To: Mattyice who wrote (53332 ) 2/5/2014 4:47:20 PM From: deeno Respond to of 78507 nice analysis. The problem I have with extrapolation is that it brings you to conclusions that have been reached by every other technition, fundamental or computer program out there. I like your facts and your conclusion. The low to mid 40's is where I bought it in the past. That said, since 2004 the price of this stock has vacillated between the low 40's to low 60's 5 different times. Since then, revenue per share, earnings, and dividends have trended upward. Each time I watched the stock hit lows everyone generally complains of lack of growth, competiton, govt reimbusments and no appreciable growth to warrant a "buy". research is extrapolated to support those views. Each time they grow a little, increase the dividend a little, and have a small surprise. Analysts then see a low PE type stock that only needs a catalyst. they invent some, New testing coming out, consolidation of the industry and more testing from baby boomers and insurance utilization. That starts when the stock already has moved from the 40's to the 50's, missed again, but wait let's extrapolate that! analysts target the mid 60's and beyond.... You all have been instrumental in trying to decide where to get back in. I think that a value player would begin to take an interest in the low 40's. Im not in a real hurry as the price continues to drop below year lows. I may end up paying more. the dividend will pay some of my return as I wait through some alpha surprise. Neither the company nor the industry is going away. The analysts seem to be cyclical (as evidenced by stock gyrations and opinions) in a company that enjoys plodding growth. Will there be a 6th time? Yep, I'm counting on it. I expect it will take 18 months to 3 years to complete the cycle. Most would be unexcited with those returns. Again just my 2 cents worth compared to your execellent analysis.