Member Info for LONGWAIT

'The MCAP here has always been too high'

Post of the day!

We know - too many shares.

Just wonder whether you will ever get beyond the chapter on market capitalisation and read the one on price earnings ratios.

And then let us know of a company whose prospective price earnings ratio has always been around two.

If it happens as he predicted, he will be crowing about it, and if it doesn't then he'll hope everyone has forgotten he said it - and if they haven't, he'll make a similar boast on another share instead.

Providence Resources P.l.c. announces Leadership change

Dublin and London – December 6, 2019 - Providence Resources P.l.c. (“Providence” or the “Company”), the Irish based Energy Company, today announces that Tony O’Reilly has stepped down from the position of Chief Executive Officer of the Company and has resigned from the Board (and all subsidiaries) with immediate effect.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/PVR/providence-resources-plc-announces-leadership-change-ux6sep5uvzcrxj6.html

Maybe the major shareholders are behind this development.

I note a 250k share buy this morning.

Someone likes the news!

As I've noted before, in effect most people on AIM write off a share because it's a bargain.

'Glad I bought Pmo instead of this dog. Would not put 1p. In this stock'
PMO has $2 bn debt; HUR has no debt.
PMO recently fell from more than 100 p to 60 p and posters there were talking about it the same way you are talking about HUR now.
When it halved from 146 p, you couldn't find a poster who hadn't written it off as a trader's share.
Take a look at the comments there.
There are regular moaning posts to the effect that it's nothing but a trader's share.

'glad i bought in TLW'

TLW fell 27 percent in one day last month, from 205.9 to 146.9, and has more than $2.5 bn debt

Thanks, Happysurfer, Thunder, and Double.

Sanity (but not share price) restored!

'if the price gets into the twenties I shall be buying as the value becomes absurdly high.'

I agree with you that a prospective price earnings ratio of two is absurd.
The question is: why don't the sellers you mention think so?
Very few of them can have bought low enough still to be able to take a profit.
I am left with only one explanation: they are incapable of recognising value and HUR is in the wrong place.

LAUGH OF THE DAY, DOUBLE

Your discussion of 'excitement,' as it relates to HUR's share price movements, Double, reminds me of a remark by Jesse Livermore, about one of his trades.
"Well, I had been seeking excitement and I had certainly had some!'
I'm quoting from memory, about 25 years after reading the book.
He had, in reality, lost a packet - even more than you might on a big deal at Dodge City.
I can do without excitement; a boring 347p per share cheque in a few years' time will be adequate.

'Errr ...LW.... just remind me of your sp prediction for first oil ?'

Forgive me, BB, but I always find statements or questions which make invalid assumptions irritating.

I didn't make any prediction.

I have, however, consistently predicted that some time after first oil, the price will breach 67.5 p, and after that the sky's the limit.

'all this uncertainty .........................market hates it ..................... happy to be out ........ '

I agree - all this uncertainty about whether HUR will be earning 10p or 20p per share in a few years' time and whether it will be on a P/E ratio of 3 or 1 ...

and the uncertainty about what it will do with its bulging cash pile.

And the uncertainty about whether the 347p per share valuation may turn out to be conservative.

Good luck with TLW and your $2.5 bn + debt pile!

Assuming Ronok (with 24 votes!)'s analysis is correct, it really does seem that the share price has fallen because many investors misunderstood the RNS.

Very funny, as well as being very painful to watch.

I am aware there are posters who consider people like the analysts at Morgan Stanley to be twits, but I think they may understand more about the state of HUR than day-traders do, and also have more of an incentive to understand it.

According to MS, the share price is at a discount of nearly 100p to the mid-point of their NAV range, even after taking into account the WW 'disaster.'

Obviously, someone is badly wrong.

That would put HUR on a P/E ratio of 3 - maybe less - Genghis.

Good luck to all the posters waiting for a price in the 20s.

Happy Long Wait.

It has often come up before here, Battle, and I have never understood people's anxieties about the development costs.

As someone has pointed out, WW didn't even cost HUR anything, and if a partner cannot be found to finance a FFD, then HUR will be in the desperate position of having production from Lancaster and LC, and being on a derisory P/E ratio.

Too much oil.

Hurricane shares are down around 14% in 2019 to date, valuing the company at £750mln.
This zoomed-out view of the share price performance belies the value-adding progress made in the year.
Indeed, the retreat from the 30 May high of 60.8p underlines how the market’s view of Hurricane is skewed to hit-or-miss exploration results rather than the establishment of substantial revenue-generating production.
Is this simply a case of a long tail of retail investors and speculators wagging the small-cap dog?
Certainly, one would assume that Hurricane’s private-equity shareholders have longer-term criteria when judging the oil driller’s success or failure.
At the very least such holders (Kerogen holds the largest stake at 16% though overall private equity funds hold well over 20% of the company’s shares) don’t simply trade stock well-by-well like many AIM-punters do.
Even in the current climate, where we’ve seen equity markets punish well disappointments particularly harshly, a bigger question remains.
Why isn’t Lancaster a stronger mitigating factor?
The answer is perhaps that the EPS only represents something like 3% of the total Lancaster discovery.
This highlights two things. One, that Lancaster and the broader project areas really are massive.
And, two, because they’re massive projects Hurricane has limited financial capacity to handle the broader developments alone – the capex bill will most certainly be counted in billions.

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/908277/warwick-backlash-reveals-hurricane-energy-vulnerability-even-after-year-of-landmarks-908277.html

I don't really get their point about the EPS being only 3 percent of Lancaster.
They seem to be saying that the other 97 percent are a big worry, weighing on the share price.
If you're producing 11,000 bopd (rising to 17,000 early next year) from just 3 percent of Lancaster, the other 97 percent is a nice worry to have.
a nice worry to have.

Who cares about the reaction of many here, SG2?

I'm sure the major shareholders don't, and that they would not be prepared to let HUR go for about 55p per share, when with earnings of 200m p.a. it would be on a P/E ratio of 5.

I think Dr T doesn't really care about losing shareholders who are more interested in presentation than substance.

I hope, however, that he does care about the obvious share price manipulation and will seek to get HUR out of AIM.

The last fund raise was at 32p, SG2, and I made my last purchase for 24.5p a while afterwards.

That was long before first oil, when HUR had no income and no cash pile.

What makes you think HUR will lose control of its destiny because of a bunch of AIM traders and people who don't recognise a great, profitable company when they see one?