBM Offshore with fraud as its probe into the Unaoil corruption scandal rolls on.
The SFOs latest charges are against Paul Bond and Stephen Whiteley for conspiracy to make corrupt payments to the controversial Monaco-based "middleman" to secure engineering contracts.
The pair will appear before Westminster Magistrates Court next Thursday morning.
The SFO said Mr Bond faces two charges of corruption while Mr Whiteley faces one, all of which stem from allegedly corrupt dealings with Unaoil between June 2005 and August 2011.
Mr Whiteley was formerly a vice president with SBM (Offshore) and Unaoils general territories manager for Iraq, Kazakhstan and Angola, the SFO added, with Mr Bond previously a senior sales manager with SBM.
The charges come just weeks after the SFO made its first charges against UK-based Unaoil employees Ziad Akle and Basil Al Jarah for their role in the SBM corruption. Unaoils commercial director, Monaco-based Saman Ahsani, will also be charged subject to an extradition request to Monaco.
t's even harder to prosecute PFC because the majority of the issues raised so far seem to occur before mid 2011....
That's all right then.
In May 2016, Petrofac engaged lawyers and auditors to investigate claims that a former employee paid $2 million to seal an oil deal in Kuwait. The leaked e-mails claim Petrofacs former vice-president, Peter Warner, urged Unaoil to make confidential payments via a bank account in the Marshall Islands, an acknowledged tax haven. Mr Warner later left Petrofac and in 2014 joined the board of Unaoil.
If it's hard to prosecute Unaoil (who it seems the authorities have a mountain of evidence of bribery on them)
"Lawyers in the white-collar field say that if charges are ultimately filed against the family, a case will not be easy for the government to win. Following the money in these investigations is time consuming and difficult, and internal emails alone are hardly proof of a crime. Also, it would be hugely difficult to obtain witnesses in countries like Iraq."
It's even harder to prosecute PFC because the majority of the issues raised so far seem to occur before mid 2011
"A spokesman for the SFO noted an in email that the Bribery Act, the countrys answer to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, didnt go into effect until 2011."
We'll have to see where it goes but it could take a long time and ultimately not result in any action.
Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.
The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.
The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.