Buy
Sell
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Petrofac Limited LSE:PFC London Ordinary Share GB00B0H2K534 ORD USD0.02
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  6.50 4.69% 145.00 145.00 145.40 145.40 134.60 134.60 4,512,752 16:29:57
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil Equipment Services & Distribution 2,984.9 -125.1 -39.1 - 502

Petrofac Share Discussion Threads

Showing 16451 to 16474 of 18475 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  667  666  665  664  663  662  661  660  659  658  657  656  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
06/2/2021
20:50
Sami, if it was that simple then how can they make a profit unless the shares fall over and above the initial fall caused by the selling. Let's say a hedge sells 1 million shares at 100p causing to them to fall to 80p, suppose nothing happened to make the price fall further, then eventually they will have to buy them back, let's say the action of buying causes the price to rise by 20 percent, factor in the transaction costs and borrowing fees and you will see that there is not much profit there except the risk of a squeeze. In this case they will make a profit only if there is something that causes the share to fall below 80p, so the shorts would better be right about fundamentals, otherwise how do you explain the 25 billion dollars lost shorting Tesla.
ryad123
06/2/2021
20:14
RyadI don't think you understand how shorting works.Usually, hedge funds borrow the shares from other institutions. They pay a fee to them for borrowing the shares. Once they borrow they then sell them on the market..hence driving the price down.It's not just a bet on the share price going down...their actions of selling borrowed shares in volume drives can drive the price down.
sami69
06/2/2021
19:45
No we don't have the volume and even we did it won't change a thing, suppose you have the cash to open a short on 5 percent of the shares, why would this action alone affect the price? I can pefectly get why the price goes up when there is a big buy order but when you go short you are just placing a bet on the price going down without owning the shares, perfectly sound if used as a hedging instrument but a naked short on a bombed out stock is a pure gamble, at this price anyway there is little upside for the shorts. Metro bank had nearly 10 perecent of its stock on shorts even when it was below 60p, it doubled then went back 60p then doubled again.
ryad123
06/2/2021
19:31
ryad123 ....... If the mere action of shorting a stock makes go south then let's short it and make buckets of easy cash Do you really think we have the volume to affect the SP?
csj0hn
06/2/2021
17:14
Yes it's already in the price, from 400p to just over 100p in a year, in the meantime many other companies like WG, Weir and hunting recovered some lost ground. The other thing i don't get on this board is the idea that shorters hurt the price, how? If the mere action of shorting a stock makes go south then let's short it and make buckets of easy cash, Warren Buffet said it many times, why do people believe this nonsense is beyond me.
ryad123
06/2/2021
14:22
no, the company would take a charge this year. no effect on profits in the future years. 1 billion pounds of fines has already been priced in
dealy
06/2/2021
14:13
What fine? Good luck with that theory!
plunger2
06/2/2021
14:00
@dealy, that would destroy profits for the next 5 years.
pepepepe73
06/2/2021
13:44
100m per year over 5 years. but I don't see it coming to that
dealy
06/2/2021
13:29
@Dealy, consider the case of 500m fine. How does PFC address that fine?, debt or rights issue?
pepepepe73
06/2/2021
12:27
The combination of the following factors could see Petrofac double in the next 2 weeks:- evaporation of SFO case- very strong crude price- return to normal post covid- need to put new energy facilities contracts in placeThese are all individually huge tailwinds for Petrofac But in combination and in the context of a large short position the stock could really surge.
dealy
06/2/2021
12:17
Plus it puts a dark cloud over London as a place to list your global company. Brexit Britain doesn't need that
dealy
06/2/2021
12:03
I think the matter will be closed on Thursday with the sentencing of the former sales executive. The warning signals have been heeded and Petrofac and other companies have tightened up controls. There is no point in pursuing things further.If the case evaporates the shares will jump a pound instantly
dealy
06/2/2021
11:40
The ramifications of this judgement could be large - very large. Has the SFO gained evidence improperly? Has the SFO compelled evidence illegally? Is the SFO determined to police activities in other jurisdictions in which it has no business? Is the SFO wasting UK taxpayers money on events that are not relevant? Lisa Osofsky has already run into plenty of turbulence. She was not even in the Serious Farce Office when the PFC case was opened. I know what I would do now. GLA
plunger2
06/2/2021
11:30
How about zero fine, and standing on the naughty boys step instead?otmansalamatPrice: 116.50No OpinionRE: U.K. Supreme Court deals blow to SFOToday 11:15Supreme Court clips Serious Fraud Office's wingsBy Jemma Slingo5 February 2021The Supreme Court has curbed the Serious Fraud Office's extra-territorial powers, ruling that it cannot demand documents held outside the UK by a foreign company under the Criminal Justice Act 1987.In KRB v SFO, the Supreme Court found that the SFO overreached itself when it issued a notice under section 2(3) of the Criminal Justice 1987. The notice required US engineering conglomerate KBR Inc to produce material held overseas.A UK subsidiary of KRB provided the SFO with documents in 2017. However, when the investigator attempted to obtain documents held outside of the UK, KRB applied for judicial review to quash the notice.In a judgment handed down this morning, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld KRB's appeal. It found that section 2(3) of the 1987 act is generally not intended to have extra-territorial effect and that the presumption clearly applies in this case because KBR, Inc is not a UK company, and has never had a registered office or carried on business in the UK.The court also rejected the argument that parliament intended section 2(3) to give the SFO the power to compel a foreign company to produce documents it holds outside the UK.In judgment Lord Lloyd-Jones stated that successive acts of parliament have developed structures in domestic law which permit the UK to participate in international systems of mutual legal assistance in relation to criminal proceedings and investigations.'It is to my mind inherently improbable that parliament should have refined this machinery as it did, while intending to leave in place a parallel system for obtaining evidence from abroad which could operate on the unilateral demand of the SFO, without any recourse to the courts or authorities of the state where the evidence was located and without the protection of any of the safeguards put in place under the scheme of mutual legal assistance,' he said.The court ruled there was no basis fo?r the divisional court's finding that the SFO could use the power in section 2(3) to require foreign companies to produce documents held outside the UK if there was a sufficient connection between the company and the UK.Commentators said the judgment could significantly alter how the SFO conducts extra-territorial investigations"
leoneobull
06/2/2021
10:20
Though I really liked your speeding analogy dealy. A disastrous result for SFO - fully deserved. Hopefully they'll pull stumps and get the FCA to tackle the much more damaging Shorting behaviour by licensed pirates!!!
plunger2
06/2/2021
09:30
The range ot outcomes form the SFO investigation is large with no fine also a possibility. The stock price reflects a fine or damages worth 1 billion GBP. I personally think this is a matter for the UAE authorities and the SFO only has a benchmarking role
dealy
06/2/2021
09:13
Next 3 days should be positive with the stock price ramping up nicely. Shorts already made their game here and now it's time for them to buy the shares back again.
pepepepe73
06/2/2021
07:10
HUGE growth in oil demand in China. High Brent means more PFC contracts and a pick up in services activity https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-05/a-huge-number-of-oil-supertankers-are-pointing-at-china-s-ports
leoneobull
05/2/2021
21:08
http://www.energyglobalnews.com/malaysia-petrofac-secures-the-jackup-perisai-pacific-101/ February 05, 2021  Malaysia-based investment holding company Icon Offshore Berhad, announced that its new subsidiary company, POSB (Perisai Offshore Services Berhad) has received an award for the provision of the jackup drilling rig Perisai Pacific 101 (PP101), from Petrofac. The expected commencement of the drilling contract is in April 2021 for a primary period of 180 days with firm eight wells, and with an optional three wells extension.
mickinvest
05/2/2021
20:48
The SFO sticking its nose into events that happened in another country is a bit like the British Police giving you a speeding ticket for being caught speeding whilst on holidays in Benidorm. Charges and fines are dealt with where they are committed. This supreme Court ruling just confirms this obvious point.
dealy
05/2/2021
20:18
The sfo have got what they wanted by collapsing the share price all contrived with the shorting fraternity surely that’s Enough
asa8
05/2/2021
19:07
Text of the FT article.The Serious Fraud Office's ability to compel evidence from overseas was dealt a blow in the Supreme Court on Friday in a ruling that underlines the limits of its powers to tackle the increasing cross-border nature of financial crime. The anti-graft agency was defeated in the UK's highest court by US engineering services company KBR, whose British subsidiary is under investigation by the SFO.Five Supreme Court justices sided unanimously with the company, which claimed the agency could not extend its so-called "section 2" powers to demand KBR provide evidence held by its US parent. The judgment overturned an earlier High Court ruling that found in favour of the agency.Lawyers said it underlined how the SFO's powers, granted to it in the 1987 Criminal Justice Act, had failed to keep pace with the globalised nature of fraud and corruption."This is a serious blow to the SFO. Without being able to use its [Section 2 powers] overseas, the agency finds itself in a peculiar position of having the power to prosecute overseas companies/individuals, but with limited powers to investigate them," said Kyle Phillips, a criminal lawyer at Fieldfisher, adding: "When the [Criminal Justice] Act was created in the 80s the world was a smaller place."The High Court had sided with the agency in 2018 after KBR brought a judicial review against the SFO's attempts to demand evidence from its US parent. That ruling allowed the agency to compel the production of documents held by its US parent, as long as there was a "sufficient connection" between it and the UK.
paa65
05/2/2021
19:05
Financial Times: SFO suffers Supreme Court blow over use of overseas powers. https://www.ft.com/content/0f5dd7b2-5f6d-422e-a887-4356af54d592
paa65
Chat Pages: Latest  667  666  665  664  663  662  661  660  659  658  657  656  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
PFC
Petrofac
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20210514 19:47:10