Ann: Half Year Accounts, page-37

I agree 100% @jlgread ... I think I mentioned in reply to a post from @CapitalKing dealing with his regression analysis which derived an implied price of $1.15 per share assuming no short selling...that the estimate seemed about right to me given all the circumstances of lithium markets and demand growth etc.

I firmly believe that the current price does not reflect at all, the likely value of future cash flow discounted to present etc., as one would expect in a free market (willing buyer/willing seller). The current "enterprise valuation" would be lucky to even pay for the replacement of what we have. I also note that several of the "analysts" who submitted questions during the half yearly results webcast were from the very institutions who are involved in stock lending and short selling eg. Goldman Sachs, Citi...

In my opinion, some of their questions were self serving insofar as they were attempting to press a case that there might be additional capital needed if pricing was sustained at somewhere around historical lows from 2024. TO played a straight bat and stated that should the pricing remain depressed like that for the extended period (and he mentioned the next two years), then supply would not be available to meet demand as the majority of producers would be making losses.

TO went on to say that for any new projects required to address burgeoning demand, they would need to have an incentive price with which to justify investment and obtain funding. The writing is clearly on the wall that prices must rise, yet the supposed forward looking sharemarket is stubbornly refusing to reflect that in valuations. So as every day passes we get closer to the inevitable rerate imo, which to me is more likely than the desperately sought capital raising short sellers are seeking.

regards
DF