CEO bought today, 8/26, 66,000 shares. Multiple insiders bought earlier this month as well.
Among the top CEO purchases of the month:
How about we just discuss a basic education...perhaps in logic. I'll ignore your rant about being ignorant and just dive right in.
"...I will give you the details of a simple calculation. From RCL 2010 earning statement..."
Wait. Stop right there. We need not go any further.
Your first post was about RCL not being a good investment and you used CCL data to validate your claim. I then asked if that's all you had and you proceeded to continue your validation using...wait for it...CCL data.
I then dissect your argument to point out the underlying fallacy (well, fallacies since you were using CCL data instead of RCL and you talked about cap ex being larger than cash flow in its entirety). You now respond with data relating to RCL whilst calling me uneducated.
Perhaps if you had used RCL data in the first place, we could've had a somewhat intelligent discussion because you wouldn't have committed your first fallacy.
As to the data you've provided pertaining to RCL, I really don't need to evaluate it. What I see you now saying is, and I quote, "...that shows negative free cash flow". My friend, in the literal sense, cash flow does not equate to free cash flow. That's why I was asking you for more -- to clarify your statement.
Perhaps I'm just lucky to make enough sound investment decisions that turn a profit without a sound financial education. With regard to RCL, I've been right before and I believe I'll be right again. In fact, I recently came back to the table with several purchases with an average share price of $23.50. Looking at a 9.8% return based on today's close, I think I'm doing just fine.
Good luck to you. If you short it now, I think you'll have some regrets. But that's your right and I'm not going to stop you.
It's called a cyclical business, numbscull. You in fact understand very little, even though you preface all your responses with that phrase.
Selling losers and keeping winners = buy high and sell low. That's the surest way to lose money in the market.
Good luck to you--you're going to need it, since your 9th grade level balance sheet analysis isn't going to help you one little bit.
I understand that capex grows the business; however RCL with huge capex (more than EBTDA) is not growing very much; Rev was 6533, 5890, and 6753 in last 3 years; You look at STX it has 737 MM$ free cash flow (after capex of 843) and ev grew 9805, 11395 and 10971 in last 3 years. Stay with winners and sell your losers
When you're building ships, it takes a while for the capex to pay off. That's why just looking at ratios that may be helpful for other businesses don't apply here.
If you are unwilling to accept the realities of a particular industry, you should go post elsewhere, because your opinions of that industry are irrelevant and, frankly, useless.
i understand capex is to increase revenue and earnings; thats what the problem is with this company; capex is not bringing sufficient rev and eaning increase. consider stx instead. it has enf free cash flow that you get your minvestment back in 7-8 years
Well Raj, all anyone can say about you is you appear to be someone who took a cheap computer course in security analysis and then only paid attention to the first few modules.
Of course if a company is growing, in an industry that is growing, its capex is going to exceed its CF. What you forget is that each of those capex items (ships in this case) is a 20-year revenue and profit maker. Capex is how you grow the company, and thus grow revenues and profits in the future, and that's what makes them more valuable and their stock price go up in the long term. This may shock you (it was covered in one of the later modules), but that capex is covered by (cheap) borrowing. That's how companies grow, you see.
So before you post any more perhaps you ought to look at those later modules that you skipped previously. That may help your understanding.
Since you are such an ignorant, I will give you the details of a simple calculation.
From RCL 2010 earning statement: Gross sales was 6753 MM$; cost of sale was $4458 MM$; Hence gross margin 6753-4458=2295MM$; SG&A was 848 So EBITDA was 1447 MM$; From Cash flow statement Capital Exp was 2187 MM$ that shows negative free cash flow. Because of this negative free cash flow you will see long term debt keeps going up every year. Get some financial education my fiend and then invest
You've just confirmed what I thought -- you have no idea what you're talking about and look just plain...well...silly. Why should no one listen to you? Oh let me count the ways:
1. You present no real evidence that an investment in RCL is good or bad.
2. The only statements you made were an attack on someone and some mumbo jumbo assertion about the financial affairs of another company. Even if said company is in the same industry, that doesn't necessarily mean their situation is reflective of this company.
3. With respect to your latter statement, I would counter with asking you two questions. Do you understand (or can you define) what cap ex represents and on what financial statement does it reside?
Now, just as soon as you raise your IQ out of the negatives (see, lots of people can take digs at someone) and tell me that cap ex is cash spent as an investment and that it commonly is found on the statement of cash flows, then I'll question you about how can a component be larger than the object of which it composes? If cap ex is a part of cash flow (one component), then how can it be larger than cash flow in its entirety? That's like saying wood flooring is more than the home or that a car stereo is more than the car itself.
So, if you're wanting me, or anyone for that matter, to heed your advice, how about you explain yourself in more detail (one or two sentences regarding financial analysis equates to MAJOR FAIL) and actually bring in something directly relevant to RCL?
Waiting on your brain cells to activate in 5...4...3...
Maybe the interest/gains he's made on the bonds he bought when the stock price was under $10 and the bonds were tanking as well?
I also don't think that $1.5 million is much for this guy, so it's not as if he's betting his house on it.
However, my personal opinion has always been that this company is a house of cards that relies on having cheap credit available for growth, and the ability to continue filling ships week in and week out. Turn off, or merely decrease either of those variables and losses will quickly ensue.