From their press release...
" For the full-year 2015, we expect revenue between $2.8 and $3.1 billion, net income between $12 and $14 million, Our expectations assume 59,000,000 weighted average common shares outstanding throughout 2015"
So... on the high end.. That's about 24cents per share. At a robust multiple of around 25x (20% higher than current market multiple) you get expected share price of around $5.93 based upon 2015 full year revenues of again on the high side of $3.1 BILLION so that's about 1/2 of 1%.
ULTA - selling cosmetics.. in 2013 did $2.6 Billion of revenue and had an after tax profit of just $202 Million. Or 7.7% on Revenues.
Sorry, DPLO, if it were me and this is it. on nearly $3Billion of revenue. I'd find another line of business. Seems like this pharmacy business was a hobby you couldn't get away from and somehow made it a business. But, its too much effort for too little reward. From an investment stand point in order to justify $30 a share they would need to be doing $20Billion of revenue to create $1.50 a share and have a 20x multiple. As it is now their multiple on 2015 is around 129.
Its not sustainable.
Sentiment: Strong Sell
Take a real good look at the income statement.
These guys have a gross margin of under 7% and Net income % to revenue of under 1/2%. What this means is simple. For every "bad debt they have or insurance charge back of say $100 they have to Gross $20,000. Put that in perspective. For every time the President, CEO meet with their attorney's to discuss pending litigation or anything where they incur a $5,000 bill they have to sell $1,000,000 of product.
Folks that is a recipe for disaster.
To do that ... an SO would have to be in the range of 400M raise. Which the only way that to occur would be to buy an existing lessor. Also, hard to grow capital for investments when paying healthy dividend.
If they want to play big boy company. They really have to evolve their image. Plenty of opportunity to make $ in their shops. Just need to refine the process. Who knows in 5 years this could be worth something; if they survive.
I have no position in this Co and have no plans to any time soon.
So you proved my point. So why the discount to market? Do they expect Mu's earnings to drop 50% to equate to the same PE as peers?
If so, how realistic is that?
At some point, considering Mu's favorable cash flow wouldnt someone with a higher "multiple" come knocking? I mean, wouldn't Mu's business at an 8 PE be highly accretive to someone with a PE of say 25?
Makes little sense to me.
The other day, Friday, my co-worker wanted money. They were desperate and under capitalized. I bailed them out. Monday, having profited over the weekend they offered me money back. I told them, thank you, and tomorrow please give me another dollar, in fact give me a dollar every day until i decide not to take it. Further, I told her, she would have to take whatever I did upon her, after all this wasn't merely a loan, but an investment. So, after having her wash my car, take out the trash and prepare the power point, we as director and conservator i had my way with her, you can just imagine, taking my due compensation for the bailout. She asked today if she had repaid, the loan, i told her no. It wasn't a loan it was an investment for just compensation. I hope the wife won't mind, but she moves into the basement friday, since i sold her condo.
Why $40 Billion overpaid, why not your share of the $220 Billion. Also, investments, can be redeemed and retired. No worries. So it was redeemed. and retired.
done. now that was simple.
At some point; someone far smarter than me is going to assert Market Manipulation and open an SEC investigation into the Treasury.
Its going to take a Presidential Pardon or coverup to keep some of these players out of jail.
All I want is the truth and fair value.
Fair value here is very large.
Have a great Saturday.
At last year's share holder meeting this was addressed. Frank said, no split as it costs the company more money and gives no benefit to shareholders as its as easy to by 50 shares as it is to by 100. Commissions are no longer tied to number of shares. But Delaware, charges you more for more shares and the transfer agent costs you more as well
Sure, why not.
Why can't the taxpayers file suit against FHFA for their treasonous activity?
So if you say taxpayers are shareholders then is the fhfa also the government?
Here is the deal; we sue in our role as taxpayers not as shareholders. While acting as a taxpayer we are not shareholders and therefore our suit would be not brought to enforce shareholder rights but taxpayer rights. As taxpayers we would not be acting as shareholders and thus would have a different standing. As I recall the HERA law however flawed and unconstitutional it likely is; ripped from shareholders without due process their rights. But, it did not obfuscate our rights as taxpayers.
I'd propose to bring suit against the fhfa for acting in deference to the intent of the law.