Three things here ...1) I did not say PE is not very important ~...

Three things here ...

1) I did not say PE is not very important ~ let me remind you of what i said at the start - it is not the only determinant of investment success or failure - and it is not a singular tool like PE that i used.

2) I inferred that I use quantitative and qualitative measures broadly. Investment is not a rigid "check-list" ~ different stocks/Industries require different quantitative and qualitative measures. It is not one-sized fits all. If i assess a mature life-cycle company, traditional valuation metrics matter more - such as the ability of the company's free cash flow generation growth relative to its dividends and asset intensity profile. If it is an early-mid life cycle company, free cash flow generation growth in the near-term is less paramount, but the company needs to articulate to me how it can get there - and to do that, I need to understand not only the revenue drivers well but also more importantly how much on-going costs it needs to incur to get there before it reaches an inflection point whereby 1% growth in capex + opex = 1.25-1.5% growth in revenue.

Note that I have emphasized cash flow twice above, and not much being mentioned about "accounting" profits - which can be more prone to manipulation and accounting shenanigans. As you stated, you seem to emphasize accounting profits more and put cash flow as secondary. Since you refer a lot about your classes/studies in other posts, did your study say accounting profits are more important than cash flow when valuing a company ?

Then in qualitative terms, i paid a lot of attention to management - its track record, its strategy deliberation - whether they can strike the balance between long-term benefit versus short-term operational decisions that are purely designed to appease meeting 'market-consensus' numbers but to the detriment of long-term value (eg: Not investing despite threats, simply to avoid costs to meet the bottom-line numbers), its consistency of messaging, as well as their overall thought process in managing 'left-field' risks.

If you reply to this message and said i did not provide you hints of my tools after reading the above - then, it says a lot about yourself.

3) Let's return to your PE multiple. You keep using LYC PE of 51x. Looking at the number and given you are sloppy and not stating which earnings base of FY you referring to, i assume you are using current PE (ie FY2021). Yet, as pointed by others on this post - you seem to conveniently 'ignore' a very key difference between FY21 and FY22 and onwards - there has been a step-change in key REE prices. May I remind you the market is forward looking in earnings, not backward looking. If you look at market consensus and a range of broker reports, FY22 and FY23 PE multiples for LYC are substantially lower (high-teens to low 20s for FY22, depending on whose forecast numbers you believe). In contrast, one of the other mining stocks you mentioned in your table - RIO ~ some brokers' numbers have FY22 and FY23 earnings going double-digit decline in the next two years from FY21 base, and therefore, the 'current' 6.9x PE you quoted on RIO may be a "value-trap".

You might dispute those numbers and say for example the analysts/market have gotten RIO's forecast wrong ...that's your prerogative, especially if you have a different view to the iron ore price prospects than the market. If that is your view and thinks RIO is cheap due to its attractive PE, by all means - do invest in RIO then ~ maybe you will then spend more time talking about a stock you own on this forum than keep badgering others on a forum on a stock that I assume you have no ownership.