Nutritional High International Inc. Ordinary Shares SPLID

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:2 straight quarters of $12m rev

[Greede]

You're a simpleton.  You're trying to extrapolate things that have been put forward and make comically erroneous conclusions to fit your own lazy narrative for what...to make yourself look good on anonymous stock board? lol.  Another sad case here. 

My points were extremely straight forward intentionally.  I was not stating ANYTHING in an absolute sense but REVENUE absolutely matters......there are a million other moving parts that I purposely didn't get into because this is not the time or place (who really has either ?) but one of the best, at-a-glance metrics to look at...is are the companies in the cannabis sector generating revenue or not. Why would one of the most popular sites on this sector make revenue rankings one of its quickest ways to see who's doing what....quarter over quarter versus eveyone else.

Is that the be all, end all of analysis? No you moron.  It is a sign post.  

Perhaps be a bit more contemplative before you do a rather vapid thought-dump in this forum, save us some time, yeah?  

Go lick your wounds elsewhere.

LAMresearch wrote: Why I chimed in was because I often come and check in on this thread to see new updates on the company etc. 

Greede may have a strong understanding of the activities EAT is involved in but that doesn't mean they have any idea what they are talking about from a financial health standpoint. Yes, financial analysts use revenue, mkt cap, and SP in a valuation but they also make their reccomendations after looking at complete financial statements. And revenue along isn't at all the best way to forecast value. Look, for a simple ex. Company A - $10 in sales/year and 5 shares outstanding. Company B - $10 in sales/year 2 shares outstanding.  They have the same revenue.. but would you expect them to trade at the same price.. no, you wouldnt - you are getting a way bigger piece of equity in Company B with one share than you would with Company A. 

I know ppl in this thread hate comparions to other industries but to make a point - AMZN last year did $232 billion in sales. AAPl did 260 billion in sales. According to Greede's logic, AAPL should be trading at over $1,800 / share then. 

Just using one figure on a financial statement is more than just simplified financial analysis.. its simply inaccurate and means nothing. 

Greede getting butt hurt and using personal attacks solidifies even further the lack of knowledge they hold on financial analysis and should really just stfu sometimes because they look misinformed.