Share
639 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 27
clock Created with Sketch.
12/02/16
15:53
Share
Originally posted by smallish
↑
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.
Expand
Nea had a net loss of $3m for the last half.
REA made $130m NPAT
CVT loss $4m for the qtr and rev of $25,000
I am not saying their markets caps are high but you two folks seem to dig IWG all the time with considering the overall market. As I said before I think it is because you have a bone to pick with one company. Good luck to al holders. I am happy they will re rate and match he market. I just don't think you guys understand the market dynamics