I wouldnt really know what PE ratio you could apply
@Glyco I havent seen a speccy ever make $40m revenue.
Speaking to management Matthew, Mark and Patrick all seem confident they can hit $40m, so the PE could be ridiculous. And I guess it would be the first speccy to make that much revenue I guess thats why Mark said "I want to see IAM as the most successful startup Australia has seen in the last decade"
Looking at some techs recently
FBR: 120m+ MC, 0 revenue, 800k+ cash burn/qtr
SAS: 100m MC, 0 revenue, 800k+ cash burn/qtr
Then you have older runners like
BRN: 400m MC, 0 revenue, large cash burn
TV2: Almost 100m MC, $20k revenue, large cash burn
XPE: FY16 reached a MC of $150m+, $43k revenue (However it made 270k revenue last qtr and $2.7m cash burn), $ -3m EBIT
All of these were given ridiculous PE's. No guessing what the market will give IAM. But assuming they take into consideration IAM is a sole monopoly of a industry, impossible barriers to entry, aggressive growth strategy via acquisition, top tier management in due time they should be given a ridiculously high PE.
IAM current: $70m MC, $205k revenue, $1.1m burn (mostly listing costs expected $580k burn/qtr), P.C mentioned they couldve been cashflow neutral if it wasnt for all the startup expenses. Already ahead of all the companies above in our first quarter.
IAM by next two quarters: Cumulative $1m revenue (They expect M1 to be hit by then), Cumulative $1.1m burn, more or lesscashflow neutral.
IAM by next year: $40m revenue, Cashflow positive. Now compare this to the other techs above. As M.F said "how do you put a price" on that. Would have a ridiculous MC if it was given a ridiculous PE like the techs above.
And even if it wasnt given a ridiculous PE in the next two quarters and just a modest one we would still have an MC higher than those above imo (BRN excluded)
