You're confusing value (a numerical thing) with technological leadership (a business fundamentals thing).
Value must include the valuation of the stock. It's low. That's why it's called a value stock. It doesn't have much to do with the position of the company in it's industry, it is primarily an equity valuation item (PE is low, price to sales/book is low), and not a business fundamentals item.
A crummy company can have a high equity valuation. It's not a value stock, it's an expensive stock with a lousy market position or in a lousy business area. A great company can have a low equity valuation - SIMO comes to mind, or GRVY for sure.
GRVY is kicking ass, and it's PE is 1x or 2x. No one will find a better tech value stock than GRVY, perhaps ever (but that's not to say that GRVY's stock price will ever go up, there's something weird about this one!!). GRVY is deep deep value with high high growth. It makes no sense, but there ya go.
If GRVY just sits there at $60, it might have $60 cash per share a year from now, and no debt. Like I said, makes no sense.....
Technological leadership is a position /ranking within the tech competition. It compares a company's business to its peer group. It has nothing to do with the equity valuation. A tech company "falling behind" doesn't make it a value stock, it does make it (usually, in tech) a poor investment, because tech companies which fall behind usually don't recover - it is due to loss of technological leadership, not anything involving value equity comparison metrics. |
