LE, no you can't! You can say forward speculations or opinions, such as "I think this company sucks, there earnings will never fall in line, etc." The precedents protect such statements of "opinion". When you make a factual statement, however, you must either have the proof to back up your claim, or prepare yourself for hefty legal fees for a defense. Calling the company a "scam", without base or foundation, as if it were a statement of fact, fall into the category of libel.
There has always been an absolute truth defense in the First Amendment. If someone was a convicted child molester, and I called them a child molester, that is not slander or libel(written form of slander). If they were not, however, and I accused them of being such, then I would expect the offended party would have just cause to sue me. In online cases, libel and defamation are a new territory for test cases, and precedence that has been expanded from the traditional written media, as well as TV and radio. However, it is my opinion, as well as many legal experts that I have read, that the above grounds apply.
Perhaps one might be able to say, "this company acts as if it were a scam company in my opinion". I do not know. I do know, however, that calling the company an outright scam opens one up to some possible legal problems, especially if it was done in malice. I believe that it could possibly result in a civil action, which requires only a 51 percent burden of proof among the jurors or the judge hearing the case. IMO, the actions cited would at the very least reach the stage of a probable cause hearing.
That aside, calling the company a scam was uncalled for. And it was here, in a public forum, for all to see.
To the earnings, I strongly believe that the company has every intention to be fully reporting, and their actions thus far have proven them right. With the subsequent quarterlies that will be filed with the SEC, all of these questions concerning their credibility will simply disappear.
The reason why you cannot compare other companies that may have a low P/E valuation due to reasons of lack of earnings, negative earnings, and the like, with FAMH is because FAMH is in a unique stage of it's evolution. I too have seen companies that may be coming off of a lackluster year, or a negative year, and then to only have a mediocre year trade at high multiples in this industry (you gave me the example). If, however, you look at the companies in this industry that are having the RATE OF GROWTH of FAMH, or a rate of growth that is high, then you would see multiples that bust through the ceiling. This company, IMO, will buck the trend, simply because they are not part of the trend that you cite.
If I am not mistaken, Ira specifically stated in the CC that the Allied Signal and Deloitte & Touche contracts were for IT. If they weren't, then it is still significant. If they were, then it just goes to show how in a small amount of time Ira has moved the company forward.
The last time I heard about their IT initiative, they had brought in an industry veteran in IT placements as VP of their IT initiative.
FAMH already has a strong client base with some very big companies. It is a simple leap in business logic, that there IT initiative will have less resistance and more acceleration, especially given their previous presence with their established clients (AIG, KEMPER, COLONIAL, etc).
Again, are there any shareholders here that would have rather seen a Miami office open earlier, and then the Myriad acquisition to follow? I am glad they focused on that which gives the company a better position and more value.
Jin. I can walk on the beach because the Pigs have been fitted with GPS and are on autopilot. |
