I agree completely brenden and have been asking this for some time. SP dropped once again today, just as it has languished for over a year now. Unless there is something I am missing this is ridiculous.
I posted this a while back:
"jhui, IM uninformed O I agree with your logic to some extent. If you had money available and shares are trading so far below supposed value, it would make sense to buyback ASAP, not use them as currency. What if the SP is 80c+ by the time the buy back occurs? It was 18c at one time. Which leads me to:
Why wasn't there a share buy back when the price was at 18c? Anyone with basic logic should realise how much value would be generated to shareholders if a $1 stock was bought back for 18c, it's simple maths. I have asked about this but received an unhelpful reply.
IM uninformed O, it seems completely illogical not to buy back a share trading at below cash value (which CFE was doing at one stage). If anyone wants to enlighten me in the flaws or impracticalities of my logic, however, I would be much obliged."
The same logic is obviously still applicable presently.
If your shares are valued well below cash backing, why wouldn't you purchase your own shares? It would essentially be purchasing money for a lesser amount of money.
Like I said, I've tried to ask the company this question twice now, but have not received any helpful response. I'm no expert in the stockmarket so as I've stated before, if anyone can explain any negatives to this please do so. Unless I am missing something (which is quite possible), providing the Lady Annie Sale goes through, the math is ridiculous. How can the SP be so much less than the cash backing and people still sell the stock?
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
