@Fundamental12345 that is a pretty bad logical explanation

If you like general reading about intuition then go for Blink, it has better story-telling and flow.

If you prefer something closer to investing and risk, then Risk Savvy.

I can help you to add another - why the share go down when i share about it? Because people don't know how to spot good stock

Why the share go up when I share about it? This is because people know my sincerity and genuine intention of helping people. - this made my day. Good laugh

@RainT About 1 book a month on average. It doesn't really matter. You can either find time to read more i.e make it a game to read 5-10 pages before going to bed (a book in 1-2 mths). Or focus on the quality of reading over the speed.

"If you make money then you have the right to say whatever you want. " - That is how so many investors get fooled (outcome bias) into following others who have 'track record'.

Imagine I told everyone I made 800%+ in Scientex, now many people will come and ask me what do I think about Genting, KNM, Carimin, semi-con or whatever stocks they are interested in. I can of course craft a lucid narrative to explain why these stocks are good or bad and everyone will believe every single world I said since I have made so much return in Scientex. But how do they know if my hypothesis is accurate? They don't. They rely on the heuristic "he picked Scientex, therefore he is good." No one know those stocks are outside my circle of competence.

Just as I don't want to fool myself, fool someone else, or fooled by others (even if unintentionally done others), the best way is theories. If someone can't properly explain his thought process, all bets are off.

If someone tells me "xx stock is undervalued because of low P/E or low BV." - His one sentence theory gives me more insight about the quality of his thinking than how much money he made, all the narrative about the stock etc. Theory is a great way to filter out nonsense. I like theories not because theories are sexy, but because they're effective.

Hm I would say 7 Powers, Risk Savvy, and Thinking in Bets

Thinking in systems half way, but done the rest

http://musingzebra.com/whats-wrong-with-p-e-ratio/

We're stretching this BS too far now. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether I am 1st or 100th group; whether I got zero or 100 credibility; whether im really showing off or just helping; the only thing that matters is, is your theories right? Your theory is not answerable to me, but to the market. Can it stand the test of the market? Or break apart easily? That is for you to answer to yourself.

Making money without agenda, what a nice way to put it. Like I'll close my eyes and pretend nothing happened.

If you insist on quoting WB, then he also said assume that you spend the same amount putting two children to college, the book value of each child’s education would be the same. But the present value (intrinsic value) of the future payoff might totally different with each of the two children – they can range from zero to many times the costs of education. If you are still convinced about book value, feel free to buy up all stocks with B/V < 1

No offense, you don't like to discuss theory not because your objective is to make money, it is because your theory is so weak that it breaks apart as soon as it comes out your mouth. So you use "I came here to make money" to avoid discussion at all cost.

Sure, you don't have to give a fck about what my theory is. You just have to make sure your theory is right. If they're right, then you make money in the long-term. Who cares what Ricky says. But are they correct? That is for you to answer to yourself.

Here - https://www.aeoncredit.com.my/aeon-corporate/investor-relations/annual-report

1. Click on AR 2018 - Page 50
2. Click on AR 2014 - Page 14

You don't need BA IX to calculate book value.

"What I suggested was the flat share price could be due to the dilution from ICULS and recent change in accounting standards that tweaked reported book value"

1. ICULS issuance increase equity. It doesn't dilute
2. Book value ain't EPS. When people invest more money into a company (that's the purpose of ICULS), BV goes up.
3. Book value growth has nothing to do with shareholder value. A company can raise $100 mil from public and BV grow by the same magnitude, do you call that greater shareholder value?
4. Whether book value goes up or down has little to do with intrinsic value. In fact, a company that can grow profit without increasing book value is a wonderful business.

You must ask yourself if you can make money with this level of flaw fundamental thinking. This isn't criticism. Be honest with yourself. You don't need to answer anyone but yourself.

I ain't smart. I am just trying to help.

"Intrinsic value has contracted in the pursue of growth of the last few years." - This can only be true if a company is pouring capital into investment that generate future return lower than opportunity cost.

My apology if you're not interested in my academic theory discussion. But your theory is so full of holes.

Maybe Flintstones can enlighten everyone the definition of 'contracted' given that book value went from $4.43 to $7.48 (CAGR 14%) over the past 4 years.

Out of all diversion tactics, I must say academic professor is a pretty useful one. Red herring fallacy. But it is getting boring peddling that for far too long now. Started throwing chinese proverb pula.

How ironic this came from the ignorant - 养不教，父之过. Charlatan.

Don't misunderstand aunty, I come here to make money too. But if you don't understand what I am saying, keep quiet please? If you have nothing better to say beside someone's character, then silence is really gold. Besides, haven't seen anything of value coming out from your mouth thus far.

When someone refer something as 'academic theory', it is often because they don't have a clue what is being said. But of course, it is embarrassing to admit that. So just categories it as 'academic' to make it sound irrelevant to real life investing. It is easy to talk about the person's character than what is being said i.e theory, because as point out, he doesn't know what the theory is about! You can't expect a person who doesn't have a clue about a theory i.e probability, economic profit, return on capital to argue about those theories or concept. So the best route is argue about the person's character. It is an irony when a theory is called 'academic' not because it is irrelevant in real life (it is backed by empirical evidence and peer-reviewed articles), but because someone don't understand it. What is even more irony is calling someone daft about academic theory when he doesn't want to discuss his own pseudotheory i.e "A no growth company becomes a value trap"

Oh well, when an ignorant choose a closed-attitude and refuse to learn, everything is an academic.

dont know why, whenever you say something, everything gets filter out because none is substantial

there's no feeling to jaga since you haven't said anything substantial

Lots of personal assumptions here:

1. cant even make a single cent or big buck in stock market - You must have access to my brokerage account, haven't you?

2. Investing world is full of emotion its not purely based on theory kind of shit can guarantee u 100% return - You forgot to read my blog. I love psychology.

3. say ppl is pump and dump, unethical and etc - I welcome you to show me evidence if I ever wrote that on i3 or anywhere online.

4. "眼红” other ppl - Maybe it makes more sense to be 眼红 with Forbes's richest 100 than retired uncle.

If you disagree with whatever I have to say (not sure which theory you talking about), then feel free to come up with your own theory to refute mine. (Of course theory doesn't guarantee 100% return, it is called theory for a reason, not facts). If you have a better theory, always welcome to hear. I appreciate that than gossip seriously. Or you think theories are shit because you don't understand them? That doesn't make them shit.

2 questions to ask whether if a person has any substance:

1. Does the comment contain stereotype belief and grossly misused of deductive logic?
2. Does he/she talk more about someone's personal circumstances than ideas/concept?

If either one is yes, it means there is a huge sense of insecurity and lack of confidence so he/she has put others down to feel good about themselves. A good tactic to use when one has nothing of value to say.

By the way, it's gray matter, not grey matter.

The 2 questions to ask when reading someone's investment thesis:
1. What are the things that he didn't say? Silent evidence
2. How does he do valuation? How one does his valuation is more revealing than what he writes. If valuation is done in a haphazard way i.e throwing a PE multiple, you can stop reading the entire write up.

so hard sell, getting so much new IDs to 'like'

The value of a business is the expected future cash flow. That's it. You don't go alter the concept and add NTA into the entire valuation. This is how people mess up investing. Now your whole valuation is wrong.

Where is that guy that adds all the lands of Hengyuan into the future earnings and value HY at $90 per share.

My god this forum comments still going strong trying to compare who's ego (balls) are bigger.

Inside view is important. How much each business from core farming to FM or palm plantation can potentially grow and generate profit are important.

Equally important is the outside view. Growth require investment; investment depends on cash flow generated from existing assets. So how much each of this business can grow is tied to 2 things:

1. Amount of capital reinvestment allocated (after dividend & maintenance capex)
2. The industry dynamic determine return of per dollar investment

If QL has a capital reinvestment of 100 mil after paying dividend and maint. capex, that sum gets allocated over many businesses QL have i.e FM, core biz, plantation. Then how much can QL get for that 100 mil is the aggregate ROC for those individual business.

If 20 mil goes into plantation, for simple modeling, we ignore gestation period and look at normalized return, return where business is running smoothly, you would expect a 2-3 mil in earnings or 10-15% ROC. Because even the best run KLK don't earn long-term ROC above 15%.

If 50 mil goes in FamilyMart, we do the same, how much per store, or aggregate ROC of all opened stores, using 7-11 and FamilyMart Japan as a guidance. You do it for other business QL own as well.

All these comes to an aggregate ROC how much that 100 mil investment can generate in order to fuel the top line growth of the QL group. If one assume aggregate ROC of 20%, then 20 mil will flow into the top line the next year; on subsequent year, QL will have 120 mil allocation, @ 20% ROC that's another 24 mil which flow back to top line again and so on. You started to get a vague picture how much revenue and earnings can grow and what will they be 5-10 years.

****

I have no qualm that picking quality companies is a great strategy; but I also respect people who choose other strategies. Intelligent investing is about managing risk, so if one wants to buy poor companies, arbitrage, there's nothing wrong, they just have to manage their risk through diversification, margin of safety etc just as buying quality require it's own way of managing risk i.e not overpay, illusion of understanding etc.

@ 10154899906070843 There is direct correlation but not necessary causation. You're right at some point performance suffer because there is too many stocks to manage. But we are talking about 28 stocks, not 1000 stocks, that's a lot of difference. And Joel Greenblatt has shown 20-30 stocks can do equally well. And to that point, magic formula by JB and deep value strategy are statistical value investing, they don't 'manage'.

Agree that most investor would be better finding quality stocks than getting into cheap yet seems undervalued stocks because that requires strong psychological and sharp judgement.

Disagree with definition of moat. Moat is the ability to earn an abnormal return above cost (ROIC-CoC) as well as the competitive advantage period (CAP).

There is no relationship between owning 28 stocks and poor performance, as much as I personally prefer concentrated portfolio. Joel Greenblatt has done well owning 20-30 stocks; deep value strategy rely on EV/EBIT has done well with 30-40 stocks.

Company that increase debt might require further scrutiny but it is far from destroying shareholder value. It is about capital allocation. Borrowing cost can be cheap at the right time. And there is no clear definition of 'increase' debt. Debt can go up 100%, from 1% to 2% of profit, is that a lot? It's subjective.

But given a 6 months 'almost' risk free rate of fixed deposit is around 3.3%. The expected value in this arbitrage will need to beat that, so:

80% x 6.2% = 4.96%
20% x -8% = -1.60%

The magnitude of the fall needs to be 8% or less.

If 80% probability of going through, then you have to make sure if it didn't go through, the price would not fall by 25%, otherwise, the expected value will be negative.

80% x 6.2% = 4.96%
20% x 25% = -5.00%

That's okay when one is not ready to listen.

Sure not a problem. I don't want to discuss finance theory, I am just pointing out if logic is wrong, how does one make money based on false logic?

Very confusing. So based on that logic, a growth company becomes fair valued? What kind of growth makes a company overvalued then? And at what point is considered a growth? 3%? 5, 8, 20%? And why no growth becomes value trap? And how do you define under, fair, and overvalued? If I invest in a business for $100 and earns $30 in perpetuity with zero growth, is that a value trap?

If no growth, it will stay undervalued forever - very confusing statement

Uncle, you come out to claim my hypothesis is incorrect, yet you can't offer any credible evidence to justify 10 bil valuation besides monopoly and investments they're making.

I never said anything about DCF. And of course doing DCF is tricky, and by all mean come up with a figure you want to justify 10 bil, because you haven't come up with any so far since the start of this discussion. And of course there will be multiple results. Investing is dealing with uncertainty and degree of confidence, there is nothing wrong to say a stock is worth between 1-2 bil and state the probability of that happening.

Yes I have read Peter Lynch, One Up on Wall Street. Scuttlebutt is great. But if you can't somehow weight the evidence you get from the scuttlebutt properly, that is as good as reading horoscope, agree? How does scuttlebutt justify 10 bil? Why not 1 bil or 100 bil? You still need to quantify it. If you can't 'quantify' your scuttlebutt evidence, there isn't much difference as garbage in garbage out too.

You have to agree it is not what you do, but the quality of thinking that matters. If attending AGM directly lead to great return, then that is more powerful than horoscope. Scuttlebutt has its place, for Phil Fisher and Peter Lynch, but it is far from a pre-requisite to make good investment, definitely not for Walter Schloss.

By the way, land value don't fudge ROC. ROC is measured at historical cost, how much the land is worth in the market now doesn't affect ROC.

Uncle (as out of respect way of calling), I don't tell people how much I made (unless it is relevant to the context), how many shares I've, how much return because that is a huge sign of insecurity. When someone can't discuss the core topic, they talk about someone's personality, or his own great return, how much he made etc. Uncle, it is great you are a long-term investor, never sold a share since 2009, and in all honesty, that is a positive trait, but using that as a leverage to lower others that have different opinion only shows how insecure you are.

And whether I am a Warren Buffett wannabe, newbie, Harvard PHD graduate or what not, whether I attend AGM, married/single, does it matter? If you are so eager to categories me, it's because you're stereotype and insecure, personalise the market and create an identity build on a huge ego and pride.

While certain information are great i.e Indo & Viet growth and market share, but most of the information are meaningless i.e 25 mil cold storage, investment in plantation, who FM is buying from etc. I can tell you Scientex is largest FPP in Asia, how much they invest in opening factory in US, how much they spend acquiring Daibochi etc so what? Those are meaningless information. The only thing matter is what is the future ROC? You can't tell me. What is the future cash flow? You can't tell me. What is the store economic of FM? You can't tell me. I am not asking for precise figure of course. But at least something that can be tied to why valuation of $10 bil is fair and reasonable. Imagine someone ask me why Scientex should worth $4 bil market cap, and I say "Scientex is the biggest FPP manufacturer in Asia. Monopoly" You know how silly that sounds? Nokia has MONOPOLY too in 2007 with 49.4% market share, then what happened? AOL was a monopoly; IBM was a monopoly, then what happened?

Thanks uncle for the writing while you're on holiday. But what are you trying to prove? That long-term investor is smarter than daytrader? You have to come off from your own ego. And it is necessary to know the limit of your knowledge and luck. In order to satisfy your ego, I don't daytrade, I own Scientex for 6 years but I am in no illusion to think Scientex will become certain market cap in 10 years or will always perform well like in the past. Just because Scientex gave me 800+% return I'm in no illusion that I know everything about it. That is the problem with long-term investor that I like to avoid, the illusion of safety after a stock has gone up for a long time, that kind of delusion is what kills people that own Gtronic, MYEG etc because they believe nothing can go wrong.

And as a matter of fact, I like to stress again, regardless of age, the label you gave yourself i.e long-term investors, growth, trader, speculator. Those are irrelevant. When you are in the forum, I only label you as an intelligent human, and expect that you can argue and discuss based on facts, logic and reasoning without telling people how much you own this or how much you make. That is more like ranting to me. And I am surprise I get called a daytrader but at least I can throw out my hypothesis. I am still waiting for yours to justify QL and FM valuation.

1. 25 mil cold storage factory - Great. I appreciate if you can tell ROC for building that
2. 3% in Vietnam - That's certainly great, they are growing good revenue.
3. 10% in Indonesia - Same. But I believe QL is not the only vertical integrator in both countries. How much market share can they grab and steal remains an unknown.
4. I never said QL is only in Malaysia. I said scale advantage is prominent in Malaysia given their market share. Maybe study a bit about scale economies.
5. Monopoly is great. So how is that translating into cash flow for QL?
6. Own entire Malaysia, great. Which means there is no exponential growth in Malaysia, and given eggs price is capped, volume tied to GDP and population growth. QL certain win. But cash flow growth won't be coming from Malaysia.
7. Does that matter? Let me go pick a plantation company that invest more acres of land than QL so you will feel impressed?
8. Yes FM buys from QL because they are the franchise, so? Even without FM, QL's customers orders their fresh foods from them as well. So what's the point you trying to say?
9. Tell me when you remember. Must be you are going to tell me how to justify FM 2 bil valuation. Can't wait.

That's okay, im in the mood to explain investing principle. How much a business is worth comes from the free cash flow it can generate over its entire lifetime. FCF being the operational cash flow generated by the business after the maintenance capex required to maintain its current earning power.

PE is simply a rule of thumb as to the expectation of the stock market on a particular stock. A stock with high PE (adjusted for any abnormal earnings) typically signify the market is expecting a future high growth, or put it simply, the ability to grow and generate high FCF in the future, even if current operation is making minimal profit or loss. Hence, the ability to generate high FCF has to be supported by some form of competitive advantage or moat. And one thing to keep in mind is growth is great only when business can earn an abnormal return, that is, return that far exceed the opportunity cost or cost of capital of the business. Put it another way, the difference between the ROC and its CoC determine the attractiveness of the business. But more importantly, the ability to maintain high level of ROC for at least a decade is what all high PE stocks needs to have in order to justify paying a high valuation. So 3 things a high PE stocks must at least satisfy:

1. Abnormal ROC - Substantially higher than CoC, preferably, higher than peers
2. Long CAP (competitive advantage period) - Ability to maintain abnormal ROC for many years
3. Long runway - a large market so reinvestment rate can be close to 100% (zero payout)

So does QL or FM satisfy these 3 points? QL's ROC of 11-15% over the past 5 years are satisfactory, but far from 'abnormal'. For FM, no one knows. ROC for Japan FM is around 13%, again, satisfactory but not abnormal. But this is fine, if the CAP is long.

How long is the CAP is hard to answer. If there is a competitive advantage, for both QL and FM, it can only be found in scale economies. QL certainly have the scale in what they're doing, and their main business should do fine for a long time. Does FM has a long cap? Possibly once they establish scale, but again, I don't see how they can earn abnormal ROC, in particular the competitiveness of retail industry.

What about long runway? QL has limited runway, given operation is solely in Malaysia, although expanding into neighboring countries. Their competitive advantage and scale are more restricted to Malaysia, and growth is going to track around population and gdp growth, which is in single digit. FM in contrast, has long runway starting from a base number of only 30-80 stores. But how much convenience store (CVS) can Malaysia accommodate? Every country is different, but if we use Taiwan which has very similar population number, their CVS ratio is 2211 people per CVS. That translate to about 14,020 stores for M'sia population. But keep in mind TW's annual household income is 8x of Malaysia (USD13K vs USD1.7K) hence convenience store capacity at present will be alot less than 14,020. But even if we assume there is indeed a long runway, considering FM's aggressive plan to add 300 stores in 5 years, the economic of earnings per store still couldn't not justify a valuation of 2 bil, and further unable to justify QL's current valuation since earnings of 300 stores can't even contribute to 10% of QL's net income.

Hence it is my hypothesis that QL or FM growth prospects based on those 3 points cannot justify their current valuation of 10 bil. Even if FM turns out way better than my estimation, current valuation will only allow one to achieve a market average return, not abnormal return.

If you're prepare to discuss, then better prepare to have your numbers ready. And to be frank, do I need to buy reports to find out how much FM can potentially earn per store? 7-11 is a really good benchmark and FM stores in Japan can roughly tell you how much per store can earn.

7-11 average sales per year is around $1 mil per store, Affin is optimistic to assign 6k gross per day, which is around $2.19 mil per FM store. At 5% margin you claim, that's $110k profit per store, so they expect 300 stores in 5 years, that's around 33 mil profit, we can start here. That's PE60 of earnings in 2022-23 based on 2 bil valuation of FM. Feel free to tear apart my thesis.

Let's put aside seniority or age, whether I am a kid or elderly or CEO doesn't say anything, just as whether you are the 30 largest shareholders of QL or a retiree has nothing to do with the topic. Well that says a lot that I can back my reasoning with figure purely from Google (even if my reasoning is absurdly wrong, at least I show my hypothesis is backed with certain sets of assumption). But I am still waiting for yours.

1. A FM store that cost 250-300K capex and 100k estimate refurbishment is all in theedge or the star news, you're welcome to Google.

2. Ignoring QL is not ignoring facts, we are talking about if FM is worth 2 bil, because that's where the market is expecting the future growth to come from.

3. Average daily turnover of $6k comes from Affin, not the skies. Unless you have a better figure, give it to me.

4. Don't ask me to buy reports, since you're saying QL or FM isn't overvalued, so show me the numbers to support your view why it isn't. I have already put out mine.

5. How many shares, how much conviction you have is irrelevant and are no evidences to show QL is not overvalued or FM is worth $2 bil. Stick to the topic.

6. Whether market cap doubles in 5 years or not again is irrelevant to the discussion whether FM is worth 2 bil.

7. So far your justification why QL or FM is worth what they are now is only supported by comparing to Nestle using market cap, sales etc but nothing substantial to justify valuation like how does the future earnings contribution of FM is likely to be? And are they enough to fill the high expectation from the market? What is the cashflow QL or FM is likely to generate etc

@10154899906070843 I think trying to lump QL with Amazon and Nestle is really stretching the definition of comparing.

Let's do a thought experiment,say QL can increase FM stores to 800 in the next 10 years, which is aggressive given that is around $800 mil in capex but we assume it's doable. Based on your 5% margin (because of vertical integration), that gives you a profit of $40 mil (800mil sales x 5%). Given that you think FM is easily worth $2 bil, in other words, you're saying you're happy to pay 50x in today's money for FM's earnings in year 2029 (2 bil / 40 mil). To put this in the quantum of things, you're happy to open a term deposit account with $2000 deposits that will pay you a $40 dollar interest in 2029.

Maybe you going to say PE has no meaning, given that Nestle, Amazon have high PE too. But why do those 2 companies have high PE, is it because of growth? No doubt growth partly explain why a stock deserve high PE, but that is not the key reason a stock has high PE because growth doesn't explain why Nestle and Amazon have the same PE when clearly Amazon is growing way faster than Nestle. High PE stocks can only be justified if the business can generate a high return on capital.

Let's ignore QL and focus solely on FM. Given the logic you're happy to pay PE 50 for 2029's earnings, FM as a standalone needs to have a really high ROC. In fact, 'really high' is an understatement. We already have the numbers.

ROC formula is EBIT / Average of (Net fixed Assets + Net Working Capital)

Instead of the complexity of 80 stores or 800 stores, we look at a single store economic. A single store capex is around 300K. Add in refurbishment of 100k say every 5 years to maintain earning power, therefore around 320K in investment. Based on 5% margin, a single store can earn around 100k a year. Translate into a return of around 30% which is really good. But I still find it hard paying $2 bil even with this kind of return.

Now I have digested what you're saying. Feel free to correct me.

A lot of discussion on Jaks create an illusion of familiarity that gets mistaken as "I know the business of Jaks" after reading a few blog posts about power plants. Volatility movement in the share price creates excitement to seek out profit opportunity, which is justified and reinforce by the familiarity bias and illusion of knowledge that he knows more than others. Throw in the ego of wanting to be right and look smart "Look how daring I am to buy at the dip and make xxx profit." And you create a behaviour of overconfidence that take on immeasurable amount of risk. That is how 99% investors die in the market, of dabbling in things they know very little about, and a total lack of humility.

It seems everyone is more interested in knowing what others are doing than trying to understand the business itself i.e making their buy/sell decisions based on another person's buy/sell decision. And automatically assume he understand the business because everyone is talking about power plant, property and construction. And automatically think it is 'safe' to buy after huge fall when he doesn't have a clue what he is doing.

Is it? Then you shouldn't talk about why FM is worth $2+ because you haven't got anything to back it up.

Your message really sounds like "hey don't ask me to explain, but just trust me because I have made a lot of money in the market, so trust whatever I have to say."

IF you say you don't know then we can stop here now. I'm not interested in discussing how much I have made nor am I interested in how much you made. If you want to boost your ego, you can talk to others so others can worship you. Because it seems like that is the only thing you have to offer.

No one is trying to be a smartass here, but definitely try not to carry the historical price around your mouth whenever you want to make an argument. It is like someone can't answer a question and go around telling people how much is in his bank account, it doesn't serve any purpose.

I don't know what is more pseudo, is it more pseudo trying to get an explanation behind why FM is worth 2 bil? Or is it more charlatan that one says FM is worth 2 bil because the queue at a FM store nearby is longer than 7-11 store and yet unable to offer a shred of evidence to justify that logic? We can go on this forever and you still unable to offer a figure. That tells a lot how much you know about QL. Do me a favour, if you going to tell everyone how much you have make at QL before you want to make a discussion, you can save that.

It's okay to say 'i don't know' if you don't know the answer instead of going in circles. It is irrelevant to mention the movement of the historical share price because that doesn't answer the original question as to why "it will be worth more than 7/11". Since you come up with that hypothesis, yet unable to quantify it, I'll just ignore it.

It is surprisingly easy to find out if someone know what he is talking about by asking him to quantify his words. Like a hot knife through butter.

Well, lets not personalised the market. How you want to feel about your QL investment has nothing to do with our discussion. Until you can come out with some numbers, we shall end our discussion here. At this point, we will wait until you have something to back up $2bil market cap valuation, aside from the queue you see at your local FM store base on a sample size of 1.

Thanks for your answer. Come back when you have your numbers, not feel good stories. So what that FM got better margins? How does that justify 2 bil market cap, why not 1 bil, or 100 bil? How does selling expensive things can have a higher turnover at the same time? Well, if everyone can see FM has longer lines than 711, that would have baked into the current valuation right? Hence going back to the original question, give me a number to justify 2 bil market cap. Cut to the chest.