1. Quoting yourself is akin to liking your own FB posts - just don't, k?
2. You have oversimplified this so shameslessly that it barely rates responding to, but *big siggghh* let's go anyway.
You have put the cart before the horse, Dr Z. You are attempting to apply an old-school model of valuation in an uncharted territory of a revolutionary, patadigm shifting tech start up.
This lack of visionary insight and imagination is why you should stick to investing in blue chip banking stocks and continue your slumbers whilst awaiting your (ever-so) loooooonnnggg term incremental gains when you reach retirement age (and are possibly too old to enjoy it). *yawn*
Each to his/her own, you go right ahead and you do you, but right now your post, essentially decreeing a pessimistic valuation upon BRN using an unfair, outdated metric that cannot possibly even begin to do it justice and provide a reliable valuation, merely demonstrates your compkete lack of understanding of what BRN, PvDM and Akida have to offer the future.
It would seem to me that this is because you clearly don't possess the necessary understanding of the tech and the space it operates in AND the lack of true competitors to this paradigm-shifting and revolutionary technology that is, in my opinion, about to change everything as we've ever known it.
Because this is a concept you clearly cannot grasp, DrZ, I shall give you an example of the intrinsic folly in your valuation approach that even your old-school dated thinking would surely recognise:
In the last 2 decades, how would you have valued Netflix, as a start up, versus Blockbuster?
Or, in the same time frame, how about Ebay versus, say, Coles Myer?
Or how about Amazon versus Dymocks, nay, EVERYONE and EVERYTHING?
I'm sure you're aware how badly everything ended for Blockbuster's tale of woe in their David & Goliath tussle with Netflix.
Maybe not, though, given your preoccupation with applying outdated valuation methods to start up tech that is beyond your ken.
Let me refresh your memory with a timely analogy of the perils of valuing that which you do not fully grasp the potential of.
Only 20 years ago Netflix co-founder and CEO, Reed Hastings, approached Blockbuster’s CEO, John Antioco, with a merger proposal. Hastings wanted $50 million for Netflix.
Fifty.Million.Dollars. That is all.
As part of the deal, the Netflix team would run Blockbuster’s online brand. Of course, that deal never materialised because apprently Blockbuster LARFFED in Netflix’s face when they met to discuss it: "You want HOW much???" "How do you value THAT based on your revenue?" *scoff/chortle* Goliath asked diminutive David. Well, ok, to be fair, I don't actually know if that exchange occurred, but in my head it did.
What we do know, though, is this:
“It was tiny, involuntary, and vanished almost immediately. But as soon as I saw it, I knew what was happening: John Antioco was struggling not to laugh,” Netflix’s Marc Randolph remembers of the encounter."Subsequently, failing to convince Blockbuster that their valuation was fair and reasonable, Netflix sought assistance elsewhere and received backing from Groupe Arnault, giving them a $30 million cash injection that helped launch their subscription-based service.
Hello? $30million backing to pursue commercialisation? (Anyone who has done their DD on BRN will be experiencing some déjà vu, right now, yeah?
Less than 10 years later, Netflix then went on to sign deals with "household names" like Sony, Paramount and Disney. On July 1st of that same year that Netflix was going gangbusters with deaks AND REVVVENNUUUUEEE, Blockbuster on the other hand,was de-listed from the NYSE & filed for bankruptcy having incurred nearly $1 billion in losses.
How things can change in less than a decade!
And, based on your valuation metrics, I would imagine that had you been handed a sizeable wad of cash and given the choice to invest between BB & NF, you would have chucked it all on Black(buster), yeah?
Netflix’s "valuation" at the time that Blickbuster ROFL'd in its face over the $50m offer? $24 million.
No doubt such a valuation was achieved because of their lack of revenue at the time comparable to Blockbuster's market share.
But we all know how this story ends, though - today, Netflix is valued at around $233 billion. BILLION.
Now, I'm not here to give advice, unlike you, on what is the appropriate value of a start up and what is a worthy metric to apply.
My view is that your approach, however, is as myopic and lacking in even just plain old garden variety imagination that most of us normally possess as was the approach taken by John Antioco on Blockbuster's behalf back then.
I hope this analogy sufficiently makes my point.
Please don't weigh us down with your pontification on BRN's appropriate valuation when you clearly have not engaged the necessary resources intellectually or otherwise to undertake a fair and reasoned analysis of it that is not using outdated and inappropriate metrics that are fundamentally incapable of application to a proof of concept in uncharted territories of which you are clearly unable to grasp the revolutionary nature of and future technological landscape that you are witnessing the germination of in BRN.
So, for this reason among many others, I pay no heed to your "valuation" of BRN nor will I bother to argue a figure otherwise against your myopically formulaic approach, because doing so is akin to casting pearls before swine (especially the flying variety that has been notably absent in the BRN forums of late).
Right now, this paradigm shifting tech is actually beyond valuation, it's priceless. JMO, though, DYOR.
(20min delay)