Hi FolksChubbito you are right in basically saying that the...

Hi Folks

Chubbito you are right in basically saying that the market price is the value the market attributes to any company.

So no problem with that as it is what it is. No amount of moaning or grumbling will change a thing.


I think if a company 'demonstrates' and delivers to the market that it has multiplied its resource from 'original' estimates - and exceeds its publicly stated targets (as evidenced by the trading halt alerting 'the market' to having underestimated the resource considerably), then that in itself is enough imo to warrant further discussion and explanation as to 'why' the market has not responded.

From there we then hear the recent results will most likely be updated further throughout the year with a further 'possible' doubling of the recent results.

I'd say that undervalues the current share price based on those assumptions...and current realities backed up by recent drilling.
Why? Because the market valued PLV on assumptions that understated its assets....considerably by multiples

We can add PLV taking 100% ownership of the project as 'another' indicator to an increased value.

Lets look to even more recent results and Cethana. Albeit very early in the piece, we have results looking like locating a mineral source....within weeks.
If this eventuates it will add further value to PLV....how much..or little is anyones guess.

So based on the above...and yes imo only, we see that although the market 'is always right'..we see that it doesnt always respond to further developments or even understands the value of a company.

This can be further evidenced by 'many' MD's and companies being frustrated at the value of their companies not being recognised by the market.
I think we will find PLV is in that category.

What I would say to 'any' of those companies in that category is look what you are doing and look at what you can do..and communicate that more effectively to the market.

If the market doesnt 'understand' a company then why is that?

If a company is in a much better position than its peers in the Pilbara (for example...i'm hoping you are reading this Tony ;) then clearly state what your comparative advantages are..'in relation to your peers' and give 'the market' a clearer understanding of what it is you have and how that is superior and comparatively a better prospect in your sector.

Gets down to communication. PLV has any number of advantages imo due to the company approach to communication like HC communications for example.

That said, from this shareholders point of view, PLV can improve their already excellent 'attitude' to communications by delineating the company much more clearly to a market that clearly doesnt acknowledge it.

Tony clearly states time to production and EPA as being factors in the current valuation. As he points out though, his peers are in similar if not more challenging situations.
Seems PLV have any number of comparative advantages. These need to be clear in a market where the least 'perception' or misunderstanding can mark down a company heavily.

Communication is always a process not an outcome.

Great thing about PLV is that we have a company who appears to listen and respond.