@Gprp Great to meet you too, I enjoyed the EMVision site visit.

With regards to EMVision valuation, I was referring to 10% net income, ie, net profit after tax, which should be pretty similar to free cash flow over averaged over time. Agree much higher gross margins may be possible, but can you point to a similar company that achieved net income much higher than 10%? I would think Nanosonics is a reasonable comparison, and they haven't been able to sustain net income higher than 10%.

This ties in with a pet peeve of mine with companies spruiking gross margins, EBITDAs, or even better "underlying EBITDAs" or "non-GAAP profit" where they can essentially create their own rules for the amount of profit they would like investors to think they are making. There's a time and place for these adjustments - especially during acquisitions or genuine one-off large capital costs, so I'm fine if companies do it sparingly and explain their case clearly. Unfortunately though it's a practice that too many companies use to try to manipulate perceptions unfairly. And investors then naturally gravitate towards valuing based on multiples of these artificially inflated numbers. So much gets eaten away between a gross margin, or even an EBITDA and what eventually trickles down to shareholders in terms of after tax profit and cash. If I take EBITDA as an example, as a broad rule-of-thumb, if I don't have reason to adjust, I assume only half of EBITDA will become profit/cash.