For sure one could argue that the retained earnings have been...

For sure one could argue that the retained earnings have been plowed into PP&E. So of my 60 cents of PP&E, 20 cents can be retained earnings. That would make sense. However, that would simply up the value of Zenith contracts and IP and future earnings at 40 cents per share. That is, PEP is buying my over depreciated PP&E at face value - 60 cents (incl retained eps) and the other 40 cents is for Zenith's future.

No matter how I look at it, the buyout is unders for Zenith. And based on my optimism re the industry and the company it is way unders. And why does PEP get to be gifted the current year's 7 cents eps (post tax) or 10 cents eps pre tax for the year ending 30 June? Why is that being gifted to them? It is no where in the valuation. Since the year is not finished yet it is awaiting its declaration. But declared it will be! As it is money sitting in the bank. The free cash flow accumulates each month. That is OUR money - not PEP's money.

It was a big grump I had re the cap raise. New holders are gifted the earnings and PP&E the previous holders earned. Now with a buy out, all previous earnings are gifted to the buyer.

I honestly dont know what a fair price is (I know what I think in my mind, but I am not an independent valuer; and I would be overs anyway with my optimism). But you can imagine my angst at selling Zenith at unders. I think the only person on earth who think this is not unders is PEP and Apex and the 'not independent' directors, who recommended the scheme.

If I am forced to accept 1.01, then there is nothing I can do. But as I say (until the cows come home) I can see no method of valuation that says that 1.01 is fair. The best the "unders recommenders" can do is look at the EBITDA even using a month from 17 months ago (Jan 2019) and use that as part of their valuation. Why dont they be fair dinkum and value the company as it stands NOW. With TODAYs contracts. And TODAY's EBITDA. And Blind Freddie can work out the bottom of EBITDA for the next Fin Year. Why not use that? Why value a company on what happened 17 months ago, but not this month or next month or even four months ago. You are kidding, right? Well not you. But somebody is pulling my leg.

The offer was made based on CALENDAR year 2019. How about the offer be made on CALENDAR year 2020. It sure aint hard to figure out, since it is based on BOO contracts and known revenue and known costs. Dare I refer to Blind Freddie, again.