alertmeipp Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I don't get ur point. If I own those wells, I still want those wells to be good wells no matter where I get the money from?? Why would I drill bad wells simply because I borrow money to drill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross812 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Chesapeake's market cap is 11.5 billion and they have ~10.3 billion in debt. So if the low number from their investor presentation is correct and their land is worth 51 billion then this is still worth $63 a share. Now, lets assume They lied with their numbers by 100% and Aubry is a crook and steals another 2 billion I get 13.2 billion (51 billion *.5 - 2 - 10.3) which is $20.50 a share. Let's ignore everything else and just call CHK a land lease owner and flipper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 The incentive is for the company to drill wells. That has not worked out well for the company nor his program. He cant even cap the wells because he needs the income to pay the debt. The incentives have driven the company to drill drill drill. There has been no focus on profitably or share price. Just amassing acreage, and drilling wells. These incentives have killed the nat gas price, and will likely kill the NGL market. Thats my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Island Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Myth- this is an exploration and production company. It would be odd for them to persue a strategy where by they chose not to acquire land and then chose not drill the land they do acquire, setting aside the conventional lease structure of held by production. I think it is valid to say that you would to invest in a company that uses no leverage but this isn't that company. I believe that for anyone seriously following this company none of this "news" and none of it is material to the investment thesis. That investment thesis should be if you want leveraged exposure to US onshore energy exploration and production than CHK is one way to attain that exposure. The fact is that the company has shown an ability to find the best acerage before others and along the way have achieved a vertically integrated production company that is quite impressive for its scale and effeciency. The BofA analysis released yesterday makes a good point: the company's market cap is now equal to the expected revenue from their planned asset sales in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCG Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I've said this before, but there are few CEO's I can think of that I dislike more than Aubrey. He seems to be constantly focused on the stock price and making more money for himself. I remember a few years ago when he was making the rounds on virtually every business TV show and claiming that CHK stock should double and should be in the $100s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Stock should double from here if BOD replaces Aubrey with a reputable CEO and I expect more shareholders will speak up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrofan Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 The lawsuits have begun..... http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/20/us-chesapeake-idUSBRE83J0QJ20120420?feedType=RSS&feedName=PersonalFinance&rpc=43 I wonder if Longleaf is planning anything, not a lawsuit, but perhaps pressure for some changes at the the top? tighter controls on AM? cheers Zorro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Will be interesting next couple weeks. Hoping to see some actions from major shareholders. Maybe a proxy fight soon. The 2.5% isn't news to them, but the depressed pps plus a damaged CEO will prompt some actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nwoodman Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 All "good" things come to an end ;) http://news.yahoo.com/chesapeake-halt-ceos-well-ownership-plan-125149809--finance.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 And the latest on CHK: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/02/us-chesapeake-mcclendon-hedge-idUSBRE8410GG20120502 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keerthiprasad Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 They really need to just find a new CEO and move on...there is no way to defend this kind of garbage. Although I am guessing the company's culture is pretty bad if they let this kind of thing go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCG Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 As if the company increasing his pay fivefold to $100 million to make up for money he lost buying CHK stock on margin, purchasing McClendon's personal art collection for $12.1 million to give him more money," and paying "$4.6 million to sponsor the Oklahoma City Thunder, which McClendon owns a 19% stake weren't enough red flags. McClendon and the CHK board should have been fired years ago. The actions of this company over the last 5 or so years have been pathetic, and borderline criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenWatsa Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 They have to clean up the culture and look at making some board and possibly other mgmt. changes. However, does any of this affect the asset value of the company? How about the value of future earnings? No and no (at least not in a material way). Let's not forget that and throw the baby out with the bath water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CONeal Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 They have to clean up the culture and look at making some board and possibly other mgmt. changes. However, does any of this affect the asset value of the company? How about the value of future earnings? No and no (at least not in a material way). Let's not forget that and throw the baby out with the bath water. The CEO is about the worst money manager when it comes to his personal finances. He has had a blank check from the company whenever he over extends himself. How can you be so sure he won't bury the company b/c of some operational move and was a big risk. All the backhanded deals with this company has it off any of my lists. There is no indication that it will ever be cleared up and the real extenet that it has gone is probably still not completely out in the open. If he can't handle his own money why should I think he would do a better job with mine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenWatsa Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 They have to clean up the culture and look at making some board and possibly other mgmt. changes. However, does any of this affect the asset value of the company? How about the value of future earnings? No and no (at least not in a material way). Let's not forget that and throw the baby out with the bath water. The CEO is about the worst money manager when it comes to his personal finances. He has had a blank check from the company whenever he over extends himself. How can you be so sure he won't bury the company b/c of some operational move and was a big risk. All the backhanded deals with this company has it off any of my lists. There is no indication that it will ever be cleared up and the real extenet that it has gone is probably still not completely out in the open. If he can't handle his own money why should I think he would do a better job with mine? I was under the impression that the CEO has resigned. But, I see he has simply resigned from the board. My mistake. But, I believe it's a matter of time before the CEO is replaced or terminated - at which point, I think the stock will become significantly more attractive to many who are probably refusing to invest until he's gone. I think one saw hints of that yesterday when the stock jumped significantly just because the CEO stepped down from the board. What happens to the stock if it gets announced that he's leaving the company? I agree that it's possible there may be more to come out that we haven't heard yet. Some of that may already be priced in, though. I think the worst is probably out. The original reason for the stock falling was even disclosed and should've been known better. If he was a real fraudster, that wouldn't have been the case. I don't think that he has any intention of burying the company, and I think he has limited ability and opportunity to do so even if he wanted to. He clearly cares about himself. At this point, his reputation has taken quite a big hit, and he still holds a significant amount of shares in CHK himself. He will probably figure out what's best for the company and himself - him leaving - or will be terminated before that point. Yes, he's extremely poor at managing his money. However, there are many other CEOs out there who do a poor job of managing their personal finances - maybe not as poor, but, quite poor nonetheless. Yet, they've managed to be fine performers from an operational point of view. I'm not defending the current CEO, but, am just saying that how one manages his/her personal finances isn't necessarily correlated to how well one does his/her job from an operational standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrofan Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 At last, action from Longleaf..... http://www.thestreet.com/story/11517699/1/chesapeake-energy-shareholders-meet-your-would-be-savior.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO cheers Zorro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 They really need to just find a new CEO and move on...there is no way to defend this kind of garbage. Although I am guessing the company's culture is pretty bad if they let this kind of thing go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 They have to clean up the culture and look at making some board and possibly other mgmt. changes. However, does any of this affect the asset value of the company? How about the value of future earnings? No and no (at least not in a material way). Let's not forget that and throw the baby out with the bath water. Yes it does effect the asset value. CHK has been recklessly destroying the value of the assets by drilling to the moon, and pouring on the debt. Dont you think the Board and Management have something to do with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenWatsa Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I'm not referring to past company decisions, though. I'm strictly talking about the 'misdemeanors' or improprieties of the CEO and board that have been disclosed recently. Yes, the character of management and the board has been tainted. But, would one's calculations of asset value or the value of future earnings be different than a few months ago? Probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biaggio Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I'm not referring to past company decisions, though. I'm strictly talking about the 'misdemeanors' or improprieties of the CEO and board that have been disclosed recently. Yes, the character of management and the board has been tainted. But, would one's calculations of asset value or the value of future earnings be different than a few months ago? Probably not. for me, asset value + value of future earnings would not matter if manager not able, honest + shareholder friendly---I like how others have looked at good investment as a 3 legged stool = i. cheap ii good business model + iii management---you need to be careful if one or more of the legs is missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/895126/000130817912000123/lchesapeake_defa14a.htm The tweets at the end were interesting, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanMaestro Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/895126/000130817912000123/lchesapeake_defa14a.htm The tweets at the end were interesting, to say the least. "I am deeply sorry for all the distractions of the past two weeks.". I do not think the "distractions" are what he should be sorry for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/895126/000130817912000123/lchesapeake_defa14a.htm The tweets at the end were interesting, to say the least. "I am deeply sorry for all the distractions of the past two weeks.". I do not think the "distractions" are what he should be sorry for. Haha, yeah. Funny thing is, I bought some CHK today. It's about time somebody lit a fire under Aubrey McClendon's ass. Hopefully, SEAM will really push for actions that make the market realize the substantial NAV that is there. Plan, would you consider this a turnaround play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanMaestro Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Plan, would you consider this a turnaround play? For the moment, more like a cyclical with a solvable glitch? The natgas price story still seems to be running the show and there is no evidence yet of Raptors, Chewcos or Black Holes. What's your take txlaw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Plan, would you consider this a turnaround play? For the moment, more like a cyclical with a solvable glitch? The natgas price story still seems to be running the show and there is no evidence yet of Raptors, Chewcos or Black Holes. What's your take txlaw? Plan, love that line about "Raptors, Chewcos or Black Holes." Amazing isn't it how the word Enron is being thrown around with CHK? I just don't see it. So, basically my take is similar to everyone else's. Unappreciated NAV where price of company is linked to spot price movement, the McClendon problem, and overly complex financial transactions. We have to give the guy credit for building the company, but I've always been a little wary of the guy's "wildcatter" spirit bringing the company down somehow. I like that SEAM is getting more active now -- will keep McClendon on a short lease, hopefully, while letting him do his thing. Having said all of the above, I own only a small amount of CHK (but have owned some for a while for my parents) and own far more XCO because, unlike CHK, I think XCO will be able to take advantage of valuable O&G assets going on sale. Btw, any recs on books about the Big E? I've always wanted to figure out exactly how things went down there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now