ADVFN Logo ADVFN

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 charts Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.

SQZ Serica Energy Plc

129.50
-0.80 (-0.61%)
18 Dec 2024 - Closed
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Serica Energy Plc LSE:SQZ London Ordinary Share GB00B0CY5V57 ORD USD0.10
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -0.80 -0.61% 129.50 130.00 130.40 132.40 129.40 130.80 825,988 16:35:01
Industry Sector Turnover Profit EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap
Crude Petroleum & Natural Gs 632.64M 102.98M 0.2638 4.93 508.73M
Serica Energy Plc is listed in the Crude Petroleum & Natural Gs sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker SQZ. The last closing price for Serica Energy was 130.30p. Over the last year, Serica Energy shares have traded in a share price range of 110.40p to 242.40p.

Serica Energy currently has 390,426,423 shares in issue. The market capitalisation of Serica Energy is £508.73 million. Serica Energy has a price to earnings ratio (PE ratio) of 4.93.

Serica Energy Share Discussion Threads

Showing 27576 to 27598 of 28900 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  1108  1107  1106  1105  1104  1103  1102  1101  1100  1099  1098  1097  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
26/4/2024
06:35
Odd buying pattern in buy back. Lots of relatively small trades.
waterloo01
26/4/2024
06:12
11% dividend plus the new share buyback. Happy to accumulate at these levels
heialex1
25/4/2024
16:05
"I can understand the rationale for gross to gross given the debt taken on provided a large uptick in reserves"------Using that logic, the CAPEX spend (among others) should also be removed from the cash bridge because that also provided a significant uptick in reserves.... Bottom line, mountain of debt taken on was removed because it was convenient/ suited the agenda- end of!
oilinvestoral
25/4/2024
14:48
Is this the share buyback pushing up the price?
orchestralis
25/4/2024
09:58
I dunno... my thinking here is simple.. This floated at a £1 in 2005 (hugely speculative and arguably overvalued then)

It is now £2 having turned itself into a serious oil and gas producer .. and given extraordinary growth to date, it is now, IMHO hugely undervalued.

That is my simple take on everything here.

I watched the results presentation and it is clearly management's intention to keep on growing.

meanwhile, we have a near 12% yield to enjoy.

Price should be a multiple of what it is. And I think investors will work this one out.

undervaluedassets
25/4/2024
09:22
It's not easy to make it comparable - that's the issue.

If you go Net cash to Net cash that's also not sensible given the uplift to reserves/cash flow

It would have been far better to have put all Tailwind related cash flows separately but I guess that would have been messy.

In summary would have been no harm in showing it but being clear about it.

nigelpm
25/4/2024
08:06
"I can understand the rationale"-----The obvious rationale is window dressing as it makes the figures seem much better
oilinvestoral
25/4/2024
08:05
"The difference is tailwind's debt."-----BINGO! And therein lies the quarter of a billion dollar problem !
oilinvestoral
25/4/2024
06:23
A decent buy back amount - let's hope it continues - I calculate 1.8% could be bought back at an average of 200p
croasdalelfc
24/4/2024
22:29
I would have preferred if they've shown net to net cash and put all the tailwind related stuff in a box as part of the bridge. That's how I'd have done it but I can understand the rationale for gross to gross given the debt taken on provided a large uptick in reserves etc...
nigelpm
24/4/2024
22:03
The difference is tailwind's debt. Every moment otherwise is listed out in the bridge.
nigelpm
24/4/2024
21:25
I knew you couldn't help yourself and would've chirped in again! You're Back filtered ! I could literally write that the sky is blue and you would disagree with me ! Since you disagree with everything I write why don't you just filter my posts and leave me be!
oilinvestoral
24/4/2024
21:02
My point is net cash 1 year ago at the end of 2022: £432.5 million!

There's a helpful bridge in the IMC meeting to explain the movement since.

nigelpm
24/4/2024
20:20
I'm always critical when they deserve it my investments are anywhere from 35k worth upwards mainly in SIPPS. This company needs to protect itself from more than commodity prices they need to protect themselves from self destructive politicians that are hell bent on destroying the UK. They hit the nail on the head with their comments in the RNS the short term tax raid will destroy jobs, will create massive trade imbalances, take away UK national security, leave the UK population open to spiking energy swings as they import more energy from anywhere they can get it and long term lose tax revenue as the north sea industry shuts down
creditcrunchies
24/4/2024
19:55
I'll reduce my posts here as there is no debating with some people. If SQZ literally posted management have been fraudulent (not saying they are), some people would still fully support them! It's a share not a football team! You are allowed to be critical of management! It's not illegal
oilinvestoral
24/4/2024
19:52
My point is net cash 1 year ago at the end of 2022: £432.5 million! Wonder if one of the accountants can get the abacus out and calculate how much it would've been without taking on over a quarter of billion dollars of private equity debt ! That's why I was surprised at the question posed
oilinvestoral
24/4/2024
19:02
Serica are net cash as well aren't they?

Yes, £78m.

Also worth bearing in mind, when looking at graphs of share price performance, that since the 'offer' by KIST, SQZ have paid 31p in dividends whilst KIST have paid...nothing.

stemis
24/4/2024
18:41
“Serica are net cash as well aren't they?”


———;——̵2;—



I’m not sure if you are joking or being serious framscan.

How much would cash have been without spending capex on TW assets and taking on their debt?

oilinvestoral
24/4/2024
18:35
"They are NET cash! That’s the whole point m! We’ve gone one way they’ve gone the opposite way!"

Serica are net cash as well aren't they?

farmscan
24/4/2024
18:33
hOws gOng bOUnts??
andymunchkin
24/4/2024
18:19
The offer from Kist was rejected in July 2022. It's pretty obvious from the chart I posted which company has underperformed the most since then.



Granted AA has a good track record however increasing gas exposure wouldn't have panned out well here imho. Returning the SQZ cash pile to investors would have been my preference as I said at the time (rather than either deal).

bountyhunter
24/4/2024
18:14
Let's see where both companies are in 12 months time! On a LT basis I'm willing to bet that good management at KIST will release value in the end !
oilinvestoral
24/4/2024
18:13
Also the selective period in the chart ignores the fact that KIST went up 6 fold in the run up in gas prices.
oilinvestoral
Chat Pages: Latest  1108  1107  1106  1105  1104  1103  1102  1101  1100  1099  1098  1097  Older

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock