RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Another 52 week lowManagement and Insiders already own 15% of the company due to the companies presentation which is a reasonable stake in my eyes.
And I am not used to north american corporate laws but wouldn't it make sense when you find the consensus that the sareholders own their represantive part of the left side of the balance sheet (asset side) that is left after deducting liabilities? I mean when there is 10mio in the bank and 8mio liabilities I'd highly doubt that shareholders "own" 10mio. but this is just my understanding might be dead wrong.
What do you mean with inking more contracts?
They have interests in the US, India, Romania and NZ.
They will drill another well in NZ this year.
They are forwarding the east coast porperties to earn their 40% share from TAG.
So enough that is happening for such a small company in my opinion and the share buyback might be a sign that they are convinced that investing in the current projects will show better returns than to put it in new undertakings.
Do not get me wrong but when you critizise them for not putitng money into new projects it means that you are not satisfied with the assets the management has chosen so far and then I would say why should they be able to find better ones now? On the other hand I prefer if they give money back to shareholders via buying back shares which is the much nicer way because this way taxes and fees are avoided in comparison to a dividend.
I am disappointed with the share price as well and am deeply in the red but when they can realize their work programm and buy baack shares too with the cash flow from operation this is absolutely fine for me because I'd say this means whereas other companies need to dilute their shareholders to keep things going here you get the opposite while they are advancing their projects (slower as some might have expected) and having a lottery ticket for free in their hands with Romania.
Just my personal thoughts. DYODD
carinthian