Thomas Barnard

Special situations, deep value, long/short equity, growth
Thomas Barnard
Special situations, deep value, long/short equity, growth
Contributor since: 2009
Company: Business Risk Management, Inc.
Also pay attention to "q", which calculates a fraction based on a stock's equity value over its book value. http://on.mktw.net/1WK...
Also look at the Wikipedia entry for an explanation of the term.
http://bit.ly/1nE4mwU
Jan 14, 2016. CounterPath added two more revenue streams. And as I said, these can come from anywhere in the world. These new revenue streams come from France - ITAC and Apps2com.
If stocks fall down, as I think is possible, you may get your wish. Of course, there's a warning to go with that. Be careful what you wish for. A tax deal seems sensible. I'm not sure what the advantage is of Keystone, Canadian shale oil is not economic presently. And what does the U.S. gain from such a pipeline?
Low interest rates, low margin rates, will act to keep stocks artificially high. I should have made that point number four in explaining why P/E is so high now.
Click on "Shiller's spreadsheet." Robert Shiller developed the CAPE figures. He won a Nobel, I believe. Yale University.
I agree the other options for investment are lousy, and investment in American stocks are a safe haven, but I guess I am looking at it from the point of view of a small businessman. A small businessman would only pay 25 times earnings for a spectacular business. If earnings are not increasing, no small businessman would be willing to pay such a rich premium. Basically, I think a small businessman is only willing to pay 6-10 times earnings.
Your argument that stocks will stay high because there is no where else is not without merit, because since the end of the 1990's I think such high prices for stocks has continued even though I don't think they're worth the money. I think we will be moving to an era of lower P/E's and better dividends. Apple's stock will fall, it will start paying dividends. Same for most growth stocks.
I don't know how much reason has to do with it, markets are slaves to sentiment. From 1977-1984 the market was in the single digits, which is not that long ago in the 130 years that Shiller has kept track. But okay, if you want a rationale, I think it will be hard to maintain high P/E's in an environment where there is little or no earnings growth. That is what high P/E's rely on.
Things are different this time? We've heard that old refrain. Let's hope so for the sake of everyone with a 401k.
Yes, that's what I think. Excess liquidity, company buy backs, were driving stocks higher. GDP growth has been slow. Unemployment as measured by ShadowStats is higher than one would expect.
This lemon merengue stock market could end up quite flat when all the little air bubbles disappear.
When you lower the rediscount rate to nothing that leaves the Fed with little in the cupboard to change things around.
Mildly Panicked-
Yes, I think that Bernanke created a bubble. Because the sellers of the mortgage bonds got quite a bit of cash, and could find no where to get a decent return, some of that money pushed up stock prices. Stock prices are quite a bit higher than their long term average P/E of 16. In a slow growing economy with unemployment higher than government statistics reveal, I think the P/E is quite high.
I hope that Mr. Modi can improve India's economy. Brasil seems not to be very happy with its president. We can but hope these young economies can grow the world's demand (for oil, among other things). Unfortunately, this is not very clear to me. It does not feel the economy is as bad as things were in 2008, for example, so the stock market could down quite a bit, thousands of points on the Dow, without it necessarily affecting the economy. Housing starts are good, demand is decent, but static. Not so that it would deserve a much higher P/E than the norm.
Phase 1 2 and 3 have been done for the product. I don't know what will be required for an enhanced absorption product. That would be important to know.
Don't kid yourself about Afrezza. If a patient has a choice - lung or inside the cheek, it's going to be inside the cheek. Afrezza stands to lose its entire user base.
It's unbelievable that MNKD went ahead even though Pfizer killed its insulin lung absorption product and the $2.8 billion they spent on it for failure to do proper market research.
If you are referring to the recent announcement, there are only so many huge telecom equipment companies - Cisco, Alcatel, Ericsson, Huawei, Avaya, etc. It would be nice to know which one, but I'm not sure the specific one tells you anything.
Who are you referring to? Larry Ellison of Oracle who bought Acme Packet? I think he is a possibility.
My impression is that there are two large telecom equipment companies that CPAH is partnering with. No doubt they are among the list of firms in the article.
Shiller September 2014 P/E is 26.14.
Shiller October 2014 P/E is 24.77
The October P/E is still higher than the 65 year period from 1930 to 1995.
From Antigen Express's White Paper: "A variety of models project that in the absence of a vaccination strategy or another universal preventive intervention, the epidemic will continue to grow at near exponential rates unless the availability of effective hospitalization and quarantine measures to control further transmission is increased dramatically."
Obama is sending 3,000 army troops to set up temporary hospitals and aid in the quarantine effort. But those people are going to war, and I think we can expect casualties.
Perhaps this is what it will take for the army to step up the vaccination effort.
View the Antigen Express White Paper here:
http://bit.ly/1tc1Z50
I share your thinking. I did not dis MannKind, which I hope will help many people who dislike sticking themselves with a needle. But as you say yourself buccal is the way to go. I think this recent announcement suggests they are working on making it more easily ingested.
Alfred Mann is typical of many entrepreneurs. Stubborn. I hope it works out for him (and the patients). But if it were me, I would have looked at the Pfizer experience, and would have gone with what could be a winning technology, the buccal route. He could have bought Generex for a song and carried that forward (plus he gets the AE37 tech).
I think you are very intelligent in spreading your risk. Generex has the better technology, but they have no billionaire standing in back of them with connections to even more money.
Yes, good point. I have not checked, but if they administer the vaccine with their inhaler tech, that would be the way to go.
Generex PR statement of today (10/7/2014) says:
"There are currently a number of vaccines in development for Ebola, though none have yet been approved. Some of these require repeated administration to obtain some level of protection in animal models, in contrast to the influenza virus vaccines. Early efforts to generate a protective antibody response against Ebola clearly showed the importance of CD4+ T cells. The need for continued or repeated immunization is a good indication of the need for a stronger CD4+ T cell response, as specific activation of this cell type is associated both with immunological memory as well as a robust early response to immunization."
And to make clear the connection to CD4+ T cells read this underneath their main statement:
"The core platform technologies of Antigen Express comprise immunotherapeutic vaccines for the treatment of malignant, infectious, allergic, and autoimmune diseases. Antigen Express has pioneered the use of specific CD4+ T-helper stimulation technologies in immunotherapy."
See their PR release for more:
http://yhoo.it/1qbBcii
To be clear. Generex has no ready made Ebola drug. However, they have a platform that would permit speedy development. But of course that would take money, and the Department of Defense first has to discover them, and if they fumbled around with MMAP for two years, I cannot be encouraging about that.
Once again, from the point of a user, if I did not have to use a needle, or inhale a substance into my lung, that would be my choice, and, I believe, the choice of most users.
MannKind has gone against Pfizer's experience with an inhaled product, which was not positive, and they wrote off $2.8 billion.
If you are a MannKind shareholder, best of luck to you. But you are taking a chance. You are betting Pfizer was wrong.
From the company's website:
http://bit.ly/1qVptnU
Not the point of the article, but Pfizer junked Exubera at $2.8 billion because patients and doctors were not comfortable with putting junk in their lungs. Not known by me, but I wonder how smokers would feel. Presumably less of stigma for them.
From the point of view of a user, Generex's Oralyn is the preferred solution, no needle, and no junk in the lungs.
Aside from a special situation, the high P/E has motivated to go more to cash.
Thanks for this useful link.
My view is that as telephone companies move to become data transmission utilities they will lose revenue. Loss of revenue may lead to lower dividends.
A useful article. Thanks for taking the time to write it, though it seems to have no impact on the gamblers buying this stock. The house will take their money in due time.
A doctor's assistance is always a good idea, but what are the meters readings for? Patients should be able to work this out.
Hi Rich,
Since management has not been very informative, I appreciate your querying management, and relaying their responses.
I am always confused by acronyms, what does "HLA" mean, and specifically, "HLA restricted"?
I am in sympathy with one of the above comments about "death spiral financing". But though in sympathy, I find it amazing that they continue on.
Without suggesting that Mark Fletcher is without abilities, I think he might do best in conducting an executive search or locating an entrepreneur (with money) with connections, which is what we really need. After all, he has shares or options on shares, and he would also benefit with a well-connected CEO.
I have been dumbfounded all along that a stock with such tremendous potential goes unrecognized by the investing public, but the bigger omission, it seems to me, is by the big pharma companies. As I said in my piece (http://seekingalpha.co...) based on a Fortune article, "Pfizer spent $60 billion on new drugs between 2000-2008, and this only produced nine (9) drugs that got past the FDA. That works out to $6.7 billion per drug."
Big pharma does not know how to develop drugs, so they need to partner with development companies like Generex. And further dumbfounding is that a Pfizer employee was (and could still be for all I know) advising Generex on the AE37 trial.
This is puzzling, dumb-founding, mind-numbing, perplexing, but also possibly stupid behavior on the part of big pharma. But in another context, I suppose it is predictable. Companies get to be so large that the only path for them is down. U.S. Steel had 67% of the U.S. steel market in 1901 when J.P. Morgan bought out Carnegie and 10 others to make the steel trust (U.S. Steel). According to the Wikipedia article when U.S. Steel was spun off from USX in 2001, "it produced only slightly more steel than it did in 1902." It's 67% of the market, is now down to 8%.
Cheers, Tom
That is a complete mystery to me. I would lay at the feet of management has always been dis-connected or unconnected to the rest of Big Pharma. And it is a shame that those who have diabetes have to stick themselves with needles when they could manage it by spraying the inside of the cheek.
Rich,
Perhaps I misinterpreted your email to me of a while back. I, too, still own stock, but I am disgusted by the lack of even a semblance of corporate governance. No consideration is given at all for long-standing shareholders.
Tom
Correction: Sir Terry Matthews.
The target is not based on current numbers, obviously. It is based on the roll-out to the system operators, of which only Rogers has moved to the new internet standard, and the fact that CounterPath is very well-connected with distributors. That, and it has the best product. That, and it has a Chairman, Sir Terry Rogers, that knows everyone in telephone, and who plans for the future. Look at his UBC videos. The company he sold to Alcatel (Newbridge) is one of the really healthy parts of that perennially sick company even though he has been out of it for a dozen years.
You can wait for the numbers to catch up with my reconnoiterings, but the stock price could be multiples of its current stock price (which is ridiculously low). You say huge premium, I say the current price is absurdly, ludicrously low (to begin with).
I am predicting a good Thursday number based on the last conference call. It could be better than that. NTT could kick in, for example.
Think about this when you are thinking ridiculously low. When CPAH announced the NTT deal, the stock traded 100 shares, and moved not a scintilla, not an iota, not a lick, not a jot. I thought getting a contract with the largest telephone company in the world, even if it was only for setting up enterprises, was a big deal, after all, there are a lot of enterprises in Japan. There is compression in the stock, the price will not stay low forever.
As for Garrity, I have to know what he is talking about to respond. I would prefer that he send me a message through SA because some things would require such a long response that it would be, in effect, another article.