this is just a generalised discussion about the independent...

this is just a generalised discussion about the independent experts report.

not allowed to reproduce it in whole or in part without permission so i will waffle on.

nice read. learnt a few things but don't think it's of much benefit besides supporting the yes vote with respect to that accepted quasar offer.

with due respect to the authors the definition of "expert" is a little shaky. who is an expert?

i have come across commentary from what i consider respectable analysts where they have criticised executives from the largest of uranium companies regarding their ability to acquire quality assets. if the big boys can't get it right then who is the expert?

the report is essentially an opinion with many limitations (as stated). when is one valuation methodology preferable over another?

contradictions. there appears to be numerous.

there is this notion where parties are considered not to be "anxious". the contradiction is in that there appears to be a relatively high specific risk premium placed on the alliance investment in the jv. is this a contradiction?

fyi the specific risk premium is in some way applied to the discounted cash flow valuations which ultimately has a bearing on the overall valuation.

there is also this notion that the alliance interest will not be given some kind of "special" premium based on whatever. the contradiction is in that the report mentions (i think twice) that four mile is the best uranium discovery in australia in the last 25 years. sounds special to me. contradiction?

the report continually talks about the limitations of the report which is good i guess. one of the limitations (as stated) is how things can change very quickly. fyi the aud/usd exchange rate that the authors used was around the 76.5 cent mark with projections that now look extremely conservative. we already have seen a big move here.

last friday it was made public that a uranium transaction between a canadian and czech company for an asset in mongolia (that was announced at the time quasar made the accepted offer to alliance) has had a few issues. some conditions have not been met and the deal now looks a little shaky. i mention this because the canadian company is one of the companies referenced in the report and therefore the mongolian transaction may have been taken into consideration in the valuation. this could be a positive or a negative with regard to a valuation for alliance. details regarding the conditions not being met have not been made public as far as i know. once again this demonstrates the limitations of these reports.

that's all that i can think of atm.

hope i make sense. with due respect to all parties and the processes etc i choose to not be a fan of this valuation.

i think i am being fair and reasonable.