Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
I wouldn't look that far ahead, necessarily. Might get a half year trading update in the next few weeks. The facts for Sig. I go with their last update myself, rather than anybody having a stab at it, or not at all in a general blurb.
It is almost beyond belief to pick the wrong side every time.
You do not bump into sages in the High Street and the probability of even one economic mastermind selecting Sig alone to benefit that set of investors with his brilliance is limited.
Travis Perkins update may be pushing this on from about midday.
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/TPK/travis-perkins-plc-trading-update-mckuoobp9fbdy5z.html
Wickes likely to have similar supply chain.
Mxc continuing to sell of their assets.
http://mxccapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/174973-Project-Press-II-Tender-Offer-Document-AS-PRINTED.pdf
I don't know if anybody reads this but there you go.
http://mxccapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/174973-Project-Press-II-Tender-Offer-Document-AS-PRINTED.pdf
I fancy the best pickings will come later. But having gone for it quite big at just over 50p to add to the rest rather than take a loss it's working out OK - though it's been pretty dead money, especially when you're in the dark. I suspect I shall take at least some of it, bird in the hand so to speak.
We see some of what has been the spanner in the works as I mentioned. The determined sellers who just don't want Wickes. 3% gone to new holders loosely around this price though. Probably oodles more to clear out.
Is there any implication in the ponderous hmmm and trip down your memory lane? Or just visiting with a throwaway.
Wickes seem quite happy according to their update, Chairman buying at £2.50, analysts quite happy too ( upper range of their forecasts confirmed by company )
Whatever's going, Wickes has it covered - ordinary DIYers, smaller trade, and their additional 'Do It For Me' service on bathrooms and kitchens - second half on their recently reopened showroom stuff forecasted to be good.
"Company updates are just one piece of the fundamentals jigsaw". Of course. But one must establish an earnings figure before one can establish a current PE, which you apparently do not accept. You must be wrong.
There are other factors such as the strength of the sector and Sig's trading and profitability within the sector that will eventually feed through into the published fundamentals. There is a necessary lag. It is the individual investors ongoing correct assessment of that which may lead to capital gain.
You said the fundamentals do not look good. I disagree. I see no reason to assume they have worsened. But you can make your own case.
I raised a couple of issues with you, on which you chose to make the running.
I asked for some proof of your assertion of a current PE of 173. You have not provided, now or earlier.
You have given no information on fundamentals because nobody can until they are published, and without them you cannot calculate a current PE of any kind.
Instead you fudge and prevaricate. Not much else you can do I suppose.
It depends on your understanding of fundamentals. If investors wish to rely on them, and you quote them as 'not looking good', there must be some objectivity involved. But you apparently wish others to vary them according to your view of matters other than published. Ie. Your version of fundamentals. That would scarcely be fundamental. You go on about a PE ratio. I have dealt with that. And although I believe the PE ratio itself is inapplicable when there are no earnings to put into it, please give the evidence that your PE ratio has worsened since you were invested, by mistake as you would have us believe, but even before that at a much higher price. You will need to know Sigs earnings as of today, or lack thereof, to set against the price - price to earnings ratio. The price of the shares has decreased of late, so on any calculation the price earnings ratio should have improved, unless Sigs negative earnings have increased. You must know they have and be able to prove that - I await your figures in support of your contention of a PE ration of 173. It will save me waiting until the fundamentals are published.
Perhaps Mick will come back on that, his own detailed research, etc. Or maybe refer to some selected website. No matter. Plenty of time. Anyway, my thoughts.
The P/E ratio, in the context of Sig, without earnings to put into the equation, is irrational in my view. That is why many web references to it across loss making companies refer to it as not applicable, or something similar. The extent to which a company is loss making, turns up in its results. Everyone with any sense knows Sig is loss making. That was known at recapitalisation, and ever since. People have been investing or not ever since, 'bad' PE or not.
There are likely to be at least two sets of people posting on here. Those who say they are invested and optimistic, and those who say they are not. Some will go so far as to give advice, qualified to do so on their better understanding of world economic and company events. In the future, if all goes well, Sig will create earnings, and a PE ratio will come better into it's own. It is likely to be high. One side will say it is too high and the company is overvalued, the other side will say no, investors are pricing in future earnings growth.
In Mick's case, he says investors will not invest due to a high PE ratio which he got from somewhere, I suppose. He second guesses them. Historically badly, as his guess has not been the actual experience. It will, as before, be the level at which individuals see prospective value which will dictate that.
If I have him right, he sees Sig as a potential multi-bagger but not at this time. Contemporaneously he questions the company's survival, and says the company is at risk of 'bankruptcy' ( bad choice of words, that's for individuals, companies go into liquidation) I suggest that may have been the case historically, though there were other options apart from the recapitalisation, but there is really no need to be floating that again now, not if you see truth in the last update - "We do however continue to expect the second half to be both profitable and cash generative, and in light of the stronger than anticipated recent performance we now expect full year revenues to be slightly ahead of prior expectations, and profits also to be higher than previously expected."
Invested posters may also choose to find some confirmation bias from forward thinking in the creation of distributable reserves. The uninvested posters will look elsewhere to make their case, for whatever reason they feel the need to make one.
The price is the price, for whatever reason.
But I see there is a scenario being set up on this chat show where "the institutions are moving on", and there has been some change for the worse in the "fundamentals."
There is no confirmation, as yet, of the former.
Nor have the fundamentals, which can only be known on company reporting, changed for the worse. There is no secret. They are as published until the next time. In fact, when they last updated, the company reported improving 'fundamentals', in terms of revenue and profitability, on the back of strong trading and increasing market share, allowing them to bring forward their earlier positive outlook.