Doug F. Thanks for post. If you've plotted those x's and o's, it was a lot of work! Still a little complicated for me to follow though. I count 14 x's and o's. Just in looking at the x's, 3 of the 6 (looking at year end chart) are clustered around 2.8 to 3.0 and one is at about 3.25 -- as I eyeball it. That's the '98 yr estimates I think. The remaining two x's are at the high 4.2 end. Does this mean 4 of 6 analysts (I have no problem calling analysts zeros -- or x's --g--)think that '98 earnings will not be better than about 3.25? Or perhaps, instead of going with the consensus estimate (which I assume is the straight mathematical average --- it seemed to be so last time I looked at Zacks, but HDCO numbers at Zacks site aren't same as Zacks numbers on Yahoo---something not right somewhere). Anyway how about we go with what half (1/2 of 6 = 3) of the analysts (and I have no trouble cutting analysts in half -g-) are saying... that earnings will be about $2.8.
I am saying somebody's going to be wrong: A couple of people say $4 and 3 people say under or about $3. Well, I say I wouldn't be surprised at $2.80 (disappointed YES, taken aback YES, surprised - I hope not). And if it's $2.80, we could very well and easily see the stock at 28. It's traded at 10x for many years as you know.
My work is not based on what analysts are saying though; frankly the only predictive analysts' numbers I'd trust would be from "our own" Paul K. Once again, let me also add, I bought today, I bought yesterday, etc. and if the stock drops a couple of more points tomorrow, I expect to be a buyer again. Long term I expect earnings to improve and g-d willing and the water don't rise -g- -- the multiple to expand. And I 've been wrong many, many times before -g-.
Paul Senior |
