Member Info for iWantThatOne

Still cheap but by how much? There will be exceptional costs arising from a DIS sale plus lengthy disruption, as well as possible inefficiencies for the smaller business that remains. And whilst Comparison seems to have recovered a bit there’s no mention of Search, which I think is in decline and hard to value.

Cannacord Genuity reiterate “Buy” with a 212p price target based on 10xEBITDA for the transactional business and 3x sales for DVM. The PT is down a little from 244p mainly due to FX changes GBP:USD.

These results look decent - a tad behind market consensus (which was for just over $17m EBITDA rather than $16m+) - but that is easily explained by the large DVM contracts tipping over into 2026. Looks set now for positive net income in 2026 and cash generation. Guess the thing I’d most like to see is rapid DVM growth now. Valuation is far too low.

Well let’s wait for the results and see what’s what. If they hit market consensus then they’re trading at a ridiculously low multiple of EBITDA - around five - and next year they'll achieve GAAP profitability and good free cash flow.

The problem here has always been very little news flow to keep investors interested. And I maintain that bundling DCB with the DVM and treating it as a cash cow results in a much lower valuation than it should have. (Compare this to Boku, where DCB has a logic to it, sits sensibly alongside other alternative payment methods and is central to the proposition).

A reminder, as we approach year end, that both Singer and Cannacord think that Bango is at an inflection point, with the DOCOMO integration in the rear view mirror, on the cusp of GAAP profitability and generating positive FCF next year. Indeed on next year’s estimates they have a PE of about 20 (decreasing to below 10 in 2027) and an EV/EBITDA of about 5.

If you consider non-GAAP figures and add back amortization and stock option costs to give a more realistic view of the business, as is common in the US, then the “non-GAAP” PE based on next year’s expectations is less than 5.

Zeus Research has a sum-of-the-parts valuation of 91p, based on EBITDA multiples of 12x, 10x and 3x for DIS, Comparison and Search respectively. Personally I think 12x for DIS is too much or they’d have sold at that already. The current market value is around 7x DIS. I think 9x is not unreasonable, giving $198m less $98m debt (say), leaving $100m cash (40c per share). Who knows what the remainder will be worth.

Zeus Research has come up with a very tentative DCF valuation of £350m, or about 31p per share.

I may have missed this but shouldn’t these emails also go to the NOMAD?

The business is now valued at a fraction less than Zeus’ valuation of DIS alone (12x EBITDA) I.e. no value at all ascribed to Search or Comparison. Seems crazy. Also seems to me there’s little to lose by buying in at this level.

Singer has also updated its analysis. V similar to Cannacord - both reaffirm this year’s targets and Singer gives a 200p 12m price target. Both have 2026 figures of c$60m revenue, $21m EBITDA, 5 cents reported EPS and FCF yield of 5-6.5%.

Singer says “we believe the prospect of strong and sustainable growth and high margins/cash generation is not being priced in and hence could lead to substantial share price appreciation”.

Cannacord retains its 244p price target and reaffirms this year’s expectations. It talks about Bango now hitting an inflection point - top level growth, reducing cost base and reducing capex all pointing to an expected free cash flow yield in 2026 of 5.2% at current share price - which is pretty good in my book. And next year we hit positive net income, which - considering the huge amortization at about $15m - is pretty good too. As that trends down from its peak we’ll see some impressive earnings in the next few years. My expectations - no fireworks but a really good compounding stock here, with strong growth in FCF and EPS over the next few years.

Jacoror, I can summarise your thinking as “it’s all about number of domain numbers and price”. Er, well, no it’s not. For a start, TIG has a speciality in certain classes of domain, hence why it won the Columbia account and apparently is in the running for others. It’s winning big new deals. And the number of domain names is not by itself important - it’s the value of that business, hence why the company is relatively unconcerned about the radix domains. As for the value of DIS, this comes from independent analysts who have referenced multiple comparators - I’ve seen them. And finally, you seem to think management doesn’t understand its own business- what arrogance! In summary - you’re not very persuasive.

Comparison, btw, was said to have been affected by changes in Google’s algorithms earlier in the year which they appear to have largely overcome.

G_G_G, yes I think we need confirmation of continued good execution now so things won’t move too fast for a while but I’m optimistic and (after selling up) will be back in shortly.

Edison has updated its research now and also maintains its FY25 forecast of $60m EBITDA (Zeus is $62m, so the market is not expecting $65m btw). Their SOTP valuation is 110p but, like Zeus, see more upside as the three divisions develop and prove themselves. I think your hopes for EBITDA, net debt etc are a little ahead of these analysts - they’re going for around $69-70m EBITDA next year and higher net debt (which seems to be affected by German tax amongst other things). But whichever way you look at it, TIG is currently at a discount.

Alongside their updated 2025 figures (PE 6.1, EV/EBITDA 4.8, SOTP valuation 117p), Zeus tweaked their 2026 figures and now have PE 4.8, EV/EBITDA 3.7 and SOTP 151p (the latter not explicitly stated but that’s my calc based on their methodology). That’s all based on a 60p share price. But their 2026 calcs show no significant reduction in expenses, despite referring to it in their commentary - I suspect they need more detail and want to see some evidence first. Making a partial allowance for the $24m cost savings vs 2024 I arrive at a SOTP value of 170p upwards. And their 2026 revenue growth figure is a cautious 5.6%. Summary - if TIG execute well then I think this stock re-rates very well and potentially is at least 2x by next summer.

Didn’t explain that very well….in H1 the cost base was too large for the lower revenue it is now supporting (ie Search). The business has now been “right-sized” by implementing redundancies plus other savings, to better reflect how the Search division looks going forward. These savings will come through nicely in H2. If they’d been fully in effect throughout H1 I’m sure EBITDA would be at least a few £m higher - which is why I think they’ll hit their EOY target.

Net Revenue to EBITDA won’t look great because the redundancies and cost savings have barely taken effect, if at all. In H2 these cost savings will reduce SG&A meaningfully and this will increase EBITDA. Combined with higher revenue in H2, there’s every chance they will hit their target for the year. And if they do, the PE at this SP will look very silly. It’s about 6x today and would head towards 4-5x. So I can see a move up in the SP in H2 and then 2026 could be transformational - remains to be seen.

Zeus maintains its FY25 EBITDA target of $62m and SOTP valuation of 117p, albeit rejigging its projections for each of the three divisions slightly.

Yes there’s still a lot to prove but the future looks quite interesting if they can execute. $24m of cost savings to flow through in 2026 (so add that to $60m+ EBITDA and it looks good). Surprised to see DIS so healthy after all the Radix news, and conversely Comparison off the pace. But Search seems to be moving in the right direction. Certainly a strong hold, could do well on an 18m view.

Folks, I only dip in and out so may not be very quick about replying to posts, apologies. My reference to leaseholders and their economic interest in the resource is described fully in Sproule’s 2024 evaluation of the resource (and also in the AIM Admission document on the website, from memory). They publish a table showing recoverable contingent gross resources and then the same but on a net basis - ie the company’s net revenue interest, as they describe it. And the same for prospective resources. The difference being that the company is not entitled to 100% of the revenue on all leases but sometimes only 25%, 50% or another figure. The precise wording used is “the net resources stated are derived from Sproule’s calculation of the Conpany’s Net Revenue interest in the applicable resource. Net Revenue Interest was calculated by taking the gross recoverable volumes attributable to a particular lease multiplied by the working interest and accounting for any royalties, severances or other payments required”.