Ann: Change of Director's Interest Notice-SRX.AX, page-51

Hi Cafa,

That's an interesting question, but the problem with the way I have modeled my SRX valuation is largely based on a forward PE multiple. In low interest rate environment and with the upcoming trial results, I'm prepared to value SRX on a forward PE multiple north of 30. As such, even at a zero growth rate of the current salvage business, I get a valuation of over $30. Of course, if there was a zero growth rate to existing dose sales, I'd have to reconsider the PE that should be attributed, even with successful trial results (but my model is not that sophisticated .... yet!).

(As an aside, the low interest rate environment / high PE multiple argument is strengthened by a higher dividend, which is part of the reason I'm an advocate for SRX increasing its payout ratio).

Cheer,

$4.

PS: I concur with many of the previous posters and think that Gilman's share sale is extremely poor form. He's obviously a very wealthy man, and if he really was in dire need of cash for some reason, he could have either (a) borrowed against his shares or (b) provided a "nothing-to-do-with-the-outlook-for-SRX" reason for selling.

I admire what others have done, but I'm afraid you'll get nothing from ASIC or the ASX. Gilman would have acted within the letter of the law, even though the action stinks on many other assessments.

As an example of how pathetic ASIC and the ASX are, I previously held shares in a company in which the Chairman sponsored a highly discounted share placement to himself, some other directors and a couple of his mates. We organised a number of shareholders to attend the meeting at which shareholders were to approve the share issue. There were only seven shareholders at the meeting and four of us voted against the resolution. The Chairman asked if we needed to take a poll (as in actual shares held, he had a significant majority in favour of the resolution). I said that so long as the resolution is reported as having failed on a "show of hands" but passed on a "number of shares voted" basis, he needn't conduct a poll (the aim was to at least register that a significant protest vote had been lodged). He agreed to do this, but then reported to the ASX that the motion had passed on a show of hands - a bald-faced lie.

I reported this (with witness accounts) to both the ASX and ASIC, and received the standard "thanks, we value shareholder concerns, but not doing anything about this" response.