@Pam - SSTI
"
You may want to focus on the bold numbers for what I was saying but try and read every line of the income statement and balance sheet and do the same for SPSN's I/S and B/S and understand where SPSN's problems are. Good Luck!
"
I don't know, what you want to show here? Noone has said,
that SPSN actual numbers look good, but it seems that you
want to prove always the point, that "others" look so much
better, just because you find valuation metrics 3-4x higher
OK.
When I look at SSTIs revs, I'm seeing relativly CONSTANT
numbers, no growth, with downside in 2007 specially. I see
a profit one year and a loss the year after in op.income.
No, question, compared to SPSN numbers, this looks better,
but 3-4x? Man, you are always writing about the shrinking or
no-growth NOR market and you are showing me a company which
Rev. trend is clearly down, which book-value shrinks year
after year and which product outlook compared to peers look
worse. And after doing this, you want to justify a valuation
3-4x as high as SPSN? Its your "right, but just try to fool
someone else.
2004 SSTI
Revs. = 449,198
op income = 26,239
2005 SSTI
Revs. = 430,899
op income = -26,750
2006 SSTI
Revs. = 452,509
op income = 16,121
2007 SSTI
Revs. = 411,748
op income = -5,097
BUGGI |
