The Internet of Things seems like #$%$ to me. I sold my Cisco stock when they kept harping on that hype. Who cares if my toaster can talk to my smoke alarm?
Someone may ask, why wouldn't one of those companies just buy INFN right now for a 30-50% premium over current stock price. Wouldn't shareholders find that acceptable? And the answer is, possibly they would. However, acquiring companies never work that way. They believe in "buy high". They will wait for INFN to go on a run to 18-20 and then offer 28-30.
If you are a believer in buy low sell high, the fact that companies like to pay big bucks when they make an acquisition is a great help to the "sell high" part of the equation.
How does Google fiber reach the customer? Do they have a backbone of fiber and use neighborhood cell towers to propagate wireless signals to and from the customer's residence? They're not actually wiring fiber optics all the way to individual homes, are they?
I continue to be impressed with Google. I always used to think it was a company that would make a few bucks on internet search and that would be about it. Somehow they have managed to assemble some really smart people and do all sorts of amazing things with technology.
They are quite a contrast with Microsoft, who still can't even get their new versions of their bread and butter product, Windows, to work decently, I guess they just spend all day playing video games.
Yahoo's numbers look contradictory on that. If you look up key statistics they show market cap about 200 mil and enterprise value of about 500 mil, which suggests they have net debt of 300 mil. However, if you look lower on that page you see they show cash of something like 50 or 60 mil and debt of zero. And if you look at their balance sheet, also on Yahoo, the last one you find is Sept 2013 and it shows what appear to be cash type assets of around 60 mil or so and no debt.
So the enterprise value entry appears to be faulty. It looks like this company has some net cash. I have never followed this stock before so I have no idea whether they need all of their cash for business development or if they could use some to buy back some shares.
For me it is moot because any company in this sector of the economy is too risky by my standards, especially since I am retired and need to focus more on hanging onto my money than growing it.
I've said this a few times before but it perhaps bears repeating. Not only technology matters in winning sales of a technology product. Market perception matters a lot too. As a customer, one factor you are going to consider is that you want to buy what is destined to be the industry standard or whatever comes closest to that. And superior technology alone is not the sole determining factor of whose product becomes the standard. (Betamax versus VHS is often cited as an example, I don't know how valid the claim is that the superior technology lost out, but at least it illustrates the point)
Something that boosts the market perception of your product, such as in the case of INFN this Goldman report, helps improve your chances of becoming "the standard".
That's one silver lining in INFN not winning all the big recent deals. Those companies who are prudent enough to buy INFN instead of buying cheap stuff from Acme will see their competitors inhaling their dust.
I wonder whether they meant 40% CAGR in dollars or in bandwidth. Hopefully they mean dollars since they are business dudes.
Geez, I am a nobody and could have come up with the same analysis. I guess that brilliance is why they pay analysts the big bucks.
Oh well, better than nothing. I was hoping today's gain was due to a new deal signed but the analyst upgrade is better than nothing. This company's fate rests on two things- their superior technology and whether the customer and investor world recognizes the value in that technology. An analyst upgrade helps with the latter so it is a good thing.
The thing is, a company in a fledgling industry that has huge growth potential is a hugely speculative investment. When you are paying based on future potential, it is a high risk high reward gamble.
Why is it ridiculous for a stock that has shot up based on pure hype to give back that vaporous valuation when people realize that it is no more than hype?
They should build in Port Angeles Washington instead. Sunny climate, look out your south window there are snow-capped mountains and out the north window there is the sea. Not for young people since jobs are scarce but if you are retiring, it is paradise on a budget. Houses are so cheap there that nobody wants land. I own 3 beautiful city lots on a hill, and I would be lucky to sell them for $1 each. Nobody wants to build a house when existing homes are ridiculously good bargains.
I disagree that the person has severe mental problems. This kind of behavior could be expected from someone with mild mental problems, not necessarily severe ones.