RE: RE: RE: Volume has been picking up...Sorry nlr2, I missed this post of yours, so I'll quickly answer. I agree, there are many companies in the sector that trade at outrageous valuations. Not all, of course. I make a point of collecting under valued over time, hedging as I go depending on fundamental changes. I don't advertize.
The $7 NAV is meaningless, you don't use that figure for fair market value. It is net asset value of future net revenue. A better and more accurate estimate is an historic look at funds from operations, before tax. If I remember correctly, they've been able to achieve $10,000,000 per quarter... or $40million per year. Double that as an optimistic look for next year, however, the liabilities will certainly increase to the tune of $120million net debt. That would put them
in a negative position, which is why I've asked, how many years before they make more than they spend ?
When they do show a profitable business plan, you can use historic cash flows, minus liabilities including non cash items which would give you net income, allowing for various share price to earnings ratios. Pumpers would give P/Es extremely high, sell-side analysts the same, but the true measure should be the number of years earnings/share equals the share price. Profitable business plans only mind you, and the multiple to earnings should never be higher than the number of years of current total production divided into Proved Reserves.