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:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:NoShort - The Bottomless fool, The Tree Planter....Dripping with condescension still. Nice try - moving goal posts. The thing that I clearly described - a muliple of Ebitda minus their liabilities was essentially an analysis of CURRENT CASH FLOWS (as a measure of the company's value) and you wanted to discount that to account for the minority stakes in those revenue streams (and you wanted to assign that a value 40% which I think is to high, then you subtracted all of their debt without making reference to their assets and then you pumped out your measles and manipulated down stock price. Then you move the goal posts and say you were talking about "Enterprise Value" which you incorrectly define even now because enterprise value involves adding the MARKET CAP + Debt + MINORITY INTEFEST IN OTHER HOLDINGS + CASH
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and you are cursed with little knowledge. So let's tease this apart a little:
- "a muliple of Ebitda minus their liabilities was essentially an analysis of CURRENT CASH FLOWS (as a measure of the company's value)" This sentence doesn't make sense. EBITDA is current cash flow, so why would you take a multiple of EBITDA and subtract liabilities to get current cash flow - "ou wanted to discount that to account for the minority stakes in those revenue streams (and you wanted to assign that a value 40% which I think is to high, then you subtracted all of their debt without making reference to their assets and then you pumped out your measles and manipulated down stock price." Well that's not quite correct. I suggested accounting for the minority share of revenue streams when you were using a revenue mutlple. I then said that you shouldn't be using a revenue multiple, and at worst, should be using EBITDA. So you are taking my advice on the EBITDA, but now going back to revenue multiples? Let's pick a lane and then have the conversation rather than mixing up issues - "Then you move the goal posts and say you were talking about "Enterprise Value" which you incorrectly define even now because enterprise value involves adding the MARKET CAP + Debt + MINORITY INTEFEST IN OTHER HOLDINGS + CASH" I don't think I ever moved goal posts, but I still believe you don't understand how this works. This equation for EV is correct, and I believe it is the one I gave you earlier, so thanks for using it. weak you expose yourself as knowing nothing and pretending to know everything and explain it but you are actually a fraud I am going to break this down for you in the simplest possible terms. This is an imperfect metaphor, but I hope it sinks in:
- let's say you and your brother own a house together, you own 60% and he owns the rest
- the house is worth $1mn
- the mortgage on the house is $300K
The "enterprise value" of the house is $1mn
The "equity value" of the house is $700K
Your share of the equity value is $420K
When you multiply EBITDA by a multiple, you end up with enterprise value. To get equity value, you need to subtract the debt. That's why debt is subtracted from enterprise value to get to equity value (a little algebra will help you rearrange the equation from above).
Why is this so hard for you to grasp? You seem so eager to prove yourself right that you have stopped making any sense at all!
Noshortsallowed wrote: Dripping with condescension still. Nice try - moving goal posts. The thing that I clearly described - a muliple of Ebitda minus their liabilities was essentially an analysis of CURRENT CASH FLOWS (as a measure of the company's value) and you wanted to discount that to account for the minority stakes in those revenue streams (and you wanted to assign that a value 40% which I think is to high, then you subtracted all of their debt without making reference to their assets and then you pumped out your measles and manipulated down stock price. Then you move the goal posts and say you were talking about "Enterprise Value" which you incorrectly define even now because enterprise value involves adding the MARKET CAP + Debt + MINORITY INTEFEST IN OTHER HOLDINGS + CASH
weak you expose yourself as knowing nothing and pretending to know everything and explain it but you are actually a fraud