Member Info for Velo

Thought so, here's the ending - The estimates given for the full year 2017 (actuals for that due out this April) show revenue guidance to be in the region of $84.2m As the year ending 2016 revenue was $47.2m , I thought great, that has to be result in even greater earnings per share. But using the forward projection based on the half year interims "only" throws up $60.9m not $64.2m - Whatever, $47.2m revenue last year and if only the lower 'forward' figure - then that's still a 29% increase in revenue! However, should there be a miss to that $60.9m I would expect a pre-closing RNS update adjusting guidance to prepare the market, rather than slap them with a surprise in April. But if 60m is the target I've yet to hear any whispers that it's not to be; so go with the 'estimate' rather than the accounting standard trailing 12 month 'forward' figure until an RNS advises otherwise. No negative RNS - then it's on! :) But here's the thing. That estimate of $60.9m is for the year just ended - this year now, 2018, the estimate is for $153m - so that's why there's such optimism around the SP being re-rated. I was ready to calculate quite a decent future SP, now I had a projected PE ratio to hand it was PE 10.point something last Friday - tonight it's dropped slightly to now show PE9.94 in line with the SP drop today. Now you might think PE9.94 is seriously undervalued but bear in mind the whole industry is rated to be on a lower PE than the whole stockmarket. The Whole stockmarket median PE ratio is approx 14.6 but the whole of the gas and oil industry shows a lower PE at a median of 12.3 So forget the whole stockmarket average, the oil industry average is PE12.3 Which is good news for holders of Amer as it means when the results are delivered in April, the forward PE ratio of Amer as of tonight is 23.7% undervalued to the whole oil and gas sector! In other words the SP is due a near 24% rerate if the company delivers on it's estimates. So that would mean 20.05p x 23.7% = 24.8p approx by April 2018 if the results back up the estimates. Happy with that? Thought not. So where have I gone wrong? Possibly basing the 'forward' on the mid year interim results that came out last September. A lot has, and is, changing even since then. So a future SP of 24p is the base figure. If you expect more from the SP (even the CEO in the video was wondering when the rerate would occur) it's up to you to show how much more it's worth after the April 2018 results day:)

Might not fit in one go - so this might end up covering 2 posts...... I've spent some time on the accounts particularily cashflow balances and earnings per share - to establish a PE ratio. Had a tough time with that last one - because there isn't one. Earnings per share (EPS) nor PE ratio, that is. EPS have been negative for the last couple of years, and ties-in with the decline in the SP since 2014 as that was the last year, earnings per share were last seen - and from then on it fell into negative territory. Without EPS - no PE. No PE then no sensible evaluation of SP is possible. I tried all ways to calculate one but without any earnings it was impossible. Checked online and Discounted Cashflow was offerred up as a method; which was dismissed by other info online. (And that's if I could find such a thing; I couldn't). That was until the superb, scene-stealing, interim results released in September last year. All the guidance and projections by commentators and bloggers can be seen to be forming in that first 6 months set of decent trading results - the best since the end of 2014 put a stop to it all. The actual half year figures can be projected forward, incorporating the last 12 months of last known set of results to give what's known as Trailing 12 Month projection (Usually referred to simply as "forward" to give a more up to date guide as the last full accounts are now 1 year out of date and show only negative earnings. (And with that, a forward PE was established). So when someone posted of the $40m cash balance as being decimated, I checked and sure enough the half year 2017 interim declared it down to $29m from the beginning of the year's $40m. However, after incorporating that to arrive at the now trailing 12 month "forward" projection it shows it's likely right now to be in the vicinity of $24m. Trawling through the full cashflow accounts appears to show it's been put to good use, just as the CEO said in the video, no debt, etc., future drilling to be paid out of incoming cash - so why run with more cash set aside than strictly necessary? Below �10m would be dangerous in my highly personal opinion (just under $14m for round figures). So all good there, so far. The estimates given for the full year 2017 (actuals for that due out this April) show revenue guidance to be in the region of $84.2m As the year ending 2016 revenue was $47.2m , I thought great, that has to be result in even greater earnings per share. But using the forward projection based on the half year interims "only" throws up $60.9m not $64.2m - Whatever, $47.2m revenue last year and if

Understood and noted.

Unforseen possible damage to Amer as collateral by that website. I'm climbing and up to No15 now. Only thing is they list the share name they deem the 'offence' occurs in. So a causal observer may see Amer listed over and over and conclude it's being ramped and be possibly jaundiced / scared off from buying. See what you've done now BasilHope? Your a now second poster listed as ramping Amer (LOL). Someone has been listed as a ramper for using the word auction. As I will be now. No:14 spot coming up? I'm going for the title. Eye of the Tiger an all that. Release the chickens in the yard :)

Jointhedots - you're all at risk of ending up on that site. They've just listed Baysil from here as a ramper for using the word rerate. She's directly behind me on the live latest rampers :) Try it. Mention like the CEO did in the video, about being due a rerate because of the higher oil price and see yourself listed up as a ramper. This very post will now get me listed again :)

And don't forget - FILL YOUR BOOTS at Pumpordumped

It's working - I'm up to No:20 already. I'm going for top bad boy spot :) Night all.

Last post and then turning in. Having a tion of fun with that site Farmertally alerted me to. No one here at this hour so not clogging the site up from others trying to read sensible posts by posters. The key words in the fill your boots posts below are both ALREADY up on their boards, so just going to try something to see they can clock they've been rumbled/had - FILL YOUR BOOTS at Pumpordumped FILL YOUR BOOTS at Pumpordumped FILL YOUR BOOTS at Pumpordumped

Sory to bore with this thing but the post below where I mention "fill your boots" has already come up on that site as latest live rampers. So, now I know here comes the top spot for hee hee. FILL YOUR BOOTS! FILL YOUR BOOTS! FILL YOUR BOOTS! FILL YOUR BOOTS! I am so defo going to get my name up to that No:1 spot. :) :)

Geez- the spelling errors in my last post!!

Right - after getting sidetracked, back to what I was intending to post. Have to take issue with yiou there Rocket79. I didn't "hear"/interpret that at all aboiut the possibility of about dividends being paid next year. He was very careful and diplomatic not to hang himself to an amount, time or definite promise. He ytalked "around it". He talked in generalities with a positive slant. When the question of dividends was put directly to him he talked of "We will review where we stand" and such as "we know if the day comes that shareholders appreciate a return on their investment". He definitley did not intimate a possible dividend next year, but instead said if oil remained stable they would then start looking at the possibility of dividends. That didn't sound like dividends next year to me but a more prudent dividends in the longer future - if possible. He was in no rush to be held to asccount should he let slip a promise of divis next year. Very wise in my book. Say positive things but don't commit to a date or year. For me I was more impressed that he confirmed categorically that the company was debt free , no loans and no debenture and expected drilling to paid from free cash flow - excellent or what? With companies going to the wall because of debts and unmangeable pension fund debts - that's brilliant! It's easier to choose a share these days with overwhelming debt than it is to find oone where there is NIL debt, NIL Denentures. Nil Loans and everything on course to be paid out of free casjh flow. How ace is that?

Eeeh... such fun.

Thought I'd recognise some of the names from over the years, but not a one, but did faintly recall one - so just been to the site and challenged him to pistols at dawn as he's in at 14, rated well badder than me - I'm the only bad boy in the village!!!

Hmm only 21st out of 100 named. How to get higher in the listings? Appears they have a computer trawl through looking for key words. Let's see this should do it - I have extensive research that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that anyone who buys AMER shares today will be buying a 10-bagger this year!!! - absolute truth. I also have a friend in the city (whilst he was in the USA) who overheard Warren Buffet in a restaruant say he's looking to buy a controlling stake in Amerisur. Fill your boots with Amersuir at these prices! Buy! Buy! Buy! There, that should get me up the rankings.

Wow! I'm famoos! Where the hell did you find that site F/Tally? Hee hee laughed when I saw my name at 21. Haven't they got it back to front though? At least one poster on here has reminded me that a lot of posters on here have gone through a lot in recent times and he found my post a bit .... negative? See that proves one thing. Most post and hope they get read - I get my own website for mine!!!!!!!! :) Beat that! Hey I'm the Fonz. Don't need much of a comb these days, but need it to complete the image. Same for MOSB after it's huge one day fall. I put forward an even greater lower price that would need to occur before I would even consider investing and I'm on here somewhere saying I'm hoping to get in cheap somewhere in the teens - isn't that more on the deramping side? But they've listed me as a ramper!?! Or is it just a list of whom they consider a ramper be it either deramping or ramping? Thanks for the heads up. Never knew such a thing exsisted. Lock up your wives and daughters peeps - that site's warning you about me - a very dangerous fellow I am. Yeah. I'm bad I am. Bad, bad, bad. Gonna buy a leather jacket with studs on it. I'm at the back of the classroom with the other bad boys. Hee hee. Love it. Oooh the infamy of it - they've all got in in for me! LOL!

Hi bako - Not sure I'm on the same page as you as to my final conclusion, and you saying my opinion being unfavourable. That Beneish M-score thingy? Or my assertion that the SP is still in a long terrm downtrend and has yet to decisevely break-out of that downtrend? If the Beneish M-Score, then having received new information only tonight, that oilers don't fare well under that formula; then yes, I think the overall negative rating that there is earnings manipulation is over-done; so my conclusion is not to be concerned about it too much. That's because I know find out in the small print it doesn't like oilers and resource stocks to be put through its rating system. So case against Amer unproven :) Also bear in mind that Formula thingy is as new to me as anyone else who might have only just heard of it. Normally I barely register its presence unless it's lit up in red as it is for Amer. As I was listing up a couple of obvious positives I thought it only fair to include the apparantly negative one too, for balance. Bear in mind the designer himself of that formula says oilers don't suit being put through that formula - so in essence now I know that, perhaps I should never have mentioned it in the first place. So I'm not taking any heavy notice of it's poor score in that formula. And just to show personal fallibility yes I am taking notice of the two formulae where Amer comes out top and thus display my cognitive biases :) :) As to that long term trendline thing. Well still holding to that as it's the historic fact and not an opinion; and thus looking for a cheap entry on one of its regular spikes downwards. Trendlines don't last in perpetuity. They do get broken. And therein lies the treasure.There are some excellent deep info/data analysis posts on this forum (this can't be LSE, can it? :) - and not ramping ones either. If they have foundation, then that long term downtrend is due at some point for the scaffold. The game is afoot as to discern exactly when.

5) DEPI - Depreciation index - Is the rate of depreciation stable or increasing? Details A decreasing depreciation rate may indicate that the firm has revised upwards the estimates of assets' useful lives or adopted a new depreciation method that is income increasing. The average for non-manipulators in the study was 1.001 as compared with 1.077 for manipulators. Testing: < 1.039 Amerisur Resources Details: Depreciation Index = 2.06 AT RISK ----------------------------- 6) SGAI - Sales and general and administrative expenses index - Are Sales, General And Administrative Expenses Under Control? Details A disproportionate increase in SGA is viewed by analysts as a negative signal about a firm's future prospects. The average for non-manipulators in the study was 1.054 as compared with 1.041 for manipulators. Testing: > 1.0475 Amerisur Resources Details: SGA Expenses Index = 1.35 SAFE ----------------------------- 7) LVGI - Leverage index - Is Financial Leverage Decreasing Or Stable? Details If leverage is increasing, there is a pressure on management not to breach debt covenants. This may act as an incentive for earnings manipulation. The average for non-manipulators in the study was 1.037 as compared with 1.111 for manipulators. Testing: < 1.074 Amerisur Resources Details: Leverage Index = 1.00 SAFE ----------------------------- 8) TATA - Total accruals to total assets - Are Accruals Low As A Proportion Of Total Assets? Details Excessive accruals may mean that managers are making discretionary accounting choices to alter earnings. This is calculated by raking the sum of the change in working capital, less the change in cash, less the change in current taxes payable, less depreciation and amortization, divided by total assets. The average for non-manipulators in the study was 0.018 as compared with 0.031 for manipulators. Testing: < 0.0245 Amerisur Resources Details: Accruals to Assets Index = -0.10 SAFE

Anyway on with the 8 results, should you still require them - I'll put them in a seperate post as I don't think they'll fit in this one post without getting cut off. Overall - Amerisur Resources has an M-Score of 6.50. As the score is above the -1.78 threshold, this indicates a potential risk that the company may be manipulating earnings. (PS They've "customised" the threshold from the universal -2.2 to -1.78 as more representative) ---------- 1) DSRI - Are Receivables Increasing In Proportion To Sales? Details: A disproportionate increase in receivables may suggest the company is inflating sales figures by booking sales earlier or by extending better credit terms to customers and so on. The average for non-manipulators found in the Beneish study was 1.031 as compared with 1.465 for manipulators. Testing: < 1.248 Amerisur Resources Details: Days Sales in Receivables Index = 1.32 AT RISK. ----------------------------- 2) GMI - Gross margin index - Is The Gross Margin Stable? This compares profit from the previous period with the current period. Gross margin deterioration can be a signal that a company is losing pricing power. Companies with poorer prospects have been shown to be more likely to engage in earnings manipulation. The average for non-manipulators in the study was 1.014 as compared with 1.193 for manipulators. Testing: < 1.1035 Amerisur Resources Details: Gross Margin Index = 18.5 AT RISK. ----------------------------- 3) AQI - Asset quality index - Is The Quality Of Assets Stable? Details Asset quality is calculated by comparing current period with previous period for non-current assets less property, plant and equipment, divided by total assets. This measures the proportion of total assets for which future benefits are less certain. It is a possible sign of improper capitalization of expenses and cost deferral. The average for non-manipulators in the study was 1.039 as compared with 1.254 for manipulators. Testing: < 1.1465 Amerisur Resources Details: Asset Quality Index = 1.13 SAFE ----------------------------- 4) SGI - Sales growth index - Is sales Growth Not Excessive? Details This compares current period sales with the previous period. While sales growth does not imply manipulation on its own, growth firms are more likely to manipulate because their financial position and capital needs put pressure on managers to achieve earnings targets. The average for non-manipulators in the study was 1.134 as compared with 1.607 for manipulators. Testing: < 1.3705 Amerisur Resources Details: Sales Growth Index = 0.77 SAFE ----------------------------- 5) DEPI - Depreciation index - Is the rate of depreciation stable or increasing? Details A decreasing depreciation rate may indicate that the firm has revised upwards the estimates of assets' useful lives or adopted a new depreciation method that is income increasing. The average for non-manip

For and as requested by Farmertally: I have those 8 breakdown scores you requested last night, but I think you'll be disappointed insomuch as they are not the result of info input on my part - but done automatically by the program. Unlike say, TA indicators which you can personally adjust for customisation to kingdom-come, here it's just pre-set formulae for whatever stock you enter. Although I knew these formulae dislike financial stocks I was unaware of the following caveat. In amongst the verbiage and almost missed due to the tiny small print fonts - "Note: Beneish's original research was sector-agnostic (apart from excluding financial companies). However, because it relies on ratios like gross margin, it may be unavailable (or less meaningful) for sectors with atypical financial profiles, e.g. oil E&P companies. " Repeat "less meaningful for oil E&P companies." And there I think is the answer. Oilers like Amer might fit the bill but there may be reasons circumstantially connected with it's type of set-up that unfairly label it as at risk of earnings manipulation. It scored top of the class in the other two formulae but strangely, poorly in this one. I did say I only glance at these and like TA indicators use the info as an aide - not a decision maker; hence mentioning in the original post if anyone had any doubts anywhere in the balance sheet, it could throw some light upon proceedings. But in police terms I think the formula on this occasion is guilty of a case of mistaken identity with Amer, and I think you won't need that bicarbonate of soda after all. Incidentally BaysilHope, below, has hit the nail squarely on the head and has it in-one with her final sentence of her post when she posted: " Most PI's are very clued on this and ANY FORMULA WHILST USEFUL NEEDS TO BE PUT INTO CONTEXT". Anyway on with the 8 results, if should you still require them - I'll put them in a seperate post as I don't think they'll fit in this one post without getting cut off. Overall - Amerisur Resources has an M-Score of 6.50. As the score is above the -1.78 threshold, this indicates a potential risk that the company may be manipulating earnings.

I'm turning in now (early Sunday rising) so will try and get the figures to you tomorrow evening. I don't calculate them - the computer does so automatically (an algo). (droll voice over ..... The computer says NO ....... :)