Member Info for damofarl

Really appreciate the comments/contributions /considerations here today. Thanks all.

Some excellent posts last couple of days. Much appreciated

Only another 216% required.......

The Trotsky; spot on with your reading of the RNS - the acquisition RNS makes it quite clear what the acquisition price is, and that there will be adjustments between the absorbed debt/cash consideration/share issuance. Today's RNS means more cash/debt issuance.

'The gross Acquisition value of $1,275 million.......Consideration is expected to be satisfied through the assumption of approximately $700 million of Maverick debt outstanding associated with its RBL, an ABS amortizing note and other outstanding credit, the issuance of approximately 21.2 million new U.S. dollar-denominated Diversified Ordinary Shares to the unitholders of Maverick valued at approximately $345 million at signing, and approximately $207 million in cash, with the mix of Ordinary Shares and cash subject to adjustment based on the outstanding amount of Maverick's RBL at Completion.

For context, in the 'safe' rail industry, there has been 8 deaths in the last 4 years....

The basher;

'what a load of tosh!' - thank you for perfectly describing the impatience for news flow, better than I ever could.

The basher; not short sighted at all. Just pragmatic.

Those having waited so long, another 6 months should be a breeze, surely? Modest display of frustration is totally understandable, but this constant hankering for news is less modest and more hysteria.

I stand by my comment. If one is so anxious for 'news' one shouldn't be invested here, irrespective of whether you've been here 5 minutes or 5 years.

Island girl: I've been here long enough to incur significant paper losses; been investing long enough in this, and stocks of it's ilk, to understand that you don't invest in any stock that preoccupies you, that will materially impact you. What don't I understand? It's singular importance to some investors here? Well that's not my poor understanding.

Personally I think the rationale of a combined entity is excellent, and yes, there is undoubtedly great synergies to be had.

What I can't get my head round is a company, AXL, with half the mkt cap taking over DWL. If one accepts the rationale/synergies of the combination, why aren't DWL taking out AXL?

That shouts lack of belief/confidence from the DWL mgmt. That AXL shareholders can't see what a bargain they are getting perplexes me too.

I can't fathom the impatience and constant hankering for updates prevalent here at the moment. 1) mining/establishing markets takes time and 2) you either believe in the prospect or you don't, and if you do, accept it will take time to come to fruition.

If people need a constant drip feed they shouldn't be invested in a £16m company, they should just invest in a unit/investment trust or an AV. type stock and watch the dividends flow.

The update expectations here are unrealistic. If you invested wisely, patience will be rewarded and enrichment forthcoming.

Full dividend

I see they have issued treasury shares at 55.5

Not bad bit of business considering the vast majority of them were bought back at 53.5

Ps Sturm; when i see people mentioning Pandas, in a financial forum, I kind of switch off.

I really appreciate contrary/differing views, and previously yours have contributed to such , in that I think they have value, in checking one's enthusiasm, making one reexamine one's investment. And I'm all for that diversity, difference of views and rarely censure such

But your recent posts lead me to making you a rarity. I can't elicit your stance in that your invested in a stock,in a market that you don't believe in, with a mgmt you don't believe in. I can't believe any longer in your contributions. Thank you. Goodbye to your contributions.

Sturm;

There is zilch wrong with my maths - that you can't compute that a halving of shares in issue doesn't double your shares, ergo doesn't doubles your dividend highlights your dogma , rather than my exactedness.

As does your weasling out of stating your not Interested in AIM stocks by saying it's dual listed, hence you ARE interested. It may be dual listed but it's still AIM listed.

As for highlighting a stock, it it was you, not I, demanding that someone highlight a stock that met your impossible criteria, to validate your hypothesis, and debunk any others.

You can't grasp maths, you can't grasp owning an AIM stock when you don't consider)are not interested in AIM stocks, castigate those that can't meet your impossible targets, that you can't meet yourself.

Why are you here? It IS an AIM stock.

Alivib; welcome. As a new contributor to this board, you have picked up the prescient points that so seem to alude so many.

Yes, there is a cost to shipping product, a dependence on water levels to get that product to market. Yes that and duresticition weigh on investors considerations.

And yes there has been, and will continue to be, opportunities to trade a buck here. But the best buckS in town are the long buck.

If you look at PTALs production guidance, it is always conservative, encompassing the water level etc, hence for many months it exceeds top end range guidance - but then comes in top end.

It all depends how you view things - for example, when the expense of restorative/preventive works to riverbanks was disclosed (too) many here questioned the cost, and to few the investment. The investment in being able to get product to customer, the investment in the people of the communities they work in, who to, are reliant on the ability to ship product (food etc). The investment in goodwill that would propagate.

Yes, there are times for a quick buck here, but for me, I can think of fewer investments, to hold, forget about, and reap a long dollar

Sturm;

"Damofarl - you completely ignore tax, which for me is 42%. So 13% less 42 percent is a lot less compounding."

I get your point and don't dismiss it...but I didn't dissect your 6 year bought the company back number, because I accepted your point. Because I didn't want to score points. Well yes, depending on your tax status/jurisdiction will have an impact. As would transaction costs. But neither did I examine if you repurchased from your dividend that you might opportunistically get a lower price/arbitrage against the often disconnect between listings. I wasn't trying to undermine your premise, just questioning that it is the singular answer to SP appreciation that you champion. Rather than being draconian with selective responses/debunking, I prefer to consider the premise, even if different to mine, without undermining or dismissing differing views with acute insignificant points.

"You also completely ignore that shares that are bought back are deleted; hence buying back 50% of the shares doubles the dividend..."

Err, I've never ignored or stated that. Not least because if you half the shares in circulation, I still have the same number of shares earning the same dividend. And unless, having done so, they decide to double the dividend, that would rather negate your premise that buybacks would drive the SP - a headline yield of 20+% would more likely drive a concern of a value trap/falling knive.

"You also ignore the signal from the management it sends: Our stock is undervalued."

I think the signal mgmt is sending out is their priority is in production, profitable production, not the SP. Not in in promising a quick buck, but delivering a long dollar.

"I don't know about companies on AIM, since....."

Well, that really highlights the petty grandstanding s of asking people to state a buyback , over a continual period of over 10% from free cashflow that didn't appreciate the SP, when you can't provide a (relevant) example of one that did.

And you are pontificating about the singular value of buybacks on PTAL, an aim listed company, by your admission you don't understand about?

I'm not sure what your interest is in an aim listed company your not interested in? Consequently I've lost interest in why you are here.

Seasoned holders here, as few as we are, will not be surprised to see good results followed by a notable drop in SP.

For me, it was/is irrational, and I topped up, but it seemed weird buying at $83 dollars when you once bought at $30.

But that's my belied in the irrationality of the market response, and my belief in JXN. And I know I'm shooting randomly in the dark here, but a combination of say JXN and PHNX would be amazing.....never say never!

"...assuming #PTAL had used all dividend (12.5c) on share buybacks, they could have bought >25% of the shares back. That means every share you hold would be 33% more worth......I'm arguing they should buy back shares because it's better for compounding..."

any individual investor reinvesting the dividend could achieve the same - without having the concentrating of their stock mandated to them.

"I'm not arguing that they should buy back shares "no matter what"........that was understood.

"But it doesn't really matter what I think. The major shareholder wants dividend and don't care much about the SP......."

Frankly as a minute shareholder, I want the dividend and as long as they keep delivering what they promise, keep delivering the dividend, I don't much care about the SP.

"Personally, post-tax, 13% isn't worth chasing considering all the other companies I can invest in....."

Well as someone focused on high yield and value, I'd be grateful if you could suggest to me just some of all the other companies to invest in rather than chase.

"....can buy back the whole company in 6 years or less at the present rate with cash flow and cash on hand..…..."

Surely investors would be buying back their whole investment in 6 years by reinvesting the dividends?

"Are you telling me it's not going to influence the share price?..."

Well, if constantly delivering what you promised, delivering growth, delivering community involvement, delivering high sustainable dividends doesn't, why would buybacks?

"That's pretty stupid, right? Who in their right mind would think that share price isn't affected..."

No, because of answer as above.

"Show me one, just one, example of a company with positive cashflow buying back +10% a year for some years where it didn't move the needle. Just one. Surely there must be many "since buybacks doesn't work"..

"

Sturm, upto this comment i considered your last couple of posts to be important comment/debate. To set a criteria that is impossible to meet to validate your tunnel vision on buybacks, undermines your argument, seeming superior and dismissive rather than contributing and engaging

To show the ridiculousness of your 'validation', can you name a single stock listed on AIM, which is where PTAL sits, with positive cashflow that has bought back 10+ for MANY years, irrespective of whether it moved the needle? Because following your dogma, I want to be investing in them too.

"Buying expensive shares back doesn't really create value....."

Before this comment, no one here has ever suggested they have or they should, so a superfluous comment.

"Buying back shares in low volume doesn't really move the needle...."

Powerful insight.

"But buying backs low P/E shares will create strong compounding and shareholder value.."

As does reinvisitng your dividends

Sturm; firstly I should say I appreciate your contributions here - don't always agree, but they do add to our understanding/consideration her, hence a thank you.

I know buybacks are your thing here, but I fundamentally disagree. I don't disagree that the current level is meaningless, I just disagree that they are the answer. Yes I get the accretion maths, but personally, with only 2 exceptions in stocks that I hold where buybacks are in operation, to me the only purpose they perform, is on the one hand give traders trading opportunities and on the other inflate mgmt performance incentive plans. I don't see them moving the SP.

What will move the SP is a better understanding of the investing community of PTAL, and whilst sometimes IR seems a bit of an afterthought, and could be more targeted, I do think when they do communicate, they are open, detailed, accessible and fortnight.

I'm not happy at the headline SP, but I'm not unhappy either, in that I feel their focus is on addressing the business not the SP, and as a long term investor, I will reap the rewards and the SP will correct itself.

Too many small/AIM companies are unduly focused on their IR, promising bounties to their shareholders, and not delivering. I feel PTAL conservatively outlines it's objectives/targets and consistently meets or exceeds such. For investors who frequently decry the failed promises of small stocks, the lack of appreciation, seen in PTAL's SP, is bemusing for me. Here is a company that delivers what it says.

Maybe the issue, SP wise is they aren't offering a quick buck but a long richer buck?

Personally I've seen many stocks that the market has got wrong, as here, but if you research/ follow the fundamentals with time, they correct, for those with patience/understanding.

Maybe, but as long term holders here can attest, the market is wrong on this. Again!

This stock's gyrations appear diametrically opposed to the update/results they follow - a great update - down 6%?

But as you say, great results, Ceo seemed ebullient, and a rise in dividend, which I personally applaud. And plenty of (spare) cash at the hold company.