I tend to agree. Given the recent CR (ink still drying) and the prospect of more - possibly before EOY, but almost certainly before EOQ1-20 (imo), I think management's thinking might be that it's far more palatable/digestible to make a series of smaller revisions, rather than a large single revision that resets/reboots expectations for fear of what that might do to the SP. That's not intended to sound like a conspiracy theory. I just think there may be a certain amount of denial at play here wrt to management's mindset atm.
Depending on the timing of the appointment of the new CEO (and whether it's an internal appointment or a newcomer), I think it may be the trigger for any large 'expectations reboot' re- forward guidance that might eventually be forthcoming - especially if the appointment is from outside the company. It's not uncommon for a new CEO to aggressively clear the decks with all the bad news cobwebs during their honeymoon period.
Looking at the recent CR, there was a 19% gross shortfall, which, on the face of it doesn't look too bad as far as these things go. If you strip away the influence of Zeta's uptake, then the shortfall relating to all other shareholders increases to 28% (i.e. 19m shortfall / (100m on offer - 33m Zeta)). It's far from a shocking outcome, but punters were hardly clamouring for more stock, which I think speaks to the reticence that currently exists. Of the 19m shortfall, 10m will be placed to Zeta as sub-underwriter, so the overhang will only be 9m shares.
An improving PON will help, but I think the market is currently more interested in management's ability to meet their production guidance targets and control the costs - both of which are quite problematic atm.
PAN Price at posting:
30.5¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Not Held
