As part of my research, I did a quick summary on the status of all Bumi Armada FPSO/FSU/FSRU units. Please do share your feedback on this!

https://pdfhost.io/v/4zOSQa8UE_armada.pdf

Top up 50,000 @ 0.395 today

Check with the Investor Relations email. I think next week.

Damn missed to top up at RM0.40. Got some fresh bullets should it go back to RM0.40 or lower.

Big waves. Big waves on the horizon. This is a cash generating machine and yet not many can see it.

https://i.ibb.co/936Gk9X/image.png

Look at this again. Less than RM100mil cash from sales of vessels used to pare down the debt over the past year. RM1.6bil debt repaid in a year with cash. And yet more projects are coming onstream.

This time next year, we'd be well clear of RM1, short of a disaster.

Goreng no yet. I still holding from 3,500 lots at RM0.225. I would buy a bit more if I could, but already enough risk exposure for now. Goreng will come closer to release for Q2 results in August. Results themselves are expected to be very strong (normalised net profit of ~RM150 to RM180mil).

Down down downnn

Pathetic when crude is above $75

Weak

What the hell guys. Will yall shut the heck up about other companies here. What a nuisance!!

https://theenergyyear.com/articles/client-focused-fpso-operations/?amp

Oil is hitting $75. Close above 50 sen tomorrow is good enough

Damn still not closing at rm0.50!!

Should be heading to Rm0.60 minimum at these oil price levels. Fundamentals are solid. Worst is over. A new era of growth beckons. This is the kind of stock that could potentially be a multi bagger. It is already 4x from March 2020 lows. Could still go 10x from here over the coming years. For now, I think fair value is around RM0.60 to RM0.80. Stock price needs more institutional support to move higher.

Yinson IR is focusing on share price and what random people are saying without substantiation.

Red flag!

You should fire your agent/broker for talking nonsense

You can't recall? It is you and you can't recall ke? REALLY!?!?!? Why having a name like that then. So shame!!

How come we don't know about this case.

https://www.incegd.com/en/news-insights/maritime-court-considers-unclear-dispute-resolution-clause-charterparty

Insights / 02-06-2021 / Dubai, London

Armada Ship Management(s) Pte Ltd v. Schiste Oil and Gas Nigeria Ltd (Armada Tuah 101) [2021] EWHC 1094 (Comm)
In this case, the dispute resolution clause in the charterparty was unclear because of the manner in which amendments had been made to its standard terms. Upon the claimant making an application under s.32 Arbitration Act 1996 (“AA 1996”) for a declaration that a sole arbitrator had been validly appointed, the Court held that such applications are inappropriate where the defendant fails to participate in the arbitration. In such cases, s.72 AA 1996 preserves the non-participating party’s right to challenge jurisdiction.

The background facts
A dispute arose under an amended Supplytime 2005 charterparty (the “Charterparty”) regarding unpaid invoices allegedly due from Schiste Oil and Gas Nigeria, the Charterers of MV Armada Tuah 101 (the “Vessel”), to Armada Ship Management, the Owners of the Vessel.

Box 34 of Part I of the Charterparty provided for English law and arbitration in London. The amended standard clause 34 of Part II further provided:

34 BIMCO Dispute Resolution Centre
(a) This Charterparty shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Charterparty shall be referred to arbitration in London in accordance with the Arbitration Act 1996 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof save to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this Clause. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the London Maritime Arbitration Association (LMAA) and UNICITRAL [sic] Terms current at the time when the arbitration proceedings are commences.
The reference shall be to three a single arbitrators. A party wishing to refer a dispute to arbitration shall appoint its arbitrator and send notice of such appointment in writing to the other party requiring the other party to appoint its own arbitrator within 14 calendar days of that notice and stating that it will appoint its arbitrator as sole arbitrator unless the other party appoints its own arbitrator and gives notice that it has done so within the 14 days specified. If the other party does not appoint its own arbitrator and give notice that it has done so within the 14 days specified, the party referring a dispute to arbitration may, without the requirement of any further prior notice to the other party, appoint its arbitrator as sole arbitrator and shall advise the other party accordingly. The award of a sole arbitrator shall be binding on both parties as if he had been appointed by agreement.
Nothing herein shall prevent the parties agreeing in writing to vary these provisions to provide for the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
[…]
In April 2020, the Owners attempted to refer the dispute to LMAA arbitration and invited the Charterers to agree to the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The Charterers did not respond substantively. The proposed sole arbitrator expressed concern that clause 34(a) was confused and left the scope of his appointment and jurisdiction unclear.

The Owners applied to the LMAA for the appointment of a sole arbitrator, given that the parties could not agree. Pursuant to para. 11 of the LMAA Terms 2017, the LMAA President duly appointed a sole arbitrator (who was different to the sole arbitrator initially proposed by the Owners).

Subsequently, the Owners obtained the arbitrator’s consent to apply to the Court under s.32 AA 1996 for a determination and declaration regarding the validity of the sole arbitrator’s appointment.

The Commercial Court decision
The Court found that the requirements of s.32 had been met in principle in this case, namely: “that the determination of the question is likely to produce substantial savings in costs”; “that the application was made without delay”; and “that there is a good reason why the matter should be decided by the court” (s.32(2)(b)(i)-(iii)).

However, the Court also held that the s.32 procedure was not appropriate in circumstances where s.72 was engaged. Where s.72 preserved a non-participating party’s right to challenge jurisdiction, an order under s.32 could result in a determination on the question of jurisdiction against the interests of a party who had the protection of s.72.

Position if s.72 AA 1996 did not apply
Nonetheless, in order to assist the tribunal, the Court gave a non-binding indication of what its decision would have been in relation to the construction of the dispute resolution clause had a s.32 application been appropriate.

The Court found that the amendments the parties had made to clause 34 evidenced their intention that disputes should be determined by a sole arbitrator. However, it was unclear how that arbitrator would be appointed given the reference to both LMAA Terms and UNCITRAL Rules. Article 8(1) of th

FMCO should have virtually zero impact to Bumi Armada. In fact, the overall Covid-19 situation is improving tremendously globally. In any case, >95% of Bumi Armada's revenue is generated outside Malaysia.

Serba Dinamik says got typo in invoice/contract documents? I call BS. Management also hiding stuff. External Auditor is doing its job. Just because the External Auditor "changed its approach" is not reason enough to wave away the concerns. If anything, it's good the External Auditor was willing to go back to pre-IPO "ways of doing things" and flag issues there.

Thanks for sharing Gabriel.

The report actually seems pretty positive, they even increased the TP higher, just that now the share price is also around the level so it has been "downgraded" to a hold.

As I recall, CIMB was to first major IB to be upbeat about Bumi Armada's future, their TP was first into RM0.40 range. Maybank meanwhile was around RM0.17 and then after 3 upgrades they're at RM0.52 now.

Anyways, the fundamentals are solid. As the CEO said during the AGM, they're seeing "a lot of pent-up demand" for the FPO segment. The financials have been cleaned up and they should be able to obtain financing from banks within 2 or 3 quarters time once the net gearing level has gone down to about 1.75x levels.

Got the full CIMB report? I'd like to take a look at it.

If anyone got RHB also, much appreciated.

Jojobaa, you’re right. No depreciation, but there would have been “holding costs” and also delivery costs that would’ve been recognised this quarter.

Actually even during Q4 2020 results announcement, almost all analysts raised their TP. Now, with Q1 results, the TP raised once again.

I tell you, there might be some hidden profits yet to come. They just disposed 11 vessels in Q1 2021. I imagine these vessels would've been cold stacked/unused. So they were incurring depreciation. Also, expenses to deliver the vessels to the buyer. Some vessels were shipped as far away as Nigeria to buyers in China.

In Q2 2021, there should be significantly lesser depreciation, and also less charges to coldstack/maintain the vessels. Also, no more costs incurred to sell the vessels (travel/costs to refurbish out of cold stack etc).

I won't be surprise that this alone would be able to boost profits by around RM20-30mil per quarter.

Watch out for a leaver OSV segment with greatly reduced losses (or even slight profitability) in Q2 2021!!!

Public Invest New TP RM0.58 (from RM0.49).

Only a matter of time now before the share price can break through RM0.50 and sustain at those levels.

It's interesting how the investment banks have increased their TPs, Brent crude oil price is sustained at >USD65, and yet the share price has not appreciated significantly.

Oh well...patience. One day, when it jumps, it will JUMP!

Can everyone else share the research reports as well. Thanks!

Actually the IB are not fully independent. If you see Hong Leong AM has got very high holdings of Bumi Armada Bhd. Then Hong Leong IB is the MOST bullish analyst on the stock.

Same with Yinson Holdings Bhd, Kenanga Investors Bhd's funds historically have a high exposure to Yinson Holdings Bhd, while Kenanga IB is very bullish on Yinson stock.

IB and AM cannot be housed under the same group. Will lead to biases like these (intended or otherwise).

Good morning folks! Please share your research reports.

This is from Maybank. Target price increased from RM0.43 to RM0.52. Not long ago, Maybank's target price was the lowest, at RM0.17.

https://mkefactsettd.maybank-ke.com/PDFS/221896.pdf

Lets assume the current terminal/recurring net profit is around RM150mil/quarter, i.e. EPS of 2.54 sen.

Per year this is an EPS of around 10.16 sen.

Now, assume RM30mil/quarter is added from Armada Sterling V and Armada Mumbai FSRU over the next 2 years. This adds an EPS of around 0.51 sen / quarter and around 2.04 sen per annum. Total EPS per quarter is now 3.05 sen, and total EPS per year is now 12.20 sen.

Then, imagine that with the OSV business being slowly sold off (the last ones to be sold will be the vessels which are well-used and contribute positively), lets imagine that there is no longer a drag to profits. This will add another RM30mil/quarter. Additional EPS of 0.51 sen per quarter and 2.04 sen per annum. Total EPS per quarter is now 3.56 sen, total EPS per annum is now 14.24 sen.

This is not even taking into account that the OSV business may turn a profit once the loss-making vessels are sold off. Or that the SC vessels in the Caspian may get a contract in the coming months for work to begin in 2022. Or that the Company could land additional FPSO/FSRU projects (notably the Limbayong FPSO project with its partners). Also, the JVs may contribute more profit per quarter as the Armada D1's extension costs have already been expensed.

There are so many positives to look to. But just what we have at the moment, an EPS of 10.16 sen...this is a bargain. Bumi Armada will soon reach the heights of RM1++, the ride has only just begun. Enjoy it! :)

Anyone using Ambank stock trading platform? Please keep a lookout from their research report. They usually are the first to release, on the evenings of the day results are announced.

The AGM was so terrible man. The stream kept cutting out, I couldn't hear the responses to a lot of questions. Any highlights for those who watched?

For me, Bumi Armada is gonna be a pure play FPSO player now. No more OSV segment.

Subsea Construction contracts will be secured only in 2022 is Caspian, but for now, there is one JV SC vessel with work in Indonesia

Armada Sterling V will become operational in 2022. Work is 65% done as of early May 2021.

And that is before factoring in around RM100mil per year for the new ONGC FPSO from next year onwards, and around another RM20mil per year for the FSRU from 2023 onwards. And those are conservative estimates. Which means there is A LOT of upside here!!

@Jojobaa, that's a good point. The profit from JV is slightly lower as well, at only RM12mil for Q1 2021 for the FPSO segment. The more "normal" profit would be around RM30mil to RM50mil per quarter (no including the new FPSO/FSRU projects).

However, where did you find that the JV profit was lower due to vessel upgrading cost for the Armada D1 (i.e. Armada Sterling I)? I don't see this information in the quarterly report. As far as I'm aware, this was already expensed off last year.

Debt analysis: https://i.ibb.co/936Gk9X/image.png

Take note that the reduction in the rate of paring down the debt is mainly due to higher USDMYR rates (March 31 2021 RM4.15/USD vs Dec 31 2020 of RM4.02/USD).

@VincentTang, other operating income exists normally (provision of engineering services to subsidiaries/joint ventures etc). The asset disposal contributed only a small amount to the other operating income (RM6.8mil). Meanwhile, impairment is NOT normal. That it has ended is a good thing, not a bad thing. There should be no further impairments as a normal course of action here on out.

I already stripped out the one-off exceptional items and got to a net profit of RM148mil. Whichever way you look at it, RM148mil is a superb result!

Also, Kraken was offline for 3 days due to unforeseen circumstances. This reduced profits by around RM10mil.

Btw, this is Bumi Armada BEST EVER quarter results!

Plus there are new projects coming on stream next year (FPSO) and the year after (FSRU). So the company is growing the top line, as well as reducing costs such as finance costs (as they repay large chunks of borrowings) and depreciation charges (as the OMS vessels are sold off).

Rm6.8mil from asset disposal, Rm5.7mil from reversal of impairment, and RM1.7mil from gain in FX. Therefore total one off gains is Rm14.2mil. Meaning which, core net profit is around Rm148mil. Finance cost has lowered further. Exceptional!

RM162mil net profit. Now that’s something! Well done Bumi Armada!

3 hours and 15 mins to go. I'm feeling good! :)

Net profit might be over RM150mil, but on a core basis, should be between RM120mil to RM140mil. Disappointing if core net profit below RM100mil. Impairment is unknown, hopefully none.

Everyone, share your expectations as well!

Anyone going agm tomorrow? (Online)

Tomorrow's gonna be a ong ong and huat huat day!

Woohooo, 3 days to go!! Enjoy the weekend people!

So crazy. Whether Iran sell more or less oil does not impact Bumi Armada's operations!

Anyways, profits...profits will tell the full picture. 4 days to go now.

Hold. It's darkest before dawn.

Patience my young padawan. Move, it will. But first, wait you must.

Does anyone have access to any updated research reports? Hong Leong, RHB, CIMB, Kenanga, MIDF, AffinHwang etc?

Maybank has no updated report.

I'm mistaken. The current project in Malta is merely a FSU (only storage), while the new award in Mumbai is for an FSRU (regasification and storage). This means the contract value should be higher, and in tandem, the profit margins will likely be higher too. Hope to get more details from the Company soon.