Insider buying of Canadian oil and gas stocks at 'some of highest levels we've seen' in 5 years: BMO
Insider stock buying among executives at Canadian oil and gas companies is near five-year highs, according to a BMO Capital Markets analyst who tallied up $54 million in open-market purchases in the 90 days since March 1.
Canadian oil and gas stocks have been a rollercoaster ride for investors over the past three months. U.S. President Donald Trump's trade tariffs created unprecedented uncertainty for the industry, which relies on America as its top buyer of crude. At the same time, fears of a weaker economy due to global trade are weighing on forecasts for demand.
BMO analyst Jeremy McCrea says $54 million in purchases over 90 days represents 'some of the highest levels we've seen over the past five years,' while demonstrating confidence for stocks at current prices.
BMO says Canadian oil and gas company insiders purchased $12 million and $20 million worth of stock, respectively, in the same periods in 2024 and 2023.
'Although there are many reasons why insiders sell (tax implications, restricted stock units, etc.), there is one reason they buy,' McCrea wrote in a note to clients on Wednesday. 'That in turn should help build investor confidence, especially as it relates to investing alongside management, and ultimately, reassurance that there are no 'skeletons in the closet.''
He found the largest purchases by CEOs were from the top executives at PrairieSky Royalty (PSK.TO), Whitecap Resources (WCP.TO), and Tourmaline Oil (TOU.TO).
'The CEO of PrairieSky made one of his largest purchases within the sector, buying 72,000 shares or $1.68 million worth of stock at an average price of about $23.40 per share,' McCrea wrote. 'With the stock trading slightly below that price today, it grants investors the rare opportunity to come in alongside the CEO."
According to BMO, Tourmaline CEO Mike Rose recently purchased about $2.21 million worth of his company's stock at an average price of about $63, and has been a regular buyer over the last several years.
Whitecap CEO Grant B. Fagerheim reportedly added $1.34 million worth of his company's stock in the last week, following the close of the company's merger with Veren.
'This would also be one of the larger quarterly purchases made by Grant Fagerheim in his role as CEO of Whitecap,' McCrea wrote.
Fagerheim has been CEO since 2009.
In terms of total buying from insiders, BMO says Obsidian Energy (OBE.TO) ($16.8 million), Peyto Exploration & Development (PEY.TO) ($10.1 million), and Strathcona Resources (SCR.TO) ($7.2 million) were the top companies included in its analysis.
Jeff Lagerquist is a senior reporter at Yahoo Finance Canada. Follow him on Twitter @jefflagerquist.
Download the Yahoo Finance app, available for Apple and Android.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fund-management veteran skips emotion in investment strategy
Fund-management veteran skips emotion in investment strategy originally appeared on TheStreet. This article is based on TheStreet's Stock & Markets Podcast, Episode 8. Hosted by the veteran Wall Street investor Chris Versace, the weekly podcasts are available early to members of TheStreetPro investing club. The podcasts are also available on YouTube. More than 40 years ago Tina Turner famously asked the world: "What's love got to with it?" If the subject is investing, David Miller has a simple answer: not much. 💵💰Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter 💰 Miller, chief investment officer of Catalyst Funds, spoke with Chris Versace, lead portfolio manager for TheStreet Pro Portfolio, in the June 4 edition, episode 8, of TheStreet Stocks & Markets Podcast, to talk about what his firm is looking for in a candidate for investment. "I think the sweet spot is where you have such a good business that even if people hate them they continue to grow and grow with high margins and high EPS growth," he said. Miller cited the billionaire entrepreneur, venture capitalist and political activist Peter Thiel, who advises founders and entrepreneurs to aim for a monopoly and avoid competition. "You're either in perfect competition or you have a monopoly or an oligopoly," he said. "And clearly, anyone who owns a business wants to be in that position where you have a monopoly rather than being in perfect competition."He described how airlines historically haven't even earned their cost of capital and frequently end up going bankrupt. Restaurants, he said, have very high fixed costs and "just never earn outsized economic profits." "Whereas you look at a company like a Visa () or Mastercard () or a Microsoft or an Apple or an Adobe () or an Nvidia," () Miller said. "Phenomenal businesses, phenomenal margins, great tailwinds, really strong free cash flows." So why invest in companies that aren't monopolies when many of the best returning stocks in history have turned into monopolies? "[Frankly,] you don't have to try to pick which stock is going to be the best stock," Miller said. "You can just take these categories that are far superior businesses and invest in those. That's the ideology behind that fund and why we launched it." Miller pointed to Apple () , explaining that "once you're in the Apple ecosystem, they own you." More Wall Street Analysts: Wells Fargo analysts reboot stock price targets after Fed action Apple analyst raises alarm about earnings, revenue growth Analyst initiates SoFi coverage, mulls loans, growth prospects "You don't have a whole lot of choices and they can get great margins," he said. "As someone who's been trapped in the Apple ecosystem willingly since 2005 I am perfectly content and happy," Versace responded. "I certainly understand why a lot of people love Apple," Miller said. "I have the iPhone. I like Apple and I don't particularly like Microsoft, but I'm definitely a customer of Microsoft. I think the best businesses are those where you'll do business with them even if you don't like them." Miller said Tesla () fits this dynamic, as the electric-vehicle maker "launched a new monopoly or an oligopoly depending on how you look at it certainly from a market share perspective." "Once you decide you're going to get an EV, it's a lot easier to go ahead and buy a Tesla and be part of their ecosystem than it is to ... buy an EV that's not part of that Tesla ecosystem," he added. Tesla shares have been thrashed lately — off 14% in regular trading June 5 — in light of Chief Executive Elon Musk's controversial involvement with the Department of Government Efficiency and backing of President Donald Trump. (The two have fallen out and Musk has rankled the White House by describing what the president called his "big, beautiful" budget bill as pork-laden and a 'disgusting abomination.') And while Tesla stock is down nearly 22% in 2025, it remains up about 60% from a year ago. Miller said the courts provide one of the most telltale signs of a monopoly. "Once the courts start coming after you for being a monopoly, that's a pretty good indication that you have some monopolistic characteristics in your business whether or not you want to admit it," he that historically been the targets of court action for their monopolistic characteristics have been phenomenal investments, he added. "If you look at a company like Microsoft, () if you got into [it when] the courts first came after them pretty hard, you'd be sitting pretty today," he said. Monopolies to avoid include electric and water companies. "If you're in a space where you have a product where your profits are regulated as to how much return on equity you can actually generate, we avoid those because what we want to go for is those that are growing monopolies." And Miller prefers to leave emotion out of the equation. "If people like a product, that's great," he said, "but what I really prefer is that they need the product rather than they like the product, and that there's some growing demand around it."Fund-management veteran skips emotion in investment strategy first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 6, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jun 6, 2025, where it first appeared. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Idaho senators should protect school choice in ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
President Donald Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' is now moving through the U.S. Senate, and conservative Christians are thrilled with many of the provisions that have been included so far. Although we don't yet know how the Senate version of the bill will shake out, it's worth noting that the version passed by the House late last month fulfills many of the pro-family policies made by the Trump administration. These include an expansion to the child tax credit for working families, tax benefits for adoptive parents and making permanent the Trump personal income and business tax cuts that fueled the above-average economic growth America experienced before the pandemic derailed international markets. However, one provision in particular that would improve educational access and outcomes for all students has flown under the radar so far. The provision would help more than one million students across the country access the educational support they need by creating special tax benefits for private donations to scholarship-granting organizations. It is modeled after the Educational Choice for Children Act, a federal proposal that has been introduced multiple times over the past several years and has earned the support of Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, as well as other conservative stalwarts like Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, and Sen. Tim Scott, R-South Carolina. Scholarship-granting organizations already exist in many states, providing scholarships directly to students for tuition, tutoring, special needs services, education technology and curriculum materials. The provision offers both a supplement and alternative for students in states like Idaho, which has already begun moving down the road to more universal school choice programs by offering a new $5,000 refundable tax credit paid directly to the private school and homeschool families. Some parents — particularly within the homeschooling community — have voiced concerns that new school choice initiatives, such as Idaho's refundable tax credit, might jeopardize their educational freedom. After all, government money usually comes with strings attached. When you take the government cheese, you have to step into the regulatory mousetrap. And even if those restrictions aren't imposed right away, the door remains open for future state and federal mandates. Importantly, the ECCA provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill addresses these concerns by making sure no government funds go to the organizations, schools, or families involved — thereby avoiding another opportunity for government regulation. Instead, the ECCA establishes tax incentives for private donations to scholarship-granting organizations, which then award scholarships directly to students. Because this is private money — not government dollars — families can freely choose the best educational options for their children without government interference. All of this explains why the ECCA is supported by homeschool freedom advocates, including the Home School Legal Defense Association. In fact, the ECCA model helps ensure that parents remain in control of their children's education, consistent with biblical principles like Ephesians 6:4, which commands fathers to bring up their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Not only would the ECCA provision in the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' help parents fulfill this biblical responsibility, but it would also expand educational opportunities for children currently stuck in failing public schools, no matter the state in which they live. Nationwide school choice which empowers parents while also protecting educational freedom is a high priority for Trump — and it should be just as high a priority for our legislative branch as they set education policy. With that in mind, we call on the U.S. Senate to keep the ECCA provision in whichever version of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' they adopt. Our children — and their families — deserve it. Blaine Conzatti is the president of Idaho Family Policy Center.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump loyalty is now part of job application
More than six million Americans are still looking for work, according to the latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Amid ongoing economic uncertainty, the federal government remains one of the country's most active employers, with open roles for nurses, actuaries, physicists, engineers and IT professionals listed at But prospective applicants may notice something different about the application process in 2025. Alongside typical questions about experience and qualifications, some federal job forms now ask about an applicant's alignment with presidential policy priorities, raising concerns about political screening in what are supposed to be nonpartisan civil service roles. Under guidance issued by the Chief Human Capital Officers Council (CHCOC), part of a broader federal hiring overhaul, applicants may be asked to explain how they would help implement specific executive orders or initiatives. One question currently being used reads: 'How would you help advance the President's Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.' This directive is connected to an executive order President Donald Trump that emphasizes 'merit-based' hiring over previous diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) considerations. The administration stated that these changes are intended to root out political bias and ensure a more ideologically aligned workforce. Critics argue that these practices resemble loyalty tests, particularly as questions of commitment to the Constitution and the President's policies appeared in job applications. Earlier this year, multiple government agencies experienced layoffs of employees who were seen as insufficiently aligned with current leadership, even in traditionally apolitical roles. Historical parallels have been raised. During the McCarthy era in the 1950s, public servants and private citizens alike were pressured to prove their loyalty to the U.S. government to root out suspected communists. Accusations and investigations often targeted personal beliefs rather than actions, leading to widespread firings, blacklisting and surveillance. Civil service roles in the U.S. were originally designed to serve the Constitution and the public, not individual officeholders. Federal employees take an oath to uphold the Constitution, a foundational distinction meant to separate American governance from monarchic or authoritarian systems. Whether the latest hiring guidelines are a temporary shift or a lasting transformation of the federal workforce remains to be seen. For now, job seekers interested in federal positions may want to prepare answers not just about their skills but about their stance on presidential policy.
