Cobas AM: Nueva Gestora de Francisco García Paramés

La verdad creo que lo último que leí era 2,40% anual total. Es una burrada. Y son de los más baratos.

Te entiendo, yo personalmente fui a la sede de azvalor para hacerme la cuenta del fondo, y me preguntaron que porque conoci az si no hacen publicidad a la cual respondi tal cual, literal mas o menos.

“pues acabo de estar donde la oficina de cobas para abrirme una cuenta alli, pero como he visto una conferencia de alvaro, me gusta tanto como expresa y tiene algo que no se, mi intuincion me dice que meta mi dinero tambien aqui”

el señor se quedo callado y sonrio, y nada firme todo y hablamos un rato, era un viernes por la tarde.

No se si me recordara, pues le comente algo que no me gusto de cobas sobre su sistema de reguridad en la pass de entrada, les dije que cobas (esto a los de azvalor) que no tienen un sistema anti-fuerza bruta, y que si no pones todos los caracteres pues en meses podria saber la pass de cualquier persona, yo preocupado porque la pass de azvalor eran muy pocos caracteres, pero el me explico que los de azvalor se blokea automaticamente cuando pones mal la pass mas de 10 veces creo, entonces me quede mas tranquilo.

Total, eso paso con cobas a 100 puntos y Azvalor sobre los 107 creo, ahora estan a 80 y el otro a 125

Yo veo a Trump dándolo todo y haciendo lo que haga falta para que no pare de sonar la música hasta después de la reelección. Así que 99 el selección.
XD

A mí me gusta más el criterio, análisis y cartera de azValor que los de Cobas.

Y eso que Álvaro es un vendebiblias de primera categoría.

The week in energy: The waning of an era in US shale
Chevron’s deal for Anadarko, a new Arab Spring, and the IEA’s response to its critics

April 15, 2019 11:00 am by Ed Crooks
The early years of the US shale oil and gas industry, documented well in both Russell Gold’s The Boom and Gregory Zuckerman’s The Frackers, were a colourful era, full of big personalities, inspired visionaries and dubious chancers. Its future seems likely to be a much more prosaic business, dominated by large corporations. ExxonMobil and Chevron have already positioned themselves to be the fastest-growing oil producers in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico. Chevron’s planned $50bn acquisition of Anadarko Petroleum will accelerate the process of the shale industry being absorbed into Big Oil, and there are fundamental financial reasons why we can expect that trend to continue.

Chevron already has a very strong position in the Permian Basin, thanks largely to an accident of history. As other companies pulled out of the region, when it seemed like a mature province heading into inexorable decline, Chevron somehow never found an acceptable buyer for its assets. When the shale oil boom began, it found it had inadvertently ended up with some of the best real estate in the industry. Michael Wirth, Chevron’s chief executive, still thought it was worth adding to that position by buying Anadarko, however, for reasons that he summed up when I interviewed him. “This was the right transaction at a terrific price,” he said.

The persistent failure of most US companies to generate sustained free cash flows from their shale operations has frayed investors’ patience, and US exploration and production companies’ shares are still out of favour. The S&P oil and gas exploration and production industry select index has dropped about 60 per cent from its peak in June. What is particularly troubling for the industry is that its share prices have failed to revive as the oil price has rebounded. Since the end of 2016, US West Texas Intermediate crude has risen by 21 per cent, but the sector index has dropped by 22 per cent.

At these valuations, it is easy to see why strategic buyers can see acquisitions as attractive, especially if there are significant benefits available from rationalisation, as there are for Chevron in the Permian Basin from the Anadarko deal. It is also easy to see why public company boards might be tempted to throw in the towelwhen a bid arrives at a 39 per cent premium to the previous share price. Merger and acquisition activity in the US oil and gas industry dropped to a ten-year low in the first quarter, but Chevron’s move for Anadarko was widely seen as a portent of another wave of dealmaking. Shares in companies seen as possible targets, including Pioneer Natural Resources and Concho Resources, jumped on Friday, with companies including Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell cited as possible buyers. Shell has made very clear it is looking for deals to buy more Permian assets at the right price.

Underlying Big Oil’s evolution into Big Shale is what could be the start of a fundamental shift in the financial structure of the US industry. The entrepreneurial years of the industry’s rise were financed liberally by the capital markets and banks, and supported by cheap money and quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve. This year, though, there have been signs that the inflow of capital into the US E&P industry is slowing down, creating opportunities for Chevron and other large companies with stronger balance sheets to come in to fill the gap. These estimates from Rystad Energy show that after the Anadarko deal Chevron is expected to become by far the largest producer in the Permian Basin.

Jarand Rystad, the firm’s founder and chief executive, argues that the large companies also need to rethink their capital structures. Shale production is typically lower-risk than conventional oil and gas development: there are obviously many things that can go wrong, but you will not spend hundreds of millions of dollars to drill a well that turns out to be a dry hole, and you will not find your multibillion-dollar projects being expropriated by the government. As a result, returns can be expected to be lower too. But the lower risk makes it possible to enhance shareholder value by operating with more debt and less equity. The Anadarko deal “represents a golden opportunity for Chevron to achieve a more leveraged capital structure that is better suited for the lower risk energy projects of the future,” he said.

A second Arab spring?
Two of Africa’s longest-established leaders have been forced to step down this month, and in both cases economic hardships caused by a squeeze on oil and gas revenues have played a role.

Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who resigned as Algeria’s president on April 2, was one of the great survivors of his country’s politics. A veteran of the war for independence, he joined the government in 1962 and lived through a series of power struggles to become president in 1999. He hung on to the post through the civil war that ended in 2002, the Arab Spring of 2011 and a stroke in 2013, but was finally forced to quit at the age of 82 under pressure from protesters and the military.

Omar al-Bashir, president of Sudan until this week, seized power in a coup in 1989 and held on to it through the genocide in Darfur, which led to him being indicted for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court, and the secession of South Sudan. There have been mass protests against him for months, and on Thursday the Sudanese military forced him out, announcing that it would run the country for a two-year “transitional period”.

Andrew England of the Financial Times wrote that although there were clear differences in the cases of Mr Bouteflika and Mr Bashir, there were also “common themes that will reverberate around the Arab world and should act as a warning to the region’s leaders”. The most critical of those themes is economic failure, which in both countries has been exacerbated by weak oil and gas revenues.

The difficulties facing Algeria were expertly sketched out by Heba Saleh in the FT last month. Oil and gas generated 40 per cent of its government revenues last year and more than 95 per cent of its foreign currency receipts, but its income has been hit by weak prices, flagging production at aging fields, and rising domestic consumption that limits the gas available for export. Algeria’s crude production was about 1.2m barrels a day in 2012-13, but is just 1.03m b/d under the latest curbs agreed by Opec and its allies. Algeria’s gas exports to the EU rose strongly last year, and Sonatrach, its national oil company, is promising to “sustain exports to Europe for years”, but domestic demand growth that has outstripped production growth over the past decade raises concerns about the outlook for foreign sales.

In Sudan, meanwhile, one of the key issues has been the division of the country. When South Sudan gained independence in 2011, it took more than half the country’s oil production with it. Both Sudan and South Sudan are members of the Opec+ group, and under its limits for the first half of this year, Sudan can produce 72,000 b/d of crude, compared to South Sudan’s 129,000 b/d.

South Sudan’s oil minister said over the weekend that the upheaval in Sudan had not interrupted oil flows, Reuters reported. However, Cyril Widdershoven suggested at Oilprice.com that although the two countries’ production was not large enough for them to have a significant impact on world oil supplies, conflict could still “present an imminent danger to global commodity flows”. He added: “Sudan’s long and important coastline on the Red Sea indirectly puts Egypt, Saudi Arabia and many others on alert.”

Warnings from Libya
Conflict in a third North African country, Libya, may have a greater significance for world oil markets, however. A national conference scheduled for Sunday intended to agree a pathway towards elections this year, has been postponed, raising uncertainty about the country’s future. General Khalifa Haftar, the military strongman who controls eastern Libya, this month launched an attack on Tripoli, the capital, and his troops were on Sunday still fighting forces loyal to Fayez al-Sarraj, the head of the UN-backed government. The FT profiled Gen Haftar, seen by many as seeking to emulate his one-time ally Muammer Gaddafi, Libya’s former dictator who was overthrown by a Nato-backed revolution in 2011.

Libya’s oil production, which is running at about 1.1m b/d, seems so far not to have been affected by the renewed escalation of the conflict. However Mustafa Sanalla, chairman of Libya’s National Oil Corporation, said the country’s oil and gas exports were facing “their biggest threat since 2011”, because of the scale of the forces involved. He told the FT: “Unless the problem is solved very quickly, I am afraid this will affect our operations, and soon we will not be able to produce oil or gas.”

Stratfor argued that the longer the fighting went on, the more likely it was that Gen Haftar would “take advantage of the leverage over the oil sector he has built up, putting Libyan oil exports in a fragile position”. Libya's oil infrastructure operators are “on high alert”, wrote Eklavya Gupte for S&P Global Platts, because of growing fears that ports and other facilities could come under attack. Matt Egan of CNN Business reported on warnings that significant disruption of supplies from Libya, coming at the same time as new US sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, could drive crude prices up by another $5-$10 a barrel. Given President Donald Trump’s concerns about rising fuel prices in the US, it should have come as no surprise to hear Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, defending the administration’s policy of allowing waivers from the Iran sanctions for some of the largest customers for its oil. Mr Trump’s decision on those waivers when the first set expire in early May will be a delicate balancing act.

In Brief
The International Energy Agency was earlier this month criticised by a group of investors and others over the ways that it calculates and presents its scenarios for the future in its World Energy Outlook. The criticism, in a letter to the IEA’s executive director Fatih Birol, included a call for the agency to publish a scenario showing what might be needed to limit global warming to 1.5C, arguing that without such a view, the outlook “would abdicate its responsibility to continue to chart the boundaries of the path of the global energy sector”. Mr Birol responded with another open letter, saying that while he shared the investors’ objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change, the IEA was already providing what they wanted. He said the agency’s “sustainable development scenario” published in the World Energy outlook, was “fully aligned with the Paris Agreement’s goal of ‘holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C’.”

Saudi Arabia’s energy ministry denied reports that the kingdom had threatened to stop using the dollar for its oil sales if the US anti-cartel “Nopec” legislation is passed into law.

Orders for Saudi Aramco’s first international bond sale soared past $100bn, demonstrating the strength of interest from investors. The company sold $12bn of bonds, rather than the $10bn reported to have been originally planned.

Almost half of Britain’s electricity is likely to come from renewable sources by 2025, Carbon Brief calculated. But the country is still on course to miss its targets for cutting carbon emissions in 2023- 2032 by even wider margins than was expected last year.

Part of the answer to that could lie in nuclear power. A report by the UK’s Nuclear Innovation & Research Advisory Board argued that the government needed to take “urgent action” to support the industry. Part of that could be an investment of up to £1bn between 2021 and 2025 to build advanced nuclear technology demonstration plants.

Southern California Edison, the US utility, has told federal regulators it needs to be allowed to earn a base return on equity of 17.1 per cent, because of the risks it faces from wildfires in its service area.

President Donald Trump signed two executive orders intended to accelerate pipeline developments, although it is expected that the effort will face legal challenges.

And finally: Patagonia, the outdoor clothing company, revealed recently that it had decided to stop selling branded versions of its gear for financial services companies and other purely commercial organisations. Now that trend appears to have hit the oil industry. Katie Notopoulos of BuzzFeed reported that North Face had turned down an oil company that was seeking to buy branded gear, saying there were times when it declined to work with organisations “because they do not align with our brand values and mission to move the world forward through exploration.”

It might seem a silly story, but there is a serious underlying issue. The social acceptability of working for the oil industry is increasingly important issue for companies trying to recruit, particularly when they want to hire data scientists and others with IT skills that can also be applied in retail, financial services and the media. It was notable that when Vicki Hollub, chief executive of Occidental Petroleum, spoke at the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy conference in New York, she suggested that young people should take up careers in oil and gas “if you want to make the world a better place”

Yo veo el precio del crudo a puntito de comenzar una corrección. El riesgo-beneficio a corto plazo no me sale por ningún sitio. Mucho riesgo.

A ver si una corrección arrastra a las OSD y las gaseras de NE USA

 

Para compensar Bernad me inspira mucha confianza. Y tienen un ingeniero de minas que me convence mucho

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyQ8YaUQsDM

 

En la reunion anual le preguntaron a Parames si tenia pensado bajar el coste y aprecie que le resulto molesta la pregunta....
yo pense que con sus resultados les bajarian los participes y capital ,pero veo que no , entonces como se van a plantear bajar las comisiones , en el fondo somos nosotros los que tenemos que decidir es una cuestion nuestra no de ellos , ellos ponen un precio por el servicio y nosotros valoramos.
Te imaginas ir a un bar y que los clientes le digan al camarero el precio a pagar por un cafe? Pues como que no... el dueño del bar ya se lo plantearia cuando dejen de parar los clientes, es como lo entiendo yo.