Psource Share Discussion Threads

[double6] 13/3/2013 18:22

Would hope that the Parabel reversing into PSD could be an ideal scenario .... would be fascinating to see how share price reacts if it happens.

[pejaten] 28/2/2013 00:13

Jojo Maybe you are right, but just be careful. They have less than 300k of cash so that will quickly go.

[jojo_jo] 27/2/2013 13:56

Haven't really got clue about this, but I would have thought they could sell their holdings (in Parabel to the Abu Dhabi group) for between 50% - 75% of their current value (ie. between the equivalent of 4p - 6p per share).

The old valuation it seems was somewhat inflated! It's been brought down to somewhat below true/fair value with a resounding bang today.

Just guessing, looks a possible punt, especially if they use it as an RTO vehicle for Parabel.

Drop looks overdone in view of investment values, cash held and lowish cash-burn.

IMPO/DYOR/NAI
Jo

[pejaten] 27/2/2013 13:45

The scandal here is the fees that the professional advisors have taken based on a completely fraudulent valuation. Now must be completely worthless

[russman] 30/9/2012 21:35

They have a value of $4.24 per share & the prefs at par. The market price of a share was less than $3 at 30/6/2012 and as they put it they are "burning cash" at $100k per month.

[russman] 15/8/2012 21:40

I can only guess that the Parabel preference shares are valued higher than the ordinairy shares. The ordinairy share is circa $1.35; Psource values a "share" at over $8. If they were the same thing, the enormous write down would have already ocurred.

[envirovision] 02/5/2012 15:17

Yes I have to concede to your point and my calculation above may well be wildly optimistic with the fees far higher than 5% I've assumed. Crazy situation really.

[envirovision] 30/4/2012 09:52

So fairly simple calculation really, assuming Parabel worthless, then NAV 78p - 80% = 15.6p

Allow 15% discount for not all realisations achieving full NAV = 13.26p allow further 5% for running and admin costs (but x 2 for 2 year period) and further 3% for currency movements and spread.

so say 11.6 pence to be returned in say 2 years time ?

[russman] 28/3/2012 00:14

I look forward to any news by Friday.

[robizm] 27/3/2012 13:02

I hope they wind this up as soon as possible as the directors and advisers have bled this long enough. I bought some at 10p which was a big mistake but hopefully news it is winding up by 31 march 2012 as promised in recent rns

[bisiboy] 24/3/2012 19:26

i thought i might buy at 7p if i get the chance
if the valuation is even 50% below what kpmg state then there is still plenty of upside.

having said that it doesnt feal very comfortable and the fact that the cfo
resigned the other week from parabel to persue other interests does not bode well.

i think i might just of talked myself out of averaging down!

re accountants i agree in part but the larger shareholders put pressure on the
board to review the nav and as we are a listed company and its shareholdr funds that pay their bills they will be aware of their obligations

[envirovision] 24/3/2012 11:29

really ? what's you're target limit then. From what i'm looking at a further 50% down side from here is feasible coupled like you say with the end of year and all. Since when were accountants interested in protecting shareholder value though, basically one would have thought they would say what ever the hell you want them to say if a) its legal and b) you paid them

[bisiboy] 24/3/2012 10:10

agree, but KPMG were consulted and happy with the figure being used.
i suspect there is a much larger weighting in the valuation to factors outside
of the otc price.
GS must have made a fair value assesment which i would have thought KPMG would
be aware of.
still think at current price on a balance of risk trade that they are worth a punt for the upside potential.
as the end of the tax year approaches these could drift a little lower on
portfolio tidying exercises and losses being taken for cgt purposes.
i intend to keep my eye out for some poorly executed trades and will add if the opportunity presents itself.

[envirovision] 19/3/2012 21:19

Obviously wholly morally wrong but christ knows how its legal to get away with stating it, its a disgusting spectacle to watch.

[robizm] 19/3/2012 19:58

it is only $3.75 per share yet claiming a fee on $8.70 which makes them crooks in my book. the quicker they wind this up the better.

[envirovision] 16/3/2012 16:19

Still trying to pretend the petro or what ever the hell it is these days is worth over $8 so as to keep claiming those fees or have i got the wrong end of a stick

[russman] 09/2/2012 21:50

Some news is better than no news. They should have announced the adjusted net asset value @ the end of January using the parabel bid price.

[flying pig] 05/2/2012 17:35

The Board has a fiduciary duty to shareholders. Excessive management fees are not in the best interests of shareholders. Who wants some fun legal letters?

[bisiboy] 04/2/2012 17:43

with last rades in petro algae at 2.60 against a holding value of over 10
i would think they havnt posted the Nav because they just dont know what figure to use
i would be suprised if they were not consulting with thier auditors for guidence.
Still i am encouraged that goldmam are still running with this if it was so poor they wouldnt be wasting their time.

[flying pig] 02/2/2012 17:11

I entirely agree! Not a good advert for the Board as a whole.

[envirovision] 02/2/2012 11:04

What a bunch of losers. Despite NAV being reported every single month year after year, do you notice how all of a sudden no NAV was reported for January.

Indeed one would think its now too embarrassing to print the real NAV.

A refund of management fees though ? I expect it was them who were holding the price up on the pink sheets to some fictitious value in order to milk the fee.

City SCUM !!

[bisiboy] 10/1/2012 18:18

petro algae now lost 85% of its value
perhaps a refund of management fees might be in order based on the inflated share price.