It is not the cost of assets. SIAF is using the cost method. They used an an appraisal firm for this. The appraisal firm determined the value of AF1 based on its history of profitability. They can't use that for AF4 because it doesn't have a history of profitability. So they used the cost (of construction) here. They also valued the license rights etc. The total of which is $340M as of Q3/2016 for TRW.
SIAF calls it the "investment at cost" because that was agreed upon by all parties, including the appraisal firm. The cost method is dictated by accounting rules.
All of this, reflects a P/E of 10.6. So I don't see what the problem is. Anyone can understand that it is reasonable and conservative.
You HAVE TO include the profits of the past 2 years, because SIAF booked those profits as well, obviously, besides the initial $124.67M "investment at cost".
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
