@poorinvestorYes, and the valuation only looks to be based on...

@poorinvestor

Yes, and the valuation only looks to be based on peak year and not multi year revenues.

Would have been great if the IER had included more details/ tables showing their workings and revenues over time for each product. Then we could see just how much they have under valued us by.

Things that weren't explicitly clear to me from my look at ResAppDx is that Section 5 costs were based on $USD initially with:


Then we appear to switch to AUD for the valuation summary (my assumption as $113M AUD with discount of 20.8% ($89.5M AUD) is reasonably close to the high end valuation in table).

So high end and presumably low end estimates had a discount applied already but still give a RAP products valuation of $140M AUD.

Given this, how can the BOD approve an offer which values us at $127M AUD?


Would really like to understand why:

• Valuation wasn't based on multi year revenues.
• What is the basis of the 20.8% discount.
• Why is the BOD recommending we accept an offer which is 90.7% of the low end valuation of products

Perhaps this is explained more clearly in other parts of the document but I couldn't see it.

Not looked at the other products valuations, as this was enough for me to vote "NO" but is there similar discounts on discounts applied to them?