|
TranceAddict Investors Club @ Marketocracy (pg. 24)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
There both consulting firms. Accenture does do accounting, they also do HR, strategy and other types of consulting (I'm planning to work for them when I graduate :p). Sapient focuses a bit more on operations, marketing consulting. |
Consulting is such a catch all title.
The fortunes of these companies is going to be heavily based on perception which I personally don't like. People are far to irrational and if currents change either of these companies could face drastic hits, even failure.
But by the same token giving advice (read: consulting) can be done in such away that it doesn't matter what the clients fortunes are so long as they feel that the consultation was useful. An odd game that. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by atbell
Consulting is such a catch all title.
The fortunes of these companies is going to be heavily based on perception which I personally don't like. People are far to irrational and if currents change either of these companies could face drastic hits, even failure.
But by the same token giving advice (read: consulting) can be done in such away that it doesn't matter what the clients fortunes are so long as they feel that the consultation was useful. An odd game that. |
That much is true. I like accenture because of how they carry their business though. I'm sure I'll have some fluctuations with this stock, but accenture has a pretty diverse portfolio of clients so I don't think it'll be taking any hard hits anytime soon. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Well, let me take a closer look... This will be for 2006...
NGEN took in $26.85 million. Now, it cost $13.29 million to make their products. After the cost of goods, NGEN has $13.56 million left (Gross Profit).
Salaries, bills, and admin cost $33.39 million. That alone bring NGEN into the negative territory on their balance sheet. Not only do they have no profit left, they now have to spend more than they make. I consider this HIGHLY risky. On R&D, they spent $25.68 million, also way more than than they have left after bills and other expenses.
When you subtract all their expenses from their revenue, they are lost $49 million in 2006. Not only that, but they've been losing tens of millions of dollars a year for at least the past 5 years. My question is where are they getting all this money? This would probably explain why they've kept issueing more and more shares. From 24.4 million shares in 2003 to 67.1 million in 2006. That's more than double! Even more risky! I also looked at their 2007 income statement, and its no different. They are still losing millions of dollars.
Yes they've increased revenue more than 5 times in two years, but their expenses still far outweigh their income. I wouldn't even touch this company with $1. You will never find me investing in unprofitable companies no matter how good they sound. If their accounting statements show negatives, why put money into paying their debts? You want profits, not debts right? |
Well from an accounting point of view, debt is not necessarily bad. When you're debt is accumulating interest, it tends to be viewed as bad (i.e., if they were getting their money from banks and loans). Debt from issuing shares is not necessarily bad though, since it is technically 'free money', that is you don't pay any debt on it. Now the question is, once they deliver their product, are they going to produce enough profit to be able to cover this cost. I agree with you that this is pretty risky. A company that doesn't have enough liquidity to pay off it's debt is definitely not a safe choice. In conclusion, I tend to agree with your analysis :p. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Well from an accounting point of view, debt is not necessarily bad. When you're debt is accumulating interest, it tends to be viewed as bad (i.e., if they were getting their money from banks and loans). Debt from issuing shares is not necessarily bad though, since it is technically 'free money', that is you don't pay any debt on it. Now the question is, once they deliver their product, are they going to produce enough profit to be able to cover this cost. I agree with you that this is pretty risky. A company that doesn't have enough liquidity to pay off it's debt is definitely not a safe choice. In conclusion, I tend to agree with your analysis :p. |
Well, ams.rld put down a lot of real money on this one...
| quote: | | I bought 5 000 shares of it. Im hoping that the price per share will go all the way up to $900. It's a pipe dream but it may happen. I put all my money on it. After having increased my money from 4 000 to 7 900. But my money has been going down down but I think it will spring from the price it is at now. |
I honestly think he is gambling as if he was at the blackjack table in a vegas casino. He can win big, but the house is stacked against him...:p :p His pick is speculative to the core. No fundamentals behind it. I can't live without fundamentals...
:) |
|
|
| ams.rld |
Krypton,
NGEN was at $100 a share some back time back. What was the difference then than now? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by ams.rld
Krypton,
NGEN was at $100 a share some back time back. What was the difference then than now? |
Have you studied why NGEN lost almost 100% of their value? Such a loss would be extremely alarming to most investors...
That is a HUGE loss. They're unprofitable, have been for years, continue to issue new debt, and lost more than 90% of their value since 2000. My friend that is VEGAS GAMBLING! But hey, it's your money, just know your in casino risk territory...;) |
|
|
| mndeg |
you can't evaluate a biotech based on fundamentals
lol |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by mndeg
you can't evaluate a biotech based on fundamentals
lol |
No, but you can't rely on the potential of its product either. All that R&D could just as well be worth nothing. This is definitely not a stock that you want to hold on for long. You buy it cheap, sell it high. But there is a huge chance that it wont go up. It's a risky bet. In any case, why don't you put forth your own evaluation instead of giving us a one liner reply. |
|
|
| ams.rld |
hey Krypton,
I had good picks before I sold. Can you evaluate them and so maybe I can see as to why they went so high?
MIG, FRG, VDSI |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by mndeg
you can't evaluate a biotech based on fundamentals
lol |
That's why I say its really risky and why I wouldn't get into it. I don't go into the unknown or hard to know. Notice how my spreadsheet had a lot of boxes missing. Each missing box is just 1 more variable that degrades the accuracy of my estimates. Small to micro cap group companies are the hardest to evaluate and the riskiest to own.
| quote: | hey Krypton,
I had good picks before I sold. Can you evaluate them and so maybe I can see as to why they went so high?
MIG, FRG, VDSI |
Sure, I'll get right on it, tomorrow at work. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by ams.rld
hey Krypton,
I had good picks before I sold. Can you evaluate them and so maybe I can see as to why they went so high?
MIG, FRG, VDSI |
when did u buy n when did u sell? |
|
|
| ams.rld |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
when did u buy n when did u sell? |
Vdsi bought when it was 9.2 sold when 30
FRG 4.2 sold at 10.1
MIG 6.4 sold at 11.2 |
|
|
|
|
