(A reply to your post, @xanax. Reply feature acting up...

(A reply to your post, @xanax. Reply feature acting up again.)

Generally agreed, except for the comments about any expert's opinion regarding fair value which would be constrained to only valuing what is known at the time the val is done, rather than attempting to value the impact of any as-yet undiscovered Ni in prospective ground or potentially higher NPs, or any other known unknowns at that time.

The idea behind an independent expert's valuation is to ensure a BoD doesn't recommend a bid that undervalues a company based on the here and now. What it DOES NOT attempt to do (because it cannot) is value potential blue sky upside associated with continuing to hold.

In short, these vals are really only good for SHs who are already (or potential) willing sellers. For SHs who are not wanting to sell and are happy to wear the risk of continuing to hold for a much more valuable future, these vals are a complete waste of time.

But that's not why these vals are required by law.

If a SOA is ever forthcoming (hopefully never) the val won't save sitting SHs who don't want to sell. It will be other mechanisms that do it (e.g. mustering the the required 25% refusal rate to kill said SOA, which BMM & AF jointly have, or any one of those two plus a sufficiently mobilised soph/retail base).