answers to common questions on fms, page-21

I've decided that comparing companies on $ per tonne iron ore is so variable (grades, depths, infrastructure etc etc) as to be meaningless.

FMS should be valued on forward earnings. FMG won't buy the resource from the company, they have a couple of decades of IO under their control already. So what FMS holders need to consider as further drill results come out is whether it is an economic resource they can develop in their own right.

Targets don't matter, economics do. There is probably a very good 2-3 year window to cream big profits before a lot of new capacity comes online. After that point marginal resources will be under the pump. So Big Kev needs to bring this resource to production and shareholders shouldn't be counting on a 3rd party takeover, there are plenty of IO companies which could be targets from say the Chinese, most won't get lucky.

slappi I acknowledge your efforts to discuss all these points, but as I have told you before, the "U" stock had dozens of drill holes before nominating a target. This managed expectations for shareholders and I am sure plenty are grateful for that. Anyway that's irrelevant, what matters is what FMS has. FMS has chosen to put the cart before the horse, now it remains to be seen how big and how profitable your iron ore will be (I don't doubt you'll have plenty of it) by nominating a conceptual target - great for short term profits and holders like William SS who got in cheap but does leave much more potential for latecomers to be holding the bag when the music stops.

I hope holders do well but I think the way the company has gone about things leaves the potential for people to be burnt, no one likes to see that.