flyguy and Tulvio.
Thanks for your upgrades to my post. The assumptions that I made were, for the most part, taken directly from Wall Street research. That is, a check on the story that is being told by sell side analysts if you will. On the SGA cost, I used the 1997 estimate, which admittedly should be low for 2001.
The point that I thought important was, that even using the sell side numbers and generous estimates, the issue is still apparently significantly overvalued at the current (and secondary offering price).
Certainly there are many unknowns between now and 2001. However, it seems that the potential negative surprises are far greater than the positive ones it would take to justify the current valuation.
It will be interesting to watch this issue, and the response of the sponsors, over the next couple of years.
By the way, has anyone seen what Merrill Lynch and Stifel Niclaus were saying justified the offering price? The research that I had was pre-secondary offering.
Take care. |
