% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • mikebert mikebert Aug 30, 1999 11:10 AM Flag

    Well stated by Monjobones

    You present a statement like "This stock was a
    relative unknown entity as far as the market was concerned
    and not until mid 1997..." as if it is a fact. It is
    not, it is an inference you have made from the data in
    the chart. That is, it is an opinion.

    Yahoo chart shows that the stock rose 8-fold in the
    94-96 rally and 5-fold in the 97-98 rally. This chart
    shows that volume in early 1996 was higher than in
    1997. These are facts.

    You see a significance
    to 1997. I don't. 1997 looks to me like a resumption
    of the uptrend that started in 1994. These are our
    opinions, not facts. Anyone else have a view on the
    significance of 1997?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • One thing that you have to watch out
      Things were very different in 1994 than they are now, so
      there is no point in predicting the stock's behavior
      now based on it's behavior then.

      But I
      appreciate your brevity and adherence to facts rather than
      analytical speculation.

      -mairez (a word fitly spoken
      is like a golden apple on a platter of silver)

    • Sale volume 1993 - $9.1 million; 1994 - $11.1
      million; + 22% vs. '93; 1995 - $13.5 million; + 21.6% vs.
      '94: 1996 - $22.6 million; + 67.5% vs. '95 and 1997 -
      $40.8 million; + 80% vs. '96. Thus it should be obvious
      to those that can add, subtract, multiply and divide
      that until the first two acquistions late in 1996
      sales growth and earnings while good by normal
      standards, it was not until the acquisition binge of '96 and
      '97 that growth took on a spectacular

      More interesting and perhaps something that could be
      accounting for the similar sideways movements that preceeded
      this last one is the step down percentage gains shown
      by the year to year quarterly comparisons. June
      30th, 1998 sales gain vs 1997 - plus 168%; Sept. 30,
      1998 vs. '97 - plus 74%; 12/31/98 vs. '97 - plus 62%;
      3/31/99 vs. '98 - plus 46% and 7/30/99 vs. '98 - plus

      Thus we have seen a steady recession of percentage
      sales gains from a positive quarterly year to year
      comparison of a peak at the end of the June quarter, 1998 of
      168% to the last comparable gain of 37% as of the last
      quarterly report. While still impressive it is evident that
      after the 1997 acquisition the percentage growth trend
      has been receding. Trends like these are not given to
      PE multiples that some seem to think the stock is
      entitled to.

      In addition the two significant price
      moves in the stock, one of which took place in the
      first half of 1996, fueled by two factors, a 3 for 2
      stock split followed by two acquisions and then the MSE
      acquisition in 1997 which accounted for the bulk of the sales
      gains reported along with the massive backlog build
      Actually, the background had become relatively stagnant
      since reaching the $99 million figure back in

      But then why deal with real numbers which are
      available to those who seek them when exotic theories
      abound to entertain.

0.00520.0000(0.00%)Dec 7 3:56 PMEST