RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Peters againI understand your point about excluding R&D and major capex the company would be profitable, however the issue with that is the company
is making these expenditures and
will continue to do so in the future. You can't value it just on the base business (unless it's getting liquidated tomorrow or there is a massive management change where they decide to drop everything else - it's not going to happen). So the value of the company cannot be based on it alone and really depends on whether these new initiatives make significant revenue to offset the additional expenses.
EbbFlow88 wrote: This argument makes a lot of sense and imagine that it will force many of you to eat your words and exit this stock. They have yet to release anything of real value, but I think there will be a lot in the future.
Now, if this stock was a company with no revenues, no cash flow, etc. than I would be thinking exactly like you all are. However, I think there is another way to look at it and it should allow you to think in a longer time frame.
Why don't you value the company on current production? I would say if they weren't spending on R+D and other major capex, that they would be a profitable company. They are trading a little over ~2.5x sales. In my opinion, a pretty well priced stock. If more people sell out of frustration, you will be picking up shares of a company that is undervalued on current production with an option of much more. This is not a radical idea that hasn't been discussed here before, but I think it is the most logical way of looking at this story.