Over the last five years this company's cost of revenue as a percentage of its revenue has averaged 80%. So, on the income statement, a large percentage of the company's revenue is going to cover its costs. This seems a little high to me.
Why is the percentage so high?
Yes, I know. I only mentioned the 10% premium because it's a nice round number. There's just something about me and nice round numbers. ;^P
Well, Safeway has an enterprise value - which unlike market cap includes cash and total debt - of $37.29 per share and Cerebus is paying $40.00 per share. That works out to a premium of only 7.28%.
Couldn't the company have held out for at least an even 10% premium, if they're going to accept such a low ball buyout price?
Charter is offering more than $62 billion for Time Warner and this seems like a fair price to me. After all, Time Warner has an enterprise value of $62 billion and based on the company's current number of outstanding shares, this works out to a 63% premium over the current after-hours price.
Note, unlike market cap, enterprise value takes into account all of a company's long and short term debt and all of the company's current cash and cash equivalents on the balance sheet.
One, that's not an easy answer. And, two, what does your dislike of Obama have to do with Burns being CEO of Xerox? The two aren't related.
Whenever I think of the name "Xerox", I still think of copiers. In addition to having to do a whole bunch of other things, I think the company should change its name to escape its copier heavy legacy.
Yeah, blame the victim. How many long term recessions and Great Recessions have there been in the last 20 years?
I was just curious as to why a company that basically makes light bulbs have such high operating expenses on its income statements? Also, why does this same company need over 6,100 employees to make, presumedly, this same light bulbs?
I remember an old episode of "The Punky Brewster Show", where the hottest doll the girls wanted was The Butter Lettuce Doll. TV is funny that way.
In fairness though, Crocs used to be hot, but now they're not. So, I think you're speaking about yourself also. ;)
Aside from the insiders, has anyone ever really made any money holding this company's stock over the last ten years? I'm not talking about shorts, but people who bought and held on to the stock lo these many years.
Based on the company's historical numbers, every historical metric I run or numbers I crunch or regression analysis I crank out or discounted valuation model I produce, I keep coming up with an answer of no.
Aside from it getting a nice preferred share dividend, why on earth is Blackstone putting money into this company?
Disclosure: I have never owned shares in CROX nor do I plan on buying any.
I'm a long-term Graham and Buffet-type investor. I buy and hold undervalued stocks until they have reached their "fair value" and then I sell. So, no, I don't short stocks.
As a matter of fact, I believe shorting stocks is un-American. I don't believe in betting against companies and the U.S. companies. Benjamin Graham called such people speculators, and I agree with this.
As far as being a paid basher, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm here because I have a right to be here, and because RIG came across my stock screen. However, after looking over the company's numbers over the last five years, I find the company isn't for me. Is there anything else you need to know?