Recent

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

Inergy, L.P. Message Board

skiselev81 9 posts  |  Last Activity: Jul 8, 2016 3:24 PM Member since: Aug 13, 2003
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • skiselev81 skiselev81 Jul 8, 2016 3:24 PM Flag

    Another lesson for the uneducated ones: go to key statistics tab for both NKE and LULU. The PEG ratio, which adjusts the P/E for future growth (forward five-year growth rate) is 1.68x for NKE and 2.17 for LULU. This means LULU is 29% OVERVALUED relative to NKE if one adjusts their relative valuations for growth. Your "growth" differential argument completely breaks down right there. Plus, NKE is a more mature brand with much higher revenue and stronger marketing behind it globally. IT DESERVES A HIGHER P/E MULTIPLE THAN LULU OVER THE LONG RUN JUST DUE TO THAT. Cheers!! See you below $50 on lulu soon.

  • skiselev81 skiselev81 Jul 8, 2016 1:50 AM Flag

    ok you dumb moron, since you asked for it, let me teach you a bit...go to the analyst estimates tab for NKE and LULU and you will see that next year's revenue for NKE is expected to grow by 9%, while next year's revenue at LULU to grow by 12.2%...almost the same...yet P/E multiple at LULU almost TWICE that of NKE...MCD is a totally different industry and P/E comparison is irrelevant (analysts look at ev/ebitda multiples in the restaurant space, not p/e multiples). LIVE AND LEARN YOU DUMB TOOL!!!!

  • skiselev81 skiselev81 Jul 6, 2016 8:12 PM Flag

    MCD at 23x earnings, NKE at 26x earnings and LULU at 40x earnings...why does that make any sense?? The previous brands much stronger and growing at the same clip as LULU...$40-50 fair value here. Cheers!

  • Reply to

    A Lottery Ticket With Huge Potential

    by otcdevil Jun 27, 2016 9:58 AM
    skiselev81 skiselev81 Jul 1, 2016 2:45 PM Flag

    Auditors signed off, but they actually perform any due diligence? Very highly doubtful. They'd sign off on anything as long as they can make a buck. Also, why did three different auditors drop them eventually as a client? That's extremely suspicious. Filing "on time" means absolutely nothing when you plug numbers into an Excel spreadsheet and then file them as your actual financials. Also, what "plants" do they have?? Cannabis plants in their garages perhaps where they make up the financials? That is possible. Other than that, have you personally seen any of their so-called "plants"??

  • Reply to

    A Lottery Ticket With Huge Potential

    by otcdevil Jun 27, 2016 9:58 AM
    skiselev81 skiselev81 Jul 1, 2016 10:23 AM Flag

    What fundamentals?? All the numbers have been made up....financials are totally worthless!! What exactly are you looking at to arrive at any fundamentals when we have no clue of what the true picture looks like? They've changed auditors three times now in the past few years (I am guessing auditors keep finding huge errors in the books and then just flee before it hits the can and then they may be held liable for signing off on fraudulent financials). I am looking for a parabolic move towards $0 in the very near term.

  • skiselev81 skiselev81 Jun 29, 2016 11:31 AM Flag

    They should sell the company off for cash on hand and discontinue the business. Shareholders will get a little over a buck per share and game will be over. I bet that is what the new board members will be pushing for.

  • Reply to

    Headed to $40

    by icdcweb Jun 8, 2016 10:11 AM
    skiselev81 skiselev81 Jun 29, 2016 11:00 AM Flag

    I think NKE is also over-valued, but UA is significantly over-valued even relative to NKE. Let's look at the numbers, not at ideas...NKE trading around 23x EPS while UA is around 70x...on a PEG basis, NKE is at 1.7x while UA is at 2.3x...meaning even when you adjust their P/E multiples for relative growth rates for the next five years, then UA is still overvalued by more than 30% relative to NKE. I think a fair valuation for UA would be about 40x next year's earnings, which would give a price target of around $27-28. That would be FAIR value. In order to actually buy shares, they'd have to trade in the low $20's to have any margin of safety relative to its intrinsic value.

  • Reply to

    Should be trading at 52 wk high of .48

    by im_t_ray Apr 15, 2016 12:28 PM
    skiselev81 skiselev81 Jun 29, 2016 10:19 AM Flag

    Stock heading lower.

  • Reply to

    Going higher....eat that Shorts and Hedgies

    by chartchico Jun 1, 2016 11:45 AM
    skiselev81 skiselev81 Jun 27, 2016 7:23 PM Flag

    How's it going, "douchebagola"??? lol Have you broken the 86 yet roflmao?? Idiot.