There is something wrong with underlying business they are averaging 6 sales per week.
What the hell do the lab staff do.
Printable View
Some Newfies might argue with you there Moosie. Three words - Seal Flipper Pie.
Yes, I tend to agree Simla. I suspect (hope - I can't discard what others are saying) that the trigger for the change in directors' interests was due to a PEB SP they thought they would have to wait another few years to achieve. So no collusion, tabled document, insider trading, etc, but rather the SP reaching a milestone.
Who knows, perhaps I'm being naive, but I usually try to think about what is the most likely scenario and leave emotion out of it. I would be prepared to invest a lot more in PEB, but there are some questions which need answering. The questions raised here will not be answered by company email I suspect and maybe the AGM is the place. Perhaps CS will be hoping for a cold wintertime southerly on the day of the AGM to keep the hecklers away.
The company cannot control sales, only their own efforts to generate sales. They seem to be pursuing a sound plan vigorously, so what else can you expect? Yes, they have spent money on staff and facilities, but that would appear to be the only way to credibly enter the US market, so what else can you expect?
As there is nothing I therefore see that they could have done that they don't appear to be doing or trying to do, I fail to see where the bad news comes in.
The bad news Simla (read earlier posts back to May 30 if you have a spare couple of hours!) is that sales expectations were set by company representatives to be in their thousands...but they have reported Actual Sales that are relatively pathetic.
Disappointment and uncertainty will almost always feed a bearish sentiment. There is now technical resistance at 90c, 99c/$1 (previous support), $1.13 and $1.20...which will need to all be busted before some posters (who I'm sure would prefer to remain anonymous) come back into the money.
Shareholders losing money is generally bad news.
Yes, but that presupposes that the share price was based on expectations set by the company in the first place. I repeat my recent post:
"The share price dropped from $1.60 simply because 318m shares priced at $1.60 with a PE of 15 would require an underlying annual profit of ($1.60/15)*318m = $33m pa profit, which would require sales of around the $100m pa that the company has said it certainly isn't expecting for five long years at least."
I am utterly sympathetic of share price moving down. But that is a different statement to saying the company is not still on the road to the right place. I do not understand what else they could have done except been much luckier in the speed of take up.
If you want to blame someone for a volatile share price, I'd try the Fed. Trillions of dollars have been unleashed on the world, all looking for a home. A small part of that has landed in NZ and created waves all over the market, not just here. People have been discussing it in many threads here over the last year or two.
Thank you to whoever just gave me a reputation downgrade for not agreeing with the general views here.
But I'm just saying you can't hold a company responsible for the results, only for whether they are trying hard. These guys are clearly trying very hard, and I'd personally find it pretty discouraging to be working that hard on behalf of shareholders and then have this sort of a thank you. Everyone seemed to like their plans last year.
Yes, that is entirely the risk that shareholders take when they invest in a company without a profit history. That is indeed the very point. I have no idea when profit will arrive for PEB, but the fact that that is unknown is the shareholders' responsibility, not the company's. The shareholders decide whether to put money into an unknown situation. The company does the best it can with the available resources. That is what a company structure means.