Member Info for Fincent

Kippermanbike,

I don't read it quite like that, but the conclusions may be similar!

It says:

The company has submitted a geo-technical report to the Uruaguay regulator for AREA OFF-1. This is all the licence for that area required the company to do before the licence expired in 2026.

Other companies have just signed licences for other areas where they are required to do 3D seismic surveys as part of their licence conditions (and 1 company has to drill a deep water exploration well too).

The company expects to sign a contract for the licence for AREA OFF-3 soon.

The signing of licences by other companies for other areas requiring 3D seismic surveys paves the way for 3D survey companies to get the necessary permits. This COULD lead to surveys occuring "as early as late 2024 or early 2025".

This does not mean that CEG will be getting a 3D survey done - its not a licence condition for either OFF-1 or OFF-3 apparently, and as you say, CEG does not have the money.

The RNS goes on to say that providing the geo-technical report, other licences being signed by other companies where 3D surveys are required, and the ability of 3D survey companies to get going on permits, "constitute important milestones relevant to a successful conclusion of the company's on-going AREA OFF-1 farm-in process, which continues to proceed well, with anticipated finalisation in Q1 2024".

So any company thinking of a farm in for OFF-1 now knows there is a geo-technical report for that AREA and companies with licences for areas around AREA OFF-1 have to get a 3D seismic surveys for their areas. This was all known or anticipated already, so how it improves the chances of a farm-in, I don't know.

Of course, what the RNS does do is to try and deflect attention from Eytan's previous promise that a farm-in would happen before the end of the year and allows another 3 months hiatus.

If I were looking at a farm in for OFF-1 I would know that CEG has no money to progress the licence further, no oil has been discovered there yet (or anywhere around it) and therefore OFF-1 is a speculative punt (which, incidently, no-one else wanted).

I would not be paying CEG much if anything for a farm-in, and, as I would have to cover all the costs of discovering oil, I would ensure that any cut CEG had of the profits if oil were discovered was very small.

Lastly, it seems to me that no oil will be discovered until at least 2026, so why anyone is getting excited about this share based on this RNS now, I do not know.

Bowlers,

I thought about investing in this company in 2021 but was warned off it by my spotty 22 year old gaming son. It may be the youngsters are better informed than older people like myself (now 60+)! His reasons centered around the inability of this sort of venture to make any money because the players get most of the prize money and monetise their success by having their own YouTube (and similar) channels. He also said there were already a number of "professional" teams mainly funded from the Middle East and some in America. A small start up like this would have difficulty in gaining any traction. The fact that this company has since changed its direction may indicate that some of what he suggested was correct. Now it would appear the company's hope of making money is through sponsorship, helping promote other companies' products, and use of its academy facilities. How succesful that will be I have no idea.

It is positive news, although some of the investments might be a little questionable.

The real problem with the share price though, is that it is very difficult (impossible?) to buy any.

I'm with Hargreaves Lansdown and if I look to add to my holding they tell me it is not possible to buy any shares at the moment (they've been saying that for months) but i can continue to hold what I've got or sell.

I looked a while ago to see if I could buy via AJ Bell and couldn't find the share at all.

If dealing sites don't allow buys, or won't trade the share at all, then the only way the share price can go is down.

From my limited experience, I take some cash in the local currency but largely rely on my debit or credit card to make purchases. I do not really notice the currency fees on the transactions on the cards and it is more convenient, however I may be the exception.

Ramsdens have considered this trend as they are introducing a card for their customers to use abroad. I assume the card will be loaded with the amount in sterling bought via Ramsdens and then used for local currency transactions at a competitive exchange rate like a debit card until the sterling balance runs out. There are clearly benefits for those on a budget but disadvantages too (like losing the card after too many beers!). It will be interesting to see how the foreign exchange business fares in years to come.

Alas,

Yes I agree.

My earlier comment was a reply to the suggestion that the company shares were a buy because pawnbroking profits were on the rise. That may not be so at the moment.

I have shaken off my laziness: the full year accounts for 2022 (to Sept 2022) show PROFITS for each division as follows:

Foreign exchange: (ie travel money): £12.7m

Jewellery sales: £10.263m

Pawnbroking: £7.53m

The interim financial statement to 31st March 2023 provides a mixture of revenue and profit for the various divisions and now adds in precious metal sales so it is difficult to get a proper comparison.

However, I think my point is valid: pawnbroking currently generates the least amount of profit for the company even though the company is seen as a pawnbroker.

If financial conditions worsen, although profits will probably rise in pawnbroking, they will probably fall in jewellery sales and travel money making the company less profitable, at least in the short term.

I however really like the company and have it as a long term buy and hold as it expands its shop network.

Not that my opinion matters.

Barrie,

I am a shareholder here and like the company.

I suspect the general price decline simply reflected overall market conditions and, perhaps, a larger holder reducing their position.

However, I think it important to remember that Ramsdens is not just a pawnbroker (the same applies to H&T).

I admit to being lazy and not looking the numbers up to refresh my memory, but if you look at the company accounts or listen to the company presentations on Investor Meet, you will find that the company breaks down its earnings into 3 sections:

Pawnbroking;

Jewelry and high end watch sales;

Travel money.

As I recall pawnbroking generates the lowest amount of revenue and profit of the three divisions (it certainly doesn't match the other 2).

Therefore it is reasonable to assume that if economic conditions get worse, although pawnbroking will become more profitable, there will be less people buying jewelry and expensive watches or changing money to go on holiday and so company profits would go down rather than up.

That said, the company is still growing - expanding its store base and profit levels - and I like the bluff talking CEO. Long term hold for me.

If you go to the chat page for Pan African Resources (PAF) or Wishbone (WSBN) you will see that Coldspy has repeated there the supposed merits of GCAT. I find this a little strange and wonder whether he/she has some vested interest in GCAT doing well - or are they public spirited?

Gazzleberry,
Thanks for the quiet response!
I will have to think more carefully about your comment.
However, my initial view is that on my logic, in the long run the company is acting in the interests of the shareholders by applying profits in this way, not against them.
As shareholders we are just (in my case anyway) holders of small parts of the company. We have invested in it for a number of different reasons and with different aims. However, our joint aim should be that we want the company to continue as a profitable business and preferably to grow. Our reward for that is either a dividend, or a capital appreciation in the value of our shareholding, or both.
All I was saying was that by buying back shares now, the company's liabilities in the future (in so far as a discretion to pay a dividend is a liability) are reduced. That means the remaining shareholders become "entitled" to a greater share of any profit in the future which may be reflected in a greater dividend, more investment in the business, or more value in the business if that cash is simply retained. £2bn in buybacks this year reduced the share count by over 4bn. At a rough calculation that saves the company £42m in dividends next year if the dividend payout remained the same. Yes, the company is worth £2bn less now, but it has 4bn less shares in issue and, if it remains equally profitable year on year, has an extra £42m to play with next year.
Also, if the company continues to make profits as expected, the remaining shareholders will be "entitled" to a greater proportion of that profit than they would have been. This too should be reflected in the share value and/or the dividend.
On the flip side, if there is no buyback and the surplus cash is returned to shareholders as a special dividend (taking this year's buyback of £2bn as an example), the shareholders get some cash now but the business is worth £2bn less than it was and it still has the same number of shareholders to satisfy next year.
I agree none of this logic stands up if the company makes an ever decreasing profit year on year but, if that were the case, I doubt we would be invested here.

At the risk of being shouted at by someone, I am in favour of share buybacks.
Whilst I accept that they do not seem to move the share price up, and many shareholders would prefer to have the money for themselves by way of increased dividends, no-one seems to consider the advantages to the company in making buybacks. That is they reduce the number of shares on which a dividend needs to be paid next year so they will need less profit next year to pay the same level of dividend to each shareholder. Assuming the company makes the same profit again the following year, there is then some extra money to either buy back more shares, increase the dividend, or further invest in the business. Isn't that the same sort of logic many of us applied when choosing to overpay on our mortgages?
The market sets the share price but the share price will eventually go up if the company continues to be profitable and reduces the number of shares in issue, and/or grows the business, and/or the dividend yield increases. Who is to say that the current share buybacks have not influenced the share price by keeping it higher than it otherwise would be?

Thanks to all who responded to my posts, both good and bad! As a retired lawyer I have a fairly thick skin but little knowledge of investing. I aim to make money by buying shares which go up and protect myself with stop losses. I have never shorted a share and don't intend to. I read these boards because they are a valuable source of information to me but realise they are sometimes used by people to try and move the share price up or down to their advantage. I had to register recently to continue reading what you folks had to say and that also gave me the opportunity to post myself. As its a discussion board, I stuck my neck out this morning. I was surprised not to be quoted a price to sell on line but was given a price to buy. Pleased others haven't encountered this. Also understood ZOE was not growing plants itself but partnering with other so not a true vertically integrated company but I appear to be wrong about that. I look forward to reading more, but not commenting, in the future.

I'm sorry if you think I am sowing the seeds of doubt, I was just trying to be objective. There are lots of reasons to believe this share will be very profitable for its holders: shrader's investment, John Storey's holding, joint Ceo's with large shareholdings, distribution deals etc, and a lot of people who know more than me who post useful comments about the future prospects of this company. I take heart from all of those. But most shareholders hold shares to make money, and some future projections turn out not to be correct - DTU, Helios 2, nitrogen to enhance hemp growth spring to mind. There are competitors out there and ultimately the customer has to put their hand in their pocket to buy Zoe products if this company is to succeed. I am a LTH but I have banked profits on the way and can now afford to sit and watch what happens. I hope for my future financial benefit that this company is the success you all believe it to be.

About to show my financial naivity (hence the name!) I have held HNR almost since the start and was lucky enough to bank a significant gain on DTU euphoria etc, so have been able to ride the ups and downs since without losing money. Did reinvest some of the money made at 22p and 7p on the way down so built up quite a big, for me, shareholding. Have read most comments about this share over time and found them valuable. I agree the future could be very profitable BUT it is all guesswork. My worries are: website still has pitch by NT as CEO describing ZOE as a vertically integrated co, the UK range of products is small, expensive, and some are out of stock. No news has been released of any production, distribution, or sales in US after the distribution deal. I tried to sell some shares this morning on HL and could not get a price but could to buy. Odd way for MM's to drive the price down...?