@joewolf my post/this thread were not some clarion call to naive...

@joewolf my post/this thread were not some clarion call to naive investors to buy AJX before it goes to the moon, perhaps my opening statement was too subtle. It was an invitation for people to shoot down the numbers with good reasoned logical debate to help us all better understand where the company is, the hurdles it faces, and what the potential upside might be/timeframe to reach them. I appreciate your responses and reasoning but also question much of what you have said, but also agree with much of it. The numbers I outline are all entirely consistent with a hypothetical whether AJX can meet that hypothetical depends on hitting the revenue targets (which I concede they haven't been so hot on recently), it's also clearly optimistic that the revenue will ramp in the way I have outlined, but it's not impossible and AJX is closer to hitting these sorts of metrics than any number of ASX flash in the pan stories I have followed over the years.

What I would say is that according to the AGM information the company appears to be very close to a $40 million USD annual run rate, true analysis will need this to be proven through 12 month trailing accounts, so that represents the first issue with my numbers, however it puts us in a very different scenario to those saying AJX is all promise and no delivery. I'd say they're a couple of quarters at most from proving their business is viable and rapidly growing if not where it will grow to/how quickly.

You also seem to play fast and loose with PE, a PE of 15 suits a bluechip that has saturated it's niche and which has little room for growth so why use it for a niche player like AJX with clearly explosive growth potential. IF AJX hits $50 - $70 million revenue 12 months from now that is nothing less than astounding from a standing start in a slow moving sector. Why would you even suggest a PE of 15, it makes no sense whatsoever. Indeed as I alluded to initially PE is an entirely stupid method to value small cap growth companies and I can guarantee you that if my numbers are anywhere near for the first couple of years the PE will be way north of 30 as it's just not what investors will use to assess the company - so why would you at this stage?

I think you also suggest that stock issues will continue to keep management mates in 'gravy' - why? Again it makes no logical sense, it seems we're within spitting distance of cashflow neutral, the board have a huge number of shares/options, they won't dilute themselves unless it's to rapidly realise growth, the only good reason for issuing new script after all. I guess further delays could see one final small raise to cover cash burn, which would be horrible for the company and punished on market, but otherwise if they start to run in the black or even get to maiden profit it would be bonkers to issue. The dilutive effect of STI/LTI to management you mention will also diminish in the face of a rising SP, but I agree with you that generous share issues to management isn't a great look unfortunately low liquidity might also prevent large on market purchases by them as an alternate means to increasing their exposure to the company.

I also agree that a US listing is our best route to new buyers currently and agree that current holders are largely tapped out at these levels, I have modestly bought more shares when the price has been below 55 cents, and it might get there/tempt me again. I also don't perceive that there's all this loose stock and stale bulls waiting to flood the market on any price rise. Volumes have been pitiful if anything many of the less informed hype influenced retailers would surely have been shaken loose by now (please any posters post if you're one of these and prove me wrong).

You also say that 'multi-baggers' are hens teeth on the ASX, when they're not, I've personally invested in/followed MHM from 3 cents to above 20 and back again, CKK from 4 cents to 25 cents and back (then again when reincarnated as LWP from 0.4 cents to 2.6 cents and back), ADO from 5 to 25 cents (and back), PSY from 0.0001 to $500 or whatever it did, AJM when it nearly succeeded as an iron ore junior, then again when it went from 1 cent to 20 cents in lithium, RAP from 4 cents to above 50 cents. By all means check their posting histories for me posting. What I would say is that a tiny minority make it stick and keep those lofty valuations through to becoming successful businesses, indeed none of those above have become mature growth type players or even turned much of a profit from memory, most of their gains came from micro cap to small cap and often with HC hyping them along the way. IMO AJX differs as they seem to be genuinely generating income without costs exploding or sales stuttering. Of course it's very, very early days but all the noises from management about business flow and customer leads are encouraging.

Ultimately my post at the top, your responses and now this are all pissing in the wind aren't they - if the numbers already stacked up and were visible in accounts we'd be above a dollar already, but for me management are walking the walk as best as can be expected at this stage, with some inevitable hiccups along the way new companies aren't a success until it's too late to invest for the biggest gains. I back them as more likely to get the company scoring goals and annual revenue near to $100 million before selling up than not, it seems eminently possible (if half their projections come to pass), that the company could reach a valuation of AUD $1 billion for a takeover if manoeuvred properly - that really is pocket change to Dow Chemical and the likes. Even with dilution the worst case I would expect would be for 3-4x my money as things stand, otherwise why be invested here?