@Valueinvestor0909 the last time I looked at NAN (was well and truly in the weeds, perhaps 12 months ago now?) my observation was that this is a cracking business but a terrible investment prospect -- all stemming from valuation concerns.
Like @mikebrisy I ran various models and couldn't get anywhere near the share price at the time of around $4.
Looking backwards 5 years and my comment above re: the investment prospect is validated somewhat (not to say this won't change). The opportunity cost in this has been a killer for those that have held. NAN is just too expensive in my opinion. The other issue with this is the shareholder base might be very stale. If you have held for more than 5 years and watched the share market do incredibly well during this time while you went backwards in NAN, you might start to resent the business. This might hold the share price back if said stale investment base creates selling pressure the moment that the shares start to do well.
A quick look at standard valuation metrics: a P/E of more than 60 and a revenue multiple of more than 6x. Lots of growth baked in, as has typically been the case for many years, so there is a requirement that they do continue to grow. On that note too, I wasn't previously that impressed with previous growth, particularly with the valuation multiple commanded. In short, expensive, expensive, expensive.
