Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Canadian Small Cap Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ally who wrote (74)	4/18/1998 9:24:00 PM
From: Kurt A. Altmann	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 512

Denise, did you see any interest in an analysis... on my post #67 above, Brocker Investments?? Don't want to push you, just wanted to know your thoughts either way. It seems to fit the framework exactly, with the one exception (only because I do not know how to judge this one) of management. For all I know, they may be great. Thanks again in advance...Kurt

To: Ally who wrote (74)	4/20/1998 8:44:00 PM
From: Jay Arkay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 512

Denise, I'm glad that you like my idea of periodically posting the results for my suggested five-small-cap portfolio. I'll do this from time to time, unless things get too embarrassing for me! By the way, two of the stocks in this portfolio have SI forums that I initiated, both on August 5th, 1997 (FWT, then 90 cents, last close $1.25; LER.B, then $4.40, last close $7.10). As to your query re Global Election Systems, the world market for their products is very far from saturated. The principal devices that they produce and market are needed one for each polling station, so that when they make a sale to a particular voting jurisdiction the sale is typically in the scores or 100's. Although I don't have hard figures to support this, I suspect that they could quintuple their sales or more for many years and still not saturate the market, which includes developing countries as well as much of the U.S. which has not yet automated their polling systems. Moreover, GSM custom produces software and voting forms for particular elections and referenda. As to your broader question about four key criteria that a small-cap must pass for you to like it, I'll provide the following synopsis of my assessment for the five components of the portfolio, as follows: 1. Management GSM (Global Election Systems): they have not yet shown that they are seasoned to handle rapid, sustained growth, so only time will tell FWT: a very experienced and able management with a solid track record BWR: apparently sound management, willing to take calculated bets on new mines; largest shareholder is Dundee Bancorp LER.B: excellent, ambitious, disciplined management ECX: significant questions about management ability in view of faltering growth, erroneous earnings forecasts, and other missteps; though they performed superbly for several years before this 2. Stock dilution GSM: some concerns about stock dilution via options to new directors and other insiders (though most of the latter were actually put in place a few years ago) FWT: no problem BWR: no problem (they issued a pile of shares near the $9.00 peak last year and are now positioned to buy back shares at less than one-third that price) LER.B: no problem ECX: some dilution last year associated with convertible (no-floor) debentures, and other dilution associated with some acquisitions in recent years, but they have been able to grow EPS rapidly (until the last two quarters) 3. Growth GSM: rapid growth possible and likely over the near and mid-term FWT: modest but sustainable growth likely over the mid-term BWR: growth dependent on zinc prices and overcoming metallurgical problems at their Caribou minesite, but company has been in a major growth mode for a couple of years LER.B: excellent growth prospects, through acquisitions and internal growth, as proven now for several years ECX: superb growth through Q3 of 1997, but disappointing since then; likelihood that growth has stalled for the next 3 quarters 4. Profit target -- "Can this investment at least double capital in 2 years' time?" GSM: Absolutely, double or triple FWT: Absolutely, double BWR: Absolutely, double or much better, but contingent on zinc prices LER.B: Could well double ECX: Could double or possibly triple, but there are some question marks as indicated above Of the five companies, one can sleep best at night with LER.B and FWT, but they are probably the two that are more limited on the upside; that is, I would be surprised if they did much better than double. GSM and BWR have more potential to better than double, but there are clear risks that have been identified. ECX will have to overcome some of its recent problems before one could hold it with great confidence, but it still has some attractions. All of these are low PE, high growth companies that seem to be sharply undervalued by the market. Jay