RE:RE:Every time FCU has a bad day5 stars. Well said.
sasku3o8 wrote: Fissionowner. Maybe this will help. When you say it trades at a fraction of what it should......in relation to what. Because that's where Dev said it should trade? Or is it because there is a PEA with a headline NPV value? Look a little deeper into the PEA. It's not saying PLS is worth $1B today. It's discounting cash flows to the day an investment decision is made. When is that day? Well the PEA says they haven't done any baseline environmental monitoring to support a license application. Add 3 years. Licensing and EA process....add 3-5 years, conservatively. All that means money redirected away from drilling for the boring stuff. This deposit is likely 10+ years away from a development decision. So take that alleged NPV value and cut it in half (10% discount rate). Then start asking how accurate the cost estimates are. I won't go into it as enough others have expressed a negative view (and rightly so). Ask yourself this. How is it the PEA ended up with a headline NPV that somehow approximates Dev's $10 per pound valuation. Answer. It's not independent of management, it's a tool to allow the company to continue financing (alone or in a merged entity). There is no $10 per pound buyer as evidenced by the failed merger. That would require an irrational buyer in a market that clearly offers buyers no reason to be irrational. Bottom line, there is no valuation in the PEA document unless you have a time machine to go 10 years forward, and everything proves up as hoped for. This company is trading at, or even higher where it should be because there is still a lot of risks to be addressed in the licensing and construction phases. None of the risks that current management will be around to face. Why would anybody pay for a company or for an asset that hasn't addressed the basic risks identified in the PEA. Disturbing lakes and running on diesel power (based purely on the fact its cheaper) will not get an easy ride by the regulators. It's a good asset, but some people have swallowed too much of Dev's vision. Bottom line, a producer will look at this project and determine when these pounds can realistically be produced (and by who, not current management), will apply some conservatism to the cost estimates, and arrive at numbers that don't come close to the PEA or Dev's wishes. When you factor in that the shareholders today demand some huge premium to today's share price, they deem that it isn't actionable.