This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

PEN - Peninsula Energy

Jump to new

Just to clarify a couple of points GG. PEN opened at 0.077 and was then sold down to 0.074 by weaker hands before presumably some thought it may have been oversold and represented good value as the SP climbed back to 0.081-0.082 before then retreating to 0.079 on close.

There is no denying the SP is in a downward trend but the 'probability' of the SP retreating to 0.055 is extremely remote no matter what your nice triangles, one of which defined by a natural disaster, are telling you.

Can't quite see what there is to get exicited about but it's great you're having a good day
 

For anyone who's interested, I decided to take a closer look at this report and discovered that a similar set of assumptions needed to be made as did with the RCR report:

* 80 cent USD/AUD exchange rate
* $74 USD/lb Uranium price was used based on forward sales of 8% of PEN's Uranium
* No dilution was assumed (in other words pretending that nearly a billion options don't exist, and thereby incorrectly adding approx 40-50% to the per share valuation)

Brokerage houses make these assumptions to facilitate easier comparison with peers and it's a common mistake of investors to forget to adjust for these values when talking about the real value of the company itself. Cynics would also argue that Brokerage houses who own shares in the companies they're reporting on prefer to present the company in the best light possible, so you'll often find these assumptions in the small print.

Unless further information comes to light, I think it's pretty clear that 15.5 cents was far too much to pay for a PEN share in February based on information known at the time, including brokerage reports. I stand by my previous range of 5.5 - 10.7 cents.

Grant
 

This is a very interesting thread, so much information, so many figures, it is nice to watch the price action and chart it.

It makes so much more sense than weather or Hardly's tea leaves.

gg
 
gnealson said:
No dilution was assumed (in other words pretending that nearly a billion options don't exist, and thereby incorrectly adding approx 40-50% to the per share valuation)
Click to expand...


How did you arrive at that assumption?

"Fully Diluted" is the term and metric they used, not as you have assumed and wrongly stated. I will take notice of professionals that do this for a living not forum incorrect assumptions, subjective views and innuendo.

Hartleys valuation:
 

Attachments

  • Hartleys Feb 16_ 2011 valuation.png
    46.7 KB · Views: 171
hangseng said:
How did you arrive at that assumption?
Click to expand...

My mistake, I didn't expect to see $300m+ of 'value' coming from future Exploration of Karoo/Lance! Compare with RCRs base figure, $98m. Hartley's themselves even felt the need to note:

This upside potential already makes up more than half of our valuation
Click to expand...

(Emphasis added by me.)

It probably goes some way to explain why their 3 month price target was less than their valuation! Seems pretty unusual, perhaps counting chickens before they've hatched? And coincidently, the extra 200m conjured negates the effect of fully diluting a more 'hatched' figure. Why stop at $300m I wonder? Why not just make it a cool billion while holding our pinkies up to the corners of our mouths? RCR estimate it at a third the value of Hartley's ($98m base case).

They clearly have a very different view of valuation methodologies and make very different assumptions. What makes you choose Hartley's reports over RCR reports?

Grant
 
gnealson said:
Is hangseng back on the table for discussion again?
Click to expand...

Grant, May I firstly say that you seem to have an excellent perception of fundamentals which I respect (Fundamentals are definitely not my forte)

However, comments like the above directed at another poster (not the first time) concern me regarding your sincerity with regard to discussing PEN.

You mentioned bullying of posters with a negative slant on PEN as one of your main "issues" ..... yet your above comment looks a little like a "bullies" statement to me

Don't get me wrong ... I'm sure Hang Seng can look after himself .... I don't know him personally and I'm not about to join sides in a dog fight .. but you seem to be more engrossed in discrediting him as a person than you are about this stock .... Am I wrong with this observation

I suspect there are some deeper issues at play here, and if that is the case, I would think private messaging might be a better place to deal with it.

Basically I am very confused about your sudden appearance on this site ... your apparent dislike of Hang Seng .... and your apparent negativity towards PEN, while at the same time indicating a desire to invest/re-invest(??) in the Company ....

(Genuine observation/questions on my part and no disrespect intended at all)

Cheers.
 
re the valuation discussion, can I add without entering into the fray in an offensive or defensive way, that PEN in a bullish time with exploration prospects and Ux becoming a hot commodity could easily add double to any valuation that was based purely on existing assets eg. 20c no sweat.
The inverse would be that PEN could trade at half its realistic valuation as well, 5c no problems.
Look at H/REE or potash or even W stocks (for a short time).
We all know that valuations are based on the valuer just as much as the company, the old GI-GO routine, just as enjoyable are seeing PE's compared or applied to various stocks.
 
That's probably a very good point Mr Jeff, the valuation range of PEN is enormous.

Also I think Grant comes across as quite negative because hes a little frustrated with the over bullish sentiment in this thread.

Personally I traded PEN in the march V shape and made a bundle, of which I did not turn into cash but into a free carry holding. I have faith that I may see huge returns in the future, but not the near future. Maybe not even 2011.
 
Valuation is based on many things. The most important from an outsider (which is most of us if we do not work for the company) is market sentiment.

The chart is in a down trend (for all the reasons above we know) so the stock is currently sick.

Some of the rampers on here need to get over it. Reasoning bordering on rubbish is not going to help and for the long term I would wait for an entry when it is going back into an uptrend.
 
barney said:
However, comments like the above directed at another poster (not the first time) concern me regarding your sincerity with regard to discussing PEN.
Click to expand...

I was reminding hangseng not to talk about himself in the PEN forum.

Sorry to ignore the rest of your post, you do seem genuine Barney, but I can't answer it without launching into a big non-PEN discussion.

If you feel I'm talking about non-PEN issues or making a personal attack, please note it in the same way I noted it when hangseng did.

Grant
 

Couldn't agree more. Except I'm a little less cynical about valuations that you perhaps. Firstly, I think anyone professing to be an investor has to do valuations to be taken seriously. Secondly, a valuation is largely maths and assumptions. There's little room for subjectivity in the maths, and I don't mind what assumptions are made as long as they're stated clearly so everyone can judge for themselves whether they're fair or not. Stating a figure without maths or assumptions is very bad form IMO.

You're dead right though, if the Uranium price and/or the exchange rate start trending with us, then we'll see another big shift in sentiment and probably another push above fair value as the traders get over-exuberant again. The DFS should lift fair value a little, but I don't know it'll be as much of a game changer as some people suggest. I think the impact to the bottom line was already factored in many times over when the shares were at 15.5 cents, and we'll have to wait for those holders to depart before we can start the next leg up.

Grant
 
WEBCAST ARCHIVE WILL POST
THURSDAY, APRIL 14

http://live.arcusa-newyork.com/


Welcome to ARC-USA 2011
Laurie Barr, President ARC USA

Opening Remarks
Tom Dean, Murdock Capital


Presenting Companies
Andy Kyzyk, OTC Markets
John Greeve, Mutiny Gold
Networking break
Ken Chapple, Gold Anomaly
Terry Barr, Samson Oil and Gas

Keynote Speaker
Chris Rodwell - Queensland, Australia Trade & Investment Commissioner for the Americas

Presenting Companies
Arlene Villareal, BNY Mellon
Andrew Mortimer, Proto Resources
Networking break
Gus Simpson, Peninsula Energy
Lia Darby, Director,Condor Blanco Mines
Dr. Michael Berry, Discovery Investing
"THE WORLD'S NEW ENERGY IMPERATIVE"
 
explod said:
Valuation is based on many things. The most important from an outsider (which is most of us if we do not work for the company) is market sentiment.
Click to expand...

Succinctly put. One of the best PEN posters on HC, binbin, asked a crucial question on the sentiment change the other day. After Fukushima, will the public at large want to buy houses and raise children within 40km of a Nuclear plant? What would plans to build a new Nuclear plant within 40kms of your real estate investment do to the perceived value of it now, and how would you vote in response to a politician forcing one on you?

Sentiment is going to be much more important than the views of experts when it comes to the long term impact of Fukushima. The 9/11 terrorist attack makes an excellent case in point. I don't see how the final engineering report could be more comprehensive or more compelling, but a massive number of people still believe 'loose change' type theories about what 'really' happened. Similar numbers of people believe the moon landing was a hoax despite rigorous debunking by countless experts. The educated saw through the hysteria of 3 Mile Island at the time and again with Chernobyl. The facts and expert opinion surrounding those incidents ended up having almost no correlation with the impact to sentiment within the public at large.

The one thing that makes me optimistic is that the Nuclear lobby is more powerful and more organised than it was in the 70s and 80s.

Grant
 
Excellent article and well worth a read. Sentiment will change positively, of that I have no doubt and it will be driven by demand despite what pundits are saying to the contrary.

And this only focusses on the big 3, South east Asia is not changing plans and is forging ahead as planned, with Korea in the lead as usual.


Nuclear Outlook Following One Month After Japan DisasterBy Dave Brown – Exclusive to Uranium Investing News
Tue, Apr 12, 2011

http://uraniuminvestingnews.com/7409/nuclear-outlook-following-one-month-after-japan-disaster.html

Revisiting the longer term nuclear outlook

In an exclusive interview with Uranium Investing News, Gary Clark, analyst at Roubini Global Economics, discussed the demonstrable longer term effect on nuclear power generation policy in several countries of interest:
 

But, and a big but, till sentiment changes there are very much better investments elsewhere.

Money needs to be at work on something that is working, not on something that is going down in a downtrend.
 
Re: PEN DEEP WELL LICENCE APPROVED

gnealson said:
Sorry to ignore the rest of your post, you do seem genuine Barney, but I can't answer it without launching into a big non-PEN discussion.
Click to expand...

No worries Grant .... Happy for the thread to carry on discussing more important issues.

hangseng said:
Thanks jase, more important than some think mate. I will be celebrating tonight!
Click to expand...

Ditto!

gnealson said:
The one thing that makes me optimistic is that the Nuclear lobby is more powerful and more organised than it was in the 70s and 80s.
Click to expand...

gnealson said:
Should see a bit more activity tomorrow morning on open if we're lucky.
Click to expand...

Pleased to see you seem a bit more positive Grant (all that negativity was starting to worry me ..... Could I surmise you may be a PEN holder again ....... If so, well done
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
MEE - Metex Resources
13 14 15
Replies
296
Views
54K
Joe Blow
BCC - Buccaneer Energy
16 17 18
Replies
341
Views
72K
zzaaxxss3401
Z
CNF - Continental Goldfields
2 3
Replies
55
Views
17K
Boyou
Uranium in for correction, not a rout
Replies
0
Views
8K
motion
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...