Credit where credit is due, LE's post (2902)with staffing comparisons is (IMO) accurate based on the numbers we have been provided. Actually they are conservative by my estimates, he gets 30% margin for FAMH, I get 35%. His post was factual and limited in innuendoes, therefore to me more credible.
My personal take, (Why I continue to be CAUTIOUSLY long) WARNING, long winded.
1. I think there is an apples and oranges comparison going on here. After tax, before tax, gross income, net income, myriad, without myriad. I suspect this is the reason for the delay in financials. Maybe the CPA's can attest to this but I would guess there is a lot of info to sort through with the acquisitions and new offices. Not trying to make excuses, just trying to be realistic.
2. This is a great industry with solid growth into the future.
3. I'm betting the "Financial concern" did some investigation before they were willing to offer financing for acquisition, particularly in an industry limited in hard assets or tangibles, i.e. trucks, buildings, aircraft, oil fields, etc. (I don't consider accounts as tangibles)
4. IMHO a stock price of $.30 has nothing to do with projected earnings or trailing earnings, revenues or acquisitions. This company is not yet measured with the standard yard stick. It's current value is based on risk reward ratio. If and when the story shifts from " He said, She said" to credible audited financials then I suspect we will see a swing toward a more standard valuation.
5. A feeling about people: Why would Mr. Monas and Mr. Adams deliberately be deceptive to share holders? From what I have gathered they have a large stake in stock , perhaps 80%. Surely they are smart enough to realize misinformation only has a temporary effect on stock price. Like stealing a car for a joy ride, you could get caught and you can't actually expect to keep it. What are they going to do run the price up and dump 80% of the issue for profit? To me the lack of motive balances the inconsistencies in numbers.
6. I am with Cheryl, I see this as an under valued company, and personally I think it will be undervalued even if they slip into the negatives. If their growth is the real thing this should be temporary.
To me, the following comparison suggests the market will support a higher valuation.
Example:
ASIS...EPS___$0.0_________Stock price $9.00
DR.....EPS___($-5.04)_____".....price $ .69
FAMH...EPS___$?__________ ".....price $ .30
ESOL...EPS___$.12________ ".....price $5.25
I would like to note that in my opinion, the real problem here lies with the amount or type of information we have been given as investors. We have information and forecasts from the company that we should be reading from the financials complete with the "Forward Looking" disclaimer. Giving information about the revenues and estimating EPS before financials is suicide. It's ok to say "we bought a company worth X amount" and let the share holders fill in the blanks, that's our job. We (share holders) guess the numbers, we buy our stock, we wait! It is however, important to say exactly how they will be funded.
I suspect Ira is just trying to get the word out. Based on his view of the big picture he is probably very frustrated with the valuations the stock has received. He is also probably getting killed on the "for stock" deals because the share price is so low. From my view, I applaud his effort and disagree with some of his methods.
This post is an attempt to offer an honest opinion to the very tough questions that have been posted here. I hope some can find value in it. Lets try to keep our eye on the ball.
Best regards, Anthony |
