Da tue ich mich immer persönlich relativ schwer .
Gerade jetzt wo die Auswirkungen der Corona Krise überhaupt noch nicht abschätzbar sind .
Der Automarkt ist komplett weggebrochen bis auf einen kleine Ausnahme wenn wir auf die
Elektro- Mobilität schauen die hier die absolute Ausnahme bildet.
Tesla überholt sie alle
Überall zweistellige Einbußen - nur bei Tesla nicht
Als einzige Importmarke erreichte Tesla mit 10,4 Prozent ein Neuzulassungsplus.
https://boerse.ard.de/anlagestrategie/branchen/...lt-sie-alle100.html
Zu eventuellen Kurszielen die beste Einschätzung kommt für mich aus dem HC
@dazaliam in the other thread in your post Post #: 44473300 you asked what would I see in effect as a fair price for AVZ based on its NPV were a bid lodged. Note, for others this is simply an exercise and I don't want AVZ taken over btw, but it is an exercise in fair value at this stage of the cycle. In effect, your comment followed a comment by me that NPV is the basis of TO value, not in ground value, which some attest to in various threads which give IMO ridiculous valuations - Post #: 44472955
The way I will do this is in effect look at the latest DFS. @Roller62 I know you have got closer than me, albeit I am close, but suspect this model is good enough for working this out for a ball park guess. The model comes from my aim at duplicating the AVZ DFS Ann - refer post Post #: 44177152 - noting obviously NPV here will be improved if AVZ, through the SEZ, is able to get some form of 'royalty/tax holiday or lower tax rates for a period of time' and 'VAT reimbursement'. And that means a higher price to the below.
So, were a TO to happen today what would be a fair price for AVZ based on its DFS only today. The aim of the exercise would be to input a TO number, treat it as a capex spend, but it needs to generate a pre tax IRR of 30% for the entity doing the TO - why, the 30% pre tax IRR is explained in this post in ADN where I went through a similar exercise and logic for this, Post #: 43930811 (part of the logic is if you bid at this stage of the cycle where AVZ is in affect an explorer seeking to become a miner, albeit well placed to be so, you also want to share in the economic rent between current holder and you as holder, because that is why you bid, because if you are not sharing in the economic rent benefit well you would simply be a buyer of the product instead through Offtakes - which means you get a post tax outcome of 15% - 20% btw. Or another way to put it, if AVZ wants you just to earn your hurdle rate on the TO price, well you would simply put your money to another use as what the seller is saying is buy at a price the project gives you a return equal to your supply price of investment.
Using the above you get a TO value of US$420 million - or about 40% of the DFS post tax NPV. Using an exchange rate assumption of 70c, gets you to A$600 million, which translates to a SP of about 25c (just using the left hand side of HC here as a gauge). After the Yibin deal goes through and options conversion, probably looking at 20c per share as fair value today in a TO scenario - about 3 times SP, but certainly would support an offer of 2 - 3 times today's SP. Remember this is a SP based on NPV only (not nominal profit) at just the DFS stage, without Offtakes. Offtakes will certainly start driving SP up as investors see greater certainty of AVZ getting to mining.
When you get to mining, or closer to mining and first kick is signed Offtakes, the SP switches to a function of EPS and P/E and dividend yields (nominal $) and that is what starts driving your SP north IMO, assuming you hit your DFS targets. Now, looking at the DFS, in effect profit per year is estimated at US$200 million per year (or roughly A$285 million per year at a 70c exchange rate assumption in nominal terms). How that translates to EPS and P/E (5*EPS) or P/E (10* EPS) or P/E (15) is dependent on the number of shares on issue. Obviously with further expansion plans EPS increase, hence the long term hold nature of AVZ.
And if a TO is lobbed at mining, well whilst it will still be done NPV based, be mindful you already have a mine in operation making profit with no capex spend - except for the treatment of the TO price as capex item by the entity doing a TO, and that is why TO prices for miners are much higher than explorers an obvious point (i.e. the impacts on NPV of capex).
Obviously the closer to mining, the higher SP if market outlook is favourable.
A nice long neck VB drunk to really say not much, since I am against a TO of AVZ btw at this stage of its development cycle anyway.
All IMO IMO IMO
https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/...11732/page-28485?post_id=44475779
|
1 |
... |
177 |
178 |
|
180 |
181 |
...
| 285
Thread abonnieren
