Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
i'm just saying that market manipulation may cause short-term panic, but if the offer comes in at .25, then the price will follow, or if the audited financials come in on par with projections, then the price will follow, as jared has said...
freaking out or getting elated over short-term fluctuations just seems unnecessary if you're a long...that's all i'm saying, and my original post was never directed at you, but at the sentiment on the board at the time of the 17 percent gain
but so what, the current stock price is not going to change the offer price? nor is it going to change the long-term potential of the company -- i don't think we'll see any distributors saying, no, i don't want your product, your stock price is too low -- if you're in it for the long-term, then short-term fluctations, up or down, shouldn't matter
i'm not kidding you, and whatever it is that we went through, bid wacking, whatever, it only amounts to us regaining the ground that we lost, and as far as i know, that doesn't put any more money in anybody's pocket for the week --
we can be happy we broke even for the week, you can be happier if you got in lower or whatever, but it's no realization of the 500 percent gains all longs expect from this point on...
if it's an indication that there's a greater probability of things materializing, then yeah, i'm all for a little more hope, but i put my money in this stock because i thought it would produce 500 percent gains, as a long, i think that's what we all expect...
maybe if i'm in it to flip it, then i'm happy with the 17 percent...but otherwise, if you're a long, do you really care?
to me, it seems like some people are using a 17 percent rally as an "i told you so" against bashers -- who cares? it seems a little immature -- you invest in a stock as an investment -- that's it, you don't have to justify your selection to anyone
there is no war going on between longs and bashers -- in the end, like jared has said, if he does his job, then the stock will follow...that's it
and that's the point i was trying to make way back when in my original post
well, it seems like we're both wrong, because my chart says we started the week at .019...
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=EESO.PK#chart1:symbol=eeso.pk;range=5d;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
and then, this list of the historical prices lists us at .019 opening on Monday, and a high of .02...
http://www.pinksheets.com/pink/quote/quote.jsp?symbol=eeso#getCharts
but, seriously, what really is the point of challenging me on that, like i'm some kind of idiot for suggesting that we're down for the week?
maybe lighten up a little...
i look past 1 day -- i don't know if you realize this, but in the aggregate over the week, we've lost money...i'm not the only one that counts, but we went DOWN from .02 to .015 during the week...yeah, we jumped up .003, but that's nothing to get amazed about considering (1) the loss if looking at the entire week and (2) the fact that, 17 percent, considering if we're all longs here, should be nothing compared to what we expect...
i think most of us expect to get a 500 percent return on this one -- so why get so happy over 17 percent after you're down 25 percent on the week?
that's like going to a poker table, losing 50, but being thrilled when you get 25 back --
it's not about me, i'm just saying, in the aggregate, over the week, we lost -- let's hope the late rally was an indication of things to come, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything -- we had a huge rally a couple weeks ago and that didn't amount to anything...
and like i said, what's 17 percent here to longs whenever they are 100 percent certain they're gong to get a 1,000 percent return?
agreed -- it'd have to be one big vast conspiracy, and i think jared would have to be wielding a lot more power -- like be head of a fortune 500 company before he could get others to actually believe it's possible to get away with stuff like that
yeah, that sounded like there's two camps, the righteous and the unrighteous...
IMHO, this isn't a game of winners vs. losers or bad guys vs. good guys, its about making a sound investment decision -- that's it, and i don't think today's rally means anything -- we're all down for the week
there's a us attorney's office and then there's judges and their completely independent of each other...
i'm pretty sure there's nothing criminal jared has done yet, all i can think of is that if he's issued materially misleading statements then he's subject to 10b-5 liability --
what criminal securities laws are you thinking of?
i have to say, i think that's a pretty good investment approach with pink sheets -- you have to be more than cautious, at least pessimistic...
but, at least we can say this company is making money, which is something that 95 percent of pinks don't do...then again, the financial statements may be fraudulent, but longs will look forward to the audited statements actually coming out on track with the projections the company puts out...
and we know they're getting contracts, it's just a matter of whether or not their estimates are anywhere close to what we actually get
jared owns all the voting shares, so its his decision
well now i don't know what you're getting at? somebody was asking why everybody was talking about April 24th -- i told him jared stated in his conference call that he would expect something in two weeks, and we took two weeks from the initial pr date --
what do you mean 16 other scenarios? my point was to say not to get your hopes up -- not that jared is lying, but something that he says casually in a conference call is etched into stone on this board -- and i don't think its jared's job or in his best interest to be giving us play-by-play of the negotiations -- IMO, he should let us know if he knows its their final offer...offers and counteroffers could be going back and forth for awhile
because jared said he would expect something back within 2 weeks -- but i wouldn't get your hopes up, i think that's what people on the board are expecting and they're setting themselves up for disappointment -- the offeror has one month to counteroffer, and that may be the time it takes them to come up with the offer...jared has no control over when this company will report back --
plus, if they haven't reached a deal, then i wouldn't think that jared would want to publicly announce what the counteroffer was...they may not stop playing negotations for awhile, and i wouldn't understand why jared would want to put a preliminary number out there unless it's (1) rejected or (2) accepted;
any preliminary number wouldn't do any good for jared unless he felt he couldn't get any better of a deal...e.g. they report back with a .12 counteroffer -- jared pr's it and we have shareholders voicing that jared should take it, even though jared owns the voting shares he might be influenced -- that may prevent him from counteroffering back and continuing the negotiations
where does he ever say it's a fortune 500 company?
agree -- i think there's been too much confirmed on this company that jared, at this point, just has no logical reason or motivation to be lying...there's so little to be gained and so much to lose
can someone explain to me why quarter 3's income and sales were so much higher than quarter 4?
i'm not ensuing that the company is a scam or anything, just curious
who bought the huge block at 10 am, and exactly how many shares did it take to drive the price down like that to pick up that bid?
i know i was watching, invested in a corporation, and there was a guy on the board that did everything you did, visited the company, watched its operations, and then we find out that it transferred all its assets into his own private company -- the way to structurally screw over the shareholder without the shareholder noticing is pretty easy if you have the motive and a little sense --
anybody can get screwed, penny stocks have a lot worse reputation because they're more prevalent, but enron, worldcomm, any size company can pull one over on shareholders, regardless of whether you've actually visited the site
it certainly helps to have an auditor, and without an auditor, plus the fact that it's a pink-sheet company, you have to almost think that it's a scam -- it's just the nature and prevalence of how many people get screwed over...if you don't think it's a scam or aren't cautiously pessimistic, then "blind faith" is pretty accurate --
ultimately, all of us here, including you, are relying on Jared not screwing us over, no matter if you've visited the site, watched products going off the line, verified contracts with third parties...
his projections could be way off, EESO may not make a profit this year despite having contracts in all sorts of countries, jared may deplete the corporations assets into a subsidiary and make this into a shell, jared may dilute the shares -- there's all kinds of stuff you can do --
again, we're relying on jared -- he seems like a good guy -- doesn't really look like a convict to me, which is why i'm investing
i like your end result and your valuation, i just have never seen a company go from $9 million in revenue to $136 million within one year --
i'm honestly going to have to see it to believe it -- i believe EESO is real and everything, but i have just never seen any company with that kind of growth...
i'd love to see actual contracts with numbers assigned to them so that the shareholder can actually get a rough estimate that approximates what they're actually projecting --
so far, the only contracts i know of are the $50 million over 7 years and the $12 million (which i'm assuming will be performed within the year)...
if they can get that kind of growth, then i think your valuation is about right on, but if i'm the acquiring company i have the same skepticism that i do -- i'm asking, are they going to get the contracts signed that they actually have forecasted, and are they going to be able to meet the expansion? if so, then yeah, i pay top dollar for this company, if not, then i'm looking at whether their products perform and if i think that i can sell it...
yeah, could you please? -- i understand what marketcap is, but i would have no idea how a peg ratio would work out in practice --
from what i'm reading on wikipedia, a PEG should equal 1 if it takes into account growth --
if we grow at 1,000 percent, like we're projected to, then we should have a PE of 1,000 in order for our PEG to equal 1? is that right?
maybe i'm missing something, but i thought the first page was Quarter 3 financials, which have us making $3.3 million in profit, and page two was Quarter 4 financials, which have us making $.2 million --
so, if i'm not mistaken, there's a half-year that hasn't been given...and i don't know where i got it, but i thought there was $9 million in profit in 2008
i think that's about right -- i would expect something around there...though i thought our profit this year was $9 million?
we got $3 million in profit in 3rd quarter alone
have no idea
but EESO's market cap is only $32 million if i'm not mistaken -- what do you multiply that buy to get a value of what the offer might be?
i might be wrong, but i've never heard of valuing companies in merger and acquisition transactions based upon their market cap
the most common types i know are ebitda multiples, discounted cash flow models and comparables --
purduecrew, how do you value the company based upon market cap? do you multiply it by a certain number that's used in M&A transactions?
luvthatmoney, what's the P/E ratio you used?
estimated revenue 2009 = $150 million
estimated profit pre-tax 2009 = $150*.4 = $60 million
typical ebitda multiple valuation in a good market = 8
typical ebitda multiple valuation in a bad market = 6
See the chart: http://www.moneyweek.com/investment-advice/how-to-invest/what-buyout-fever-means-for-markets.aspx
if 8 multiple, EESO valued at 8*$60 million = $480 million
if 6 multiple, EESO valued at 6*$60 million = $360 million
multiple required for purduecrew's $1 billion valuation? ~16!!
Does anyone think that we'll get over .25 a share offer? IMHO, i think $500 million valuation for EESO, based on EBITDA multiple, is generous.
Does anybody know how a discounted cash flow method of valuation works in a mergers and acquisition? and what that might be for EESO?
realistically, does anyone think EESO will get an offer over .25? i think we could see something around that based on an EBITA multiple -- what about net present value analysis? is anyone on here an accountant that could make a valuation of what the company is worth based on $150 million in sales, 25 percent profit margin in 2009...and say, an average increase in earnings and sales over the next 5 years of 25 percent?
nobody knows, and certainly no one posting on these boards -- the more you guys respond to this guy the more reason it gives for him to post
is the valuation of a company during a merger based on forward projections? or is it based on last year's results? if forward projections, do you know what a high-growth companies EBITDA is usually around if, for example, the company is expected to grow at 50-100 percent a year?
have another question -- the first offer valued this company at $200 million -- what's EESO's EBITDA supposed to be next year?
i'm assuming that if we have after-tax earnings of $30-35 million, it's probably around $40-45 million...
if we were to get an offer of $300 million, that's an EBITDA multiple, according to next year's projections, of 7.5, which is probably what is about right in our economic environment.
to me, IMHO, for EESO to sell at $1 billion or at .50 a share, it would mean EESO would have an EBITDA multiple of around 22!! That's unheard of, as far as i know...maybe someone can give an example of where that's been the case, i only really have a background in understanding valuations of companies that are more mature than EESO...
IMO, and as far as i've learned, in a good economic climate, EESO could get a valuation of around 12x EBITDA... $40-45 million EBITDA would equate to $500 million valuation, which would be .25 cents a share...still not bad, but i'd have to guess that this would be on the high-end of what a company is willing to pay for EESO
i think jerad, to turn down the $200 million offer, was the right thing to do, that's an ebitda, assuming EESO hits next year's projections, of around 5, which is really low -- of course, to get much higher than that, he's going to have to make this suitor believe that he can actually hit next year's projections...
good to hear -- does anyone have any indication how much this WoWGreen deal is going to be worth or the structure of it -- is it going to be a licensing arrangement, etc.
until you know where every dollar is coming from in their projection schedule, i'd be questioning their projections...as a lot have said, and i have seen, pinks love to "project" their revenues to increase 1000% year-on-end...
not saying that this company is a scam or anything like that at all, but there's a difference between blind faith and naivety and being a cautious, reasonable investor
or maybe because they have jobs?
i like the guy and i like the company...i just haven't seen a company increase it's revenues and earnings by over 1,000 percent in one year...i'm wondering if anyone can give an example of that actually happening?
my other worry, maybe not worry, but to think that this company will maintain its profit margin of 37 percent (and this is after EBITDA right -- not gross margin?) while its expanding like crazy seems highly unrealistic...if he could keep a profit margin of 20 percent i'd be amazed, but then i guess it depends on how much the product is differentiated
if the contracts are there, and the revenues are actually painted out, then that's great...
also, i think Jared's originally assumed $30 million net income before all these contracts started coming in...do people think he's going to adjust that?
my question, does anyone have an example of a company that actually has increased its sales and earnings over 1,000 percent while maintaining its profit margin? -- i've seen projections like this all the time with pinks, it seems EESO might have the contracts to back it up, but is it even operationally feasible?
ok -- so we're expected to make around $150 million in sales next year, with a profit margin of around, let's say conservatively (though 30 percent is a VERY HIGH profit margin)...that makes earnings around $45 million -- i think i heard Jerad speak about wanting around $30 million in net income, which approximately equates to around .02 a share (assuming we're fully diluted at 2billion shares)...
a conservative p/e of 20 (assuming the market turns around and actually fairly values stocks), and the price is around .40...
does this sound right?
i have one question then...has anyone actually seen a company go from $9 million in income to $30 million over the course of a year? i see pinks project this type of stuff all the time, but i'm wondering if it ever actually happens?
do we really think this company is worth .50 to $3? i mean honestly, let's give a five year projection here, and say he makes $50 million in income next year -- that's equivalent to about .025 eps ...whoever wants to buy the company for .50 will definitely be looking at this company for its long-term potential...
EESO made $10 million in earnings this year? is that right? what's its projection for next year? i think $50 million would be stretching it, even with all the contracts, they can't all be performed within one year unless there's some significant expansion
btw, i do like jared, i think he's a genuine and very motivated guy...tho i'm not 100 percent sold on this company