the lack of familiarity with the math of annuities and how far off Ohm is from what was originally posited - and how that feeds through to the share price - are the reasons I feel its worth posting.And there is the crux of the two different strands of discussion taking place on these threads. Both equally valid IMO. One being a discussion of where the company is (and isn't) and hence the relevance of the SP as an indicator. The other being where the company could be heading and the markers for that journey. This latter discussion is less on SP and more on possible fundamentals. Obviously the topics are related, but one discussion does not have to be continually derailed by the other. Otherwise, lets not have a discussion.
As for the math of annuities....the most simple math is that the revenue base increases by the additional sales x price in a quarter and are reduced by the churn of same quarter. We are not told of any change in guided churn so a relatively flat revenue base attributable to Ohm from the Sept quarter through to the Dec quarter implies that Dec Q sales x price was very low. Again, absence of reporting on what would be material indicates that pricing is not materially different, but sales were down. Unless the company no longer reports on material changes to valuation and traction assumptions.
Can I leave you with two of your recent observations...with which I fully agree.
if you;re going to post in the opinion pages you are going to get different opinions, clarifications etc. its all grist for the educational mill imo
it’s educational to watch people rationalising.
