Please go back to the library and find single girl. This has all the makings of a movie script. I haven't thought of a finders fee for finding a bride for my son. It probably is still done in some cultures. I am still looking for another stock to buy into. I would have bought several thousand more shares of LU at 4.20, 4.15, 4.10 etc. Luckily for me I have not transferred funds into my brokerage account. This is good luck. On occasion such delays cause bad luck. Below 4.00 seems like a good gamble. I also would have bought Nortel at higher prices. It's good luck that I did not. I am not always so lucky, but I am having some good luck in the past few days. It is good to store it up to ward off the bad feelings, when the luck goes the other direction.
herbinla: I can not help your son's marital status. Yesterday I posted a reply to your message from the Orange library. The computer allowed me to post without entering my yahoo I.D. When the message actually posted I noticed it had the handle of, I suppose, the prior user who had apparently not signed off. I am not and do not know singlegurl4u or whatever the name was. Does this mean our deal is off? Could I generate a commission by finding eligible candidates for your son? Just kidding, I don't know of any and I am not interested in that business. With the way LTUS stock is doing I may not need to do a deal with you. Go LTUS!
I do not know the answer to your question. It might have to do with how the loss from Slurp was treated. The one analyst following LTUS is predicting 93 cents a share for the year ending 9-30-03. I thought the year ended 12-31, but it is not important. David Qualls, the chief financial office has bought 6000 shares in the past year, the most recent being 2000 at $7.50 on 2-21-02. Although insiders are not always correct, it is a far better bet to assume they are than that they are not. If LTUS has digested its rapid expansion of the last four years, is slowning down on future expansion and is no longer going to experiment with Slurp, than I suspect there is a very good chance it should have improving earnings in the next several years. Improved earnings will increase the stock price in two ways. First, even at the current PE multiple it would rise and secondly the PE multiple would rise. Hence an increase to $2.00 a share and PE mutiple of 10, the stock would go to $20.00 a share, but at a PE multiple of 20 it would go to $40.00 per share. I am not an insider and these are only guesses on my part. If the feeling I have for the recent information given at the 3-15-02 meeting is correct I am very comfortable with my guess. If the officers were not honest(I believe they were)then my guess would be off. Lastly they could be honest and either mistaken or the future is not as they sense it might be. They did not predict $2.00 per share earnings in the future. They predicted between 76 and 82 cents per share for the current year. LTUS earned $1.30 per share a about three years ago with only 50 restaurants. Now there are 100. David Quall's indicated he did not believe any of them were loosing money. If the new ones earn zero and the old ones earn $1.30 the stock should hit $15.00 per share. At the meeting I asked Michael Mack to calm my wife's nerves as I wished to double my shares in LTUS and she was nervous. I had bought several thousand shares in the low 6s recently and ignore her concerns. However, I dare not increase my ownership without her consent. I treat my marriage as a partnership. I am only willing to go so far without my partners consent. Beyond that hindsight is 20/20 and the future is always uncertain. But, I still believe on a risk reward ratio LTUS is a prudent investment. Besides, I love the restaurants. If LTUS doubles or goes down the tubes I will be entitled to neither praise nor criticism, unless someone can find fault with the assumptions I have made. I truly invite comment on my assumptions, as others can see with a different perspective. I thank in advance any insight you may have.
You're remarkably sanguine about all those stock options. To my mind these are hanging like Damocles' sword above this company's metaphorical head.
The number exercisable on Sep 30, 2001 is 439,520 with a weighted average exercise price of $8.27, but all of these are below $9.13 (F-13, annual report).
Let's assume that the 80c/share earnings is based on the current number of shares outstanding, 5.69M. This corresponds to $4.55M earnings.
If this is diluted by all these options (and please note that I'm counting only those options that are currently exercisable, not including the much larger number of options that are waiting outside the current strike zone) then earnings drops to 74 c/share. But someone has to pay for all these options. I presume (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that this is paid from earnings. This cost would be $3.63M, which drags earnings down to $0.92M divided amongst 6.13M shares, or 15 c/share.
There's a huge difference between 80 c/share and 15 c/share. Before getting excited about possible P/E multiple expansions, you had better be sure, for sure, (as they say up in L.A.) that the earnings is going to be 80 c/share and not something approaching 15 c/share lest you be forever exiled to the sofa.
The restaurants are always packed. We ate at the Rancho Bernardo Souplantation last week and it was packed. The strawberry lemonade was also in high demand. I think they should raise prices a tad rather than trying to cheat on the tab (they tried two different ways to overcharge me).
If it weren't for all those stock options I could agree with your analysis. I also don't trust Michael Mack, however. I think he's enriching himself at shareholder expense. This is the privilege of CEO's, I reckon, but some degree of propriety ought to be exercised.