lol not even at all. This bank can run show much better than this and they are killing it right now. They should be earning $10 a share and should be getting a PE of 12-13 not this 10 BS
Apparently copying and pasting anything gets ure thread deleted.
Anyways you can find my new post here. It basically explains the valuation of all banks and stocks in general
Cats numbers were poor as were mtws. I think cat said they would stagnate . mtw said top line and margins would modestly improve . TeX will be interesting
I don't get how a company with a limited dividend and clearly limited top line growth deserves a 22 forward PE.
Bottom line really can't be grown much further. This is kind of an absurd valuation especially given the negative tangible equity of the company.
Last year they said $2.4-$2.7 I sold out in April because it was clear they wouldn't hit that. This year they say $2.5-$2.8. Does anyone honestly believe they can go from $2.8 to $5? in 2015. The valuation is just absurd when compared to other companies at this time.
I just don't get it.
lol ya I will check out BCEI again then I see it has gone down from the last time we spoke (it was at $48). This GRE though is getting me excited though small its a possible 10 bagger if not a fraud. SO I will be focusing on it for the next bit. but ya keep your ideas coming.
Also u sold Tex at a loss how? Or u made a new purchase? TEX has done really well here it seems overbought.
ya Greenstar agriculture a company making 40 cents a share trading at 80 cents. I normally avoid companies liek this like the plague CVE:GRE but I mean the fundamentals are too good and I would be an awful investor to not check into it despite the red flags.
If I hit a 10 bagger on this I can easily outperform the market for the next while.
A company with growth of 30-40%, a dividend with a PE of 2. Even if it is a fraud at these prices you can at least get paid back your principal if its not called a fraud for a while.
I am obviously kidding around throwing around the fraud word. But in reality that is the only thing that I need to check out in determining the value of this stock. I live close to their head offices so I plan to visit them. I also plan to contact the IR once I know a little more.
$13M market caps are dumb but not so dumb to write them off completely.
I haven't done much research yet but I should have a lot of time coming up/.
hmmm just to CLARIFY I am not recommencing GRE. I did recommend Yellow though.
All I said was GRE was on my watch list and t was next in line for me to do some heavy research on.
Yes obviously GRE breaks all my simple principles of never invest in China
but that is why I have PRINCIPLES and not rules. Never Investing in China is smart but sometimes you need to go beyond the simple rules. Ya I could just brush it off and go its China. And I usually do this but at 50% growth and at 2 times earnings it is really worth my time to do some analysis.
CONN's is interesting! lol It seems like the multiple fully bakes in that growth / risk factor already. I invested in a similar company in 2010 AMerica's Car Mart where they got poorer customers to buy more by allowing financing to them. So this it the same thing. I feel growth is more limited since you have to pick your spots carefully.
My key criteria is independent of the market. WHat would I pay for this growth? What would I pay for this dilution?
I agree sometimes it is hard but if you stick to t his you should do better. Guessing what person X things of growth or dilution is kind of dumb since your playing psychology over math.
If you think the valuation is stretched then why buy the stock?
Honestly it seems interesting but not interesting enough for me to research it. Not even really interesting enough to watch it . A 35 PE for a standard old fashioned business model
it is kind of like Coinstar ya you see the growth but you can clearly see the limits on its business model right. Its not like it can go 35% a year indefinitely. There is a reason Conn's doesn't exist in downtown NYC. Its a poor store that makes its money selling expensive products to poor people. America's car mart does that too.
It is good but how good to buy at a 35 PE?
If we knew a company could grow at 35% a year for 20 years at their current net income they would be worth $7.5 billion (assuming no dividends) so the valuation is pretty stretched here.
Though this company suspiciously issues equity every year a sign.
Explain to me why a company with not much cap-ex needs to issue equity in fact so much you have been 40% diluted since 4 years ago.
Not saying that makes it a fraud just something that is a red flag.
Not only that it is just unattractive and lowers the valuation substantially when you consider they pay no dividends or buybacks and they dilute you.
It is too bad I didn't see this thing at a cheaper price but $75 looks a little pricey. I don't like the business model of go after the poorest people for an 18% loan. It seems to have less growth once you hit a certain point. But we will see.
I'll admit that sounds good but I only invest in things that I can reasonably estimate earnings 20-30 years from now. Himx you can barely predict what's going to happen in 30 days. Not saying you won't get rich is just not my cup of the as you pointed out.
It is determined by the fundamentals. Clearly investors are disregarding them for Terex at the moment. I expected it to be at $42 right now and they were going to earn like $3.4 this year without (amortization) instead they are going to earn like $2.1 and didn't grow anywhere.
Valuations are getting really stretched on Wall Street! I expect Terex to decline or stay put around $42 for a couple of years unless their fundamentals drastically improve .
Hey the $174 was their calculated after tax earnings.
Also ya if you change it to 9.3 without adding to net income then you would lower the valuation.
Like if you have $1 B pot of gold and it takes u 10 years to dig out. (1/10 dug out in each year or $100M) If I say it will take 5 years but don't adjust to making $200M a year then the valuation will be lower.
So if you're adjusting to 9.3 years you need to raise net income to reflect the increased earnings power. So the valuation would be higher if they could extract all their materials in 9.3 years/
Lol I can send you some finance powerpoints if you want.
Just to let you know I started investing in 2008 as a 4th year student and I have been investing ever since. I just completed my accounting degree in 2011.
So I have a pretty fresh knowledge base. Since I started investing in 2008 I have compounded at 35% a year or 400%
the CAD is getting pretty cheap though I feel the fundamentals aren't really being reflected in an economy that employs very little debt and routinely runs surpluses beyond the payroll data which is weak as you said.
1) 2015 goals are complete BS given 2013. They failed to grow revenue at all this year. It is really hard to buy into the management koolaid here. Why even set targets when you miss them and the stock goes up.
2) management has shown they would get margins to 10% by 2015. 13% is a huge jump and management has not shown they can grow revenue either. Revenue has declined in every quarter over quarter this year.
3) Hey guess who did grow margins this year. DE did.
Look at DE's operating margins from 2008 to 2013
11.30% 6.60% 12.30% 13.00% 13.10% 14.05%
Lets compare that to TEX over the last 3 years.
3.5% 6.4%%, 3.0%
How is that better than DE?
4) TEX has a #$%$ dividend policy and over time it has shown to by cyclical. Then you have DE which has averaged essentially 10% operating margin growth consistently over the last 10 years.
I invested in TEX for its EPS growth but its clearly going to rapidly taper off if and when it gets to $4 a share. I would expect it to be around at best where DE is currently. So I don't really consider it rapid growth since once it gets to that base of $4 its really going to be a grind for them.
5) Ya what does any of that matter? The fact is they set goals in 2012 didn't deliver in 2013 yet the stock is up as if they did.
See USB reported today they have all the best metrics but they only grew earnings 5% this year despite have a 15% ROE. It shows they don't try to grow and they manage for metrics. ERGO their high PE relative to the sector is undeserved.
A company paying 0 dividends that can have an ROE of 11% on equity is more attractive at a company with an ROE of 15% paying 100%. SInce over time the 11% gets compunded while 15% stays the same every year. That is USB but investors haven't realized this in 13 years making it the darling of the financial markets.
This is why I like DE over TEX. Tex valuation is if things were firing on all cylinders.
DE has historically quashed Terex and DE is more likely to deliver going forward yet it trades at a dumb valuation. DE should get a 25-30 PE if TEX is getting a 20. Tex may have good growth but its inconsistent and pays no dividend really. It doesn't deserve a 20 PE
sorry the 3.3 is in billions. I wont estimate EPS since they are buying back stock so I'd rather estimate net income.
Obviously its even more valuable that they plan to buyback a lot of stock going forward.