I'm glad that my purposeful inclusion of those figures has brought you around to agreeing that NPV's don't mean crap .......Which is what I stated in my original post...... But that's not the point here from these posts exchanges.
Because you've also failed in your response to see that I've also shown that Sayona has more than likely tracked its relative SP value and performance to the Sigma differential to its modelling when it set about calculating its 9 Sayona's ) value for the 18.0 cents raise when we were trading at above 20 cents shortly before.
I've also stated that Sigma's market valuation at the time would have had a healthy ' premium ' already factored into it for the constant rumors circulating in the market regarding potential takeovers . So this would also have put them considerably lower to their NPV had they NOT had this factor playing into its valuation. And at that time SC6 prices were still trading above USD$4,500 as well.
So you're post again fails to recognize the flow of the original ' Narrative ' which is being challenged here. And that is that it started by me saying the ' COMPANIES ' NPV's don't mean crap in so far as its right to trade at that price , and that I did NOT say producers.
I then provide to very credible examples who operate in our same jurisdiction in Canada and am challenged on their producer status which I didn't even say , and which is technically incorrect in the understanding of what an economic DCF / NPV valuation modelling even means.
This then flows to your post now which just reaffirms my original comment which says NPV's don't mean crap ...., and that the original question by the other poster has been asked and answered in that there are clearly other ' Companies ' and indeed projects that are valued BELOW their NPV ........., for various reasons.
So I don't get what your point here is because Sigma's Study is no more correct or incorrect to ours which includes higher grade ORE feed from a project which is unlikely to ever see the light of day , and that its replacement being Jordan ( now consolidated lithium metals ) which has equal ' unproven ' as yet results which would give the market any more certainty that our NPV is valid that Sigma's now underwater perspective of their forecast pricing every recovering to the implied expectations.
And that in a nutshell is why we are trading at a significant discount to our NPV.
And so who was it that stated in a post not that long ago that it would seem that its the ' Ghost of Authier ' which is haunting our SP and likely why Lynch was shown the door . Because that is what he was originally employed for ....., and that was to fix the Authier problem caused by his predecessor
SYA Price at posting:
10.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
But that's not the point here from these posts exchanges.
Because you've also failed in your response to see that I've also shown that Sayona has more than likely tracked its relative SP value and performance to the Sigma differential to its modelling when it set about calculating its 9 Sayona's ) value for the 18.0 cents raise when we were trading at above 20 cents shortly before.I've also stated that Sigma's market valuation at the time would have had a healthy ' premium ' already factored into it for the constant rumors circulating in the market regarding potential takeovers . So this would also have put them considerably lower to their NPV had they NOT had this factor playing into its valuation. And at that time SC6 prices were still trading above USD$4,500 as well.So you're post again fails to recognize the flow of the original ' Narrative ' which is being challenged here. And that is that it started by me saying the ' COMPANIES ' NPV's don't mean crap in so far as its right to trade at that price , and that I did NOT say producers.I then provide to very credible examples who operate in our same jurisdiction in Canada and am challenged on their producer status which I didn't even say , and which is technically incorrect in the understanding of what an economic DCF / NPV valuation modelling even means.This then flows to your post now which just reaffirms my original comment which says NPV's don't mean crap ...., and that the original question by the other poster has been asked and answered in that there are clearly other ' Companies ' and indeed projects that are valued BELOW their NPV ........., for various reasons.So I don't get what your point here is because Sigma's Study is no more correct or incorrect to ours which includes higher grade ORE feed from a project which is unlikely to ever see the light of day , and that its replacement being Jordan ( now consolidated lithium metals ) which has equal ' unproven ' as yet results which would give the market any more certainty that our NPV is valid that Sigma's now underwater perspective of their forecast pricing every recovering to the implied expectations.And that in a nutshell is why we are trading at a significant discount to our NPV.And so who was it that stated in a post not that long ago that it would seem that its the ' Ghost of Authier ' which is haunting our SP and likely why Lynch was shown the door . Because that is what he was originally employed for ....., and that was to fix the Authier problem caused by his predecessor
(20min delay)