RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:NoShort - The Bottomless fool, The Tree Planter...."
I have addressed you with civility despite the attacks from the goon squad on this board." Well that's not correct, or we have a different opinion of what civility means.
I said:
Just for fun, let's take your numbers and run with them
$70 million EBITDA times 10 EV/EBITDA multiple = $700mn
Equity value = $700mn - $300mn of net debt = $400mn
Value per share = $400mn equity value / 228mn shares outstanding = $1.75 per share
It actually sounds like you agree with my numbers....
and then you replied:
The whole point of attributing a multiple to a cash flow analysis contemplates debt. The idea is that you can't assess EPA (most often because of things like debt) so you attribute a multiple to its cash flow/Ebitda. Yet you discount the debt as well to its CURRENT cash flows and attribute NOTHING to its growth prospects. You are so misleading with your analysis that it amounts to lies.
That's a Donald Trump level of civility.
Anyways, after I provided you extensive evidence that your methodology is incorrect, you responded with:
The discussion we were having though was whether you were attributing any value to their ability to grow, even when you subtract their debt and minority interest markdowns and apply the lowest possible multiples you get something around where we are now, yet you say sell sell sell. Not everyone can sit around doing nothing but day trading and commenting on stock boards. I have addressed you with civility despite the attacks from the goon squad on this board.
Trying to change the subject. In any case, I am not going to stoop to name calling, but since it is Christmas, I am going to try to help you understand what you are missing:
- the way to account for growth using a multiple is to either (i) increase the multiple; or, (ii) increase the number to which the multiple is applied. You probably want to do the former, since it accounts for growth in all years, not just the next year.
- using your number for EBITDA and your multiple, I then applied the correct methodology to show that we are talking about the same stock value, $1.75.
- your comment that: "
The whole point of attributing a multiple to a cash flow analysis contemplates debt." is categorically wrong. The multiple applied to EBITDA gives you enterprise value, which explicitly DOES NOT contemplate debt. Debt (or excess cash) is contemplated as the next step, in order to find the residual value attributable to equity holders. All right, I will give you another chance to be civil.
Next question? Or attack?
And, by the way, I don't answer to anyone. I CAN do this all day long if I want to....
Noshortsallowed wrote: The discussion we were having though was whether you were attributing any value to their ability to grow, even when you subtract their debt and minority interest markdowns and apply the lowest possible multiples you get something around where we are now, yet you say sell sell sell. Not everyone can sit around doing nothing but day trading and commenting on stock boards. I have addressed you with civility despite the attacks from the goon squad on this board.