RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:BuybackAntonyius wrote: Why are you repeating what I said and then calling it confusing? I am literally saying Eric and management has clearly defined a path on what they're doing and they've been questioned over and over in multiple calls and meetings about potentially deviating from their path and they have repeatedly said no. So I'm saying there's literally no room for "confusion".
I'll step out of this dialogue after this commentary. Earlier a guy simply questioned whether buybacks would have been reduced or stopped altogether with the price of oil being down lately. You seemingly considered this questioning silly and outlined why you felt that way.
I entered the fray to simply insert Brian Ectors own guidance for H2 buybacks if WTI averaged $70 and on that basis there was about $30,000,000 left to spend if WTI in fact averages $70 for H2.
So, in relation to the guys questioning on buybacks, there are 3 months left in H2 of which the balance of time has unknown pricing on WTI as it is a moving target, hence, management could certainly have modified the pace of buybacks for the balance of the year, taking a less aggressive purchase rate than we have seen in Q2 and early Q3.
Todays disclosure by the company shows exactly what the pace has been for the month of September and the dollars can easily be put into context in relation to the $30,000,000 that would have been available to spend if WTI does in fact average $70 for H2.
No way WTI averages a lowly $70 for H2 so I'd expect plenty more buying back than that $30,000,000 scenario.
Feels like a bunch of arguing over no argument, lol.