doing valuations based on multiples or revenue is very bullish....

doing valuations based on multiples or revenue is very bullish. I think you will find that earnings are the best measure, even if via a DCF, which i have not seen anyone do for IWG. In relation to your references to NEA, REA and CVT I make the following observations. NEA's Australian business had an EBIT of $7mln for the 6 months to 31Dec15. It has a market cap of $116m so in my mind it is valued more conservatively than IWG, putting to one side NEA's US operations. REA is a mature business and hardly comparable. It earns $1.50-$1.65 per share. CVT is the most comparable i would say. The $180m market cap is toppy, nut at least they have some some clearly identifiable enterprise level sales in global markets as well as some strong partners. I'm no techo so excuse me if the CVT offering is not what IWG is pitching to the world. Suffice to say, if i wanted exposure to this sector and i only wanted to invest on the ASX, then CVT would seem to have the early runs on the board. They also have some deep pocketed shareholders with credibility and capability to provide any additional cash if required ($8.5m in the bank at 31/12). I hope they both succeed. I'm just saying that IWG is probably $50-60mln overvalued at the moment based on what we can see.