@TommyTrader -- I suggest you read the post again. It contains more disclaimers that most HC posts, including yours, clearly outlining the valuation methodology applied, all underlying assumptions, and caveats the output as "a range of
potential outcomes" (specific to that valuation methodology). It also states this is one possible outcome (referring to the select pro forma figures) and includes factors that can further affect said range of potential outcomes, stating this represents but one man's opinion and that everyone reading it should do their own research. Reader's research in this case should naturally extend to include assessment of the valuation approach used, model applicability/suitability, assumptions feeding the model, and the conclusion I drew based on the aforementioned. Not sure about you, but that post has more disclaimers attached framing a simple opinion than the government adds to products that factually kill people.
So if you are saying that cost considerations should play a role in (or be added to) a 'top line multiple approach', ceteris paribus, then please reconsider the logic of that argument and revisit valuation approaches as that simply doesn't make sense (with regards to referenced methodology). Alternatively, if your argument is with a top line sales or revenue-multiple valuation approach being applied then that's cool, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but then clearly state that rather than just lobbing an unsubstantiated opinion if you want to be taken serious.
If model suitability for this (type of) firm (at this time) is your argument, then I hope you would kindly share what (singular) methodology you believe is more appropriate at this stage and why, including your specific assumptions and the model's output. The output doesn't have to be a point estimate, I am happy to review ranges too, or whatever else you got. Just to be clear: this is not a valuation argument as that's subject to the model framework and inputs applied, this is straight up a question about model suitability.
Let me know whether you're using some sort of line item based multiples approach, a discounting model, comps-based approach, EV-type model, etc. Seems based on this and older comments you have quite an issue with the firm's costs, expenditures and other IS, SCF and BS line items not being (adequately?) considered by investors here. I look forward to hearing which approach you used to reconcile that perspective which led you to purchase the stock regardless, despite your apparent negative, or shall we shay cautious outlook. Unless I am missing something major, it stands to reason there is something positive that you extrapolated in some form that tilted the scales in favor of acquiring a position, as I fail to see financials being that reason (now or a year ago).
(20min delay)