Talk:Stockhub - Revision history

95.149.241.208 at 16:09, 29 October 2023

2023-10-29T16:09:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:09, 29 October 2023
Line 94:		Line 94:

	== Finimize valuation multiple ==		== Finimize valuation multiple ==
			{\| class="wikitable"
			\|+
			!Year
			!4
			!5
			!6
			\|-
			!Period end date
			!31/12/2020
			!31/12/2021
			!31/12/2022
			\|-
			!Period duration (days)
			!488
			!365
			!365
			\|-
			!
			!Historic
			!Historic
			!Historic
			\|-
			! colspan="4" \|Profit and loss
			\|-
			\|Revenue (£)
			\|1,392,200
			\|2,349,976
			\|3,896,226
			\|-
			! colspan="4" \|Balance sheet
			\|-
			\|Cash (£)
			\|
			\|1,910,058
			\|5,306,680
			\|-
			\|Debt (£)
			\|
			\|13,206,430
			\|3,717,599
			\|-
			! colspan="4" \|Other information
			\|-
			\|Adjusted revenue (£)
			\|1,044,150
			\|2,349,976
			\|3,896,226
			\|-
			\|Revenue growth rate (%)
			\|
			\|68.80%
			\|65.80%
			\|-
			\|Adjusted revenue growth rate (%)
			\|
			\|125.06%
			\|65.80%
			\|}
			{\| class="wikitable"
			\|+Acquisition multiple
			!
			!
			!Comments
			\|-
			\|Acquisition price ($)
			\|99,000,000
			\|
			\|-
			\|FX rate
			\|0.82
			\|The exchange rate today (29th October 2023. It's better to use the fx rate of the date of the acquisition (i.e. 29th October 2021).
			\|-
			\|Acquisition price (£)
			\|81,180,000
			\|
			\|-
			\|2021 cash (£)
			\|1,910,058
			\|
			\|-
			\|2021 debt (£)
			\|13,206,430
			\|
			\|-
			\|2021 revenue (£)
			\|2,349,976
			\|The acquisition occurred on 29th October 2021.
			\|-
			\|Adjusted revenue growth rate (%)
			\|125.06%
			\|
			\|-
			\|Growth-adjusted EV/sales multiple (x)
			\|0.28
			\|
			\|}
			{\| class="wikitable"
			\|+
			!Input
			!Value
			\|-
			\|Current revenue (£)
			\|3,896,226
			\|-
			\|Revenue growth rate (%)
			\|65.80%
			\|-
			\|Growth-adjusted EV/sales multiple (x)
			\|0.19
			\|-
			\|Enterprise value (£)
			\|48,710,617
			\|-
			\|Current cash (£)
			\|5,306,680
			\|-
			\|Current debt (£)
			\|3,717,599
			\|-
			\|Market capitalisation (£)
			\|50,299,698
			\|-
			\|Acquisition price ($)
			\|99,000,000
			\|-
			\|FX rate
			\|0.82
			\|-
			\|Acquisition price (£)
			\|81,180,000
			\|-
			\|Overvalued/(undervalued)(%)
			\|61.39%
			\|}

	~~ccc~~ [[Special:Contributions/95.149.241.208\|95.149.241.208]] 15:33, 29 October 2023 (GMT)
			[[Special:Contributions/95.149.241.208\|95.149.241.208]] 15:33, 29 October 2023 (GMT)

95.149.241.208: /* Finimize valuation multiple */ new section

2023-10-29T15:33:11Z

Finimize valuation multiple: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:33, 29 October 2023
Line 92:		Line 92:

	--[[Special:Contributions/109.180.63.162\|109.180.63.162]] 10:35, 24 March 2022 (GMT)		--[[Special:Contributions/109.180.63.162\|109.180.63.162]] 10:35, 24 March 2022 (GMT)

			== Finimize valuation multiple ==

			ccc [[Special:Contributions/95.149.241.208\|95.149.241.208]] 15:33, 29 October 2023 (GMT)

95.149.241.244: /* Who’s the target audience of the product? */

2022-04-15T12:36:02Z

Who’s the target audience of the product?

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:36, 15 April 2022
Line 89:		Line 89:
	"The audience is Investors. An investor is anyone who is willing and able to make an investment."		"The audience is Investors. An investor is anyone who is willing and able to make an investment."

	I feel the target audience is too broad, and needs to be narrower. I feel a better target audience is the following: people who are willing and able to be actively involved in the process of ~~deciding which investment(s) to invest in~~ (i.e. Active Investors). The report has now been updated to reflect that change.		I feel the target audience is too broad, and needs to be narrower. I feel a better target audience is the following: people who are willing and able to be actively involved in the process of finding suitable investments (i.e. Active Investors). The report has now been updated to reflect that change.

	--[[Special:Contributions/109.180.63.162\|109.180.63.162]] 10:35, 24 March 2022 (GMT)		--[[Special:Contributions/109.180.63.162\|109.180.63.162]] 10:35, 24 March 2022 (GMT)

>Justin: /* Peers */

2022-04-06T16:21:23Z

Peers

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:21, 6 April 2022
Line 20:		Line 20:
	:Received further feedback from the same person:		:Received further feedback from the same person:

	:* The peers cannot be publicly listed companies.		:* The peers cannot be publicly listed companies. When asked why they cannot be publicly listed companies, no reason was provided.
	:* When asked why they cannot be publicly listed companies, no reason was provided.
	:* The peers need to offer the same offering (i.e. investment research, ideally free-to-access investment research).		:* The peers need to offer the same offering (i.e. investment research, ideally free-to-access investment research).
	:* Potential peers are Finbit (https://finbit.io) and Marketsmith (https://marketsmith.investors.com). I checked Finbit's website and it isn't really an investment research/information provider (it's a financial information gatherer and analyser), so it's not really a competitor of the Stockhub platform. Marketsmith, on the other hand, is an investment information/research provider and, therefore, is a peer of Stockhub.		:* Potential peers are Finbit (https://finbit.io) and Marketsmith (https://marketsmith.investors.com). I checked Finbit's website and it isn't really an investment research/information provider (it's a financial information gatherer and analyser), so it's not really a competitor of the Stockhub platform. Marketsmith, on the other hand, is an investment information/research provider and, therefore, is a peer of Stockhub.

>Justin: /* Peers */

2022-04-06T15:24:23Z

Peers

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:24, 6 April 2022
Line 26:		Line 26:
	:* On a side note, the person said that he thinks that even if a company provides free-to-access investment research that is materially better, in terms of quality, than Goldmans Sachs, an institutional investor, such as Blackrock, will not use it, because 1) it's free and 2) the investor probably already has a relationship with Goldmans Sachs. No reason why provided as to why he thinks that, and my view is that his thinking is illogical and, therefore, it's best to ignore his thinking.		:* On a side note, the person said that he thinks that even if a company provides free-to-access investment research that is materially better, in terms of quality, than Goldmans Sachs, an institutional investor, such as Blackrock, will not use it, because 1) it's free and 2) the investor probably already has a relationship with Goldmans Sachs. No reason why provided as to why he thinks that, and my view is that his thinking is illogical and, therefore, it's best to ignore his thinking.

	{\| class="wikitable"		:{\| class="wikitable"
	\|+ Competition comparison		\|+ Competition comparison
	\|-		\|-

>Justin: /* Peers */

2022-04-06T15:18:15Z

Peers

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 6 April 2022
Line 23:		Line 23:
	:* When asked why they cannot be publicly listed companies, no reason was provided.		:* When asked why they cannot be publicly listed companies, no reason was provided.
	:* The peers need to offer the same offering (i.e. investment research, ideally free-to-access investment research).		:* The peers need to offer the same offering (i.e. investment research, ideally free-to-access investment research).
	:* Potential peers are Finbit (https://finbit.io) and Marketsmith (https://marketsmith.investors.com). I checked Finbit's website and it isn't really an investment research/information provider (it's a financial information gatherer and analyser), so it's not really a competitor of the Stockhub platform. Marketsmith, on the other hand, is an investment information provider and, therefore, is a peer of Stockhub.		:* Potential peers are Finbit (https://finbit.io) and Marketsmith (https://marketsmith.investors.com). I checked Finbit's website and it isn't really an investment research/information provider (it's a financial information gatherer and analyser), so it's not really a competitor of the Stockhub platform. Marketsmith, on the other hand, is an investment information/research provider and, therefore, is a peer of Stockhub.
	:* On a side note, the person said that he thinks that even if a company provides free-to-access investment research that is materially better, in terms of quality, than Goldmans Sachs, an institutional investor, such as Blackrock, will not use it, because 1) it's free and 2) the investor probably already has a relationship with Goldmans Sachs. No reason why provided as to why he thinks that, and my view is that his thinking is illogical and, therefore, it's best to ignore his thinking.		:* On a side note, the person said that he thinks that even if a company provides free-to-access investment research that is materially better, in terms of quality, than Goldmans Sachs, an institutional investor, such as Blackrock, will not use it, because 1) it's free and 2) the investor probably already has a relationship with Goldmans Sachs. No reason why provided as to why he thinks that, and my view is that his thinking is illogical and, therefore, it's best to ignore his thinking.

>Justin: /* Peers */

2022-04-06T15:17:05Z

Peers

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:17, 6 April 2022
Line 23:		Line 23:
	:* When asked why they cannot be publicly listed companies, no reason was provided.		:* When asked why they cannot be publicly listed companies, no reason was provided.
	:* The peers need to offer the same offering (i.e. investment research, ideally free-to-access investment research).		:* The peers need to offer the same offering (i.e. investment research, ideally free-to-access investment research).
	:* Potential peers are Finbit (https://finbit.io) and Marketsmith (https://marketsmith.investors.com).		:* Potential peers are Finbit (https://finbit.io) and Marketsmith (https://marketsmith.investors.com). I checked Finbit's website and it isn't really an investment research/information provider (it's a financial information gatherer and analyser), so it's not really a competitor of the Stockhub platform. Marketsmith, on the other hand, is an investment information provider and, therefore, is a peer of Stockhub.
	:* On a side note, the person said that he thinks that even if a company provides free-to-access investment research that is materially better, in terms of quality, than Goldmans Sachs, an institutional investor, such as Blackrock, will not use it, because 1) it's free and 2) the investor probably already has a relationship with Goldmans Sachs. No reason why provided as to why he thinks that, and my view is that his thinking is illogical and, therefore, it's best to ignore his thinking.		:* On a side note, the person said that he thinks that even if a company provides free-to-access investment research that is materially better, in terms of quality, than Goldmans Sachs, an institutional investor, such as Blackrock, will not use it, because 1) it's free and 2) the investor probably already has a relationship with Goldmans Sachs. No reason why provided as to why he thinks that, and my view is that his thinking is illogical and, therefore, it's best to ignore his thinking.

>Justin: /* Peers */

2022-04-06T15:09:29Z

Peers

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:09, 6 April 2022
Line 33:		Line 33:
	\| colspan="5" style="text-align: center;" \|How is the research produced?		\| colspan="5" style="text-align: center;" \|How is the research produced?
	\|-		\|-
	\|Type of production method?\|\|~~End-user-paid-for, crowdsourced~~ information, ~~centralized~~ production\|\| End-user-paid-for, insourced information, centralized production		\|Type of production method?\|\|Crowdsourced information, decentralized production\|\| End-user-paid-for, insourced information, centralized production
	\|-		\|-
	\|Is the information on the platform sourced from a large, relatively open, and often rapidly evolving group of participants (i.e. crowdsourced information)?\|\| style="background: green; color: white;" \|Yes\|\| style="background: red; color: white;" \|No		\|Is the information on the platform sourced from a large, relatively open, and often rapidly evolving group of participants (i.e. crowdsourced information)?\|\| style="background: green; color: white;" \|Yes\|\| style="background: red; color: white;" \|No

>Justin: /* Peers */

2022-04-06T15:08:49Z

Peers

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:08, 6 April 2022
Line 29:		Line 29:
	\|+ Competition comparison		\|+ Competition comparison
	\|-		\|-
	! !! Stockhub!! ~~Finbit !!~~ Marketsmith		! !! Stockhub!! Marketsmith
	\|-		\|-
	\| colspan="5" style="text-align: center;" \|How is the research produced?		\| colspan="5" style="text-align: center;" \|How is the research produced?
	\|-		\|-
	\|Type of production method?\|\|End-user-paid-for, crowdsourced ~~information, centralized production\|\|End-user-paid-for, insourced~~ information, centralized production\|\| End-user-paid-for, insourced information, centralized production		\|Type of production method?\|\|End-user-paid-for, crowdsourced information, centralized production\|\| End-user-paid-for, insourced information, centralized production
	\|-		\|-
	\|Is the information on the platform sourced from a large, relatively open, and often rapidly evolving group of participants (i.e. crowdsourced information)?\|\| style="background: green; color: white;" \|Yes\|\| ~~style="background: red; color: white;" \|No\|\|~~ style="background: red; color: white;" \|No		\|Is the information on the platform sourced from a large, relatively open, and often rapidly evolving group of participants (i.e. crowdsourced information)?\|\| style="background: green; color: white;" \|Yes\|\| style="background: red; color: white;" \|No
	\|-		\|-
	\|Is the production of the research controlled by no single entity (i.e. decentralised production)?\|\| style="background: green; color: white;" \|Yes~~\|\| style="background: red; color: white;" \|No~~\|\| style="background: red; color: white;" \|No		\|Is the production of the research controlled by no single entity (i.e. decentralised production)?\|\| style="background: green; color: white;" \|Yes\|\| style="background: red; color: white;" \|No
	\|-		\|-
	\|Are contributions able to be made anonymously?\|\| style="background: green; color: white;" \|Yes~~\|\| style="background: red; color: white;" \|No~~\|\| style="background: red; color: white;" \|No		\|Are contributions able to be made anonymously?\|\| style="background: green; color: white;" \|Yes\|\| style="background: red; color: white;" \|No
	\|-		\|-
	\| What is the estimated cost for the investment research company to produce research on a specific investment per year?\|\| style="background: green; color: white;" \|Zero~~\|\| style="background: orange; color: white;" \|£850~~\|\| style="background: red; color: white;" \|£5,000		\| What is the estimated cost for the investment research company to produce research on a specific investment per year?\|\| style="background: green; color: white;" \|Zero\|\| style="background: red; color: white;" \|£5,000
	\|-		\|-
	\| colspan="5" style="text-align: center;" \|What are the main features of the research for the end-user (i.e. Investors)?		\| colspan="5" style="text-align: center;" \|What are the main features of the research for the end-user (i.e. Investors)?
	\|-		\|-
	\| What is the price of the research?\|\| style="background: green; color: white;" \|Free~~\|\| style="background: orange; color: white;" \| $179.99 per year~~\|\| style="background: red; color: white;" \| ~~£1499~~ per year		\| What is the price of the research?\|\| style="background: green; color: white;" \|Free\|\| style="background: red; color: white;" \| £1,499 per year
	\|-		\|-
	\|How many investments are realistically able to be covered using this method?\|\| style="background: green; color: white;" \| Unlimited~~\|\| style="background: orange; color: white;" \|Limited~~\|\| style="background: orange; color: white;" \|Limited		\|How many investments are realistically able to be covered using this method?\|\| style="background: green; color: white;" \| Unlimited\|\|style="background: orange; color: white;" \|Limited
	\|-		\|-
	\| What is the expected quality level of the research?\|\| style="background: green; color: white;" \|High\|\| ~~style="background: red; color: white;" \|Low\|\|~~ style="background: red; color: White;" \|Low		\| What is the expected quality level of the research?\|\| style="background: green; color: white;" \|High\|\| style="background: red; color: White;" \|Low
	\|}		\|}

>Justin: /* Peers */

2022-04-06T15:01:26Z

Peers

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 :* Potential peers are Finbit (https://finbit.io) and Marketsmith (https://marketsmith.investors.com).
 :* On a side note, the person said that he thinks that even if a company provides free-to-access investment research that is materially better, in terms of quality, than Goldmans Sachs, an institutional investor, such as Blackrock, will not use it, because 1) it's free and 2) the investor probably already has a relationship with Goldmans Sachs. No reason why provided as to why he thinks that, and my view is that his thinking is illogical and, therefore, it's best to ignore his thinking.
 :--[[Special:Contributions/94.119.64.3|94.119.64.3]] 13:25, 23 March 2022 (GMT)