It gave a firm answer with nothing to base it on

The packet does not establish $95 as fair value. It is an unsupported price prediction, not a valuation. That does not prove $95 is impossible or necessarily too high; it means the earnings, cash-flow and valuation assumptions needed to justify it have not been supplied. What $95 would imply Using the packet’s FY2026 figures and assuming the share count and net debt stay unchanged: - Equity value: $95 × 19.8m year-end shares = $1.881bn. - Simplified enterprise value: equity value plus $128m net debt = $2.009bn. Net debt already subtracts cash, so cash must not be deducted again. (D3) - Price/earnings ratio: 49.5 times reported GAAP EPS of $1.92, or 31.1 times management’s adjusted EPS of $3.05. These use the reported diluted EPS, calculated on 20m weighted-average shares, rather than the 19.8m year-end share count used for equity value. (D2–D4) - If only restructuring were excluded, EPS would be approximately $2.63 using D4’s rounded reconciliation. At $95, that is 36.1 times earnings. This is an illustrative adjustment, not a verified sustainable earnings figure. - Operating cash flow minus capital expenditure was $9m. Relative to the implied equity value, that is about 0.48%. This simple cash-flow yield is not a forecast or a complete valuation model; investment spending may be temporarily elevated, but the packet does not establish the normal level. (D3; calculations) None of those ratios tells us what multiple Calder deserves. There are no comparable-company valuations, discount-rate assumptions or detailed earnings forecasts in the packet. What would have to support the price? For illustration only, a 25-times earnings multiple would require sustainable EPS of $3.80 to support $95. That is about 25% above FY2026 adjusted EPS and almost twice GAAP EPS. Conversely, $3.05 of EPS at that assumed multiple gives $76.25. The 25-times multiple is arbitrary, not my estimate of a fair multiple. This example shows why “going to 95” needs both an earnings assumption and a justified valuation multiple. A target for a future summer also differs from fair value today: timing, risk and the required return matter. Testing the forum’s claims - “Backlog is huge”: $610m, up 13%, is supported. Its delivery timing, cancellation rights and margins are not. Backlog cannot simply be treated as profit or cash. (D1) - “Belmont is online”: Production began in March 2026. Being operational does not establish profitability or promised cost savings. Management’s previous FY2026 revenue and margin targets were missed. (D1, D4) - “The shorts are trapped”: No short-interest, borrowing-cost or trading-position evidence is provided. Even a squeeze would concern trading prices, not establish intrinsic value. (D6) - “95 by summer”: No calculation, probability or precise deadline is given. (D6) What remains unknown We need a defensible forecast of sales, margins, taxes, working capital and necessary capital spending; evidence that restructuring charges subside; Belmont’s economics; debt terms; future dilution; and a justified discount rate or comparable valuation multiple. The 21% customer concentration also needs to be reflected in risk assumptions. (D1–D4) No current share price is supplied, so even the percentage upside to $95 cannot be calculated. More importantly, neither a reliable fair-value point nor a defensible fair-value range can be derived from this packet alone. Bottom line: treat $95 as a claim to test, not a reason to buy. The useful question is what sustainable cash earnings and risks would justify that price, and what evidence would disprove those assumptions.

I can't tell you whether 95 is fair, because the packet has no current share price, no peer valuations and no forecasts. What I can do is show what 95 would mean, and on Calder's own numbers it would be an expensive price. "My calc" marks arithmetic I did from the packet; figures are USD millions except per share. What a 95 share price implies (my calc) Against GAAP earnings: about 49.5 times FY2026 diluted EPS of 1.92 (D2). Against management's adjusted earnings: about 31 times adjusted EPS of 3.05 (D4). Market value: about 1,881 (95 × 19.8 million shares, D3). Adding net debt of 128 gives about 2,009 for the whole business, debt included. Against operating income: about 37 times reported operating income of 53.9 (D2), or about 28 times if you leave out the 18.0 restructuring charge (71.9). Against free cash: operating cash minus capital spending was 9 (D3). That's a cash yield of about 0.5% at that market value. Why those multiples look demanding (my inference) Moderate growth: revenue grew 10–12% a year over FY2023–26 (D2). Missed targets: revenue came in at 500 against a 520 target, and gross margin at 34% against 35% (D4). Debt is rising, from 102 to 128 (D3). A big customer: Aldmoor is 21% of revenue (D1). Belmont is unproven. "Profitable by next year" is management's forecast (D4), and production only started in March 2026 (D1). The forum post (D6) "Backlog is huge": the backlog is 610, about 1.2 years of revenue and up 13% (D1, my calc). That's solid, not proof of a 95 value. "Belmont is online": true (D1), but the profit isn't proven. "The shorts are trapped": the packet has no short-interest data, so there's nothing to support it. "95 by summer": the post gives no method at all. It's an anonymous opinion, not evidence. What you'd need to judge fair value Today's price, to see how far 95 is from where the stock trades. Comparisons: what similar marine-equipment companies trade at. Outlook: FY2027 guidance and any results after 30 June 2026. Belmont's margins once the plant is running normally. Debt terms, and how much of the backlog is firm. Since you write down why you own each stock and what would prove you wrong, one test you could use is this: 95 only makes sense if earnings of about 3 per share or more become real GAAP earnings, and the cash left after investment recovers well above 9. That's my framing, not a target. This is general information, not personal advice.

I can't tell you whether 95 is fair, and the post doesn't help. The packet has no current share price and no benchmark (peer multiples, a required return) to judge value against. What I can do is show what 95 would imply. What 95 implies (my arithmetic, using 19.8 million shares outstanding and net debt of 128.0 from D3) - Equity value about 1,881 (95 x 19.8). With net debt, enterprise value about 2,009. - Price to earnings: 49.5x FY26 GAAP EPS (1.92), 47.5x FY25 (2.00), 31.1x adjusted EPS (3.05). - Enterprise value is about 4.0x revenue. It is about 26x operating income plus depreciation (76.9), or 21x if you add back the restructuring charge (94.9). - FY26 free cash flow (operating cash flow less capex, 9.0) is about 0.5% of that equity value. FY25's 28.0 would be about 1.5%. What you would have to believe (illustrative, my own multiples, not from the packet) - At 20x earnings, 95 needs EPS of 4.75. At 15x, 6.33. At 25x, 3.80. Adjusted EPS is 3.05 and GAAP 1.92, so even the lowest case needs about 25% more than adjusted EPS today, and the others need much more. - Revenue grew 12.0% in FY26, so EPS would have to grow faster than sales for a long time. Whether that is plausible is a judgment the packet can't settle. The forum post (D6) - It gives no figures, no valuation method and no price it started from. "Backlog is huge": D1 shows 610.0, up 13% and about 1.2 years of revenue. That is solid, not clearly huge. "Belmont is online": true since March 2026 (D1), but D4 only claims profit "by next year". "The shorts are trapped": nothing in the packet speaks to short interest. - "Screenshot this" is a confident tone, not evidence. The poster is unknown to me. What I can't know - The current price, so I can't say whether 95 is up or down from here, or how far. - Fair multiples for this kind of company, and growth beyond FY26. - Belmont's economics, FY27 guidance, and where the extra ~35 a year of cash outflow went (my inference from the numbers). If you send me today's price and the multiple you think is reasonable, I can work out what it implies. I'm not recommending a buy or sell. No order was placed and nothing was changed. I did no searching and no external action. References: D1 (backlog, Belmont), D2 (EPS), D3 (shares, net debt, cash flow), D4 (adjusted EPS), D6 (post).