RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:T.weed destroying aphria!Well ya, that's why I use a modified WACC, I'd use WACC if it was blue-chip. ~1/2 of those things listed can be quanified, the rest are either inconsequential or impossible.
Grnhousegarbage wrote:
it has nothing to do with it being a challenge to deconstruct. In investing their is a certain amount of speculation. It seem like (wouldn't want to make assumptions about you) that you want to base everything on hard numbers. For an emerging growth industry, that is not realistic. There isn't enough hard data to properly value certain aspects of the business plan. Can you tell me what tweed farms cog's are and whether or not it would be profitable if it was a separate entity..... can you tell me what smithfalls cog's will be once the build out is complete? What about tweed grass lands?. Can you place a numerical value on the German acquisition? Can you tell me if T.weeds mass hiring which contribute to expresses will pay off long term. How do you value in their licenses like the dealer license allowing them to produce gel caps? What value does the gmp certification hold. Do you have numbers for any of that? You want numbers to crunch but at this stage in the game their are to many x factors. Crunching numbers is useful but is only one small aspect of valuing a company at this stage in the game. These are speculative plays because there isn't enough data to properly analyse these companies for long term growth potential. You can't sit there and analyse these company as if they are blue chips that have been around for 80 years. Even with those companies large acquisition or unforseen events can throw off financial analysis.