OMH: Low Share Price and Low Valuation Strategy?

I totally agree with Rocket that the low liquidity coupled with lack of IR promotion leading to disinterest/lack of understanding, which ultimately resulting in low share price and low valuation. Mr Low and the directors recognized this problem 10 years ago and also realized the need for secondary listing way back in 2011. Until now, there is still persistent low liquidity, no analyst coverage, no secondary listing, low share price and low valuation.

We all understand the game changer for OMH could likely be the secondary listing to help unlock its value which would resolve its liquidity situation, enable fund raising at higher valuation, reducing debt level from eventual fund raising, potential to pursue meaningful expansion/acquisition (at cheap value) in this down market, and many more benefits.

On the flipside, a low valuation could make OMH a potential target for hostile takeover (which include the possibility of hostile investors partnering with existing key substantial shareholders to oust the existing team). This has been played out in many cases before. OMH is attractive as takeover target: Revenue > A$1b, potential profit > A$150m (2018), Cash position of A$60m, 13% stake in profitable Tshipi Mine, Sarawak Smelter >US$500m to build. The hostile party only needs to buy 10-20% and teaming with other shareholders. If they are a credible strategic party with financial means with the ability to create shareholder value, I believe other small shareholders may end up supporting them, with a risk of existing team losing control as a result of this “Low Share Price, Low Valuation” Strategy which does not benefit any shareholders at all and certainly alienate many loyal/long term small shareholders.

It is puzzling to me why OMH allow this situation to further deteriorate so much with this “Low Share Price and Low Valuation” Strategy?