My comment on dental visits directly responded/added to the post to which I replied (not something I introduced myself) so probably best you take up the relevance of softening of local dental visits to SDI with Gragou 
.
Pacific Smiles is a company that provides dental services exclusively in Australia; SDI sells products exclusively outside of Australia.
That you also happened to incorrectly conflate the two issues is no fault of anyone else but you. And I happened to address only you about it. So what?
When more than one person a stock thread is getting the same stuff wrong, in setting the record straight, addressing each one of them is patently superfluous.
If that causes you to be somehow offended, then I suggest you get over it.
As for SDI, reasonable value at these levels don't you think?
Beware the apparent vale trap. On a do-thing, steady-state basis, maybe it appears like reasonable value, but that's not the situation.
The the situation is that over the next two or three years they are going to be cutting cheques that amount to a similar order of magnitude [*] as the market value of the company today.
So now do the Enterprise Valuation on a prospective basis at peak funding point of the major project they are undertaking, apply the requisite kind of risk overlay, and then ask yourself the same question about reasonable value.
I think you'll find it is a distinctly different value proposition.
Don't misunderstand me; I've been a shareholder of SDI for over a decade (as it happened, the opportunity to buy the shares at very low prices at the time arose because the company carried too much debt, which took a number of years to extinguish), and over that time I have been an engaged shareholder and supporter of the company and its management.
All along, I knew the day would come when they would have to bite the bullet on this major project. And while I don't believe it will cripple or otherwise hobble the long-term prospects for the business, I think it should be conducted with a lesser degree of financial risk.
I feel that most shareholders in the company would have provided capital support to the company, had the Board requisitioned it. But the board has chosen a different path. Given the continued discounted valuation, the market clearly does not share the Board's confidence in the successful execution of the project and I suspect that will be the default position for the foreseeable future.
So I think the market will continue to mark the stock's valuation down until this once-in-a generational project becomes sufficiently de-risked. And I think that point will be at least two years away.
Sure, there might be the usual market randomness that will see periodic fluctuation in the share price, but I can't envisage anything that will induce a permanent upwards re-rating of the stock.
And while I see myself as a patient investor, 2 to 3 years is too long a time frame for my investment capital to not earn its keep.
After the carnage in the microcap space over the past 18 months, I've been finding what I consider to be better investment opportunities than SDI.
[*] including the land already acquired.
.
