Not entirely sure how your first sentence was meant to set the...

Not entirely sure how your first sentence was meant to set the context, PE is obviously not a meaningful ratio to use on a growth company in a cash burn phase, really its only applicable to mature companies. Why did you pick PE of 20? Is this what you think the PE should be, or only if they had an npat of $10mil? Also why is $10mil npat significant? Do you think that is where we will be in the long term? or in a couple of years?

If we consider just the Oz and Corporate sectors as mature, the NPAT would be about $3.3mil (half year accounts page 10) although some of the corporate sector loss should be attributable to the US expansion also, so something possibly even above $4.4 mil

These give PE of around 60x to 45x or less for a growth company. That could seem expensive but we also have the value of the US business to consider. For me thats an inconclusive analysis.