InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

clawmann

12/17/11 7:55 PM

#352175 RE: never-again #352174

That would be a basic book value based upon the very conservative valuation being used by the court. I think a more reasonable book value would be higher. And then the actual enterprise value, based on projected earnings (once we get to the point of being able to forecast those), should be significantly higher than that. SO JW has simply calculated the absolute minimum value.
icon url

jhdf51

12/17/11 8:52 PM

#352177 RE: never-again #352174

Well the truth of the matter is.... with a projected 1 for 28.5 Reverse...we better see some quick value or he is more right than we.

Nothing like having the best representation in Susman (I think)....3 years of headache only to go backwards. lol
icon url

never-again

12/18/11 1:41 PM

#352271 RE: never-again #352174

My point is that if the market and general public do a simple three step calculation in a few seconds based only on the few facts in the media, that's what the numbers are. Quite an easy conclusion to reach, and seems both logical and reasonable if based only on those facts.

The current price level is based on a few seconds of calculator effort. Imo, it very undervalued @ this level.