Ann: Onslow Iron site visit presentation, page-13

say $1.5Bpa
MC is $4.69B today
PER = 3.127

FMG RIO BHP PER is 11.0-13.0

a whopping 383% lower for MIN

Lets compare FMG  v MIN metrics

FMG v MIN comparison -
170  v 30/35 MTpa  = 5.7/4.9 times less
7.89 v 3.127  PER = 2.5 times less
48B v 4.7B  MC = 10.2 times more
3.82B pQ=15.28B pa v 1.5Bx 4 = 5.0/6.0  revenue = 3.00-2.55 times more
5.6B v 4.1B debt

IO revenue growth going to 35MTpa of 40%-90%

So MIN is growing way faster than FMG, has only a third of the revenue, 20% of the production less debt, half the PER, yet a whopping 10 times less MCap !

FMG is undervalued near 4 year lows now to boot (15-27) so usually double this MC & PER

So MIN must be massively undervalued on this comparison.
Either the PER is way too low or the SP way too low or the revenue & margins predicted are way way too high (short argument).
On the issued QR3 and this guidance issuance today the latter argument is totally wrong mathematically and on a valuation basis.
exponential increase in IO shipping at 30/35MTpa run rate at the same PER as FMG should mean the SP at a whopping $60 -67 ! Forget 23 - 24.

Its basic maths. Add it up.