宝地矿业收购葱岭能源资产评估方法引关注 资产基础法评估增值率159.36%

Core Viewpoint - The acquisition of Xinjiang Congling Energy Co., Ltd. by Baodi Mining involves an asset evaluation that shows a significant increase in asset value, with a final valuation of 841 million yuan, reflecting a 159.36% increase over the book net asset value [1][5]. Group 1: Evaluation Methodology - The evaluation of Congling Energy's 100% equity was conducted using both the asset-based approach and the income approach, with the asset-based approach yielding a valuation of 840.66 million yuan and the income approach yielding 848.51 million yuan, resulting in a minimal difference of 0.93% [2]. - The asset-based approach was chosen due to its reliability for resource-based companies, as it minimizes the influence of future income predictions and better reflects the fair value as of the evaluation date [2][4]. Group 2: Asset Valuation Breakdown - Non-current assets accounted for 99.89% of the total valuation increase, with non-current assets increasing by 515.99 million yuan, while current assets saw a minor increase of 0.52 million yuan [3]. - The valuation of mining rights, particularly for the Ziluoyi North Iron Mine, was a major contributor, with an assessed value of 469.39 million yuan based on discounted cash flow methods [4]. Group 3: Comparison with Previous Evaluations - The current evaluation shows an increase of 294 million yuan (53.90%) compared to the previous assessment in 2022, primarily due to the inclusion of previously unrecorded resource quantities [5]. - Key parameters in the current evaluation were selected more conservatively, with adjustments in recovery rates and discount rates, leading to a fair valuation compared to industry averages [5]. Group 4: Inventory and Liability Assessment - Inventory was assessed at 136.68 million yuan, reflecting an increase of 6.66 million yuan, with the valuation of iron concentrate inventory confirming the assessment's reasonableness [7]. - Liabilities, specifically employee welfare fees, were assessed at zero based on regulatory guidelines, aligning with industry practices [7]. Group 5: Overall Assessment Validity - Independent financial advisors and evaluators confirmed that the evaluation methods used are consistent with comparable industry cases, and the reasons for asset value changes are clear and reasonable [6].