|
vielleicht klappt` diesmal mit einem thread ohne verbale zerfleischung ! hier zwei interessantes postings vom ragingbull-board : By: Captlst Reply To: 69478 by KodiakCody Wednesday, 21 Jul 1999 at 11:27 PM EDT Post # of 69517 Kodiak, as a very rough estimate to figure SNMM revenues based upon total amounts wagered, I use 1%. I arrive at that by taking an average casino take of about 4% of amount wagered, and Starnet would get about 25% of that, or about 1% of total amounts wagered. Again, this is a very rough estimate based on dated numbers, but I use it as a general guide. If we assume that Starnet can garner a 25% market share, $8B in total wagering would yield $2B in Starnet wagers. 1% of this would be $20M or about .75/share EPS. Personally, I believe Starnet has a greater market share than 25%. By: Captlst Reply To: 69478 by KodiakCody Thursday, 22 Jul 1999 at 12:15 AM EDT Post # of 69517 Regarding PE multiples. If one looks at PE multiples for land based casinos, you would notice that they trade with fairly conservative PE multiples, somewhere around 20 to 30. The risk involved with these operations is enormous, look at some of the Trump properties that have failed. Land based casinos have enormous overhead and operating expenses, and work on a gross margin of less than 20%. Most of the successful companies are already pretty much fully valued, and their stock prices will only grow in direct proportion to their revenue and earnings growth. Internet casinos on the other hand are still mostly development stage companies, with most of their growth still ahead of them. The risks are very minimal, as there is little overhead to an operating gaming site, when compared to their couterparts, and gross margin for SNMM is approaching 80%. Yes, SNMM is 5 times more profitable on the same dollar of revenue than is a land based casino. Because of the profitability and lower risk alone, sucessful internet gaming companies should trade at much higher PE`s than land based casinos, before you even factor in growth rate. With growth rates rivaling or exceeding all other internet companies, one could make an arguement that companies like Starnet should trade at even higher PE`s than the internet high flyers, beacause they will likely be more profitable. I believe however that companies such as Amazon and EBAY are grossly overvalued, so I do not think SNMM will be rewarded with their PE ratios, however, Starnet doesn`t need that. So what is a fair PE for Starnet? Over the past months many have speculated and discussed this, and I am in agreement with those that state Starnet should be trading at a forward PE of 100. That said, once SNMM is on nasdaq and has analysts coverage, they will attempt to predict what Starnet`s revenues and earnings will be, and using a forward PE, will set target prices. Since we are already in Q1 2000, the projections and targets will initially be for this current fiscal year. $1 EPS should be easily attainable for Starnet for this fiscal year. Based upon this, if I were an analyst, I would value the company right now at $100 with a forward PE of 100 based upon $1/share, but I would look to 4/30/00 at the fiscal year end at a 300 PE or $300/share. At this point in time Starnet will be moving in to fiscal 2001 with earnings estimates for that fiscal year of at least $3 EPS. This IMO is very conservative if you look at how many shares we have outstanding, our revenues, earnings and revenue and earnings growth rates, and you compare these to how the analysts have valued other internet companies. Perceived legal gray areas may hinder some analysts from stepping up to the plate, but there will be many that do IMO. Because there has yet to be a successful internet gaming operation trade on a major exchange, we are still seeing low forward looking PE multiples. This I expect to change once Wall Street analysts look at Starent. We don`t need a 1500 PE to make us rich, just a fair one that accurately and fairly values the revenues and earnings we will see. Captlst Hands of Irridium Carbonite Alloy with vice clamps for extra stability, not that I need it. |
|
| aus der Diskussion: | Starnet --> 22.7.99 |
| Autor (Datum des Eintrages): | ds_rna (22.07.99 10:24:11) |
| Beitrag: | 1 von 49 (ID:37672) |
| Alle Angaben ohne Gewähr © wallstreetONLINE | |