Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Bullboard - Stock Discussion Forum CANEXUS CORP 6.5 PCT DEBS T.CUS.DB.D

TSX:CUS.DB.D - Post Discussion

CANEXUS CORP 6.5 PCT DEBS > Having trouble figuring out what would be a fair share price
View:
Post by materialsgirl on Apr 06, 2015 9:27am

Having trouble figuring out what would be a fair share price

You're not alone if you struggle with answering this question

One big financial house is looking for a double over the next 12 to 18 months ($2.75) and of course it is easy to justify a price of $1 $2 $3 or $4.   You can supprt the conclusion easily by adding or subtracting a few hundred million dollars to the sale price of NATO.  Piece of cake really.

Nonetheless any assumed price can only be siurced from one place;  out of thin air.

Have pity on analysts

mat
Comment by Calgaryrider on Apr 06, 2015 11:34am
Analysts have been chasing the price down since $5 or $6, so give them no more credit than anyone else.  In fact, as they've been continually wrong, give them even less credit. NATO is worth only what the free market says, and that value is too low for even Doug to get rid of this asset; the asset he openly and publically disparages at every opportunity.
Comment by Adam999 on Apr 06, 2015 7:30pm
First off, I begin to question how much attention it's worth paying to analysts (I'm not saying to discredit them entirely) but many were recommending this as a buy back at $6.50, only thing that's changed is NATO costs came in at about double, debt has accumulated and now the dividend is greatly reduced. The other assets (core of the business) are more or less stable cash flow ...more  
Comment by materialsgirl on Apr 06, 2015 10:15pm
Adam; You always need to be careful in applying a blanket formula.  It can be useful as a start point only. For example excluding depreciation regarding a new apartment building is safe.  The building will last 100 years and by then the land will be worth 20 times the total cost of the original buliding.  But to exclude amortisation re a mine with an 8 year life would be a ...more  
Comment by HAWK37 on Apr 07, 2015 12:22am
Adam, well for starters, this isn't a government bond backed by taxpayers. You have to adjust for (considerable) risk. Use 6.5%, which is Canexus cost of debt (the convertibles pay 6.5%). Using that, according to your formula, the IV is $653 million and the value of the equity is zero. hmmm. DS
The Market Update
{{currentVideo.title}} {{currentVideo.relativeTime}}
< Previous bulletin
Next bulletin >

At the Bell logo
A daily snapshot of everything
from market open to close.

{{currentVideo.companyName}}
{{currentVideo.intervieweeName}}{{currentVideo.intervieweeTitle}}
< Previous
Next >
Dealroom for high-potential pre-IPO opportunities