Member Info for LONGWAIT

I was shocked when I first learned of the placing, but judging by the reactions of posters, you would never guess that the value of the placing is about two percent of the market capitalisation.

It reminds me a little of when HUR raised a very small amount a coupe of years ago.

The price subsequently collapsed, posters said they had lost all confidence, and the whole saga seems to have been forgotten.

Can we just keep a sense of proportion?

The level of the placing reflects the collapse of the market price.

TE-5 has been independently valued at 27 p per share, and it's only part of Tendrara.

A bid for Tendrara must surely be for more than 27 p per share.

My last post was in reply to Trellis

You didn't give the context of my comment about the possible purpose of the placing being to avoid a low bid:

'Why place shares at 10 p, when you are expecting to sell them for multiples of that within months?

Is the purpose of the placing to strengthen the company's cash position in order to make it less vulnerable to a low bid?

If so, what signal does the level of the placing price send to a potential buyer?'

Interesting theory.

The placing last year was at 37 p.

I don't know about the other one.

The corollary to it is that OGIF would need a price of somewhere close to 93 p (about 85 p) to break even.

What influence would that have on the negotiations?

Malcy describes the announcement as:

'A wise move to ensure that costs are under control and that the company is in a strong position during negotiations.'

How can issuing shares at 10 p put you in a strong position to sell them for 50 p or 100 p?
If the deal can be expected to be completed within six months, wouldn't it have made more sense to announce that directors would stop receiving salaries in the meantime?

My thoughts are:

share prices always seem to fall gradually before a placing is announced, as if the MMs know, and the same thing has happened here.

Did this two directors who bought recently know of this planned raise at the time and, if so, what does that tell you?

The dilution is minimal.

Why place shares at 10 p, when you are expecting to sell them for multiples of that within months?

Is the purpose of the placing to strengthen the company's cash position in order to make it less vulnerable to a low bid?

If so, what signal does the level of the placing price send to a potential buyer?

Has anyone ever heard of a company announcing the sale of a major asset and then doing something similar?

Thanks for saving us the trouble of having to read all that.

So you don't agree with Ranger about PVR's prospects?

It's only a matter of time before this dichotomy of opinion is resolved.

If, as I think, Tendrara is sold for several times its current market value, it will be very I interesting to see the responses of the doomsters.

Will they express pleasant surprise, grudging admiration for the management, complaints that only X x the market price would have been good enough?

Or will they concede that the price was satisfactory, but wish they had never heard of SOU?

If APEC cannot raise the money, are planning to walk away, and have no intention of going through with the deal, why haven't they simply announced that they are pulling out?

The share price jumped from 6 p to 7.5 p a couple of years ago when PVR announced they were in exclusive talks that might lead to a farm-out.

We are now almost back to the same level, even though we are on the verge of getting everything in place for a drilling programme.

AIM.

I think Parsons has provided shareholders with quite enough excitement, Pontcanna.

We would now like him to do something rather boring and get a good price for Tendrara.

I share your sentiments entirely, but I don't think anyone has an agenda.

I just think there is a mania on AIM for shooting down companies whose share prices have collapsed.

I've seen it with HUR, JOG, PVR, FOG.

As soon as things go wrong, there are posts about the directors' alleged dishonesty and incompetence.

Of course, in some cases it is true, but the accusations seem to be universal, like a kind of revenge.

... and since we have been informed that there is a cut-off date by which any offers have to be made, we should know soon enough.

For better or worse, at least it will put an end to the incessant arguments about whether Tendrara is worth 5p, 50 p, 100 p or 250 p per share.

... and since we have been informed that there isn't a cut-off date by which any offers have to be made, we should know soon enough.

For better or worse, at least it will put an end to the incessant arguments about whether Tendrara is worth 5p, 50 p, 100 p or 250 p per share.

'If all that is offered is 5-10 pps how many PI's would accept that...'

In that case, we would not be asked to vote on any offer.

'If all that is offered is 5-10 pps how many PI's would accept that...'

In case, we would not be asked to vote on any offer.

IF we have 20 TCF in addition to TE-5, and they were valued at just 2.5 p per share each, that gives a total of about 75 p per share.

I don't think anyone will argue with my valuation, except that - they will say - no prospective buyer will accept that there are 20 TCF in Tendrara.

Well, that can be proven.

Can't it?

To put it another way: the very thing that causes me to think that the shares are so undervalued causes others to think that there must be something seriously wrong with the company.

I mean that I think the shares are very undervalued, but many posters think otherwise because of the collapsed share price.

Looks as though the shares are extremely undervalued, but many posters are guided by the share price rather than by the prospects.