Seeking Alpha

Matthew Smith

View Matthew Smith's Comments BY TICKER:
  • AOL: The Hail Mary Pass Of 2013 [View article]
    Well since you like Yahoo finance, here is the link ( http://yhoo.it/V8tszZ ) the 52-week range does not have anything below $14.84 so not sure where that other number is coming from (in this instance Yahoo finance does match up to other sources I see).

    I think the issue most people have with some of your estimates is where the numbers come from (Bill, Ashraf, etc). What you just said above gets us to a valuation, but I think their issue is what is the catalyst. No idea how AOL doubles revenue if visits don't grow faster, CTRs don't rise, or the interaction by the user (length of visit) does not increase - and to get to YHOO's level on those metrics is what people want to know about...if the final number is thrown out there people are going to ask about it.
    Dec 28 03:25 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • AOL: The Hail Mary Pass Of 2013 [View article]
    I really cannot understand why you are so combative every time people point out issues to you. Also, I never claimed to be an expert on AOL, but a quick look at the tools I have available to me (which are probably not available to all) raised a lot of question marks, looking at the data sources you used is what is causing these issues people like me and Ashraf keep pointing out.

    But here is where your data came from: http://yhoo.it/Vjns6o

    Now if you go to the bottom of the page, it tells you that the estimates come from Thomson Financial, so you might find this useful: http://reut.rs/UxdHoJ

    Scroll down until you see 'LT Growth Rate %' and there you can see that there are only 2 analysts with any estimates out that far. So it is one analyst with a multi-100% growth rate. That is what most call an outlier, especially considering that the other analyst cited has a sub 25% rate. So yes the long-term growth rate comes out to what you have, but the long-term data is in no way correlated to the short-term data you have as the source is not the same for both, if that makes sense. The population/sample size is changing which makes the margin of error in this case increase on the tail end (not a math major, but gave it my best shot to try to explain the issue).
    Dec 28 03:01 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • AOL: The Hail Mary Pass Of 2013 [View article]
    Pretty defensive. But GAAP works from an accounting perspective and keeping the balance sheet from getting "junk" in it. And the accounting is just fine, "degreed up". It worries about asset prices at purchase, and if they increase that is why we get the gains from time to time. It is rare, usually it is an impairment charge but that's another topic. GAAP is not the issue with the whole analysis, that is why I brought it up, thought it was silly that you spent so much time on a one time event in the response to Ashraf as that is not going to happen over the next few years again (and if it did not in a manner to plug the hole between where the analysts are that I have access to their reports and the figures you display).

    But the stock is certainly not up 300% this year, try 100% - after all what is 200% among friends right?

    Just because something was worth x amount in the past does not mean it is realistic for it to be worth the same - especially considering the spin-off post merger, etc. etc.

    If you look at the data you refer to in regards to the 5 year forward looking numbers, that comes from 2 analysts. One is at 207.5% and the other is at 24.6%...so yes you are less than half of ONE analyst yet higher by 4x on another one's numbers. I pulled some analysts reports, and the ones I am looking at do not have anywhere close to those numbers in them that you have. My point is the data is not good that is being used.

    Regarding your personal attacks, pretty off base. Commodity stocks are growth stocks, especially with my philosophy and the fact I got my start dealing with junior miners. Also, if you knew anything about the changes to the website you would realize those are focus tickers only and not every stock I have written about here at SA. That does not factor in any of the non focus ticker articles I have written which are in fact the majority of those articles - trust me when I tell you the top of that page used to have a ton of tickers to go through.
    Dec 28 02:47 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • AOL: The Hail Mary Pass Of 2013 [View article]
    I am blown away by these earnings guesses and the so-called proprietary forecasts. For those of us who have been in the markets for a number of years it defies logic. Your rambling above essentially dodges the question posed by Ashraf.

    I was one of those who railed against these mathematical equations (proprietary too) used to value asset pools and weigh risk...it was common practice on Wall Street to use them and turns out they were wrong because assumptions within them were incorrect. I think you fail to recognize a few key points in numerous articles you have done with these calculations, but I digress and will focus only on the AOL issue.

    1.) You talk about recent earnings growth, which is fine but the last year is not fair to extrapolate as EPS figures are not all created equally.
    2.) You should look at revenues. Yes, revenues and cash flows and AOL revenues can increase, but to a $15 billion mrkt cap situation? Come on...
    3.) The recent EPS growth was due to the company cutting costs and increasing efficiencies, a practice which cannot go on indefinitely - especially when traffic growth is stagnant (back to rev and other growth measurements)
    4.) You do need to do a peer value comparison if only to point out to yourself when the formula does kick out odd and misleading data. If you had done this you would see that your estimate is way off the reservation because Yahoo is currently worth that with far superior properties and the operating assets (referring to the actual business here) themselves are not worth that - think their equity stakes in the joint ventures.
    5.) I realize that you are using goodwill as an economic term (business goodwill, etc), not financial - although it seems to be used both ways - but GAAP works for the most part. The patent issue was a one-time gain (and that was certainly caused by an overheated market) so to think that there are further large gains like that hidden within the balance sheet would most likely be inaccurate.
    6.) Back to the EPS growth rates...that is the problem with your analysis. You cannot use a 95.8% beat rate and extrapolate that. Which from what you said is exactly what you did. (See: "So as long as the executive team is able to re-produce the earnings beats it has done over the past year, the stock holds a lot of potential.")
    7.) BTW Yahoo finance numbers are usually wrong on analyst numbers, those should hold no weight - especially with the buybacks.
    8.) Lastly, regarding those EPS figures and share buybacks the market knows fake earnings when they see it, so just because the management team buys back shares with no growth in the future but makes it look like bottom line growth, it can't fool us. The value of the company did not increase as the total earnings did not change, just the divisibility of the total. Cash went out the door to pay for those shares so can't use the old book value argument there.
    Dec 28 12:29 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • AOL: The Hail Mary Pass Of 2013 [View article]
    Based off of his response no.

    My first guess is that he forgot to provide his proprietary forecast for inflation (obviously exponential growth rate)?
    Dec 27 11:53 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
More on AOL by Matthew Smith
COMMENTS STATS
686 Comments
229 Likes