As rapidly growing businesses become larger percentage growth inevitably declines. This is the law of large numbers
Back in January and February I had two posts on Google and it’s share price. Rather than regurgitate all of them you can view them here and here. Please read them before continuing so we are all thinking the same way. Let’s update with more recent numbers.
My opinion was and is that Google shares will be stagnant of fall near term (1-2 years). This is not due to a failure of management, products or execution. It is due to the share price getting ahead of the laws of math (large numbers)
% of Income From Revenues:
Net income as a percent of revenues fell from 29% in 2006 to 27% Q1 2007. This is probably due to the YouTube acquisition and the Doubleclick one will further deteriorate this metric but we will use it as so as to not being accused of fudging numbers to make a point.
Let’s do some numbers. Consensus estimates are for 2007 earnings of $15.12 a share (48% EPS growth over 2006). So the question is, “what revenue number do we need to get there”? I am going to use 329 million shares outstanding at year end to be consistent with the share dilution the last year. This number will turn out to be too low as there will be more dilution but again, don’t want to be accused of fudging. This gives Google net earnings of $4.97 billion in 2007. This is 60% net earnings growth but the continued share dilution will prohibit this from all dropping to the bottom line. At net income of 27% of revenues, Google must produce revenues in 2007 of $18.4 billion.
I should note here that that the $18.4 billion dollars represent 80% revenue growth of $8.4 billion dollars and is almost equal to the total revenue growth of 2005 and 2006 combined. Won’t happen. It is an especially large nut to crack when you consider that 2006 revenue only grew 73% and Q1 2007 only 63%. We also need to consider that Google is coming into the slower summer months which will put real pressure on the last 3 months of the year to produce revenues equal to almost the entire first 9 months. I get this by taking the $3.6 billion from Q1 and giving Google $3 billion for Q’s 2 and 3 to reflect the anticipated seasonal slowdown. This leaves us with $9.6 billion left at the end of Q3, $9 billion short of the revenue needed for our $18.4 billion to give us $15.12 a share eps. Even if we allow for Google to turn Q’s 2 and 3 into Q1 beaters and give them $4 billion in revenues each, that still leaves them $7 billion short for the Q4. Just too much.
Other Share Price Headwinds:
Dilution:
Google used stock to purchase YouTube and as of q1 2007, basic shares outstanding have increased 2.6% to 308 million since Dec. 2006 (13% since 2005 and 60% since 2004) and the employee option program will expedite the rate of increase of this dilution.
From the Google site:
“If an employee chooses to sell options in the TSO program, he or she will use an internal online tool built by Morgan Stanley to sell them to the highest-bidding financial institution. The financial institutions buying the options will then likely hold them until maturity and then settle with Google. Google’s employee stock options typically have a ten-year term from the grant date. Under the TSO program, Google’s employee stock options, upon transfer, will have a lifespan of the lesser of two years or up to the remaining term under the original grant.”
What is very interesting here is that in January, the Google site speculated that buyers of the options would short the stock to hedge the option purchase. This now has been has been eliminated from the explanation.
Now, Google could offset this dilution by buying back huge blocks of shares but this is highly unlikely since they re using the shares as currency to make purchases. This implies that they feel a dollar of stock is currently valued at more than a dollar of currency. This is another valuation warning
Acquisitions:
A large acquisition from Google could blow EPS estimates out of the water. But, looking at past history, Google did overpay for YouTube and did the same thing for Doubleclick and neither will do anything for earnings anytime soon and YouTube will likely turn into a litigation drain on cash well before it actually makes any money. Based on history, we need to discount this possibility as acquisitions are one thing Google has not done very well at all so far.
Analysts:
I cannot find a single “hold” or “sell” rating on shares of Google. As a bit of a contrarian, when I see that I instantly get alarmed. No company is flawless and when there are no dissenting voices, people hear the same positive drumbeat repeatedly. That leads to overconfidence in the company and its shares and make the inevitable mistake harder on everyone.
Now, let’s talk multiple on the shares and prices. Last year, Google grew EPS 97% and traded at a PE multiple of roughly 2/3 that in the 60’s. Companies with declining growth rates trade at multiples that are a discount to those rates. Let’s say I am wrong on everything and they do end up hitting the $15.12 estimates. That would mean EPS growth in 2007 of 48%, down from 97%. If we apply the same 2/3 multiple we get a PE of 31 times earnings or a price of $468. It is not unreasonable to expect a multiple contraction of 50% for a growth rate reduction of a like amount especially when you consider EPS growth in 2008 will be even slower.
In January I wrote:
“You should expect the multiple for Google to contract to a range commensurate with its growth rate. If that rate this year is around 30% expect the PE to shrink to about 30 times 2007 earnings. That gives us a price for Google shares of about $450 a share.”
Google hit $450 not long after (it was $500 when I wrote it) and has bounced around the $460 to $470 range most days since then. I cannot see any reason that Google deserves to be priced at any higher than that anytime soon.
I recently had an email conversation with a hedge fund manager who will remain nameless since I did not get his permission to air our discussion and have no desire to anger anyone. In that discussion he stated “…Google is at a new pace, one of none other than Google’s…” When I hear talk like that, I instantly flash back to 1999 and 2000. “New” seldom is new, only “different” and that means the same laws of finance and math still apply. In our digital age competitors catch up more quickly and tech titans reign at #1 become shorter and shorter. This is rather ironic because it is the same digital technologies that enable their meteoric accent to begin with. IBM reigned for almost 30 years, Microsoft for about 12 and Google has been there for about 5 now. Growth slowed for all as they grew and matured and Google has proven to be no exception. It shares, however, have not realized that fact yet as they have already priced in this years earnings. Should Google stumble one quarter as all companies eventually do, look out below.
I will reiterate my closing statement from my January post. Great company, great products, it’s shares are just over priced.
I await the angry emails and comments.
15 replies on “Google Update: IL Caveat Emptor”
Your statement that “they are using the shares as currency to make purchases. This implies that they feel a dollar of stock is currently valued at more than a dollar of currency. This is another valuation warning.” is the opposite of the truth. Google purchased DoubleClick with cash which is consistent with their recent statements that Google’s stock is undervalued.
http://internet.seekingalpha.com/article/34223
What about AMZN, YHOO and MSFT?
Shouldn’t you pick on them first?
I did not say they used cash for Doubleclick, I said they used cash for YouTube. Using cash for Doubleclick would have destroyed EPS this quarter due to the dilution.
AMZN and YaHoo are also overvalued, Microsoft, I think not so much. Although YaHoo does present a takeover arb now.
I just checked S&P report on GOOG. There are numerous buy/holds, holds, and weak holds (almost sells) on GOOG according to the S&P report.
What data are you looking at?
I believe those “holds” came out after after I wrote this. I wrote it the day earnings came out. It was not posted due to other earnings announcements and more timely posts. The consensus is rated “buy” with zero “sells”
Todd,
Nice work on this Google post. I agree with you that Google is using it’s stock as much as possible as currency for their acquisitions.
I think we will be seeing several major attacks on Google’s competitive advantage over the coming year. Microsoft, Yahoo, and maybe even some unknown upstarts will be desparately trying to get a piece of the fat profits Google is currently enjoying. There is even a small consumer backlash starting among the hardcore tech users against Google. There is a lot at risks for Google and I wonder if they are really ready for them.
Todd,
You got to the conclusion that google stock cannot perform in 2007 since the company has to achieve sales of $18B which is impossible.
My analysis shows that your google analysis is incorrect and misleading.
The company doesn’t have to achieve $18B to deliver their expected profit in 2007.
In addition estimates for Q2 Q3 earnings you are using are way too low compared to the concensus.
You also assumed earning/reveneu for 2007 smaller then 2006 and from the last Q reports we can see that Google margins are improving.
You have used 329M outstanding shares when last quarter report said they have 315 milliom shares.
in shorst many many small errors which lead to your wrong conclusion.
As my analysis shows the company doesn’t need to earn 18B in 1007 to meet their earning but ~ $15B and this achievable compared to 2006.
My analysis also shows that sales growth in 2007 vs 2006 will be 40.36%
Their earning growth in 2007 over 2006 will be above 44.7% per the consensus.
If google will keep suprising (+7%?) we could get this number higher
If the analysts keep upgrading the their estimates of the earning for 2007 for say another 5%
these two factors could get the earning growth to 62% and 2007 EPS to $17 from the $15.12 in yahoo.
Now , would you pay PE of 40 for a company that growths at 62% ? I would !!!
In which case the stock should trade at 40 * $17 = $680.
Here are the detailed numbers which back my statements above
Ratio of earning/revenue
———————————-
For the last 5 quarters. you can see improvement in this ration which means they need to sell less for the same earning or gain more earning for the same sales.
Q1 2006 GAAP Earning/Revenue 23%
Q2 2006 GAAP Earning/Revenue 29.3%
Q3 2006 GAAP Earning/Revenue 27.2%
Q4 2006 GAAP Earning/Revenue 32.15%
Q1 2007 GAAP Earning/Revenue 33%
Q1 2007 non-GAAP earning/Revenue 38%
Earning growth 2007 vs 2006
—————————-
Q1 2007/2006 non-GAAP EPS 3.68/2.29 growth = 60.7%
Q2 2007(est)/2006 non-GAAP EPS 3.56/2.49 growth = 42.9%
Q3 2007(est)/2006 non-GAAP EPS 3.72/2.62 growth = 42%
Q4 2007(est)/2006 non-GAAP EPS 4.16 /3/18 growth = 30.8%
2006 numbers
———————–
EPS non-GAAP $10.58
311 Million shares
Profit (non-GAAP) = $3,290M (10.58 * 310m)
Revenue $10,604,197K
2007 numbers
——————–
EPS non-GAAP $15.12
315 Million outstanding shares (from Q1 2007)
2007 total profit (estimate) = $15.12 * 315 Million = $4,763M
2007 Revenue extrapolation assuming 32% earning/revenue (based on Q1 2007) = $4763M/0.32 = $14,884M
(there is error in Yahoo finance in this column. it lists revenue of $15.38B for 2008. I think they meant probably 2007. in such case the revenue for 2008 is missing.
revenue growth 2007(est) /2006 $14.884/$10.604B = 40.36%
earning growth 2007 (est) /2006 $4763B/$3290B = 44.7%
sidi,
thank you for reading. a few things
– 329 million shares is based on the expected dilution. i took the dilution average from the last 3 years. the 315 they have out now is much smaller the the eventual #. i did say that in the post..Also, the last 3 years do not include the effects of the new employee stock option program. this will dramatically increase the dilution (again, from the post)
-net earnings as a % of revenue. this number cam from Google site based on Q1 result. http://investor.google.com/fin_data.html
-you are using income from operations, not net, net income is what is relevant
this cause you analysis to be heavily skewed. when we talk earnings, the only thing that matters is what drops to the eps ratio.
do your analysis again with the net income # and you will get a far different result.
Todd here is my response
1. Google 8K report for Q1 states that “We currently anticipate that dilution related to all equity grants to employees will be at or below 2% this year”
The number of soutstanding shares by end of 2006 was 313M according to their last quarter report if you add 2% you get 319M shares and not 329M as you used.
This is difference of roughly 3% (329M vs 319M)
2. Their Net income as percent of the revenue increased from 2004 to 2005 and 2006. no reason why it shouldn’t continue this trend
certainly no reason to go down.
I calculated those rations from yahoo finance and here they are
2004 2005 2006 numbers are 12.51% 23.87% 29.01% so I expect 2007 to be bigger then 2006 and not smaller like you have assumed (27% if I remember correctly)
Quarterly ratios during 2006 look as follows: 26.28% 29.35% 27.26% 32.15% so 2006 ratio (29.01%) is bigger then 2006Q1 ratio (26.28). The ratio during Q1 2007 was indeed 27% (my mistake) but you should look on the yearly trend and the fact that the yearly ratio for 2007 should be bigger then the 27%.
If I follow the yearly trend I would say that the ratio should be higher then 2006 ratio and closer to 30% then to 27% which you have used.
Here again 30% vs 27% is 4% absolute.
3. Here I come to the $18B you have arrived and which lead you to say that this is “mission impossible”
I think that the $18B was based wrong calculation of the profit during 2007. You multiplied eps of $15.12 by 329M shares and got 4941M profit for 2007
according to the correct number of shares (319M as I explained in section 1) this profit should be 4823M
then you have used earning/revenue factor estimation of 27% and as I explain this is wrong and the number should be closer to 30%.
So 4823/0.3 = 16.077 while you used 27% which is wrong and got 4941/0.27 = $18.3B
4. If you look now on the revenue growth in 2006 you see that quarterly revenue grew quarter over quarter from 2.25B (Q1) to 2.45B (Q2) to 2.69B(Q3) to 3.20B(Q4) which represents growth of 8.8% 9.8% 18.95%.
2007 Q1 revenue grew 14% over Q4 2006 so there is a trend of increase in revenue and not as
you wrote.
Look at the significant growth in the last quarter due to end of the year effect !!
I will use 8% for Q2 revenue growth (isntead of 8.8%) over Q1, 8% Q3 revenue growth over Q2 (instead of 9.8%) and 13% (not 18.95%) for Q3 Revenue growth over Q3.
If I use this numbers , the quarterly revenue for 2007 quarters will be 3.66B 3.95B 4.26B 4.4B which comes to total of 16.27B
5. Summary
Case closed.
Google can achieve the revenue numbers for 2007 to justify their earnings and your assumptions were wrong and therfor your conclusion that Google is over priced was wrong.
I hope I see a response from you to this analysis.
– I did not “assume” 27% NI to Rev. that was the number they reported
-YouTube is now paying for content, this will further shrink margins
Read my last paragraph:
“Now, let’s talk multiple on the shares and prices. Last year, Google grew EPS 97% and traded at a PE multiple of roughly 2/3 that in the 60’s. Companies with declining growth rates trade at multiples that are a discount to those rates. Let’s say I am wrong on everything and they do end up hitting the $15.12 estimates. That would mean EPS growth in 2007 of 48%, down from 97%. If we apply the same 2/3 multiple we get a PE of 31 times earnings or a price of $468. It is not unreasonable to expect a multiple contraction of 50% for a growth rate reduction of a like amount especially when you consider EPS growth in 2008 will be even slower.”
Let’s assume you are right, with the slowing eps growth, shares are still not woth anything near $600, $500 is tops….
I can slice this anyway you want.I think the market has shown this valuation for the last year almost now.
For your sake I hope I am wrong… I am not though
Todd,
As follow up to my previous post (third post) lets compare Google to Apple in the aspect of our discussion.
Apple has yearly growth of 20% over the next 5 years and it trades at 2007 PE of 30 which give it PEG of 1.5
This is example of a company which the market believes they can achieve their 5 year growth rate and therefore it give them PEG of 1.5 on their 5 year growth.
Apple has 54% growth this year relative to the previous year and at least in yahoo finance it shows 13% growth for 2008 (probably another short sight of the analysts) so the market knows how to disregard to jokes like that and
gives it PEG of 1.5 and 2007 PE of 30.
Google 2007 EPS growth rate over 2006 is 44% and 5 year growth rate is 30% and yet the current 2007 PE is 30 which means PEG of 2/3 for the next 5 year growth rate.
What is the difference between the two companies ?
Both are excellent companies . leaders in their markets.
The difference is that in case of Apple the market believes and in the case of google the market doesn’t believe.
Why is that ? because there is no transparency in Google future plans, they don’t spend enough in marketing and they don’t issue guidelines so the only way for the market to realise their “growth sustainability” is only after thee profits were deliverd (the investors are saying “show me the money first”).
So in the case of google we have to wait for them to show us they sustained the growth of 30% and then the stock will be ready to give them PEG of 1.5 like in the case of Apple.
In the case of Apple, the hype of jobs is making blows up expectations and make the market believe that Apple can achieve their growth rate of 20% per year and maybe higher.
This is the difference between the two in this aspect.
So google is not bad relative to Apple.
The market has hard time realising that they can sustain growth like it believe is the case with Apple.
So if I was instead google management and I wanted to push up google multiples (or otherwise they will not be able to use the stock options to motivate their engineers) I would increase the transparency and make the market believe that they can really achieve 30% growth rate constantly like in the case of Apple.
It has nothing to do with bad performance.
It is a matter of making the market believe they know what to do
to sustain the 30% growth.
This is the advice I would give Google management in order to push up the stock price.
They won’t do it because they don’t want to show in public what they intend to do because of the competition.
Another thing I could do insead of google management if I wanted to push the stock price up inthis 1-2 years until they prove they can achieve sustain growth is to
split the stock. It will creat mmomentum behind it and will keep the employees happy until 2008.
What that all means the investors ?
Wait for the correction to come earlier or later it will come
the correction could be 100% increase in 2008 or higher if it is delayed to 2009.
Here is why
Going from from PEG of 2/3 to PEG of 1.5 means 100% increase in price assuming same earning
If earning keeps going up 30% per year it will have 2008 EPS of 24 as I explain and with PEG of 1.5 (relative to growth of 30%) the stock will have PE of 45 and therefore stock price of $900-$1000.
Do you really think that the stock can be stagnant at 450 during all this time and then jump by 100% or 200% ?
(in your analysis you didn’t say what will happen in 1-2 years and this is where we are different in opinions)
I believe that the stock will move in anticipation of that correction to happen and therefore the price cannot stay at this price to long.
I hope this convince you with my arguments:
1. Google can achieve 2007 earnings
2. Google will demonstrate by
their performance they can
sustain 30% growth but it will
require some time unless they
increase their discussions with
analysts and the media
3. Once it happens the stock
go back and maintain PEG of 45
on sustainable growth of 30%
which will drive the stock
price by end of 2008 to
$900-$1000.
4. Every year that will pass with
this correction will make the
correction much bigger in %
So if the correction happens in
2009 the stock price will have
to go to $1300 which 200%
increase.
Since such thing will never happen, the stock will have to move.
One thing is for sure, the stock will not stagnant !!!
Here is a post which I submitted to TODD post (May 9th 3.20pm) and was not published for some reason before the last one was published.
So can you publish this post in your blog at the right place after Todd’s reply and before my last post ?
here it is:
Todd,
1. It was your assumption to use NI 27% for 2007 based on Q1 2007 and this was wrong to do as I explained already.
2. YouTube still didn’t produce meaningfull revenue and if they will pay contributers that means they will make money. so what is the complain…
I use to say that I want to pay income TAX since it would mean I have income.
So don;t forget they will pay when they earn !! You and I and no one know now how much they will earn and certianly how much they will pay.
I am only say that they will probably have good ROI.
So don;t use this to dicount their future profit.
Now we left the world of numbers and entered the world of speculations.
Since I am eletrical engineer in my backgrowund I will lead you systematically to admit that your model is wrong since it is based on the assumtion that the future growth rate will decelerate at the same speed of the past and this is number 2 mistake you did (after the previouse mistake you did with requiring google sales to be the $18B in order to meet 2007 earnings).
Your calculation of the effect of decelartion on the the PE the market is willing to pay assumes that the same speed of decelation will continue in the future and in if this was the case I suggest that google guys will pack their things and go home.
If that was correct then 2008 growth would have to be 50% of 2007 growth (97% to 44% is roughly 50% decelaration) or 22%. 2/3 (PEG)of that would put them on PE of 15 in one year.
If that was the case then your analysis would be right.
This is nounses.
Growth will stablized probably at the 30-32% yer over year for the next 5 years as the analysts predict in yahoo finance and they think it is sustenable.
The market will stop discounting the PE to growth as the growth stabilizes around this growth rate.
I think that at steady state growth of 30% the market will
move from PEG of 2/3 to say 1.2-1.3
(bigger then 1. at some point Cramer said that he is willing to PEG of 2 for growthing company so
stable growing company at this rate would allow of 1.2-3 in my mind).
So as growth will gradually migrate towars the 30-32% from 44% right the PEG will migrate from 2/3 today with fast deceleration to 1.2-1.3 in steady state. which basically will cause the PE to stay the same as today at the level of 40.
2008 PE will be 40 (30*1.3) same as 2007 PE which is 40 (44* *2/3).
Your mistake was that you didn’t consider this transint effect in the PEG (2/3 to 1.2).
If you accept my throey then we only have to estimate what will be 2008 earnings and you have the price that will dictate with PE of 40.
The numbers for 2008 in Yhaoo finance are joke. Let me show you why.
If you looked at 2007 estimates back in 2005 you wouldn’t be even closer to the current $15.12 estimate.
So what happend ? the analysts keep ajusting like the rates trying to find the cheese by trial and error.
I think that 2007 eps eventiually will be updated upwards to the $17 by year end.(Analysts keep updating earnings and they keep beating I estimated this effects by 7% and 5% for total of 12%)
this will push 2007 earning growth towards 50% with decelation of growth rate of 50% from 2006 earinings (97%)
Decelartion speed is slowing along the years since the IPO so lets assume it will go from 50% deceleration to 35% so the growth at 2008 will be 50 * 0.65 32.5 which is around the steady state I predict according to what the anslysts say.
At this year the market will pay PE of 1.2-1.3 as I explained beuase the growth decelation would slow and be more stable around this rate.
so the market will pay PE of 40 if it will beleive that the company can sustain that growth.
This is tha basis for my throery and again it is all theories.
so 2008 earining should be
17 * 1.32 = 22.5 and with PE of 40 the stock should be 900 by end of 2008
It is based on the sustainbility of stable growth more or less for the next 5 years which I beleive is acheivable.
You can say I donlt beleive in that and the growth will go to 20% in this case you will bruight with your ansysis but I think it is not the case.
Anyway, stagnent at 450 means for the next 1-2 yers means that google will go out of business since it means their growth will deteriorate and this is not my prediction for them.
They are today the best company in the market.
If your conclusionwas right then most of their engineers will leave
17*1.35
as we go from 2007 to 2008 and to 30% in
Even if 2008 growth goes to ~35%
(decelartion factor of 30% vs 50% this year) and in 2009 the decelaration factor goes down to 25% 40% on that which $23-$24.
at this time the deceleration effect will smaller (from 44% growth to 35-40% growth which close to the 5 year estimates of the analyst) and thefore the PEG of 2/3 which you meantioned will rise back towards 1 – 1.2 (over 1 for such growing company).
This will allow the stock PE to be around 30-33 in 2008 but then the earnings will be higher then today.
yahoo financial web site for google says that 2008 eps will be $18.42. forget about it the numbers will be much higher when the time comes.
so for 2008 the right price should be 750 (24 * 30)
This is 300 points higher then today.
According to your analysis which says that stock will stagnant for the next 1-2 years it means that
the stock will be trading at 2008 multiple of 18. someone which might have been true if the
growth continue to decelerate towardd 25%.
I beleive the pace of decelartion will slow down and therfore the
PEG will rise from 2/3 back to 1 and higher.
Your mistake in the anslsys is that you are analysing the futures assuming the same deceleratiion will continue for ever and I say this is wrong.
The growth is decelerating true but will reach steady state (5 yeear, not for ever).
If I am right then gain of 300 from 450 to 750 points cannot happen in one day.
Markets move based on exepactions.
But no way this stock price should stay stagnant at 450 for 1-2 years as you indicated
Yomtov,
-I never stated earning growth will decelerate “forever”. I said 2007 and 2008. For anyone to make any assumption any farther out is pure guesswork.
– I do not understand where the Apple comparison comes in as I have never written about them. I do think they are overpriced also..
– I stand by my analysis (which has been 100% correct to date by the way). If you own shares, hold them, if you do not, do not buy them.
– The Laws of Math always win…
Todd,
I used Apple as an opposit example of what is happening with google and I said that if the market will beleive google growth their PEG can be the same which is 1.5 and not 2/3 as it is today. I didnlt say you mentiond apple.
I think I have used simple mathematics to show you where you were wrong. I am surpised to see your remarks that “Law of mathematics always win”.
didn;t I use LAW of Mathemaitcs to show you where you were wrong.
In my last post we left as I said the mathematics world and entered the epculation game since predicting what will happen in 1-2 years cannot ignore what will happend if google can sustain their growth and what kind of correction we could see in the market.
Otherwise your analysis is misleading.
Otherwise why would I hold my stocks if there is not “light” at the other end of the tunnel in the shape of big correction ? why would I hold it ? why not buy other stock ?
In short, read my detailed analysis I even didn;t have to use all the 4 basic opetration of elementary school to show you you that you are wrong.
Instead of saying I was right you are giving me this “the lasw of mathematics always win”
I am wasting probably my time trying to convince you since you will never admit your analysis was wrong.
Go back and read it all again and you will see how much you were wrong.
yomtov,
first things first.
we can disagree and be respectful. this is not an infantile message board where people insult each other because they disagree. if you are so disposed, leave.
i disagree with your analysis and we are both very fortunate because the future will prove one of us correct
i would hold it because unless shares are going to fall 15% or more (this will be your tax hit from selling is you have owned it for more than a year) selling will cost you $. If you have owned it less than a year, your tax on any profits will be much more. I have said they will be flat, not drop 15% or more
your analysis contains assumptions contrary to mine, that does not mean you are correct, just that you have different assumptions about the future and how the market will react to them. It should be noted this does not make me correct either, future results will do that for either of us.
I also did not say there was “no light at the end of the tunnel” for shares, just that it was not imminent.
In an earlier Google post I stated that i thought shares would hit $600 (20% higher than then $500 price when I wrote it), i just think it will be a few years from now
I also said that “i hope I am wrong” for current shareholders sake, but to date I am not
I provide a forum for people to express ideas and opinions. not to insult each other. please remember that