General Discussion, page-398

“It is important to note that Nasdaq investors base their trade on future valuation of the company. This means they will acquire at a price today with the view of selling at a higher price tomorrow. It is equally true with the reverse, if the view is that the company would be less of value in the future then it would be shorted.”


Reading a few of your past posts you’ve made the point a couple times that the future ‘potential’ value of a company, ie an NPV from a DFS is what is valued on the Nasdaq and that this differs to how value is perceived on the ASX. Your quote above is an interesting one.. is this not the case on the ASX too and every other exchange there is? Pretty sure that every investor buys a stock in the hope that it will increase in value in future, per different investing timeframes, and the reverse applies for those who short. I don’t see how ASX would be any different in this regard.

Also do you have any examples of stocks that get valued essentially as per their NPV estimation from a feasibility study? When the project is still many years away from construction/production etc like EUR is?

PLL is a potential example here..it produced a DFS with NPV of US$2.5billion back in April’s last year. It is listed on both the ASX and Nasdaq, has a far bigger JORC resource and higher grade, it’s currently got a market cap of ~US$270 million. About a tenth of its NPV. On what basis would EUR maintain a near billion dollar market cap, let alone exceed that and be so misaligned in value with a company like PLL?