<<
Come on now, granted, my hastily calculated number was way wrong, but the simple fact remains that assuming a 40 multiple, current dilution, and stores that are 50% more profitable each than a comparable BWLD, we still need 75 stores up and running to justify a 5 dollar share price. If the full dilution you indicated comes to fruition, we need more like 150 stores up, running, and producing about 300K a year in net profit (after corporate overhead) just to get to 5.>>
I only mentioned the error once or twice and certainly didn't hold it against you...HOWEVER: You just made another error.
300K X 75 Stores= 22.5 million dollars...BWLD has a trailing multiple of like 40. so 22.5milion X 40 would give a market cap of 900 million dollars. That's SLIGHTLY over a share-price of $5. It's closer to 40... ;) ;) ;) So that's 2 math errors for you...
The point is, you are trying to make a ridiculous argument. With a market cap of around 50 million, uWink DOESN'T NEED THAT MANY STORES generating income to be a big bargain on a DCF basis. You're trying to portray uWink as some high-flying hyped up stock. It isn't.
And if you wanna see just how little having a lot of stores means, look up Diedrich Coffee, which is essentially signing over their leasehold agreements for almost nothing to Starbuck's. If uWink's concept is economically viable, the fact that it only has one restaurant now matters NOT AT ALL. ANYONE can always build more restaurants. The issue is creating a concept that generates outlandish returns on capital. There is a lot evidence that uWink can do just that.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
