7 Comments
User's avatar
Phaetrix's avatar

Trading below cash with insiders holding 30% is exactly the setup that makes illiquid micro-caps worth the digging.

The real leverage isn't the discount — it's whether the strategic review timeline closes before the market finds a reason to re-price that optionality away.

Every "free operating business" stays free until someone decides it isn't.

Zero-Coverage Vault's avatar

Can you explain how you got to the cash figure?

This is my thinking:

Latest confirmed release says $16.4 million (31 March 2026, pre-return)

$16.36M − $12.1M = ~$4.26M (this assumes zero operating activity in between, which isn't realistic)

Cashflow

H1 FY26 (Jul–Dec 2025)+$2.47M

Q3 FY26 (Jan–Mar 2026)+$64K

Beam itself guided that Q4 revenue would "hold around current levels"

So for Q4 FY26 (Apr–Jun 2026), reasonable expectation: roughly breakeven to modestly positive. Call it $0 to $300K.

That brings us to around ~4.3M to ~4.6M

carmesixox's avatar

How are you thinking about the actual post-return cash floor versus NCAV, since part of the asset base is receivables/inventory rather than pure cash? Also, do you have a source for the airtime economics/85%+ retention and MTData stickiness, or is that mostly your inference? Last thing: how do you avoid double-counting inventory in the SOTP if you’re already valuing the operating business as a going concern?

The Optimus ☄️'s avatar

Great article man, actually interesting

Subscribed, would love to have you along too🙂🙌

Based Shark's avatar

I like this idea. Have you done any analysis on what the tax situation is with regards to any gain on sale of the JV? Not sure what the laws are like in Aus.