Member Info for LONGWAIT

To Jobbins: my recollection is of many posters being incensed that Circle's directors had not disclosed the true level of indebtedness of the company.

We didn't know that it was running out of cash, although one director sold plenty of shares around a peak of 26 p.

I am not suggesting anything similar applies to SOU, but shareholders are sometimes the last to know what they need to know.

Only thing is, Jobbins, that sometimes a collapsed share price is a prelude to the company going into receivership.

I saw that with Circle Oil (in which I was invested) and London Mining (in which I wasn't).

Investors in London Mining expressed disbelief that the price could fall so low and then shock when it hit zero.

You need the be able to tell when a price collapse presages the collapse of a company and also when it doesn't and is overdone.
.

The latter is by definition a buying opportunity.

It isn't easy.

It seems to me that many people have sold their shares because they had collapsed; the shares collapsed partly because they sold them; the collapsed price doesn't reflect the value of the company, but rather fear that the company will go bust.

I've been through a similar experience with HUR, JOG, PVR and LOGP.

I honestly thought one poster was mad when he announced he had bought shares in LOGP for 0.5 p and now wish I had done the same.

Malcy recommended them at 40p and most people, it seems, would rather buy at 40 p than at 0.5 p.

If the plan is to sell off all the assets, one by one, will the company continue to exist for long enough to benefit from contingency payments, Rocket?

You know, Lelo, it's very strange.

I've had similar experiences with comments on other oil exploration companies: they have no money left; the gas or oil isn't there; all the directors are crooks; all the investors have been conned; they'll never get to produce oil/gas; the shares are way overvalued etc.

Maybe not so strange.

Please Luckyman, I know it was a typographical error, but don't call Crudehope 'Crudehipe.'

It's JP who is 'Crudehype.'

Welcome Terry.

As you think SOU shares are still vastly overvalued, even after a fall of 90 per cent, what would you consider to be fair value?

1 p per share?

Since you have been following the company's progress / decline, you must be aware that a single asset has been independently valued at 27 p per share, so we would be interested to know why you think 10 p per share for the whole company constitutes a vast overvaluation.

We don't know what anyone will offer, but many posters think the shares are undervalued, and I agree.

Like you, Ginger Bear, I think the share price has finally bottomed.

H8wever, you did describe it on November 19, when the price was about 18 p, as:

' a real bargain at these prices'

It seems to me that many posters have talked themselves in that every asset or possible asset SOU has is worth very little.

The truth is that we don't know what they are worth or what tentative offers may have been made.

We may be pleasantly surprised and those who sold at about 10 p or 11 p may regret having done so.

It's difficult to imagine that the whole company could be taken over for 5 p per share, but some posters seem to have a remarkably vivid imagination.

Why is it so wide?

My main point was in answer to your point about a bidder buying on the open market.

He wouldn't be able to buy much of a stake that way and, therefore, he would have to win over major shareholders.

As of 2 January, OGIF held 26.59 percent of the total share capital.

https://www.soundenergyplc.com/investors/aim-rule-26-information/

As of 1 September 2018,

We can see that Sound Energy does have institutional investors; and they hold 62.4% of the stock.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/major-shareholders-sound-energy-plc-071000665.html

I don't have up-to-date information, but I don't see how any potential bidder for the company can possibility buy a majority shareholding without causing a big increase in the share price.

Maybe that's why one of the directors bought some more shares.

Reminds me a little of JOG: the share price collapsed recently and many posters were preparing the company's funeral pyre.

Along came Richard Griffiths and invested a million pounds.

That's an expensive funeral.

' I would hate to see a fire sale and watch someone else hit the numbers that I thought we were going to ...'

I think that could well happen, but it can't be helped.

As long as the impression is based on a recent, post-Gherkin, conversation, that is cause for some optimism.

'JP has a sale price figure in mind & I'm damn sure it's a lot higher than 30p.'

Is that just an impression, or is it based on something concrete?

If JP were to announce that he has a figure of 100 p per share in mind, many posters would be howling with laughter or getting a straitjacket ready for him.

I agree with you - I don't see how anyone can consider four successive failures to be conclusive.

In oil exploration, you expect failures.

I think the for-sale sign has gone up because of investor dissatisfaction and despondency.

In that case, you don't believe we will get even 250 million for TE-5?

You could be right, if TE-5 sells for its reliably-estimated value and the seismic data are completely wrong, rendering everything else worthless.

My question is: how can we possibly know that to be a fact?

'I would be pretty sure that ONHYM have no intention of selling,'

If the seismic data is all wrong and the gas isn't there, and the whole thing is worthless or worth peanuts, why would ONHYM want to hold on?