Member Info for LONGWAIT

' The SP would suggest that the BOD do not have a clue how to run a successful company.'

I think that is an illogical comment.
It implies that when UKOG reached 11p, it was a successful company, but that now that it is 0.8p it is an unsuccessful company, even though nothing much has changed in the meantime.

As I pointed out yesterday, when JOG had fallen from 399p to 57p, a poster said, in similar words to yours, that it was obvious that the BOD didn't 'have a clue what they are doing,' and since the price peaked at 240p, the next correction was greeted by a poster saying that the share price indicated that the market 'doesn't believe that JOG will be able to get the oil out of the ground.'
JOG shares are still ridiculously cheap.
You and those two other posters are typical of AIM posters who are overly influenced by the share price.
It seems there are actually people who disbelieve that FB is feasible, think that BP are buying barrels of water, don't believe that HUR is banking tens of millions of dollars every month, and are convinced that its management is incompetent - and all on the ground that the share price has slumped.

I think your comments are unfair.
First, the HUR management is not responsible for the whims and fickleness of the market.
Secondly, spending profits on share buybacks would result in a new scare story that HUR's cash is running out.
According to some posters' logic, the management of a badly-run company with a high share price would be considered to be doing a good job.

You've just reminded me of another reason some posters have given for being pessimistic about HUR's prospects, Daltrey: when I mentioned the cash pile, they dismissed it on the ground that it would be invested in further development / exploration, as if the money would be thrown away!

I think it is quite possible that Dr Trice is thinking along the same lines as you, and looking to do more no cash upfront deals, which will of course result in accusations that he has given away too much.

A growing and untouched cash pile would make the shares look even cheaper, but even JOG fell below its net cash value and RRE has been below it too.

At the risk of repeating myself, a while ago JOG fell from 399p (admittedly before a cash raise) to 57p, because it announced that it might have only 25 mmboe rather than up to 130 mmboe, even though with 25 mmboe (definite) the shares were still worth more than 200p.
Posters were expressing doubts about whether there was any oil at all.
One poster said that the BOD's silence meant they 'clearly haven't a clue what they're doing.'
Along came a private investor and bought up 9.8 percent of the share capital.
Just afterwards, JOG was awarded game-changing licences and the share price soared, with hundreds of posts every day from exuberant new investors.
Some were predicting a price of '300 p tomorrow,' and speculating about how high it could go, declaring that it was obviously seriously undervalued.
The price peaked at 240p and the private investor started taking profits, driving it down to 146p as of today.
Most posters disappeared, with the total number of posts per day countable with the fingers of one hand, as had been the case before they appeared.
In fact, there is not a single post today!
One poster wrote during the latest share price decline that it was 'obvious' that the market did not believe that JOG could get the oil out of the ground.
I apologise to those who may be tired of reading yet again about JOG here, but does any of this sound familiar?
The story may be slightly different, but one common theme is that there must be something wrong with the company because otherwise the BOD would say something.
Another is that the oil isn't there (in spite of there being no evidence to that effect).
Another is that the share price fall means there must be something wrong.
During the present HUR share price decline, I have read of doubts that FB works, doubts that the oil is there, worries that HUR's barrels are full of water, and worries that the oil will dry up.
During the five and a half years I have been here, I read of worries that HUR wouldn't be able to obtain finance, wouldn't be able to go it alone, worries that FOIL would fail, and worries that oil would not be produced for as long as six months.
Taking all these facts into account, if you were Dr Trice, would you be confident that there is anything you could say that would change doubters' minds?

It is very hard, especially when one's total position is close to a quarter of a million shares and one has never top sliced in the sixties (and there have been three opportunities to do so).

I really don't know what more the BOD could do, other than issue a statement that in response to concerns raised by shareholders, it knows of no cause for the share price fall.

In my opinion, apart from possible manipulation, the share price is falling because shareholders are selling because the share price is falling, having convinced themselves that there must be something wrong because otherwise the price wouldn't have fallen so far.

If the share price falls to 10p, it will be on a prospective P/E ratio of 1, based on 20 k bopd.
If, as anticipated, production rises to 40 k bopd, the P/E ratio would fall to 0.5.
We were told that HUR would have to produce for 12 months to prove its concept.
We are within five months of achieving that.
I've regretted not buying at 9p and even 13.5p almost four years ago, but at that time there were doubts as to whether HUR would be able to obtain the financing necessary to develop Lancaster, and seasoned oilies here were saying that HUR would never become a producer and couldn't go it alone.
HUR is now a producer with a steady income and yet still the rumours about water are circulating as well as doubts about production, whether BP are unknowingly buying barrels of water from HUR, and whether fractured basements work, and still there are worries about the number of shares in issue.
I've never come across a company like this before.
The more it achieves, the more shareholders are in doubt.

'At the current share price, the Fund believes that a buyback of shares could be an attractive use of capital in the interest of the company.'

The idea behind share buybacks is that by reducing the number of issued shares, the share price would rise.
That assumes that AIM shares are priced in a logical way.
People would still complain that there are too many shares, and then there would be a new target for the shorters and rumour-mongers: HUR's 'dwindling cash pile, necessitating a cash raise.'
'HUR's cash running out!' would be the catchphrase on LSE, Twitter and other so-called social media.
No thanks.

Based on your quoted figures, WW, in three years' time HUR could have earned about 40p per share and be on a P/E ratio of 1.8.

'The rewards can be considerable ...'

According to Malcy yesterday, anyone who invested in RRE at its flotation four years ago yesterday would have made 50 times the original investment.

And to think I've spent all that time watching HUR's share price going nowhere...

I've just bought some more myself...

Sorry, Miss Dosh, but I didn't realise you had already posted it.

Funnily enough, I was thinking of you when I posted it, because it's precisely the kind of article you would be the first to report!

I posted it yesterday at 13:16!

You make a very good point, T-S.
Looking at the most recent trades, I see purchases of 750k, 100k and 95k shares, but the biggest sale was for 20k shares, and most sales were for far fewer, which supports your contention that big investors are buying and small investors selling.

The usual redistribution of wealth?

I agree with everything you say, Captain S, except about HUR having been producing since July.

First oil produced from Lancaster field near Shetland
6 June 2019

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-48539027

HUR have been producing for more than seven months.

'Have a read
https://www.ftadviser.com/2016/03/10/training/adviser-guides/exploring-various-tax-advantages-of-aim-39jwmpxHDbnkGM6egBVOEK/article.html'

(Manyana)

Only just saw your reply, Manyana.

I had already read it before I posted my comment, and it doesn't mention a two-year rule enabling one to avoid CGT when holding AIM shares outside an ISA.

Yes, ALGU.

We were worried that TOR would never do a deal; then, when we went, we worried that they wouldn't find a replacement; now, we're worried that his replacement won't be able to do a deal.

We never know what's going on behind the scenes.

I have just averaged down.
It's a gamble, as we don't know whether Barryroe will ever be developed.
On the other hand, those posters who interpret every event as a sign that PVR and LOGP are going down the plughole obviously cannot appreciate the fact that the BODs and major shareholders of both companies obviously do think a deal can be done.
The fact that a new CEO has been appointed at PVR is the proof of that.
Now we just have to wait.

Looks like gibberish to me, with or without punctuation !

'holders who have LSE:Aim shares and a single listing can normally cash them CGT free outside of an ISA after two years'

Aren't you confusing CGT with IHT?

'Business Property Relief (BPR) was originally designed to enable family businesses to be passed on without creating an Inheritance Tax liability, whereby assets have to be sold to pay for the tax.

Notably, its use has since widened to cover unquoted shares – a status AIM-listed companies possess. As such, providing the shares have been held for two years, many AIM investments are able to benefit from BPR, meaning that they are 100% exempt from Inheritance Tax.'

https://aim-watch.com/articles/aim-tax-benefits/

This development seems to prove that you were right, Manyana, that a new CEO had been lined up when TOR resigned.

It also suggests that PVR really do think they will get Barryroe developed, even if the market doesn't.