The company is profitable, has tons of cash, and is growing rapidly.
Those of us who appreciate the difference between a company's operations and its momentary stock price can give opinions like that the finger. As should the Board.
Absurd. The stock tanked because it was high from the IPO and because the business hadn't caught up to the lofty, out-of-the-gate valuation. A poor "communication process" can cause a momentary shift in the stock price, but nothing that would stick without a change in business fundamentals.
The stock has been settling into a more appropriate valuation. That took a big drop and a bounce, and had little do with how the CEO spoke at CCs. You might as well argue that it rained during the last three CCs and because it's scheduled to rain, the stock will drop. Daft.
Too bad it's a #$%$ metaphor: "according to contemporary biologists the premise is false: a submerged frog gradually heated will jump out."
The difference is that the stock was IPO-bubbled before, but that at $12, it no longer was.
By the time it bounced off $12, with FIT you had a profitable company with no debt and a current year P/E of 8 (and a forward P/E of 6!), factoring out cash. This for a company clearly growing revenues at 50%+.
In other words, the stock price compressed to the point where it was too low, relative to the company's fundamental position and growth prospects.
Nonsense. You're comparing fantasy with reality.
GoPro doesn't have billions of potential customers for its products, they never developed products for anything but a niche. Also, and there's no reason whatsoever to believe they'd succeed if they went for the mass market.
Otoh, Fitbit even just targeting fitness/health has an existing potential audience in the billions.
Again, it's basic math and reality: one company could target 1 in 2, the other 1 in 500 or 1000. Wanting reality to be different doesn't make it so.
seeing similarities, and concluding they're the same
is like confusing a blue jay with a blue whale.
GoPro has an addressable audience in the low tens of millions. Fitbit, potentially billions.
If you can't tell the difference between 1 in 2 and 1 in 500, you have no business handling money, much less investing it.
Last year was 15% "intend to buy" and we know how that turned out. How about the 72% ownership share, up from 53% in the fall? That's 3 out of 4 instead of 1 in 2.
"The U.S. teen survey showed strong intent to purchase fitness trackers. Some 22% of upper-income teens plan to buy a fitness tracker in the next six months vs. 15% last spring, Piper analyst Erinn Murphy said in the report.
Fitbit was the No. 1 fitness band at 72% ownership share, up from 53% in the fall.
GoPro action cameras declined on teen wish lists, getting less than 1% vote for the first time in two years. Just 0.9% of teens listed GoPro as one of two top birthday gifts."
You didn't say squat about litigation. You asked about fundamentals. Stop moving the goalposts, it's dishonest as #$%$
Even when moving the goalposts, you're a weasel, failing to post anything specific. Unless you specify the actual litigation losses you think they'll incur, and how this makes NPV
He's long Apple. Would you expect impartiality?
I doubt this board cares about your credentials.
I believe you have them, but if you think a profitable, no-debt highflyer growing at high double-digit rates should be trading at cash value, it's fairly obvious that thinking isn't your strong suit.
You're claiming that a profitable, no-debt highflyer growing at high double-digit rates should be trading at cash value. You would benefit from learning to read financial statements.