Valuation, page-53

Yes, i have some considered thoughts on it. For a start i think its important to get the right numbers to start from.
Nearly all of the HC posters on here seem to be forgetting or not understanding that the revenue received from the auction is NOT all for MUS.
3 of the 4 licences are held by a holding company in which Regis holds a direct 20% interest and to cut to the chase in the Hartley's Research report on Page 6 - Fig 5 you can see the net postition that MUS is entitled to on each lease. 52.5% - 65%.
This means any revenue from the auction needs to be divided up first and MUS will only receive those percentages as revenue from the auction.

http://www.mustangresources.com.au/irm/PDF/2431_0/HartleysResearchReport17July2017

No-one has to take my word for this or lisyen to others on HC because in the Baker Young report 12 Oct 17, they clearly recognise this in their valuation methodology but put the MUS share at 65% which is high compared to Hartleys. Page 20 - Valuation methodology continued..

http://www.mustangresources.com.au/irm/PDF/2518_0/BakerYoungStockbrokersOctober2017Report

Something else to think about with the sale and revenue from the rubies is that GEM has to pay a 10% Gov tax on the sale price of the rubies it sells. I can't find any reference to this tax by MUS by i do presume because its a local government tax they might have to pay it aswell.