Hi Barny
It is so hard to tell with PAC/TRG. Historically from 2003 when I had initially invested (and sold in 2004 for a small profit) it has had periods of significant volatility. Below is a chart from 2000:
The change of strategy to go to US is what made me invest again, however management have had a few self inflicted accounting challenges.
If you look at PNI over the last ten years, it has similar volatility recently and has managed to grow from 2014 highs of 55c to ten times that price today, see chart:
Unfortunately past performance doesn't guarantee future returns.
In 2014, it was a real sliding door moment for PAC/TRG. They were looking to buy PNI but decided to merge with Northern Lights instead (definitely not a joint venture). Look at the growth PAC could have had. Sometimes management don't have the foresight to know what is best. Given the growth and size of US market I would have moved there too, but what gives PAC a competitive advantage in this market above other companies. GQG has displayed significant growth, but is it a one off fluke because PAC management knew Tim Carver? When funds look to raise captial do they think, lets go and talk to PAC? Don't believe so, but when PAC gets in the door it does have a good story to tell which appeals to some fund managers. Carlisle being the case in point, PAC was the underbidder, but Carlisle owners wanted to partner with PAC. I think the LinkedIn video shows competitive advantage.
Below have added a table to show FUM growth of PNI and PAC from 2016. I think the Share of FUM shows the story of why there has been a price divergence between the two companies, but doesn't justify the massive difference.
PNI share of FUM has grown 166% since 2016 and its share price ($0.92 @11/04/2016) has grown 533%.
PAC share of FUM has grown 126% since 2016 and its share price ($4.62 @11/04/16) has grown 39%.
PNI generates less revenues than PAC does from its investments. There is no reasonable explanation why there is a price difference other than market does not like, which I think is due to historical accounting issues.
Given the above, I like PAC as an opportunity to increase based on poor share price performance over few years and a return to the mean of where it should be (above $10). Not sure that the rest of the market thinks this and it is hard to believe we will get above $10. There are definitely other opportunities like WZR that will double or triple capital a lot quicker than PAC in the next twelve months (I purchased WZR late last year).
Best of Luck
Lost
(20min delay)