Ann: Shortfall Placement and Appendix 3b , page-11

I am discussing a farm in as a potential catalyst for SP appreciation..... nothing more than that.

I really don't see the difference in discussing a farm in and discussing extraction of the reserve at Touquoy west.

If 100% finance is a viable option why is no one willing to pick up the 60mill shares @ 3c?

Using a farm in method to value ATV has its merits. Fundamentally getting 100% finance or having a farm in should produce the same "value" for ATV.

By "value" I mean NPV adjusted for by risk.

i.e. term deposits generally should pay more interest than a gov. bond as they are more risky, but both have the same "value". If they don't have the same "value" why do investors invest in both.

100% financing, high risk vs farm in, low risk

(where does 0% financing sit? i.e. cap raising $140 mill)

I consider a farm in to be the same as borrowing 100% with a high interest rate. Because of the high interest rate failure to pay back the loan WILL NOT result in atv losing any of its assets. i.e. risk is taken by financier as with a farm in.

100% loan with strict conditions and low interest rate is risky. i.e. if clauses are broken atv could lose everything. If they don't extract gold fast enough then cap raising needed to pay back, or worse, they lose an operating mine to the financiers.

Anyone else now realise the similarities??????