||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
|Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology
Proteome Share Discussion Threads
Showing 173201 to 173223 of 173225 messages
|It hardly seems like more than a few hours since.......|
|Sorry if that messes up the PE calculations that you guys have been stressing out over all day.|
|So if there are 294m shares in issue now and CJP converts his loan into another 186m then the total shares in issue would be 480m. CJP would own his current holding of 35m plus the converted 186m making a total of 221m. That's 46%. Based on Richard's guesstimated value of $20B that's quite a tidy sum.|
|With the low now 4.58p that means another 16m shares for that nice Mr Pearce upon conversion of the £8.5m loan. Up from 170m to 186m since the fund raising. He must be delighted. Surely the LSE isn't going to allow this to continue for much longer without a clarification of CJP's intentions.|
|apologies for going 'off duty' without prior notifying stockdoc but I did have an urgent appointment with teh hostelry in Helmsley - and thank you monters, teh knight et al for stating the bleeding obvious, everyone got it except for the doc.
For the avoidance of all possible doubt, you were rattling on about breakeven as if it was and end in itself. What I pointed out by example was what net profit it would take for prm to achieve say 0.5p eps following recent dilutions, said calculation being quite simply
£1.5m/275m shares in issue = approx. 0.5p eps. or if you like 275m x 0.5p err thats it, period
As monte etc have tried to point out to you, you can apply whatever blimmin PE ratio you like to that if you like, but you've been looking through the wrong end of the telescope trying to interpolate data from the current share price which I havent referred to at all.
Are we "happy" now|
|Oh, I doubt that will happen before the moon turns blue, monts.|
the knight of no
|Anyway, why not just put yer hands up and say 'it is a fair cop, i misread / misunderstood (delete as appropriate) what was posted'?|
|Dear lord - if they did make a profit of 1.5m and teh share price was 5p at the time, then the PER would be 10 given the number of shares in issue - ie it would be a fact, indisputable at that. It would not be an attempt to value on a PE basis. Please feel free to value it on any basis or PER that you see fit, x10, x100, x1,000,000.
Who actually cares? The wise avatar was making the point that there are now so many shares in issue that it takes a fair chunk of profit to amount to any more than four fifths of a hill of beans per share. The equally wise avatar jeffian reminded teh fred of the level of turnover, and increase currently required to make 1.5m of profit.
i understand that you have yersen' previously put some rather racy valuations on this perennial loss making service company.|
|doc - you seem to make things up, like your £100m valuation - blimey, only a fool would have come up with that!
Whereas I told you at 20p that the market value would go to 5p - you suggested that was rubbish talk - remind me, what is the sp? LOL!|
I realise you'll never be told and you'll never be wrong, but it doesn't stop you being so.
What you extrapolated from harry's post is irrelevant; monte pointed out that he hadn't mentioned PE, you did. Now you assert, once again, you're right and everyone else is wrong......er......except you're once again.....er....wrong.
Like I said, you're a blithering idiot. You entirely lack objectively and you can't see how you've been misled and misled yourself.
Do you actually ever look at the value of your invest in PRM as against its book cost?|
the knight of no
Go and do some research. I know, a novel idea for a blithering idiot like you but you really should try and understand what these things means before you do your nuts on a share....
.......oh, sorry, too late for that.|
the knight of no
|Glenn - if they had anything positive to say, they would say it. Surely you understand that point?|
|Diggle has been very busy with his felt tip yesterday and today, changing the "5p" to a "3p" on the up coming PRM shareholder party invitations.|
|Well wake us when they make £300k and we'll talk about it then.
I'll set me alarm clock for 2021.|
|No, no, yes........|
|Has anyone spoken to a company representative recently. Was the mood perceptible? Are they aware that they can't hide forever?|
|A lobotomy should do the trick.....|
|'doesn't seem to understand teh difference between EPS and a PE ratio'
You see Harry's post about shares in issue and EPS, seeing only that
I thought more carefully about he numbers he was quoting.
So, as I asked monte, do you really think it was a complete coincidence that Harry sought to look at what profit equated to an EPS 1/10th of the stock price???
Don't be so daft. He picked 0.5p EPS because he divided 5p by a 10x PE ratio !!
It seems that your valuation understanding is not sufficient to have made that obvious link|
|'oh ffs, i give up' - sounds like a 'fishing trip' for you monters?
Harry talked of PRM needing to get 1.5m profit to have 0.5p EPS
However, as I suggested, he did not pick a target of 0.5p EPS by coincidence
He picked it because he wanted to look at what earnings would be required for a 5p price at 10x multiple
You're in a strop because you know that's the case.
Or do you have another suggestion for how he coincidentally ended up at an EPS figure that fits with 10x PE and a 5p price?? LOL!
The crucial bit that ignorant 10x multiple pushers miss is that in reality, a 50x multiple would be perfectly fair
That would require earnings of only £300k to justify for example. Quite a different picture.
It's amusing how posters such as yourself NEVER seem to manage to come up with justifications for your guff views.
It was exactly the same with Golly and his nonsense about accumulated losses. I proved my views with rational logic and suitable case studies.
I knew Golly was a very sore loser monters, but expected better from you|
|I don't know how Richard thinks teh_quack is a 'valuation expert' gievn that teh_clot doesn't seem to understand teh difference between EPS and a PE ratio. Or teh fact that he has problems with simple facts such as harry not using the term PE in his post.|
the knight of no
|I rather think that excellent teh points alluded to sailed several nautical miles over teh avatar in question's head.|
|More to the point than worrying about theoretical but unmentioned PER's, of course the dream of PRM producing eps of 0.5p would require them achieving revenues over £9m pa so that's not going to happen in the foreseeable future and certainly not before the most recent cashcall is exhausted.|
|Well I did enjoy the "Fisher Price" slip, I must say.
So much so I couldn't resist a biennial trip over to eyeeyeeye to pull the odd leg. Mind you, I'm not sure the avatar concerned has twigged yet.|