Member Info for GingerHippo

Today two years ago we were at 0.48p...........

Here's my workings for 2021.

2200 boepd at an average of $70 per barrel makes approx $22.5M after the 57% to Egypt.
Direct costs of approx $5M, depreciation of $3M, admin of $3M, finance of $1.5M, makes approx $10M. Knock off 10% for luck, let's call it $9M net profit.

That makes £6.5M net profit at the end of the year.

That's a PE ratio of about 3.

That will give us retained earnings of approx $5.5M, next to no long-term debt, and a large increase to fixed assets, as per previous RNS.

Demon, saying losses are good because of tax relief is as silly as saying profits are bad because of a tax liability.

OK, I give up trying to explain this. Clearly few people want to hear it. For those that want to examine this further, I suggest googling terms like "negative retained earnings" and read more about it. Always DYOR.

Shaa, accountant or not, losses do not go to liabilities, they go to the equity part of the balance sheet.

I'm not going to repeat what I've said above. I don't think i can say it any more clearly. Judging by some posts I think some ppl would benefit from studying accounting and business law a little bit.

You'll be happy to know i don't intend to go on and on here. I've said what I came to say. Some won't understand it, some will choose to ignore it. I feel OK having been true to myself and saying something that I think is important and I respect everyone's right to make up their own minds. To be clear, I have not made any comment about where I think the share price will go because I honestly don't know and it would arrogant of me to guess, and that's not what I came to say.

Good luck all. I genuinely hope all PIs make money. We are all on the same side in that respect.

Not so, LB.

In 2020 the company made a net loss of $4,961 and an additional forex loss of $99.

In 2019 deficit was $187,430 and in 2020 it was $192,391. Difference is the loss of $4,961 above.

In 2019 other comprehensive losses wer $2,149 and in 2020 it was $2,248. Difference is the loss of $99 above.

Ironhide, let's say you open a business, say a lemonade stand. You spend money on lemonades that are too bitter, sugar gets spilled, cups get torn and you ended up losing £190. The company has made losses of £190.

So you say screw this and decide to sell the business. You approach a friend to sell it for £48, telling him that now you have access to better lemons and cups, the lemonade stand can make £10 profit a week from now on. So he buys cups etc and sells lemonade and makes his £10. He thinks hurray I can buy myself something with the money I made.

Comes along the government in the form of Companies Act and says, sorry son, you can't use that money buy something for yourself. That £10 belongs to the business, not you, and the business has losses. First you have to get the business into the black before you can start taking money from it.

So he has to work for another 19 weeks before he can reward himself for all his hard work. But the summer was over by then and he couldn't sell any more lemonade. So even though he worked all summer and actually made money every week, he actually got nothing from the business.

He has only two ways to make money. Either he works even harder and sells more lemonade, charges more etc and makes much more than £10 a week. If he can get it up to £50 a week it would be well worth it. Or, he can try to sell the business to someone else and hope they don't know what accumuated losses are either and he can get out of it that way.

Shaa, I can't explain the market caps of companies. It could well be that 88e is overvalued, so why would you want to compare yourself to them? That's not an investment case. Equally there are companies producing more than COPL with significantly lower market caps. I won't mention them by name here cos i don't cross-ramp.

No it's not debt. It's accumulated losses.

Let's say you're a billionaire who was offerred to buy this company. You'd say, how much will the company make each year? Let's say the answer is £10M. So you say great, I pay £48M and get back £10M a year. So in 5 years I'll have broken even.

Not exactly. The company has accumualted losses of about £150M, so the profit of £10M will reduce that to £140M, you as the business-owner still won't get anything until the accumulated losses are cleared. So at £10M profit a year, you'll have to wait 15 years before the company can actually give you anything, and another 5 years before you start to make a return on your initial investment.

Now, as the billionaire, would you buy such a company?

The main variable here is the £10M profit each year. That's a number I made up for illustrative purposes. If you believe COPL will make a lot more than that soon, this might be a great investment.

I'm going to try and clarify what I said cos i think it was misunderstood.

I'm not a deramper as anyone call tell by my posting history. I do from time to time try to point out something that I think is important and maybe has not been pointing out on the boards. I'm not always right, I'm just giving an opinion.

When I invest, i don't look at the stock as simply something to trade based on price fluctuations, I look at the business fundementals. My goal is to determine whether it's a successful busness or not. Point is, if this was not traded on the market, would i be happy to buy this business for £48M (mcap)? That's what I'm looking at.

So I look at COPL's balance sheet and see accumulated losses of $194.6M. That is a fact. Therefore, even if the company has a profitable year, the company itself won't be profitable until it has made profits exceeding $194.6M. This is a very simple point. Not a deramp, just pointing out something I see as significant.

My point is not that the company won't be giving dividends. Most growth companies don't. My point is that as a business, it will not be in a postion to give dividends until it's made back the $194.6M, because that's the loss of the company so far.

So the question is, do you think the comapny will sell enough oil to make this shortfall back. And if it can, does that mean it's worth spending £48M to buy the business on that basis? Again, let go of the share price for a second and imagine you were a billionarie who was offerred to buy this company for £48M. Would you do it?

My opinion is that the company will not overcome this accumulated loss for a very long time if ever. I could be wrong about that. Anyone who is an investor here must surely disagree with me and think the comapny will in the future make over approx £190 (market cap + accumualted losses). IMO that ought to be what you're thinking about when you buy here. This is a key point in investing (as opposed to specualting on price fluctuations).

It did not surprise me one bit that the knee-jerk reaction here was dismissive. It's a very silly attitude in investing. I might be wrong. You can disagree with me. But at least think about it. And certainly not put off other people from thinking about it. Rampers who make it harder for newer PIs to see both sides are hardly doing them any favours.......... Only one post has actually addressed what I said. And to rebut, I would say that having tax losses is not exactly wonderful. Yes you pay less tax in the future, so you gain 19% of the loss, but the other 81% is lost forever. Saying losses is good because of tax relief is as silly as saying that making profit is bad because you have to pay tax.

As I said, feel free to disagree with me. I'm not a guru, I'm not always right. But as long as you have a reasoned investment analysis, DYOR, trust nobody (rampers or derampers) and don't invest more than you can afford to lose.

Ultimately, all us PIs are on the same side. Good luc

@leathal, thank goodness there's at least one PI who is willing to ask the only question that matters. Good for you.

A point that I think a lot of PIs are missing is this. I'm only going to say this once cos I know I'm going to be screamed at, but it's worth pointing out anyway as some people might find it helpful.

As at 31.12.2020 the company had accumulated losses of $194.6M. That is how much money it has cost to get to his point. That's a whole lot of oil that would need to be sold before the company itself has been successful and IMO it's doubtful that the company will ever be able to make these losses back. Hence, the company will never be able to make a payout to shareholders. The only way to make money here is to hope the sp goes up, making this a speculative buy, not an investment in the conventional sense of the word.

I know this will step on some people's toes so I won't respond to the inevitable abuse I'll get for pointing this out.

Very exciting.

Key themes of the conference include export finance strategies and managing supply chains.

Overview:
"Following a momentous 2020, which saw both the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic expose the fault lines in UK supply chains and preparations finalised for the country’s post Brexit global trade relationships, this high-level gathering will continue to shine light on the crucial issues impacting on the trade and export finance market, from challenges faced by exporters to the support measures put in place by government, the role of technology and innovation to the need to cultivate a more inclusive and sustainable environment for conducting business."

Look at the sponsors:
The government
Natwest
Barclays
Lloyds
Santander
and lots and lots of other big names

100% MRR.

Only 84 day left till lift-off (for real this time ;-)

Seasick, that seems counter-intuitive to me. The longer it goes on the more I want to get paid.....

Moneymaker and others, of course it's incredibly complex to calculate an exact value. There are lots of other factors that we know about, and a myriad other factors that we know don't even know exist.

But if you do a conservative calculation based on what we do know, and it comes to 11x where we are now, that's a pretty good start, and just about the best you can do as a PI. That said, I would be delighted if we get more than I calculated above and wouldn't grumble if it was a bit less.

MT:
22.6M oz of PGM at a 2:1 ratio Pd to Pt @ $1900 and $995 per oz respectively.
(1900*2+995)/3=1600 average price per oz
22.6M x $1600 = $36.16Bn.
We own 80%, or $28.930Bn.

JV:
104.6M oz of Pt equivalent @995 pr oz
104.6 x 995 = $104Bn
We will own 75%, or $78Bn

£29Bn + 78Bn = $107Bn

It is common to take 9.5% to get present value, so that's $10.165Bn, or £7.5Bn.
There's about 2.85Bn shares in issue, so at £7.5Bn, that's about £2.60 per share

Adding an extra 10p for WK (bargain!) gets you to £2.70 per share, or just over 11 bags form here.

That said, if, Tiger, you insist that anything that hasn't happened yet is considered "jam tomorrow", by which you mean, it's an empty promise, what you're basically saying is that anything that hasn't happened yet won't happen ever, which is of course a beyond-stupid approach to take, especially in investing. This is self-evident.

Only takes 30 seconds to Google:

Jam tomorrow or jam to-morrow (older spelling) is an expression for a never-fulfilled promise. Some pleasant event in the future, which is never likely to materialize. It originates from Lewis Carroll's 1871 book Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There.[1] This is a pun on a mnemonic for the usage of the Latin word iam (formerly often written and pronounced jam), which means "at this time", but only in the future or past tense, not in the present (which is instead nunc "now"). In the book, the White Queen offers Alice "jam every other day" as an inducement to work for her:

"I'm sure I'll take you with pleasure!" the Queen said. "Two pence a week, and jam every other day."
Alice couldn't help laughing, as she said, "I don't want you to hire me – and I don't care for jam."
"It's very good jam," said the Queen.
"Well, I don't want any to-day, at any rate."
"You couldn't have it if you did want it," the Queen said. "The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day."
"It must come sometimes to 'jam to-day'," Alice objected.
"No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every other day: to-day isn't any other day, you know."
"I don't understand you," said Alice. "It's dreadfully confusing!"

"subhuman scum"

Alan Partridge

"Current DD contracts are more clearer and robust without “refundability” clause"

Yes. And why have clients agreed to this?

Because the risk of IM not happening (and clients therefore needing to be refunded) is significantly less now than it was a year ago.