Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
It is a stupid category if it is possible to make good money elsewhere while investors are waiting for the rise to really start and it is possible to buy shares on the cheap when the rise begins. If you want to buy 50 million shares you should buy now that the price is weak. If you want to buy 50,000 you can probably buy when the rise really begins I think.
I sold 30,000 shares at 48,5 cents. The money was spent to finance purchase of shares in NWAU at $ 1.41 cents. I am up so far in that ERHE is down about 10% and NWAU is up. I still hold 17,000 ERHE. I pefer ERHE to cash but I don't find it the most attractive stock I know.
I sold most of my shares at 48,5 cents on Friday, realizing that the best-informed posters here are clueless as to where the stock price is going short-term. It makes little sense to be invested here now if the stock price rises next year for instance. Even for long-term investors it is stupid to invest too early. The price seldom runs 50% or more in a single day. Usually it is possible the buy shares without paying through the nose when the time has come for doing so.
It may or may not be a good buy but it is hardly safe. I don't regret that I moved most of my money to NWAU.pk since I sold my shares in INCA at about twice the current price. NWAU is up by more than 50% and I expect it to rise by hundreds of percent during the coming year. INCA could rise as much but I think the chance that it will do so not to look very good right now. Unsually a sustained movement in the stock price is not fortuitous.
Why is it called shorting if a company sells shares it already owns? In my book shorting is if you sell shares you don't own.
Kelly's removal may be good from a long-term point if view as he seems to be quite different from what he was made out to be - a liability rather than a big asset who had managed to create som very successful companies. But short-term I would guess his removal leads to some uncertainty, which is normally not good for the stock price. It may be an advantage that he will have fewer shares than assumed. But I think it was stated some time ago that the current leaders have options for 70 million shares. That would seem to largely balance the shares not to be issued to Mr Kelly.
It is true that Mr Berman and Mr Cox have a vested financial interest in the success of INCA. Even so, their situation is probably very different from that of other shareholders. If there develøps a big gap between the price at which options may be exercised and the current stock price common practice is to issue more options that have a lower exercise price. Thus managements are far less vulnerable to a falling stock price than ordinary shareholders.
There has been some volume as a considerable trade was done at one cent. I think revenues will grow from quarter to quarter. The interesting point is however if there will be earnings per share reasonably soon that will more than justify the current stock price. Even if there are revenues of $ 8 million this quarter as suggested by somebody there is still a long way to go to get revenues of $ 80 this year.
Extreme stupidity
For some obscure reason RB has stopped me posting there. Today there is a post by one of the hypers suggesting that no buying or selling means that there is news on the way. How can potential buyers or sellers know if there is news in the offing?
Lots of cash
What do you base your view on? Some posters seem to think that our stakes will be paid for by the others so that there will not be big expenses.
Simply put
Because I possess less than average intelligence I will try to put the most important facts of the situation the way I intepret them.
Nigeria would like other nations like to see its nationals participate in the sharing of the riches the oil discoveries of its waters. One such person is Mr Offor through his partly owned company ERHE. Because of his big stake in ERHE the company will get attractive stakes in blocks in the ocean outside Nigeria. Therefore other shareholders benefit from his standing with Nigerioan authorities. This may also be the case in the future.
So far it looks as if Mr Offor has financed the activities of ERHE. Thus he appears to have received about 10% of the company at a stock price of less than 20 cents not so long ago. As long as this is the case it will be in the interest of Mr Offor that the stock price stays low, since this will give him a bigger stake by providing a certain amount of money. This is dilutive to other shareholders but beneficial for Mr Offor. If others provided the financing by receiving shares it would be in the interest of Mr Offor to have as high a stock price as possible to reduce dilution.
I think it is impossible to say what will make the stock price move sigficantly. Price movements are not always based on rational considerations.
ot Are you the former admirer of Mr Surber - nxia etc?
ot AI
I have followed your example and sold my INCA shares to buy shares in this company.
Deadline
If ERHE and the others have two weeks to respond to what they have been offered and they have not received the letter offering the stakes in the various blocks because some crook has stolen the letter could the net effect be that the blocks will be offered to some others? A deadline is a deadline is it not?
Right now the stock price is falling not because of the selling but because there is so little buying. After all the volume of trading is just a fraction of averate volume.
Impressive post BB! Nice that you are well enough to enable you to contribute more interesting posts.
demmi
You should not forget that no oil has been found in these blocks so far. It does happen that promising structures do not result in commercial oil finds. I get the impression that some posters take it for granted that there is a certain quantity of oil in these blocks. That may or may not be the case. I would assume the majors would have tried to get rights in these blocks if they had taken for granted that there were this big quantity of oil to be found that some posters assume to be there.
ot No, Oslo
I agree that DNO are serious people. They been in the business for more than 30 years. I was myself present at the first general meeting when the company was established.
It is rather so that revenues went from double-digit millions to single-digit millions. That point is that the current company includes a company that was supposed to have revenues in excess of $ 100 million last year. The first quarter showed that those revenues had dwindled to very little indeed,
pinecat
Thanks for your comments. I purchased a small stake of 12,000 shares this morning.
Now may be the time for retail sales. The time for wholesale sales has been for a while. It was supposed to exceed $ 100 million last year it was $ 2 million during the first quarter. Hardly impressive.
I don't assume that there is necessarily oil somewhere because a Norwegian company that has done the 3 D work thinks that that is the case. lol As far as I know it is only possible to establish whether certain conditions that must be in place for there to be oil are in fact there. Even if that is the case there is not necessarily oil to be found. Actually, a cousin of mine is involved in finding oil on behalf of Norsk Hydro in various parts of the world, e.g. Russia. I consider making a small investment in ERHC even if I consider it a high-risk proposition but with good potential to balance the risk. Besides,there are now some who think that the price of oil will go on spiralling upwards because some estimates about oil in the ground in Saudi Arabia for instance are over-optimistic.
We are good at things that have to do with finding and developing oil offshore - it is done in various parts of the world.
wall
The following is a quote posted on RB:
"You will notice that the Veritas 2D study and the PGS 3D study only cover blocks 1-4 and parts of blocks 5 and 6"
In which country are those two companies located?
I have a feeling those minds come from the small European country in which I live.
The question is how territory is defined.
My point is just that only drilling can show if there is oil in commercial quantities in the blocks in question. If there had been certainty I assume the blocks would have fetched a lot more. What is paid for the blocks reflects both the potential and the uncertainty does it not? I would like to see realistic discussion on these boards - not one-eyed bashing or hyping. Your post smells of the latter.
Wildcatting may not have been an apposite word - even so it remains a fact that you don't know if there is oil in an area before the well has been drilled.
Perhaps some thought that now we can expect no more good news for a while and the stock price will therefore trend downwards? There is generally a good reason for selling on good news because the news tends to make the stock price spurt and slide back afterwards. This happens again and again. Even if things look promising there is high risk involved and it might make sense to sell part of one's holding on good news.
The more interesting question is perhaps why there was not more heavy and sustained buying after the good news and the reduced risk?
Ten
I have no idea what is the right market cap at the moment. I don't know if the wells will be dry or not and that is the case with everybody else also. If there is a 10% chance of fiding a well worth $ 100 million it may be sensible to pay let's say $ 5 million for that chance.
Why did the stock price fall?
The asset this company has is shares in a few blocks in the ocean outside a couple of African states that are not among the most stable in the world. There has been no drilling in the area. Wildcatting is highly risky even if the assessment is that there is a good chance of finding substantial quantities of oil and gas. There may realistically turn out to be no commercial finds at all.
ERHC Energy has a market cap of more than $ 400 million based sonely on these blocks. This discounts a significant find of commercial quantities of oil/gas. The downside is nil and the upside very high indeed. But the risk is also very high indeed. The stock price represents a balance of these factors.
By reading some posts I get the impression that it is a foregone conclusion that there are commercial quantities of oil/gas in these blocks. That is clearly mistaken. Therefore it is impossible to say what a fair stock price is. Every thing depends what the drilling will result in.
It is commonly recommended to sell on good news. It is therefore natural that there would be some selling last week. Those who are cautious will wait until there is proven oil before they buy shares in this company. The price will be higher but the risk also a lot less since it will then be known that not all wells will be dry.
I have no idea what a fair stock price is everything taken into consideration. My main point is that the market cap is already substantial and that there may be no finds of commercial qualities of oil/gas ever and that this is a very high-risk speculation. In such circumstances it is only fair that there is a high upside if everythink turns out well, which cannot be taken for granted.
People are of course entitled to giving a fixed price order at any level they want. But if it is unrealistic it is not worth paying attention to. I suppose there was great news last week. There is hardly going to be similar great news this weekend.
Why would the stock price move 30 to 50% from Friday to Monday?
It now appears that we were wrong. Some big seller/s is/are still at work forcing the price down.
I think you are right as far as the stock price goes. Today's movement so far suggests that this view is probably more realistic than an expectation that the fall will continue.
My guess is that from this level some retracement is more likely than a further plunge. The recent fall seems overdone in relation to the situation.
Market-makers normally don't operate in a vacuum. The bid and asked prices normally reflect in some way the orders og buyers and sellers of shares.
Revenues were just a fraction of the numbers suggested on these boards. Annual revenues are of course going to be way below what was projected. The reason there have been few PR's is that there has been little to report - as I have suggested before.
It should also be taken into consideration the revenues are hardly revenues that have nice profit margins - wholesale revenues don't.
Your reasoning seems pretty convincing to me.