A few years ago the actuaries changed some variables for the...

A few years ago the actuaries changed some variables for the defined pension schemes, for the Feds ( that's what the future fund is for)

- they increased the life expectancy of the funds recipiants
- they lowered the expected rate of return on funds

At a stroke the liabilities of the Commonwealth when up by 90 billion. No one really said anything. The magic of assumptions. They must have been economists

Re:near term catalysts. The age profile of their forests is changing. If the discount rate is revised downwards, due to greater clarity of income/oil content/and harvesting being closer, then suddenly, wah la. A sudden jolt in valuation. The best effect, like Brexit, is if no one really anticipates the move. Then people start talking about wow, is there really that much money in a tree? I better investigate more!

If you have the time, go get a book on option pricing, and look at the theta curve. I think you could use it to estimate
1. time/oil production.
2. Time/discount rate

1. Find the average weighted age of the forests owned.
2. Find the oil in situ for average weighted forests
3. Multiply the average forest oil, by the number of trees, by the prevailing price, divide by 1 - discount rate to power of number of years remaining to harvest
4. Theoretically it would give you the current value of the oil in tree

Note. Just because the auditors come to a figure, doesn't mean it is true. They want to protect their reputations, more than doing a honest job. Josh did I underestimate the value of the in situ oil by a few hundred million dollars. Whoops.

If you want to value the whole company, estimate
-land value x hectares
- water rights value x megalitre
- value of distillery
-value of pharma assets
- minus debts
-plus cash
- plus value of brand ____________________ AVARICUS. motto - "screw you, we're rich, bitch"
-