>MATK – imo the chart is more reflective of where MATK should trade today vs where it was trading before.<
For the most part, I agree. I’ve been bearish on this company for most of the period on that 5-year chart and I was short the stock (for a gain) on one occasion. The company has been a textbook case of over-promise/under-deliver for a long time, mainly with respect to the prospects in the food sector.
I’m trying to ascertain if the bearishness is now overdone.
>The problem is establishing a value for them in light of a) The WSJ article assertions, and b) their forward revs/eps forecasts irrespective of the article in question.<
As mentioned in my annotations accompanying the WSJ article, a) is relevant only inasmuch as it reflects on management’s motivations; it does not alter how much the business is worth (and hence how much the stock is worth).
>they appear a tad fully-valued for what they do, i.e., not a full-fledged biotech, per se.<
Why does it matter whether MATK is pigeonholed as a biotech, a quasi-biotech, or something else? I would argue that MATK’s business model is similar to that of a drug company with a weak pipeline that earns a low-percentage royalty on sales of a single blockbuster drug sold by a large corporate partner.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
