Can anyone else get their head around the amount that was paid for Shima Wasabi? Hardly any assets and a Insignificant NP. They talk about ramping up output and revenue by doubling capacity however this has required the injection of additional capital which requires its own rate of return to justify. I just do not know how they can realistically justify the intrinsic value attributed to this upon acquisition. Also no mention at any point on the additional benefit derived by the landholder via the lease payments tasfoods would be required to make as they don't own the land - what are the terms of this lease? I'm not saying that the acquisition wasn't a good idea I just don't think executive have fully explained/disclosed the relevant info that they should have. It would appear that the multiple paid, mostly via cash, and the ongoing lease repayments would really be a massive boon for the previous owner (with limited skin remaining in the game) and investors have been left with little explanation to jusutify. The additional capital injected into this business now makes it significant/material overall to the company (and I believe warrants additional explanation and also separation within the financial statements.). Just my opinion. Blind faith in the executive seems to be what is required here.
TFL Price at posting:
17.5¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
