I think Westtigers 24% straight line approach is to simmple and...

I think Westtigers 24% straight line approach is to simmple and is wrong.

But so is accounting for a dollar invested at different stages of the risk profile on the same basis. The uplift that MMX gets to have accounted for will not be dollar for dollar.

I think how CHM will approach it by looking at funds invested at the time the transaction was done.

For example what value did Paul get shares at and what did that translate into.

CHM funds came just before Paul arrived so their risk profile and weighting will be a touch higher.

Later dollars investing in MMX came at higher and higher prices so will have less weighting.

Any funds from mining re-invested doesnt count as this is the investment earning funds and re-investing in itself.

Then we get to the 50% sale to Mitsubishi which I think they got 150 million with a second payment due after feasibility. I bet CHM will want that final number in their calculation.

As to why there was the option for such a low number which is there because that was what CHM asked for

Constructive trust - no
Accounting for profits -yes
At least let us get our money back with interest - yes

So choose 2 and 3 but not number 1

Now the thing that MMX has done that I dont understand is put part of port project ownership through IO asset company which now needs to be accounted for.

There is no fat lady singing on this one.

Going to be interesting to see who has been buying