Great question. Really not sure how to value a company with deteriorating earnings yet has a tangible book value over $19, with enough confidence in its prospects to continue (at least for now) paying a $0.10 per share per quarter dividend -- well in excess of projected earnings, and is considering a share repurchase program. But willing to give them another quarter to see if any bids come through before concluding that anywhere near a $5 price target is appropriate.
just curious what 2014's MIPs (couldn't find any) looked like for comparison also, could big targets for 2015 portend some optimism about chances for big project win -- especially since really only have 3 quarters to make progress toward targets with company having already thrown in the towel on 1Q
Probably would take a shock besides expected Q1 earnings to take into 2's on any kind of sustained basis. Sub 3's happened over a period of about 3 months in Summer '13 when company was on ropes. Granted co. did issue $3M in warrants to purchase at post-split price of $2.25 at that time, but there has been insider buying at twice that price since. View possibility of downward shocks balanced with potential for positive impacts -- even for the base business alone. Positive news indicating an acceleration of isotope business (or other expedited means to release its value) would be gravy.
Honestly not sure where to place absolute value of company. However, constantly reminding where company has been, what management has said and done, and comparing to where stock price has been in light of changed circumstances enables a better assessment of when the company would be very undervalued. IMO, a 15 to 20 percent fall from here would definitely put the company in that category absent a severe deterioration in its base business or prospects for commercializing its isotope technology.
Never ceased to be amazed by how a little bit of earnings or other company news manifests in such large variations in a company's stock price. Does the value really change that quickly? Just can't help but think that it doesn't.
Any good/beneficial (from an investor's standpoint) reasons for her to lower her stake from 20 percent to whatever her plan goal is? Why now (or whenever the plan was put in place)?
I don't like chlorine/disinfectants or other chemicals that are used in water treatment either. But drinking untreated water (or not having water at all) isn't much of an alternative.