As far as I know, market capitalisation of listed companies like SGT and TEL cannot be segmented.
Hence EBITDA multiple comparison of UEC can only be made with SGT and TEL as wholes rather than with (say) sub-segments of TEL's Australian B&I segment.
So my "TEL (sic)" tried to suggest the above.
But EBITDA margin comparisons can be made with segments. Provided they are published.
Now I did note that like for like comparison was "not easy to do". That, plus the vastly different margins between the two, should at least hint that the segments were not ideally like for like.
Now one great attraction of UEC is that it was supposed to be baggage free. But why do we need to go through the blatant baggage in B&I? Particularly as B&I has been ridding itself of baggage. Not by ditching sub-segments, but by ditching small customers. How complicatement.
Very simply if TEL were to acquire UEC, then their B&I segment will soon improve their ~13% margin, courtesy of the injection of UEC's ~30%.
As for Shore, besides his IP1 involvement, he also seemed to be pushing NextGen. Perhaps Unwired will complete these 3 stooges. I'm on record as being highly sceptical of these ventures when they were starting. Hopefully many others have now joined me, and will also tend to ignore Shore.
Repeating, I'm interested in nailing the key points of a puzzle, and have no qualms about ignoring the 50+% of baggage.
