Rusty- it was an observation not ‘analysis’, but I think what your views indicate is that you think that POG’s relatively high price, compared with CEY based on CURRENT performance of both companies, includes a premium for possible future performance.
Please don’t look upon any of my observations as trying to promote negativity - just simple comparison based on current metrics.
Rusty - the observation I was trying make in my earlier post was that given POG and CEY Market Caps are similar but CEY’s fundamentals are superior, then either CEY is well underpriced or POG is overpriced.
Rusty/UDF - back to the crux of the situation - we have no idea of the real gross operational profit for this company. There appears to be a widely held view that we are undervalued but even that seems based on the view that cash/profit is being siphoned off somewhere undetected or misreported under different guises. As you say, Rusty, hopefully the Review will reveal all and, again hopefully, in the direction we expect.
Am I right in an assumption that the qualification criteria are almost impossible not to achieve based on the current widely held view that POG is significantly undervalued compared to the median group. I know this is not the exact data but if POG SP is currently at a P/E of (say) 4, and the median group at (say) 12, then any growth in TSR for POG will likely simply reflect a normalisation of P/E for the group as a whole.
POG features in The Times Leaders of 2020 today with a rise on the year of 155% with the caption “...the Russian outfit which climbed 155% as a shareholder battle for control shone a light on its potential value”.
I have never used Share Awards in any of my businesses to reward employees with the view that they are already recompensed to ensure the Company performs to its optimum. My principal has always been to pay part salary and part (net) profit share.
RE: where did the cash go b/w 30 June and 30 Sep?31 Oct 2020 12:06
Given all the comments, guesses, and attempts to explain the results yet again, it would seem that our hope, and the Company’s promise, of improved transparency may have not yet been delivered. The Market seems to agree.
RE: Forced to break into Moscow office05 Oct 2020 15:40
I suppose the real significance is if this issue is having an effect on processing output. On the other hand if it's causing problems with investigatory work then that will inevitably lead to suspicions of reporting cover-ups and, even worse, may lead to our new Auditors having second thoughts.
UDF - as you say - old news and just the Company explaining some of the background to this technical fiduciary issue. I don't see where there's any confusion and seems very well and openly explained. I read it that the Company expects to maintain their recent projection of a performance announcement in the second half of this month, but that even this would be a technical default on original undertakings. Although they also acknowledge that this cannot be guaranteed dependent upon any exceptional early discoveries made by our new auditors.
I wouldn't put much store by the published dates. The Interim Results date is still showing as 9th July (see Financial Diary tab above) and there's still no sign of them. At present just be thankful for any official news which comes our way at any point within the next 3 months or so. Good bull run this last week.