Hi
@2ic, I'm a bit confused, your post reads like a wet blanket on the notion that SFX looks like it has a lot of unlocked potential at a price of 58c. But wait, your last paragraph states "but SFX is clearly undervalued by 'a lot' until time tells us where all the critical variables actually fall".
Obviously when the time comes the actual variables will deem the forecasts as extremely understated or extremely overstated or anywhere in between. Until then (and I quote a sentiment from one of your recent posts) "We don't know what NAIF or the final funding terms actually are, so der... of course we have to speculate and make some assumptions." same principle applies when looking at unlocked value,
Are we saying that the basic financial assumptions used in the forecast metrics are unreasonable? if they are, then sure, the paper valuations should be taken with two pinches of salt. If on the other hand, the forecast financial metrics are reasonable, then the on paper valuations only need to be taken with one pinch of salt.
The financial metrics don't seem unreasonable to me, in fact they appear to have been conservative to satisfy external party due diligence requirements. I assume everyone here knows that although forecasts variables are realistic doesn't mean they will eventuate, but a financial model has to put numbers in the spreadsheet otherwise we end up with a blank piece of paper. And let's not forget that hundreds of millions of dollars are advanced to projects based on the BFS.
As far as NAIF goes, their new CEO, Craig Doyle was appointed in late March.
I'm still not convinced NAIF didn't approve the debt in March or April, Ministerial approval, which is when the loan is finalised, is an additional layer post NAIF Board approval.
As far as tax on the sale of the non-core assets go, if tax were payable at the corporate tax rate of 25% the tax on $30mil capital gains profit would be $7.5mil and not $15mil, and furthermore, although I'm not a tax specialist I'm leaning towards the probability that operating tax losses carried forward can be offset against assessable income, whereas capital losses forward can only be offset against capital gains If this is the case then the profit would be absorbed by accumulated losses.
I agree that we can't know if a CR will be needed, but once again if we look for hints from recent raises it looks like funding the quantum assumed in the Bride Street report is very doable using a 60% debt ratio. And the amount required from NAIF to make this happen also seems to be deliverable based on the quantum of NAIF loans extended to other companies.
In closing, we don't know the future, we don't know the actual profit the project will make each year, but of course [to come up with potential valuations] we have to speculate and make some assumptions.
I guess between your post and my post, things are about balanced
All the best everyone.
haha.
(20min delay)