I agree that MC is generally a much better benchmark for making...

I agree that MC is generally a much better benchmark for making investment decisions than simply relying on the share price. However, when comparing the MC of one company against other companies without considering all factors, this can be almost as dangerous as ignoring MC entirely.

Does a low MC relative to factors such as net cash position or potential upside mean that the company you're looking at is undervalued, or does it mean there's still significant derisking yet to occur, with said risk being fairly priced? Conversely, companies with relatively high MCs compared to their fundamentals could just be grossly overpriced. Just ask anyone that bought into the hype of GSW or BIG ...

For what it's worth, I've held PXS as one of my "bottom drawer" shares for about 3 years, since purchasing them for 0.15 each as a spec buy. I took a punt as I knew the BI deal was imminent at the time, and the punt paid off. I've since accumulated more PXS in the mid 20s, but I've always had in mind that PXS is a long term bottom drawer share. TBH the only reason I've just stuck my head in the PXS forum after all this time is because I was trying to see if there is any intel to suggest why PXS may have broken out of its long term trading range.

Finally, I also agree that PXS has the potential to be a $1+ proposition ... eventually. Whether it's based on sound fundamentals or PXS suddenly becoming a market darling again remains to be seen.

GLTAH.