data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ff34b/ff34b0a414fd4f3c7febae9805dce3eacfdabe17" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/04a45/04a455d06f0b7cd2f52195ae54779d3d8f388e43" alt=""
Predictions are neither here nor there, but it's interesting that ... wait, I'm wrong. It has a lot of debt, so it was not, at the end of 2015, as I thought for a moment, a buy on book value ... I was looking at current ratio, which is solid, and was then.
What are we to make of some thing like this, then? It has some positive fundamentals - size, good current ratio. The fact that its losses are modest could be called a positive. In what sense could it have been called cheap at the beginning of the year, there? Only in this sense - well, it was down 90% since 2010, so, in terms of the price pattern ... and maybe that this decline took a long time - but in terms of the fundamentals, in this sense: sales of well over $30 per share, and a price of only $2.50 a share.
This gives me a thought. It's a pretty obvious thought, and I've had a thought like it before, once, not too long ago, but it didn't stay on my mind. I can scan for a low price to sales ratio ... and, having done that, just for the heck of it, I added a decent current ratio to the criteria (making it criteria, and not just a criterion) ... and started looking at the list ... of 700 stocks. Came up with Arctic Cat.
No comments:
Post a Comment