That's the issue with analyst valuations, they are inherently...

That's the issue with analyst valuations, they are inherently conservative due to having such constrained capacity for longer-term projections or consideration of future potential or risk.
Exhibit A: the pitiful value assigned by analysts to SDV. Absolutely pitiful.
If someone thinks that SDV should be worth say $1b in 10 years from now, then even assigning $100m to it today would equate to a discount rate of over 25% p.a.
At a 10% discount rate, it'd be worth about $400m today.
But that's way too risky and way to "far way" for them to "conclude", so they stick with the current prices etc ("SDV is not making any money but it has some investment") , and whack a $20m "valuation" on SDV.
Until their oversimplified numbers make zero sense of course.... like if next period's earnings were forecast to be zero, a P/E methodology simply doesn't work.... One needs to look 5 & 10 years ahead and and assess various business and market scenarios to develop potential valuation ranges over that period...?
It reminds me of when a commodity price drops (or rises) and the share price of an explorer or developer follows suit, as if the current fluctuations have anything to do with the future earnings or operations of the business, when it is nowhere near production.


So, in a nutshell, be very wary of analysts (or anyone's) "valuations" until you review and understand all of the limitations and assumptions that have been incorporated.

E.g. above, yanlin appears to have used a simple P/E of 8 to "value" Mt Cattlin (correct me if I'm wrong yanlin). What if the earnings would be flat for the next year, due to a horrific short-term market environment...would Mt Cattlin be worth 8 x zero = zero? Of course not.
(Not having a go at you at all yanlin, just making a point,. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and calcs)


Still battening down the hatches but I can see some light starting to appear.... slowly but surely.