Something to laugh about...., page-25

I know we are laughing about the genius analysis over at AVZ but while we are at it, I've noticed some very inspired 'experts' posting their NPV calcs for the plays they are invested in.

Guy from PLS believes it is worth NPV of 4.1billion with an assumed spod price of $1,283 USD lololol

https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/fa...ich-justifies-4-target.3685332/#post-27243876

Then old red heart quotes my post on NPV comparison and attempts to do his own on TAW lololol

27240249

He posts:

'Just last week there was a whole thread on BGS talking about how cheap they are compared to TAW and others, it got 100 likes all using todays numbers without any discussion to the upcoming, resource upgrade other people lack of research and ignorance is our advantage. So how does this affect the NPV, I am not an NPV expert, but it seems to be how people value project, so lets have a look what kind of change will increasing our resource to 10 years change the equation'


He then goes on to assume a mine life of 10 years and a spod price of $1173 AUD over those 10 years, giving TAW a NPV of 758mil.

Conveniently he decides not to include BGS in the comparison. Probably because if he did, he would have to accept that based on a 1mtpa plant, a spod price of 1173 AUD and our scoping study numbers (read: today's numbers lol) our project would have a NPV of 691mil. With our upcoming, resource upgrade, we would absolutely smash any value comparison effortlessly.

Point is, everyone is spruiking their deposits based on very generous forecasts across the board whilst assuming their competitors remain the same. BGS valuations are extremely conservative and still beat out the competition by a country mile in terms of actual shareholder value.