sh: I agree with much of what you say. However, at the risk of making Larry vomit and boring anyone who has had enough of the topic of valuation, I must defend myself against your assertion that my point was ridiculous. I wrote in my post that we cannot know whether the stock is undervalued or overvalued at this point. You seem to think that we can know if the stock is properly valued. We all can have our opinions as to what the stock is worth, and I happen to agree with your opinion that the stock is worth more than $3.50. However we cannot know the appropriate value until there is more information. Based on the potential, the stock is undervalued (sorry Larry), but we do not know if the potential will be realized.
I have been discussing the concept of valuation with several shareholders in private conversations. I think that a reasonable way to attempt to value the stock is to determine what one thinks the chances of success are, and then determine what the value of the stock will be if naxos does, in fact, succeed. Thus, if you think that the naxos has a 25% chance of succeeding, and if you think that with success the stock price will be $100, then the economic value of the stock is $25 (minus some amount to account for the value of money while we wait for the results). So...we all can plug our own % figure and the perceived value if successful (both variables being based on one's confidence level) and come up with a valuation. But it will be an opinion only. I stand by my point: no one knows, now, whether the stock is appropriately valued.
Sorry if that appeared to be a discussion about semantics only, but I cannot help it, I had to defend myself...and, I am afflicted with a malady:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I am a lawyer (sorry JLA)... |
