Thought to start a new thread to hopefully draw out some of the...

Thought to start a new thread to hopefully draw out some of the excellent posters with questioning minds and objective analysis.

As an investor I learnt not to get to attached to management, never drink the cool aid. You are supplying capital and management is supposed to deliver you the appropriate return in an appropriate time. The investment is for the purposes of generating a return, and at some point you need to sell, preferably before you’re dead!

I think the below chart is pretty compelling. In the usual course of investing on the ASX, the CEO would be accountable for the share price during their tenure. The below shows that share price performance under current management. That’s pretty clinical, cold hard facts.

At $110m market cap, the equity value has never really been built for VMT. Consideration of 60c/sh versus 40c/sh in the last few years is irrelevant as this is all peanuts - the ASX never properly ascribed value to VMT because it hasn’t been properly engaged since the departure of the previous Chairman, who departed just as things got going from a valuation perspective - this is really obvious when you look at the chart.

It’s interesting to posit who would take Charles’ place to deliver the next phase of growth for VMT. It would need to be someone who is experienced with dealing with investors and markets, and who is willing to spend a fair bit of time in Australia, and to drive the pivot away from China - more aggressive growth pathways could be explored to achieve the huge opportunities on offer, likely involving capital markets and new investors. I could see Charles being retained in an operations or consultant role in the near term while operations in China continue, but he would need to move on from the CEO role for share price appreciation to happen.

Just a conversation starter to continue the good objective ideas that others have shared.