This space is reserved for Rapier to introduce himself.
Prof Wurler wants $5 to read his paper, so I won't be addressing his views. I don't think there's anything destabilising about passive investing per se, and furthermore I think it's arguable that passive investors DO pay a 'tax' to good active investors. Firstly I'll point out that index investing is not completely passive - it starts off with an active decision about which index…
Doesn't that note 3 solve much of the problem? If a 0.5% change in the discount rate will alter the value of the discounted asset by $2.1m = 5% of 40.6m then the payout's expected in about 10 years time. Well the cash flows will have a 'centre of gravity' about 10 years out. Having estimated the duration, it appears they're using a discount rate…
I'm not happy to read of the sole risking. Clearly if the odds of a successful outcome are anything like as good as suggested, then Soco are delighted to have a 90% chance of taking 6x well costs off PTTEP for a 10% chance of losing 1x well costs. But the corollary is that PTTEP surely can't believe the chances of a successful outcome remotely…
Excuse a possibly daft question - now they've got a valve on the end of the pipe, why can't they attach a riser to it and thus take off some of the oil outflow to surface through a nice clean connection? And if they do, 5000' of oil column will be a lot lighter than 5000' of water so the other leaks may even be…
I'm pretty sure it actually begins with a T... These puzzles are usually easier with the whole text rather than edited highlights. http://www.oxfonline.com/MMR/MMRTor0909autonobk.html?pub=MMR&code=LMMRK903 It's currently a $220m company rather than $100m though, so only 830% gains on offer :-( Here's a presentation - turns out the massive resource figures (40B bbl OOIP on their acreage) are for shale oil http://tinyurl.com/y9jk8gn
