Recent

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

Sport Chalet AŞ Message Board

fabulouspoodle 61 posts  |  Last Activity: Aug 2, 2016 8:27 PM Member since: Apr 7, 1999
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    my take on earnings and cc, all imo..

    by fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 2:35 PM
    fabulouspoodle fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 7:33 PM Flag

    bonesid, I'm not missing anything, I'm explaining it to you. Inventory and recievables will come down as sales are expected to come down as stated in the conf call, since RB is out. So the total amount they can borrow will decrease.

    What else do you need explained?

  • Reply to

    my take on earnings and cc, all imo..

    by fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 2:35 PM
    fabulouspoodle fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 4:43 PM Flag

    tracant, you do remember the reason why Karen put them on the books (they were an off balance sheet asset prior to that). It was because they thought that MCZ would make money on RB and thus they could could then sheild those gains from taxes. When a company believes that in the mid term they can foresee their use, they must put them on the balance sheet....so MCZ did. Now, they have a history of losses. They probably should take them off the balance sheet, although they remain assets the tax sheild remains.

  • Reply to

    my take on earnings and cc, all imo..

    by fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 2:35 PM
    fabulouspoodle fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 4:37 PM Flag

    micro, 'Goodwill', imo, has no real value. It is simply an accounting term to fill out an equation. Lets say company A buys company B. Lets also say that company B has a book value of $150 dollars, and company A is paying B $100 to acquire it. The, the Goodwill is simply the difference between the amount Company A paid for company B ($150) and Company B's book value ($100). Goodwill in this case would be $50.

    So, in double entry accounting, Company A would enter the total $150 it paid for company B. On the other side would be the $100 dollar book value of Company B, and a new filler account called Goodwill, for $50. Thus, both sides of the equation would be $150.

    Now there are some tests you have to make during the years after the acquisition to see if you need to write down goodwill. But as I understand it, those 'accounting tests' have little to do with how the business is doing, and much to do with how the shareprice has changed since the acquisition.

    best/

  • Reply to

    my take on earnings and cc, all imo..

    by fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 2:35 PM
    fabulouspoodle fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 4:23 PM Flag

    I am not comparing the two nor did I in my post.

  • Reply to

    my take on earnings and cc, all imo..

    by fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 2:35 PM
    fabulouspoodle fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 4:23 PM Flag

    bonesid, I thought on the conf call that the CEO stated that they only have asset backed debt. In other words, they are only allowed to borrow up to some percent of what their receivables and inventory are. She also stated that MCZ is currently (and she said this is common) near or at their limit in what they are allowed to borrow.

    If Accounts receivable and inventory drop, as we expect them to since some of that has to do with RB, then the amount the are allowed to borrow drops.

    best.

  • Reply to

    my take on earnings and cc, all imo..

    by fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 2:35 PM
    fabulouspoodle fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 4:17 PM Flag

    bonesid, I'm not saying anything is odd....I'm not saying I caught anything....or that MCZ did anything wrong....or that anything is suspect about their books.

    The deferred tax assets can be taken on or off a balance sheet as determined by MCZ management. Even if they took them off it wouldnt mean much....everyone who deals with MCZ' financials knows what they are.

    I was only pointing out that MCZ may take those assets off the balance sheet, if its determined that they will in all probability not be used in the forseeable future (and it seems to me that statement is true) That will make the balance sheet look worse to the average Joe. But any accountant would know this already. And everyone who knows anyting realizes that the deferred tax asset on MCZ's books is not a 'high quality' asset.

    best.

  • Reply to

    my take on earnings and cc, all imo..

    by fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 2:35 PM
    fabulouspoodle fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 3:17 PM Flag

    uptab, you may be right, I just think its very speculative with a far greater than normal risk of some sort of bankruptcy. And I've invested in many companies which had bankruptcy risks, some went bankrupt (a few i still owned, most recently ATNAQ, a bunch I decided to sell before things go worse, and a few which turned around and I made a ton of money on. So I'm not saying its not investable, just risky.

    best.

  • Reply to

    my take on earnings and cc, all imo..

    by fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 2:35 PM
    fabulouspoodle fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 3:13 PM Flag

    Tracant, with all due respect, I dont think you know what you are talking about. I mean just look at the balance sheet. MCZ has a line item for their intangible assets. The deferred tax asset is not one of them. It is an actual, tangible asset worth a certain amount of money, AND one that is supposed to be utilized by MCZ in the forseeable future as estimated by MCZ and their accountants.

  • Reply to

    my take on earnings and cc, all imo..

    by fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 2:35 PM
    fabulouspoodle fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 3:05 PM Flag

    tracant, the deferred taxes are probably from a variety of continents, countries, states. And you can only use them in the country or state they came from. And thats only if you make money. And there are other rules that have to be followed. So, if a buyer were to swoop in, theyd be worth something, but far less than whats on the books.

    As for Karen being a finance expert...I have no disagreement with that. But there's not much you can do, and you certainly dont need to be an expert to understand them.

    best.

  • Reply to

    my take on earnings and cc, all imo..

    by fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 2:35 PM
    fabulouspoodle fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 2:49 PM Flag

    micro, the $9.5 million in deferred tax assets that mcz shows on the books is a tangible asset, and would impact tbv if it was take off the books.

    But, if you want to explain why you think its not, I'll surely listen.

    best.

  • ..I actually thought the CEO ran an excellent conf call. Straightforward, answered all questions intelligently and completely. She stated in the last cc that all the restructuring and other charges would occur this quarter..and thats what happenned. She articulated how MCZ would move going forward to try and become profitable. So, she was impressive both in the cc and in her actions.

    But.....the balance sheet is still horrible. I dont know if MCZ management will be able to generate enuf cash from operations to continue operations in the mid term. Just becoming break even may not be enuf.....they have too much debt. The other problem is, while MCZ is moving towards simplifying their structure and offerings, they still have too many skus, too many brands, and operate in too many places across the globe...which increases costs.

    Finally, we all know the balance sheet is bad. But its really even worse than it looks. MCZ has a $9.5 million dollar asset, deferred tax assets. Most of that asset was added a year or so ago when MCZ estimated that they would make lots of money on RB, and they would be able to use that tax asset in the short run against the big earnings they would generate. That did not and will not occur. So the asset aint worth much in the forseeable future, and should probably be take off the balance sheet. Lets say thats six million dollars of the $9.5 million. Then, MCZ net tangible assets would drop from about $1.5 million to negative $4.5 million.

    So, imo, MCZ remains a very speculative play.

    best.

  • Reply to

    I wish NAII would just..

    by fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 10:25 AM
    fabulouspoodle fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 12:28 PM Flag

    Maybe that was it....but I think we need more volume on the downside to get a real blowoff bottom.

  • Reply to

    I wish NAII would just..

    by fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 10:25 AM
    fabulouspoodle fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 12:05 PM Flag

    bamm!!!!!!!!

  • fabulouspoodle by fabulouspoodle Jun 3, 2016 10:25 AM Flag

    ....put in a blowoff low in the elevens already. It seems to be teetering in the low twelves, wanting to go lower, but just can't quite bear the emabarrasment of hitting the elevens.

    best

  • Reply to

    Panic Selling

    by xwallstcfo Jun 2, 2016 6:00 AM
    fabulouspoodle fabulouspoodle Jun 2, 2016 4:29 PM Flag

    re 'Panic Selling',

    Yeah, we already heard that same sage advice from you at .50, .40, .35, .30, .25, .20.....no need to repeat your prior messages.

    best.

  • Reply to

    OT: EMMS...the worm

    by uptabdowntab Jun 1, 2016 12:09 PM
    fabulouspoodle fabulouspoodle Jun 2, 2016 1:47 PM Flag

    I'm certainly no expert, so I hope what I stated was fact...but I have been trading the Radio sector for a while. I followed LTF into radio during the '08/'09 period when many were priced for bankruptcy (and few did file). Actually, if I recall correctly, I believe LTF stated aound '09 he had almost fifty percent of his assets invested in the sector, and he made a fortune as many made huge moves back up.

    Regarding the non-recourse debt that I mentioned....I didnt mean to say the that debt would just disappear all at once at lease end. But EMMS converted that total value of the lease of their FCC license to ESPN into into a debt instrument (It was valued at over $100 million at the beginning) and each payment ESPN makes lowers that debt, and at the end of the lease that debt will be fully paid off by ESPN's rental payments, and the FCC liscense will still be owned by EMMS.

    best.

  • Reply to

    OT: EMMS...the worm

    by uptabdowntab Jun 1, 2016 12:09 PM
    fabulouspoodle fabulouspoodle Jun 2, 2016 12:42 PM Flag

    I've been a buyer of EMMS in the .40's and low .50's since earnings.....and have most really been a seller of ROIAK which has moved up to $2.90 or so from its lows around $1.20 three month back.

    I think EMMS should have a much stronger back half. Obvoiusly last quarter was awful, but that should be the trough. The second half should be strong, imo.

    The negative is like most Radio componaies, they have lots of debt (although in EMMS's case a decent portion of it non-recourse debt, fully secured by the lease of one of their NY licesences to ESPN, and when that lease ends, that debt disapears). They did overpay for the WBLS station in NYC a few years back....at a time when terrestrial radio was in a downturn, and that increased debt dramatically. So, imo, EMMS is a strong but speculative buy.

    Nevertheless, EMMS could move much higher with decent results and any hint at monetizion of NextRadio.

    A note on the balance sheet...almost all public companies in the Radio sector have awful looking balance sheets, (and usually very strong cash flows). And what I am about to mention doesnt make the balance sheet look great, but it makes it look better, imo. FCC liscenses are intangible assets. Yet, they are bought and sold when any radio station changes hands...which is often. They are a very real asset, whose value can be estimated far more easily than most other intangible assets since their are many comps available as their are many sales. Each year in the 10K, radio companies must provide an estimate for the value of each FCC liscense they hold. In EMMS's case, their FCC liscenses (again, all intangible assets) make up something around two-thirds of their total assest. So the balance sheet might still not look great, but if we consider these FCC liscenses tangible, the balance sheet would look much better.

    best.

  • fabulouspoodle fabulouspoodle Jun 2, 2016 8:25 AM Flag

    snow, earnings are non-taxed...so I give a 20/25% discount to earnings since at some point they'll be taxed. Another discount to earnings b/c its Israeli...albeit small, maybe 5 - 10%. And of course BOSC sales are lumpy, and I doudt the current growth rate can continue beyond the '16.

    Now those are negatives, obviously there are lots of positives as well.

    best.

  • fabulouspoodle fabulouspoodle Jun 1, 2016 6:50 AM Flag

    I'm certainly happy, I've added some since earnings. Probably would have posted yesterday, but I was just real busy. Plus, really wasnt thinking about selling any, so while I saw KTCC up on my screen, I wasnt following closely.

    Now if KTCC were to get near your short term target price of $13 bucks....well, I'm not expecting that big a move prior to earnings, but I'd luv it.

    best.

  • ..I think fair value is around the mid three's for BOSC. I expect it to break lower than that, probably to three or so in the coming weeks. Of course could go higher first.

    best.

SPCHA
0.0000(0.00%)