Member Info for RichTheNewbie

Of course he'll be able to back it up (or should be able to!) but that doesn't get around the fact there's a lot of moving parts that goes into that valuation. Remember those well engineers/experts that told them PG11a would be fine.....well it wasn't. He's a finance bod and it's all very well plugging numbers into a spreadsheet and coming up with an NPV10 but that doesn't mean the basis for that NPV10 is any good.

I was slightly tempted to buy a few at 1.55p for old times sake. Held off because I wanted to look at the RNS detail first and see if there are any nasties hidden in it (don't think I'll have time to during trading hours though). As others have already mentioned, current cash situation, and need for cash to keep the lights on, is the concern (although I'm not sure you can address that concern via a history document like the final results).

I wouldn't doubt his "accounting skills". That's not the difficult part. The difficult part is predicting how the field will go, the capex and opex, the permitting, everything else. Anyone can work out an NPV10 but that guess is only as good as the figures you plug into it. The devil is in the detail but the detail here would probably require significant oil and gas, geology, even country knowledge, to judge well.

Temuchin - point is they would traditionally always try and sell you one. It was their job and the sales people pushed hard to do it and therefore pushed customers hard to get them (it generated loads of money for them even though you didn't really need one with a decent manufacturer warranty as you were lucky enough to be told). Same as CEOs and broker notes always tell you the company is undervalued.

Reality slowly dawning eh westie50. One day you'll realise I was simply giving you a balanced view all along. One that you should have listened to, rather than burying your head in the sand, and calling anyone not ramping names like "permanently negative" or a "deramper".

Not2sure - we all know the broker ratings are completely worthless. Virtually every single AIM company pays for these brokers to write an "impartial" note and virtually all of them, for every single company, say the share price should be multiples of what it is, no matter how bad the company ;) Similarly, as CEO he's hardly going to say "yeah we're well overvalued, strapped for cash to develop our projects, and you should all sell". You might think it's undervalued but relying on the CEO or broker note to tell you it's undervalued is like walking into a high street shop and asking if you should buy their extended warranty. :p

When did he ever mention the fair value range the share price should be in? The only thing I've heard him do is mention his own guess at the NPV10 for the project which isn't the same thing.

Problem is that order book is prone to being stuffed full of orders designed to influence how you trade FX_Wizard. Hence seeing it can actually help you to make the wrong decision! It's a bit like the phrase a well known trader uses when talking about charts (less is more). He argues you can actually make better decisions by seeing less data and ignoring the short-term noise on charts which is designed full of tricks, set-ups, overreactions, etc.

Personally I think Level 2 is more misleading than useful. I've only really still got it as I've not got round to cancelling it. You can usually get just as good idea by doing dummy quotes and what you're seeing on the book is usually full of smoke and mirrors designed to mislead anyway. Waste of money for most people imo. PS there's no such thing as a "Level 2" order, there's fill-kill/limit orders and people using DMA to make orders etc but Level 2 is just a term for the data you're seeing.

Lol, it is priceless to occasionally look at an unblocked Twitter feed and see what rubbish they've written, along with their cronies. Apparently today they've decided I share the same office as you FX_Wizard - apparently because of having a conversation on here! Lol. I'm also apparently so well informed I must have connections to a "high profile broker" or "MM" according to a few of them. The moron "shareless" thinks I'm shorting this (be pretty mental to do that even if there is some risk here). The brainless "thepirate"/"campelloman" just agrees with anything rude. God help them all. I really should set up this tinfoil hat business I've been meaning to get around to.

Tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber? Yes - it appears they've lost more than a few cards from their deck over the years......

Out of curiosity what was the date they were voted down?

Would be interesting to see what they say about those dilution resolutions, if questioned, and how long the company they think the company could continue for without any recourse to dilution. I have a suspicion they'd use the usual "get out" excuses of "they're there just in case we need them or for opportunities that suddenly arise". So it would be interesting to see what they'd say, to you if you're saying you plan to vote against these, because they're not necessary (and why not instead call an EGM to authorise this dilution if there was a very good reason for it in the future).

Big question is whether the company can survive and progress without the dilution ian67. If not then it's a big risk.....these AIM companies always tend to paint a rosier picture than reality on the finances....and that's got to be the concern with voting down dilution resolutions.

Afrim - yes the car anology was done previously on here. Except the person on this board made a good analogy and this response from the company was a rubbish one. They said something along the lines of you don't advertise a car with a top speed of 140mph when it can only be run at 30mph without having a high chance of blowing up. Unfortunately AIM oil companies love to quote the 140mph figures and let people later find out what the 30mph figures actually are ;)

Neebaj - exactly what I'd expect. Therefore, as you say, an outright takeover is best, so you don't have to battle people all trying to do the same thing, thus meaning most of you would end up getting less back as the price falls. Sadly though, I think the others are right, in that most parties would want to buy into the licence/asset/subsidiary, rather than company as a whole (which they don't need unless they have a desire for a UK listing to squeeze some more funds from).

Well they don't even have permission to build a processing plant (yet) burnemc ;) Petrol might be big there but they've only got �40m cash in the bank. If they were funding the plant (c �10m) and development (�lots) it wouldn't be a small project for them. So, whilst not impossible, I wouldn't go as far as to say it's nothing to them! In fact this is probably why AST has been funding it so far!

That's similar to an outright takeover but slightly worse because it leaves this BoD with all the money to play with rather than going directly back to shareholders. I imagine it would mean everyone racing to sell and therefore many not get as good a price.

Monarch - I don't think that's entirely unrealistic. A bit optimistic imo but not totally impossible. All depends how good the people viewing the data think it is. It's very hard for any of us to know whether other companies will look at these fields and think they've got brilliant potential, or that they're old fields with limited potential, and AST have underestimated the recoverability or cost of recoverability etc. Remember the same fields didn't get flogged to AST for a fortune and it's not as if they've discovered huge amounts more than when they acquired it.

I think most people would agree with you Neebaj. I don't think there's many who want to sit this out for many more years. The vast majority are praying for a quick-win takeover and escape to something else (although anyone in at prices like 2p or above will likely not be happy). If it's anything other than a takeover, then I agree the chances of making money are lower, and will take a lot longer. It's not impossible they could some sort of deal for development funding in return for future gas/revenue.....(rather than a share of the asset as mentioned earlier).....although that is tantamount to the same thing in many ways.....and akin to dilution in many ways. That might get you an initial rise, because it looks good on the face of it, but it'd be short lived as people realise what's been given away, and then sell up. The no-deal scenario is least pretty.