Have you looked at their b/s? Assets are almost all inventory - take a haircut to that of at least 50%...now try normalizing margins and guess what they should make going forward if they hold onto their sales...it's a lot less.,...and that doesn't take into account damage to brand or litigation expense. So at $60 you are saying it should trade 20-25X estimates (old estimates...before any of this) and a huge multiple to any real tangible book value. Good luck with that.
Legal? This should be happening more often...the fact that 60 minutes is involved shows how air-tight and egregious a case this is. It's a death blow to a bunch of crooks who appear to have knowingly been putting people's health at risk for greed.
Thanks for responses. It looks like '15 guidance was a little light. The whole restaurant group has been almost parabolic last few days, and I think in the short term maybe we see a correction. I will likely cover the little I shorted into the close. gl
On p/e, peg, p/s ...you name it. Anyone know why it gets that kind of valuation?
Ownership churn after merger completed, including insiders selling as fast as they can...momentum guys moving on....valuation high-to-nosebleed for a show-me stock with competition from deep pockets just starting to heat up... lawsuit of NWS smacks of desperation, and exposes vulnerability as Zillowpro100 said...no near-term catalysts, lackluster inventory in the housing market seems especially deleterious to Zillow's business model... possible interest rate hikes and recent chatter about areas of the tech sector having bubble characteristics.
I wonder if there will be a step up in the attacks on Zillow in the WSJ and Barron's? Meantime, Zillow's promised land of them growing into their valuation gets farther away as an attrition war with NWS is costly for both companies, and I doubt has been factored into most market participant's expectations.
Still short (cost basis $118, after covering some a few months ago for a decent profit). As always insiders dumping their options as soon as they vest, disappointing bottom line eps, competition from News Corp starting to heat up ( Z suing and higher projected ad spend than most predicted), valuation approaching the levels of cyber-security in an industry that has anemic fundamentals. Still, mo players are back and it looks like there aren't many downside catalysts, so I have to keep my short relatively small, and be patient.
Generally speaking is (short-term, anyway) TA as accurate when the stock in question is going through a significant change in shares outstanding, expansion of float, ownership churn and possible lock-up changes associated with the completion of a substantial merger?
Sure, but price at 2/18/15 = $2.20, compared to price on 2/18/14 = $8.30.
I can't read your link, but earlier somewhere I saw Oppenheimer's note, and it implied or outright stated that Z's top line beat was due to higher than expected mortgage originations, by which I assume it gets a referral fee from the lenders...all well and good I guess, but why are people paying such hefty multiples for that sort of business?
Another scenario that occurs to me as a reason for the delay(s) is that they got approval from FTC, but with such onerous anti-monopoly restrictions that the co's are trying to figure out if the deal is still worth it?
I would be wasting your time with my opinion about the technology. I have owned STX for a couple or so years based on the idea that they and WDC are basically a duopoly on traditional storage demand and the popular (now largely debunked) misconception that flash storage is an imminent existential threat to STX/WDC. However as storage technologies advance and converge I am encouraged that STX has made what look to me like worthy acquisitions in the recent past and product improvements. I hope this MU alliance contributes to the notion that Seagate will be a leader in future storage needs where ever the devices or manufacturers take the demand.
Interesting, thanks. I don't see how this equity attracts many incremental institutional buyers from here.
However, some may think TSLA would somehow take advantage of low interest rates, such as AAPL has....I am not a corporate finance expert, but for the capital TSLA needs they could only get things done with junk-like yields given their current free cash flow, let alone their future free cash flow. Anyone do any work on this subject?
I assume the FTC approval or denial would occur during market hours and may or may not require a trading halt...are there definite rules about this anyone? thx
Well last year they beat estimates but the stock fell about 10% anyway....roughly went from $90 to $80. Not sure about the years before 2014. The FTC approval is what people seem to be waiting for with regard to Z moving substantially one way or the other.
Well, at .83, what multiple is appropriate for a company with PIR's current sales and growth and outlook given they fired the CFO? To me, a 12X multiple seems about right which would be $10.