Ann: Revised Proposal from Albemarle, page-474

Teapot, I certainly hope you are right.

LTR is being advised by UBS, and they will not be doing the IER. However, LTR and UBS would have informally already engaged with a likely IER, over the course of the last few months, given ALB's prior bidding.

There has not been a quality IER produced recently in the lithium space to my knowledge, and this presents a great opportunity in my view. Driven largely by a reasoned spod price curve, this will also pick up the KV specifics, including where we are currently progressed. In my experience, a high quality IER beats a broker research report hands down, for credibility, transparency and usually accuracy.

So, I think LTR and UBS might have a feel for where this fair value range may come out, and it is possible ALB does not.

In simple terms, I have much more sympathy with an increasing spod price curve, through 2030, and the LTR fair value price it should suggest.

If an expert says otherwise, and continues to hold that informed view, then maybe $3 is 'fair value', and some of us will simply be outliers, with a contrarian (though not necessarily incorrect) view- and time will tell, but we won't unfortunately find out while still holding LTR.

Of course, other potential bidders may hold such a contrarian view, even if the IER does not.

As an aside, 'fair value' will never mean a fair return on the nothing-burger prices many of us were able to purchase our LTR stakes for years ago. These threads today are way too occupied with that concept. It will only ever be about what is the fair value of future cash flows.

Interesting times.