"Why not compare two ASX listed coal stocks, roughly of the same...

"Why not compare two ASX listed coal stocks, roughly of the same size?"

Because there's a lot more to comparing companies than just the stuff they dig out of the ground and there respective sizes.

There's the matter of governance, board independence, credentialization of executives and the skills matrix of the directors. All to the end of protecting the interests of all classes of shareholders.

And on those sorts of governance criteria, WHC is to chalk what YAL is to cheese.

Which is why YAL trades at a significant valuation multiple discount to WHC (and NHC, for that matter).

And all that's happened is that YAL has gone from being acutely cheap, to just very cheap, and now you are calling that anomalous situation as being some kind of a sign about WHC's inferior investment attributes.

At one stage you were jawboning about how PLS was outperforming WHC (curiously, we don't hear much more about that); then it was FMG that was the comparator you used (that stock is now also on the nose). Now it is YAL that is being held up by you as some kind of superior investment to WHC.

.