Diversified Energy Share Discussion Threads

[lab305] 30/6/2023 17:37

NATURAL GAS
2.791 +0.090 +3.33%
Nearly back to the 2.8 high of a few days ago.
Also in case anyone missed this.

[drk1] 30/6/2023 14:57

Yes, I hold in both SIPP and trading accounts - trading divi was less 15% - should have made that clear in above post! ;-)

[howardmorton] 30/6/2023 14:49

Divi received in II (4.375c per share). Received in USD after deduction of 15% WHT.

Drk1, I guess your shares are in a SIPP, otherwise there would be WHT?

[drk1] 30/6/2023 12:18

Divi received on IG and no tax - just straightforward 0.043 per share converted @ 0.788. ;-)

[brianblu] 30/6/2023 12:09

Not got divi yet to reinvest ii interactive

[laurence llewelyn binliner] 30/6/2023 10:39

It does look like some investors have received their dividends and the DRIPs are rolling back in.. :o)

Good to have the BB in place now whether it is exercised daily or not, as it does provide a floor for a year and if some holders really want to get out for whatever reason then 10% of the shares can be bought back in..

[spawny100] 30/6/2023 09:41

Why are they not really going for buying huge volumes at these prices - does it perhaps indicate they think it may go even lower?

[cassini] 29/6/2023 18:48

On the bright side, 3.43p dividend payment day tomorrow.

[cassini] 29/6/2023 14:04

Thanks folks.

[king suarez] 29/6/2023 13:12

"What's a 'non-operated asset'???"

One that the company has a % share in, but does not have operational control over? i.e partly owned?

[cassini] 29/6/2023 12:53

Strategic Divestiture of Non-Operated Assets

Diversified Energy Company PLC (LSE:DEC) ("Diversified" or the "Company") is pleased to announce the sale of certain non-core, non-operated assets within Diversified's Central Region (the "Assets") for gross consideration of $40 million (together with the Assets, the "Transaction").

The Assets include approximately 200 net, non-operated wells producing 3Mboepd (17 MMcfepd). The gross consideration represents an approximate 4 times next twelve months cash flow multiple and includes 85,000 associated net acres located in Oklahoma and Texas. The Transaction also demonstrates Diversified's ability to monetize its non-core assets, adds $40 million to the Company's liquidity, and is well-aligned with Diversified's strategic focus on operated PDP properties that benefit from the regional scale, vertical integration, and continuous application of Smarter Asset Management that underpin the Company's industry-leading production declines.

Commenting on the Transaction, CEO Rusty Hutson, Jr. said:

"This divestiture of non-operated properties underscores our commitment to optimise the assets we operate while strategically realising value from assets better suited for other operators and owners. Selling these assets with operating costs higher than those we operate positions us to further reduce our Central Region lease operating expenses and improve operating margins. The sale aligns with our initiative to realize value from non-core and undeveloped acreage. We will use the proceeds from this transaction to increase our liquidity that we can deploy towards our operated PDP-focused strategy designed to generate sustainable cash flows."

What's a 'non-operated asset'??? The RNS says these wells are producing, so I can't quite understand the jargon here.

[lab305] 29/6/2023 12:26

Because of the last 2 damp squibs of attempts at share buybacks . This time they need to make a statement and be purposeful , otherwise we will be drifting relentlessly down again.
Dividend tomorrow and the market knows that many will be reinvesting and yet its down.

[tom111] 29/6/2023 10:18

Theres no rush whats the big deal

[lab305] 29/6/2023 09:56

Very half hearted attempt at share buyback. No wonder the share dropped this morning. Just 100000 shares bought on one day. At that rate they could buy for a thousand business days ! Bloody frustrating.

[laurence llewelyn binliner] 28/6/2023 19:56

CWA1, so it was, my mistake I did not see the flag in the excitement of a larger purchase at the close.., still a strong UT going into tomorrow though, and we will see how many the company picked up.. :o)

[cwa1] 28/6/2023 19:28

The 997,000 trade was the normal, every day, Uncrossing Trade

[laurence llewelyn binliner] 28/6/2023 19:15

If yesterdays BB shares repeated today, the company purchases of round numbers were about the same, but the 997,000 share buy at 87.7p was someone else, possibly a PI and a very nice tranche for any portfolio.. :o)

[stronghands] 28/6/2023 13:12

1knocker. I appreciate the lengthy reply but we will have to agree to disagree. To keep it brief, if I understand you correctly, you are choosing to factor in your capital gains or losses as part of your equation for thinking about the cost of your retained shares, whereas I do not (nor do HL for that matter with the calculation they operate). Capital gains and losses really have no bearing on the cost of the shares you retain - what you sell something at does not change the intial cost you paid for it.

[this_is_me] 28/6/2023 11:53

The important point is keeping your records in such a way that you can fill in your tax form accurately.

[t 34] 28/6/2023 11:45

Great. You should be a lecturer.

[1knocker] 28/6/2023 11:35

Stronghands, that is true. I am not sure that HL's method is 'illogical', its just that as with any statistics it is essential to understand what is being measured, or in other words that an 'answer' can be misleading if you don't read and understand the question before drawing conclusions from it.

Suppose I buy 1000 shares at £1, and sell has at 50p. You would say my cost is £750, and my average is now £1.50, and that when the price then falls to 25p the previous sale 'misleadingly' makes my loss look greater rather than small by virtue of the sale at 50p. Also, if you trade a few shares of the holding in and out, always managing to buy back a penny or two cheaper than you sold, your 'cost' rises, so that the statistics do not give you credit for trading your aggregate cost down - perhaps to nil or even a negative number.

The 'running cash movement total' which you favour answers a different question. But where do you start and finish? If I buy 100 shares at £1, sell them all at 50p and a week - or 10 years - latter buy in again at 25p, is that still be be a running aggregate because it is the same share? If I forget that in fact my holding is 1001 shares and accidentally keep 1 share over that week - or 10 years - is that a continuing holding whereas had I sold all 1001 it would not have been?

Personally, I think running aggregates can be 'misleading' too. Every purchase and sale is a separate transaction, equally profitable or unprofitable whether it is a top up /reduction in an =existing holding or a new holding. If I buy 1000 shares at £1 and sell 500 at 50p, and buy back 500 shares at 25p, and eventually sell the lot at £2, or at 10p, what is the significance of the running aggregate?

Surely the right way to look at it is to treat each sale /purchase as a separate transaction, just as one would had those transactions been in different shares, and to assess each of those transactions separately as to its profitability?

If I buy X Plc at £1, sell at 50p repurchase at 25p, and eventually sell out at 10p, my repurchase at 25p is not a 'better' investment because it was a repurchase of X Plc rather than a new holding in Y Plc bought at 25 and sold at 10 is it?

Nor, if I buy 1000 shares in X Plc at £1, sell 500 at £1.50 (thereby reducing my aggregate cost to £2.50 = 50p per retained share), and they rise to £5 should the enhanced % profit on my eventual sale at £5 using the aggregate running cost of the holding by reason of the sale at £1.50 (treating my cost per retained share as 50p rather than £1) be a cause for congratulation. It was a bad move which cost me a lot of money!

Most perniciously of all, the 'running aggregate cost' method can ask and even encourage disastrous investment decisions. If I buy 1000 shares at £1, top up with 1,000,000 more when they fall to 10p and sell out the holding at 9.9p, my loss on 'the running aggregate cost' basis improves from 91% to a negligible percentage of only about 1%, but the 1m share top up has still cost me a lot of money !!

The true return is ascertainable only by treating every purchase as though it were a separate holding - but that would make the records rather voluminous.

[this_is_me] 28/6/2023 11:34

Added to my small holding.

[this_is_me] 28/6/2023 11:13

Remember that if "your" shares are in a nominee account you don't actually own them. If you have a share certificate or have them in a CREST sponsored account you own them and your name is on the share register; you will then need a W8BEN.