We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
"before you say that the share price is 2p something can you tell us how many shares wars of the time, do you have an idea how much this **** was diluted?"
I'll answer that by telling you that on the 2nd March 2022, AFTER the 14th February placing, 88e had at the time in place 15,725,361,910 shares. The share price closed 2nd March at 2.79p giving a Market Cap of £438,737,597. A similar MKT Cap today with 25 billion shares in issue would equate to a 1.755p share price.
Now consider that in March 0f 2022, we were nowhere near as far along the exploratory phase as we are now, we have oil we have a neighbour that has proved up zones with producible oil and we are about to issue some more news within this month.
I think most people could consider that in terms of Market Cap we could at the very least MATCH the past, but we are in a better stage now than we were then. However, I expect many think we should be looking at having an improvement on the past, not just matching it.
If the 2.4p claim were to be achieved that would give a market cap of £600m, not a huge push from what we achieved in 2022, but heh these are just the facts, the math don't lie.
The math says its possible and in any case even just matching the past would mean a multiple of over 5 times todays SP, isn't that exciting enough!
I'm happily here Munnie, I note so are you, uninvested and yet still haven't addressed the valuation question, we know you can't so you just keep on with the same irrelevant rhetoric. I'll leave you to think your winning...lol
"nope, madenglish, i'm here for price discovery. no more, no less. so quit the personal abuse" lol coming from the person who's first email was to like my post as being "jumbled fantasies of a 5 year old child" talking gibberish
this scott comes across as a self congratulatory, pompous ****.
US market closed up 5.26% @ 50
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/eeenf
Scot126, I won't lower myself to your level of insult other than to say,
My original comment "The number of shares in circulation isn't the primary determinant of valuation; it's a function of Market Capitalisation and price."
As it seems there's a misunderstanding or miscommunication here. The original statement I provided is actually generally accurate, it most certainly is not "gibberish" - particularly in the context of discussing what determines a company's valuation (which is what we were doing). However, the response you gave appears to be a critique, arguing that the number of shares is indeed a primary determinant of market capitalisation because it is one of the two factors directly involved in calculating market capitalization, along with share price.
While it's true that the number of shares outstanding directly influences market capitalisation, it's also true that market capitalisation itself IS a primary determinant of valuation rather than the number of shares alone.
Market capitalisation reflects the total value of a company's outstanding shares in the market at any given time, taking into account both the number of shares and the share price. So, while the number of shares is a crucial factor, it's not the only one in determining a company's overall valuation. And it was this point that I am making, against Munie's argument that 88e can't go anywhere because they have 20 billion shares (as if that's all that counts), I was pointing out that the number of shares are not the sole determination of value.
Ahhaaaa
Munnie, your assertion misses the mark. The number of shares in circulation isn't the primary determinant of valuation; it's a function of Market Capitalisation and price. Disregarding the shares outstanding, PANR's market cap is three times that of 88e, indicating it doesn't inherently represent three times the business value.
Valuation is contextual. More shares equate to a lower price per share if market capitalization remains constant. For instance, if 88e were to consolidate shares at a ratio of 30:1, the resulting share count would be approximately 833 million (compared to PANR's current 944 million). This consolidation would necessitate a proportional adjustment in share price to maintain the same market cap, leading to an estimated share price of around 9.9 pence for 88e.
Under such circumstances, it would seem that 88e appears undervalued in comparison, or conversely, one might argue that PANR is overpriced. It all boils down to Market Cap, a concept that seems to elude your understanding.
Any comment?
And these, all BUYS. its all just a game, the price will rise once they have their fill
Time Bid Offer Trade Volume Buy / Sell Value Trade Type
12:06:56 0.32p 0.33p 0.3283p 17,035,100 Buy £55,926.23 Off-book trade
12:06:38 0.32p 0.33p 0.3275p 7,635,110 Buy £25,004.98 Off-book trade
12:05:49 0.33p 0.34p 0.3350p 7,464,180 Unknown £25,005.00 Off-book trade
12:06:04 0.33p 0.34p 0.3352p 7,461,950 Unknown £25,012.46 Off-book trade
12:05:18 0.33p 0.35p 0.3380p 7,397,930 Unknown £25,005.00 Off-book trade
12:05:34 0.33p 0.34p 0.3400p 7,354,410 Buy £25,004.99 Off-book trade
15:53:50 0.33p 0.35p 0.3495p 7,297,710 Buy £25,505.50 Off-book trade
Munnie, you are talking rubbish, number of shares in issue has little to do with valuation, it is simply a factor of Mkt Cap and price. Ignoring the number of shares in issue PANR has a mkt cap 3 times 88e, they do not have 3 times the business.
Valuation is relative, if you have more shares then consequently you will have a lower price if the mkt cap were the same 88e could for instance consolidate as an example at 30:1 that would have the effect of reducing the shares in issue to approx. 833 million (PANR currently has 944 million). A consolidation of 30:1 would have to be balanced on the SP thus ending with an SP of approx. 9.9pence a share to maintain the same MKT cap.
So what would your claim be then, the shares in issue would be less for 88e and the SP at 9.9p far less, as opposed to PANR's current 29p. I would say at that point that 88e looked very undervalued comparatively, or alternatively you could in comparison state that PANR was overpriced, you see its all about Market Cap, something it seems you don't understand.