bonvalue0.20-0.28, page-22

Redcorduroy, of course they should value them the same way. This is a target statement and the target should not prejudice itself. How can anyone consider a fair comparison is being made when the methods and conclusions are so fundamentally different??

Using the Market Price method for BON, as was used for the MAK val, prices BON at 5-6 cents per share including control premium against 40-53 for MAK. The valuation settled using Multiple of Exploration Expenditure is as little as 33% of that at 2-2.8cents.

Your argument re offering shares for assets is inadequate. They aren't offering 5 cents cash so what is the value of what they are offering? You're happy to use Market Price to value MAK to determine that. Well then BON should be appraised on the same basis in which case the offer is not really adequate.

If they want to value BON on the basis of Multiple of Exploration Expenditure then the consideration being offered ie MAK shares should be valued on the same basis.

In the Dec 2008 financial report the book value of MAK's mining properties is about $ 12.3 million. (I can't be bothered finding out exactly what's been spent where so this will do for now). Going by Ravengate's valuations on BON's assets there is no multiple for Exploration Area properties, indeed in some cases there are discounts on those which would reflect the impact of the credit crisis. The highest multiple used is 2.2 and I would punt at a rough average across BON's projects of maybe 1.5 multiple. Applying that to $12.3 million and you have a valuation of $18.45 million for MAK's assets.

$18.45 million for MAKs assets
$1.33 to 2.09 million with $1.89 million preferred for valuation of BON's assets under this method.

Comparing apples with apples, like with like suggests a different conclusion to the one made by the independent analyst.

In fact neither method should have been used, going by the analysts own definition the most appropriate method should be DCF but they state they didn't think they had adequate information for that. It's a mickey mouse sloppy approach but I'll blame BON for not making sure the valuers had sufficient info to do the job properly.