re: zfx = dog now? UBS have no idea. I would not suggesting...

re: zfx = dog now? UBS have no idea. I would not suggesting listening to them. For example they re-rated ERA a buy and failed to note that ERA have fixed 10 yr contracts that don't benefit from the spot price of uranium. These guys are well-known for missing very important information. I respect your point about supply/demand and nothing to sell and I have considered this too but their is no alternative to zinc to use, which supports the argument of a higher price. The reason ZFX dropped was because of lead not zinc.

To quote from the LME on Tuesday...

"The healthiest intraday gains were seen in zinc, which consolidated above $2,100/ton, gaining 5% on previous PM prices to close at $2,234/ton at the late kerb in London. Barclays believes a 3,200-ton drawdown in LME warehouse stocks of zinc helped bolster bullish sentiment towards the metal.

Less favourable fundamentals on lead should keep prices capped, Barclays Capital said. Lead prices failed to hold onto a break above resistance at $1,250/ton, closing just shy of that level at $1,249/ton at the late kerb."

Now, instead of debating theory from USB, I would prefer if someone looked at these figures and offered some critique.

Based on a share price of $7,28...

- Book value per share - $2,48
- Discount rate - 11,99%
- Dividend payout ratio - 19%
- First year forecast EPS - $1,259
- Second year forecast EPS - ,932
- Long term EPS growth rate - 30%
- Long term industry average return on equity - 9.5%

value = $9,25 per share (therefore trading 38% undervalue against $7,16)