'NTA is meaningless. Will never be in a position to crystallise...

'NTA is meaningless. Will never be in a position to crystallise this figure in the event of liquidation.'

That may be true. But how is your argument any different to the vast majority of other stocks, where such a gap does not exist?

I'll save you the trouble of responding - it is no different. But I feel a strong sense of deja vu making this point.

I think in no small part, our share price reflects a credibility problem for LOM. And it's our MD and board members that have the position and influence to affect any change. Whether they can, or do, remains to be seen. You would hope that our share price warrants some strategic consideration. The company's prosperity and success are contingent on the share price - so what is our mob doing about it? You would hope, something!

I mean really, LOM should not be a difficult sell. 7% of NTA value for chrissake. We are in the absolute depths of the sewer, figuratively speaking. Surely there are some interested parties that could be persuaded of the investment merit - sufficient to actually buy shares on market. It's the on-market bit that has been missing link in the last however many years when it comes to any high net worth or institutional investors.