I appreciate you filling me in and I will research what you have shared so that I may validate it. I am not saying that I don't believe you, all I am saying is that there are so many posters who put stuff on these boards that are just untrue, so I always validate the information before commenting.
==Eric you obviously have a huge grudge against KTOS and from the sounds of it you lost some money investing in them or are way down.==
Feel free to ascribe any motive you wish to my postings.
==Being that I have to cut this article into various pieces you have yet to see where this info is coming from.It was not written by me==
Since you did not use quotation marks or, indeed, ANY form of attribution in your original post, it's impossible to know what is material you lifted from another source compared to your own position on the stock.
==Is there anything in the information regarding KTOS's business that you find incorrect?==
It's not a question of what the article says but rather what it DOESN'T say:
~The CEO has been in place for 9 years. A dollar invested then is now worth 3 CENTS. Surely, that can't be a good sign.
~The Balance Sheet contains approx ELEVEN Dollars/sh in Goodwill, more than twice its accounting Book Value.
~Free Cash Flow guidance is for 35-40MM which is less than two thirds annual Interest Expense.
~KTOS is effectively a "roll up", with some of the parts acquired at DOUBLE DIGIT EBITDA multiples. The median EBITDA multiple is somewhere around 7.
==The best part is that KTOS has a near stranglehold on a lot of this development.==
This is INCORRECT! The top player in that space is AVAV.
==I ran across some in depth and interesting DD==
The piece you lifted is NOT "due diligence". DD is an investor acquiring data from KNOWN, RELIABLE sources, analyzing the data and drawing their own conclusions. Who is the author of this piece, and what is his/her track record? Where does this so called "DD" discuss profit margins, potential Goodwill impairment, Debit/Equity Ratio, Interest coverage ratios, etc? Does it consider the implications of defense spending trends? Are you completely lacking in skepticism when the author suggests that a $4.50 stock has the potential price target of $45, and then $200+?