-
[QUOTE
Are you into the " Other ".. Low ball shares .. I.e. WDT SPY etc.. ??
Why do you do it ??..
GREED ??[/QUOTE]
NO I Am NOT, why the attack, I take offence to such comments, don't be such a dick!
-
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by janner
and I lost heavily, but one day I might just get a little back.
Talk about creative accounting.....I've seen it all!
SO !!!... Why.. ??.. EGO !!.. You have been around for long enough to understand more than the basics..
Not a good example to the " Newbies ".. :-) They come here looking to make money !!..
Would you encourage them to invest in Sea Dragon ??
Yeah if they are willing to lose their money !!.. They could make a fortune.. Insert Tui Ad..
-
Not trying to be a dick .. Need no help :-)0
Just wondering why people chase such silly underfunded companies .. and encourage others to do so ..
-
Exactly.. It is only money to me and Thee.. Moosie..
Not to Newbies..
Over exuberant wording for Low Ball companies is not helping to expand the investor base ..
You know when... You know when not to..
-
Member
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by janner
Exactly.. It is only money to me and Thee.. Moosie..
Not to Newbies..
Over exuberant wording for Low Ball companies is not helping to expand the investor base ..
You know when... You know when not to..
what makes you think that all low ball companies are bad and bound to fail? Could you not apply the same arguments (whatever they are) to sub 10c shares; sub 50c shares; sub $1 shares; sub $5 shares etc?
Have you ever thought of analysing companies based on their own merit rather than making an overarching argument?
-
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by blah
what makes you think that all low ball companies are bad and bound to fail? Could you not apply the same arguments (whatever they are) to sub 10c shares; sub 50c shares; sub $1 shares; sub $5 shares etc?
Have you ever thought of analysing companies based on their own merit rather than making an overarching argument?
I did not say that they would all fail.. And yes I can and do apply the same arguments to all IPO's..
Also to any investment that I make.. As so many on here do..
It is your enthusiasm for a low ball company that I question..
It is now over to the " Newbies " that read this to make up their own mind..
Lesson number one.. For them..
-
Lesson number one... DYOR...
Lesson INFINITUM.. . DYOR..
-
Member
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by moosie_900
you need to strip out the snakk shares part of that before stating that. much, much less impressive then...
Maybe I'm not reading the financial statements correctly, but from what I see, even if we strip out SNK out of the statements I think it is still very very impressive. I'll need to see more detailed statements and the notes of the statements to be sure though.
Revenue in FY 2012 was only $15,000; FY 2013 was $8,999,000. From my limited knowledge of accounting, asset appreciation shouldn't be treated as revenue; or at least should be treated as a separate item. Lets be charitable and say that it was indeed included in the revenue figures. Seadragon owns 25m shares in SNK; the share price on 31 March was 0.15c - valuing SEA's stake in Snakk at 3.75m at that date. Even if we take the entire $3.75m out of revenue (let alone the appreciation over the previous year's valuation) we are stll left with revenue a healthy bit over $15,000: about 35000% revenue growth.
However, I have a hunch that this SNK value appreciation has not been included in revenue, since the cost of sales of 7.8m suggests that the 9m revenue solely is trading revenue.
Having said that, I don't know why there has been no cost of sales for the 2012 year.
I also note that in the balance sheet, the 3.9m figure under the heading "Assets classified as held for sale" I suspect is Snakk
-
Hunch !!!..
Will say no more..
-
Member
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by janner
It is your enthusiasm for a low ball company that I question..
I don't want to get into a heated argument, but it is hard not to be enthused when some of us actually own the stock (including myself); some of us cannot care less whether this stock is a low, medium or high ball; when the results released today are promising if not totally exciting.
You can criticise my enthusiasm all you want, but at least be constructive about it. Labelling Seadragon as low ball is all but constructive.
You seem to be of the opinion that low ball shares are dodgy in some way or another. It might well be, but at the same time any stock carries risk and could fail miserably due to exogenous factors outside of shareholders' control. Look at Rakon; look at FPA; look at Air NZ before they were bailed out.
As for newbies, they should know better to filter out baseless enthusiasm which you are suggesting I have. They should not even be looking at these risky stocks at all. If they lose hard-earned money, then I guess they will have to learn the hard way. While I will be sympathetic, it should not stop me from suppressing the genuine enthusiasm I have, especially when I feel I can justify my stance with hard facts and expert-prepared investment reports.
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks