Worthington Share Discussion Threads

[philobeddoe] 31/12/2018 19:04

Andy - you can make a hit game that brings in millions on a very small budget. Flappy bird took an indie developer less than a week to make. It made $50k a day in revenue at it's height. Angry birds (the original game) made tens of millions in revenue, $1.5 million a day. It cost $140,000 to make. Fortnite cost around $70,000 to make. It made $300m in the first 200 days alone - and that was just on IOS. If the game is good and in demand, it may need very little additional funding. Word of mouth gets round in the gaming circle, there's no need for big spend on marketing. Popular games market themselves.

[sweet karolina] 31/12/2018 17:26

Spary,

We don't know how the last deal was paid for, how will the next 2 be paid for? It is really really important to know things like that as it can have a massive bearing on the ultimate value of the company. Especially as AE has form for plotting set up job secured loans to be defaulted on so the assets can be whisked away from shareholders into the hands of insiders. I suggest that alone makes your wait and see strategy and extremely foolish one.

[andy] 31/12/2018 15:51

Happy New Year to all who post here!


I wish everyone a healthy, happy, and prosperous 2019

[andy] 31/12/2018 15:50

spary,


I wasn't following WRN when it went up, but generally a stock moving like that either has a tangible substance behind it or was pumped by people and the pump sucked in the punters.


As I said, too far back for me to pass an opinion.


I think of WHET's two deals so far, I think RAP was very poor, and there are so many unknowns about the gaming investment I doubt anyone has an informed opinion, but it does look quite long term and will require funding.


Neither investment so far seem to align with the principles they stated at the outset, maybe the next ones will?

[spary1] 31/12/2018 15:50

Anyway I’m out of here now, have a great New Year’s Eve and a great 2019 guys 👍😎

[andy] 31/12/2018 15:37

Spary,


I'll ask you the same question, How do you know what other deals are lined up?

[roydyor] 31/12/2018 15:22

As you copied and pasted Daffodil's post I will do the same by re-posting SK's post on the other thread.

"Different types of companies are valued on different basis. ASOS would never be valued on NAV. NAV is virtually irrelevant to a company like ASOS. NPV of future cashflows or P/E or PEG would be sensible metrics to use.
All investing companies new or old are valued relative to NAV. Good ones with liquid investments that are performing well are valued at a premium to NAV. The very best might justify a premium to NAV of 40%. WPCT run by household name and called by some Britain's Buffett is trading at about 10% discount to NAV. That is because over 80% of its portfolio is unlisted and therefore illiquid. Personally I think the NAV of WPCT is unrealistic because the value of unlisted stocks is set by the last fund raise and, as most are still cash burning and will need more funding, which, if it comes at all, will be at a much lower price.
WHET is an investing company. It has management who have the most appalling track record of failure or are nobodies. It has one investment in an illiquid but listed company which is burning cash, has failed to get a London listing and therefore has no realistic prospect of raising the cash it needs and is therefore likely to go bust. At best it should be valued at what WHET paid, but prudence would suggest that should be written down. WHET has just invested another small amount, in comparison to its market cap (1p Vs 40p), in a highly speculative unlisted very early stage company at 29 Euros a share when an existing investor is prepared to sell at 20 Euros. Being generous WHET's NARC investment could be valued at 1p but more realistically it should be 0.7p (what the shareholder is happy to sell at). What we do not know is how much cash WHET had left before the NARC investment, but we do know it is far less than the cash needed to make the investment. We do not know where that money has come from and what the terms are. If it is debt then NAV is reduced by the amount of that debt.
Thus the best guess, which is almost certainly overly generous, is WHET's NAV is 1p. If the best investing company on the market trades at a 40% premium to NAV what possible justification can there be for WHET to trade at a 4000% premium to NAV. The answer has absolutely nothing to do with ASOS. The answer has everything to do with the false market in the shares which is entirely controlled by WRN insiders. Could the WHET share price go to 80p? Yes of course it could all that is needed is for WRN insiders to walk it up to that level with a few matches that would have a net cost of the trading fees. Could ordinary WHET shareholder realise an 80p value one or 2 might get that lucky. Could they get the 40p currently again maybe one or 2 might.
So there is a big mismatch between what WHET might really be worth and what mugpunters think their shares are worth. Who benefits from that mismatch? WRN insiders who feed the very limited mugpunter demand with shares they are selling, whilst at the same time AE makes ludicrous blog posts, which other insiders talk up and mugpunters repeat and embellish the nonsense to convince themselves and other mugpunters what a great investment WHET is.
Nothing has changed my honestly held opinion that WHET is nothing more than an elaborate long con. And like Judge Denis, I have little sympathy for the greedy investors who fall for it, but I would like their e-mail addresses so I can pass them on to a Nigerian General friend of mine."