how fortunes are made ..., page-21

Wow BBB, you really are clumsy with your expression. I can guess at what you are trying to say, but with your incorrect terms and poor expression it would be a guess at best!

What is "cash generative on a net basis" mean? Do you mean 'cash flow positive'? I have already guided you to see that even though NST was cash flow negative last FY they still generated enough cash to have 'free cash flow'. NST was cash flow negative because they decided to 'invest' more cash that they generated from Op Cash and/or raised from Financing Activities! So what? That is the real question and it looks like you have little idea silly billy.

Reading your other post that talks about capex and small capex, I just wonder whether you understand the difference between Development capex and sustaining capex? If not then you have no idea what you are talking about.

Now, NST was cash flow positive in 2012 because they raised $48m in equity. NST was cash flow negative in 2013 because invested heavily whilst paying a dividend and didn't raise any equity nor borrow any significant amount of funds. This FY they will be cash flow positive because they are doing a massive CR and also borrowing $50m. So what? That is the real question and it looks like you have very little idea! The cash flow statement must be analysed closely with all other financial statements amongst a heap of other stuff. It is virtually useless for share investing decisions as a stand alone document!

Your nonsense about market value of acquisitions and the price of NST shares is gutter garbage. Since when have shares ever reflected the market value of the underlying asset? Shares are all about taking a punt on future earning potential. That is the art backed up with a bit of science...... what are the underlying assets going to earn in the future? Get that estimate close and then you might be able to value a share price correctly.

Good luck billy boy.
Cheers.