MrB, a most fascinating analysis you did on MAST and TSRI...
>1. TSRI generates 1/3 as much revenue as MAST ($43m vs. $132m). But TSRI manages to do that with only 1/7 of the employees (242 vs. 1615). That's the kind of efficiency that gets me excited.
I'm impressed with your work here. The economic aspects are compelling in favor of TSRI. [only an economist could have dug up this type of information. I love it! Great!]
>2. MAST has 7x the outstanding shares of TSRI (22m vs. 3m). Yet, only
double the average daily trading volume (63k vs 29k). TSRI is clearly
a more 'active' stock and that should be of interest to the short-term
traders -- the stock is can have to big 'ups'; 34% friday, 23% the day
before. Of course, you can get big downs, too. Put the power of limit
orders to use here.
I also noticed the relatively small number of TSRI's outstanding shares. That's appealing to me. It contributes to TSRI's volatility, I'm sure. And as you indicated, volatility is great for short-term traders such as myself.
>TSRI just looks more efficient to me when examining its tiny size, and how it stacks up to MAST.
I agree. Glad you picked up on the efficiency/size aspects.
>I know a lot of people debate P/E's worth as an indicator, but how does MAST justify 107 with such an efficient eager beaver competitor hanging around.
You are absolutely correct about the ongoing debate over P/E ratios as an indicator. Some people value high P/E's, some people value low P/E's, and others are indifferent. My personal opinion is that P/E ratios must be taken only in context with many other factors. So I wouldn't necessarily poo-poo a 107 P/E ratio. However, it's certainly not an attractive-sounding number is it? <g>
Again, both of these companies are on my radar screen, and I may get a lock on one or both of them soon.
Keep on writing like you just did, and you could easily give Newsweek's Samuelson a run for the money. You both have a knack for making economics fun. :-)
Ice |
