april 2009, page-7

Crusty, its quite okay to agree or disagree with me, but I would be interested to know what valuation methodology you have employed (DCF, ROCE, ROE, or market) which makes valuation so difficult? There were plenty of numbers in the half yearly and subsequently to adequately value the company and at a much higher price than now. Revenue promises are not needed to value a company. Leave that to the masses who will always be one huge step behind.

Here are a few important recent developments:

(1) Zero debt - This is major point.
(2) Net Assets - Following on from the above, TZ's net asset situation has jumped from $22m @31Dec09 to around $50m upon conversion of debt to equity. Yes dilution has increased, but is countered by QVT's willingness to take equity at $1.
(2) ..and following on from above, 38% of the equity on issue raised at $1 (all since the 'information void')
(3) Finance cost: This $1.7m was interest on QVT notes. Since the debt to equity conversion, expect this significant amount to disappear
(4)$2m decrease in losses compared to prior year
(5)FX: $1.57m loss in 6months to end of Dec09 compared to $1.36m gain in corresponding period in the prior year. This is a net movement of $3m due to the GFC and 'flight to safety' of USD, and subsequent movement back into AUD. This should not repeat, and had this not happenened the bottom line of the '08 and '09 half yearlies would have read as follows:

2008 July-Dec Loss = ($10.5m)
2009 July-Dec Loss = ($3.8m)

A significant improvement wouldn't you say?

The list goes on and on as to why I value TZ at a MUCH higher price than current.