There’s a whole lot more than that graph and the ‘solidarity’ of your group’s’ ‘clan-hood’ opinion on which to base your ideas of value Golden Years, and I am sure you and everyone else knows this.
And as far as getting back on to the favourite topic here of throwing random numbers at what would be a fairer deal; it’s all just emotional back seat driving as far as I’m concerned and I am surprised some say they already have firm ‘No merger’ commitments from the holders of around 25% of shares.
It seems a bit ignorant to me especially as no-one has given any credentials or convincing rationales.
To make any
convincing argument about fair value, I rather think one would have to be trained in multiple areas to ‘expert’ level, and from that position to have studied both AVL and TMT inside out including considering the value of each ore deposit based on quality and more.…
— And to have looked at downstream processing potentials and considered the prospects of each company there,
— To have deeply analysed all board and staff qualifications, history and network connections
— And then to look at what each company potentially has waiting in the wings.
Then timing - of the vanadium price improving and everything else,
- AND
all the outside factors including competition.
And then probably a whole lot more, including deducting the $15m RCF put into AVL on September 26 on the basis of the SOA.
And finally to set a price on each company’s shares on which to base your percentage ratio and present your argument.
Thankfully for anyone who recognises they don’t have the qualifications to assess what is fair and what is not, we have Yuanjian Zhu from SRK
https://www.srk.com/en/consultants/yuanjian-zhu as part of the SRK team compiling an independent expert’s report and we will all be able to see that before deciding on whether to vote yes or no to the proposal.
