ADVFN Logo

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for discussion Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.

PAF Pan African Resources Plc

21.55
-0.35 (-1.60%)
Last Updated: 09:19:42
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Pan African Resources Plc LSE:PAF London Ordinary Share GB0004300496 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -0.35 -1.60% 21.55 21.50 21.65 21.90 21.50 21.90 760,453 09:19:42
Industry Sector Turnover Profit EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap
Gold Ores 321.61M 60.74M 0.0317 6.85 415.88M
Pan African Resources Plc is listed in the Gold Ores sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker PAF. The last closing price for Pan African Resources was 21.90p. Over the last year, Pan African Resources shares have traded in a share price range of 11.92p to 22.30p.

Pan African Resources currently has 1,916,503,988 shares in issue. The market capitalisation of Pan African Resources is £415.88 million. Pan African Resources has a price to earnings ratio (PE ratio) of 6.85.

Pan African Resources Share Discussion Threads

Showing 9901 to 9922 of 14975 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  407  406  405  404  403  402  401  400  399  398  397  396  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
15/3/2017
10:53
DS2

That might explain the IC stance.

dyor

srpactive
15/3/2017
10:20
It is a technical thing - according to the JSE rules they can only dis-apply preemption rights (i.e. do a placing not a rights issue) if the placing is at a discount of less than 10% to the 30 day VWAP.

They had done the book-build for the placing but the share price and rand movements meant that the placing price that had been agreed was lower than 30-day VWAP - 10% so couldn't go ahead under JSE rules.

This rule isn't in the AIM rulebook so if they were sole-listed on AIM they would have got the placing away ok (although at more than a 10% discount to VWAP.)

dangersimpson2
15/3/2017
09:59
I would have thought the investors want the mine
repairs done and open and production figures
confirmed before a commitment of fund.

No problem though.

dyor

srpactive
15/3/2017
09:37
what do people think of that last RNS? They were planning a placing and have put it on ice?
thecynical1
13/3/2017
18:53
Thank you dangersimpson, perhaps I am too sanguine regarding the short term situation for PAF, but I am still relatively relaxed regarding the outlook for the 2nd Half of FY17 and for the full FY.

It looks as though they may have sorted the shaft issues by 15th April and will presumably provide an update and (possibly) an amended guidance at that time.

If the share price weakens in the short term I will tend to bulk up a bit unless the outlook changes due to some new unforeseen issue, as it is really the 2018+ timescale which interests me.

All the best.
Chip

chipperfrd
13/3/2017
15:53
Agree, looks very promising here post 2018 that is for certain.

dyor

active

srpactive
13/3/2017
15:46
chipperfrd,

Thanks for the considered reply. I agree the H1 results were good and if the H2 production levels and rand gold price were at the H1 level of 2850kg & ZAR565k/kg I would be agreeing with you.

The problem with those metrics is that I'm modelling H2 EPS in the range of 1/3rd of H1 at current spot and guided production.

This would make your metrics:

PER is 24x against a sector average of 23x across 66 peer producers.
PBV is 1.32 against an average of 1.7
PSR is 1.09 against an average of 3.1
Ev/EBITDA is 15 against an average of 10.4
PCF is 18 against an average of 9.5

making the investment case less clear cut.

The market is of course forward looking and may already be looking through the poor H2 to 2018. If PAF can return to 2016 production levels at 2016 costs then they would start to look cheap again on your metrics although not as cheap as they were on a P/E basis earlier this year. Just given the issues this year with industrial action, mine repairs and the stronger rand I think they will struggle to return to those production & cost levels in the short term.

If they are back trading below a rolling forward P/E of 7 again based on gold spot & forward production guidance I will almost certainly be back in since I believe that would fundamentally undervalue the business. It's just that I'm much less sure that the same can be said when the rolling forward P/E is c.18 hence my wait and see approach.

dangersimpson2
13/3/2017
12:34
Good posts, Dangersimpson and chipperfrd, good to get
both sides.

active

srpactive
13/3/2017
11:52
Chip,Good Post.
garycook
13/3/2017
11:45
dangersimpson,

Fair enough!

However, PAF still look under-valued (to me) based on their 1H financials.

On a trailing basis:
PER is 8.2x against a sector average of 23x across 66 peer producers.
PBV is 1.32 against an average of 1.7
PSR is 1.09 against an average of 3.1
Ev/EBITDA is 4.88 against an average of 10.4
PCF is 6.2 against an average of 9.5

There are certainly good reasons for why S.A. PM producers are lowly rated compared to their peers in more popular locations, but I consider the value gap gets increasingly too large, particularly against producers in N.America.
Chip

chipperfrd
11/3/2017
09:29
Danger - I think that is a really sensible strategy. I sold out on the mine issues so whilst my past actions to date are aligned to yours, you have articulated your forward thinking and considerations very clearly. You have joined the list of posters I follow, which is much shorter than the list of posters I have filtered! Thanks.
melody9999
10/3/2017
12:56
I also sold out on the mine news having held a core holding since these were 7p. It's not so much the mine itself as the lower production guidance. The profitability of PAF is really sensitive to production volumes and rand gold price.

Since I bought at 7p, from 7p to 24p and back to 14p the forward 12 month rolling P/E based on gold price and production guidance was about 7 varying between maybe 6 and 8. I considered this too cheap so would add to my core holding when it dropped below 7 and sold a few if it raised much above 7 (or to not be too overweight.)

With the current production guidance & gold price the forward P/E will be c.11 and the 12 month rolling P/E 18-24 (based on 2x H2 EPS of 0.3-0.4p)

Going forward if they can return to 200koz+ production levels they will do ok, although not to the level of 2016 since the rand gold price is lower. Ekilikhu also provides low risk growth. It's just that that we were getting that before for a P/E of 7 and now I would be paying 18 times rolling forward earnings.

If they sort out the production issues and start to guide back to the 200koz level then they may start to look good value again but there has to be a big question mark over that given the short term issues. In between then the production shortfall this year means that barring a meteoric rand gold price rise they will miss current broker consensus by a wide margin. So in the short term I'm happy to be on the sidelines until I'm sure that miss has been priced in and we have clearer guidance on FY18 production levels & costs.

dangersimpson2
10/3/2017
09:50
No, it moved to 24.25p I sold alot lower so
a little wrong saying that.

The rns about the latest mine details changed my mind.

I am waiting for news of the mine reopening.

What I say makes no difference, now the IC being so positive
is most influential.

I will not post here as said before.

active

srpactive
10/3/2017
00:25
DT,Precisely !!!
garycook
09/3/2017
21:08
DT101022 Feb '17 - 16:09 - 9801 of 9842 5 0 Edit

Active

Having pumped this while holding you did well.

But I detect now you're out you'd love to see this lower

Why continue to post otherwise???

Hmm......

dt1010
09/3/2017
00:12
IC,do not know anymore than me and you,the same has Motley Fool,Analysis etc.We pay our money,and take a chance good or bad.Regarding PAF it seems a few sellers came in after 1pm.It has held up really well,but the price of Gold is down.Hoping it holds $1,200,if not wait for it to bottom.I will not be selling PAF atm
garycook
08/3/2017
20:59
Coxsmn

Quite right, I will remove my comment, but have had issues with
the IC before.

active

srpactive
08/3/2017
20:03
Mining is a dirty and dangerous job by its very nature and its naive to think otherwise, no mining company is immune to incident.Dyor.
coxsmn
08/3/2017
16:53
GC

I would as I have said about aly, the Singapore purchase
was not good, sold a few along the way but still happy to
hold and accept the decent dividend. All part of my dividend
reinvestment programme.

dyor

regards

active

srpactive
08/3/2017
15:52
Yes the drop of guidance from 195koz to 181k for FY17 together with the lower rand gold price has superseded those Edison figures.

Even if they can hold production costs/oz steady on the lower production then H2 EPS is going to come in around 0.4p vs 0.91p for H1 (assuming gold prices for H2 average around the current 509kZar/kg.)

This means full year eps will be between 1.3 & 1.4p. Edison is wrong about paying out 40% of free cash flow it is actually 40% of operating cash flow which will be higher. Operating cash flow is typically 10-30% higher than eps so the range of the dividend will probably be between:

1.3 x 110% x 40% = 0.57p - 3.5% yield.
1.4 x 130% x 40% = 0.73p = 4.4% yield.

this isn't a bad yield but unless they change their 40% of OCF guidance or the rand gold price soars then the dividend will be lower than the 0.88p paid out in 2016.

With EPS also likely to come in lower in 2017 than 2016 they have kind of shot themselves in the foot with heir production issues.

dangersimpson2
08/3/2017
15:24
srp.The share price has held up well,with those disclosures,much better than HGM,which is down around 15% from recent high,s.It is the price of Gold which has dropped from 1260 to atm 1209,which has caused the problem.Do not put down PAF,because you sold out.If you were still a holder.You would not be posting that would you.Hope you still do not own ALY ?
garycook
08/3/2017
15:03
Removed for Coxsmn.

Do you row by the way?

active

srpactive
Chat Pages: Latest  407  406  405  404  403  402  401  400  399  398  397  396  Older

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock