John, there's been plenty of posts here discussing valuation fundamentals from myself, 2create, king, et al. We have been talking numbers and fundamentals and, interestingly, during those discussions of last week, bat was nowhere to be found. The main argument he poses that has validity concerns dilution but we've discussed that as well, no need to cover it again and again. Bat's argument essentially boils down to criticizing NNRF for being in a development stage; "darn them for losing money while building the business!". Not all, but some of the longs here have tried to take a balanced view of their progress so far without omitting the negatives. Bat soley focuses on negatives (as king has put it, looking at NNRF's performance in the past tense) without giving any quarter whatsoever to the real accomplishments, for example looking at cumulative losses to date without acknowledging how money flow is clearly turning the corner. You could take the most successful company in the world and make it look like a disaster if you only look at it's financials during its development phase and extrapolate those out as its future. He continually criticizes NNRF for having no revenue; regarding Atoll, NNRF functions essentially as a holding company and so by this reasoning, then neither does Berkshire Hathaway. Golly, we had all better let Warren Buffet in on the fact that he's got no revenues! Have there been revenues derived from feecom/biecom yet? No, but goodness, it's early. He keeps harping on nucap, knowing full well that NNRF has dropped this as a viable product and has moved on. Etc., Etc., Etc.
If you really feel that there hasn't been thorough discussion of NNRF's valuation from longs then, with all due respect, you haven't been paying attention. Many of the posts arguing in favor of a higher valuation for NNRF have been far more comprehensive and thorough than anything bat has posted, unless you find "ROTFLMAO" and "LOL" to be pursuasive comments.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
