Okay, so your response is (1) you've made millions; (2) you invest on facts; (3) MSN's cash position has gone down; and (4) MSN's inventory has gone up.
Tell me chimp, how does a company grow or meet sales expectations without increasing inventory? Especially going into the season when the bulk of electronis sales are made?
Of course, an increased inventory is not good if there are no sales (assuming that inventory will become obsolete), but what "facts" do you have to suggest MSN is not working through that inventory right now?
BTW, I'm comfortable comparing performance. Let's see...(i) a while back, I invested in MCZ in the low $.30 range, now at $1.15, KTCC at $.90, now at $5.40; TIII at $.65, now at $3.10, ... I could go on, but does it really matter? The issue is whether MSN is a good or bad investment here, and I'm just waiting to hear why you and aware are so negative on the company. I won't invest more in MSN if I think you have a valid point, but the more you post without answering my question just confirms that you have no answer. Prove me wrong.
I use common sense to pick stocks which has made me millions. MSN has gone from $2.50 in Aug, down to the present price of $2. At the same time, the S&P 500 has gone from 1040 up to 1270. Also, MSN cash position has declined as inventory has shot up. Not looking good. I don't bash stocks, I just state the facts. You pumpers on the other hand, make up stuff.
Still no valuation effort, but more diversion from the spelling police. What a joke. BTW I still haven't given anyone advice (and I won't), I'm just waiting for the resident bashers to generate an intelligible argument to substantiate the incessant, baseless bashing. Still waiting.
I dont use programs. I studied Graham and Dodds Security Analysis and similar treatises and am a value investor. I don't think that merely buying a cheap company means I'll make money. I do think that buying a cheap company can limit an investor's downside in a way that buying an overpriced company cannot. In fact, if a company is sufficiently undervalued, money can be made just in investors realizing true value--the markets are not always efficient. But in the end, a company's value is largely determined by outlook.
Just because a company does not have phenomenal growth prospects does not mean it's future is bleak or the stock in garbage. Steady production of earnings that drop to the bottom line can support very substantial stock valuations. All of this, however, can be factored into a stock valuation exercise. I'm waiting for frick and frack to show me theirs... .
Did you actually waste time writing that dribble?
Again, company valuation is not difficult. You and Chimp want to mock everyone and spread fear, uncertainty and despair in anyone holding this stock. The best way to undermine investor confidence is to state a clearly enunciated valuation of the company using accepted metrics that supports your theory the stock is overpriced. If you cannot do so, then it reflects that you and Chimp are full of chit. So, are you going to continue to spew dribble, or will man up and demonstrate ANY basis to your incessant bashing? My guess is you cant.
What about someone who knows how to value it but knows nothing about the company or their business.
There are a million a/o's who think they can value companies and most go broke doing it. If that's all one needed they could hire a lacley like you for a few dollars and they would be on their way to making money.
A maximum degree of arrogance exists in a bunch of jo's with a slick program who think they have found the key to success.
Why don't you tell everyone how and why you think Emerson can grow and produce more income.
Once that can't be explained then keep pimping this POS and throw yourself some high fives every time you you pass the mirror.
You are a small time worker bee trying to be a big time tycoon, you're not, that's it plain and simple; just like you.