DukeCrow
Since my responses to your posts on FLM appear to have missed the mark for what you needed/wanted, I'll offer little response specific to them now except to say that the reason most companies cash flows are negative flow back to either the management or the business model or both.
The danger for an investor in "finding out what could be changed to make it better" is that the investor: 1). doesn't know enough about that specific business, in that specific market, with that particular personnel roster, and those specific competitors and vendors; 2). The investor, even if well-versed in all of the above, usually doesn't have the capital to buy enough ownership to effect any meaningful changes; and 3). The whole exercise of trying to find out what should be changed has the potential to leave the investor feeling more confident about that company than the objective look at the numbers would warrant, thereby increasing the chance of the investor allocating scarce resources toward an investment of likely minimal capacity to positively reward them with a sufficient rate of return for the risk assumed.
Since I seem to have difficulty interpreting your posts, I can only say that, for myself, I find a much more constructive exercise in the evaluation of announced changes and what I believe their impact might be on the profitability of a marginally (or formerly) profitable business. Even in these situations, however, I like the proof (via positive cash flow) to precede the investment.
Timba |
