Sentences with phrase «fair value target»

Conquest — I assume an equity market cap of 26x FCF = 744 mm (but adjusting for Net Debt and Pension Deficit — I get my own fair value target of 333 mm.

I won't necessarily have sold off a stock completely if it reaches my fair value target.

Famine — I assume an equity market cap of 24x FCF = 629 mm (but adjusting for Net Debt and Pension Deficit — I get my own fair value target of 357 mm.

The shares were trading at EUR 5.152 at the time, and I tagged KWG with a EUR 9.51 Fair Value Target (plus a Secondary Price Target of EUR 13.41).

Good — first you need to have a fair value target, otherwise you're swimming completely in the dark.

My ultimate fair value target for $ TOT: ID Total Produce is EUR 1.22 https://wexboy.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/total-produce-a-fresh-perspective/... I've raised my portfolio stake frm 6.6 % to 7.3 %

If not, we'll probably have to endure a bit of a breather, but considering my ultimate Fair Value target I'm obviously bullish for a significantly higher price in due course, regardless.

As for closing out a position, now it's often the last / small step in a series of well - flagged trades — and the stock's ideally reached my fair value target... so move along, folks, there's nothing to see / talk about here!

All in all, I'm happy for the moment to average the above valuations into a single new GBP 5.9 p Fair Value target per share.

I've now upgraded my Intrinsic Fair Value target slightly to $ 13.41.

Zamano (ZMNO: ID): Tsk tsk, I should be bloody delirious about my 2014 gain here... But it basically occurred in a single post-investment write - up surge last May, so it feels like old news, with the share price treading water since (well short of my fair value target)!

In fact, the shares almost reached my original 8.4 p fair value target, with a Nov - 2013 high of 8.25 p per share.

As a value investor, I just can't stretch my Intrinsic Fair Value much higher (at the moment), but I'm confident an acquirer would pay up substantially in a potential takeover situation — which explains my secondary Relative Fair Value target of $ 16.69.

At this point, we're long past my original (earnings & cash based) Intrinsic Fair Value target, so it's only logical to opt for my Relative Fair Value target (3.5 Price / Sales & Cash, based on comparable M&A multiples — which, frankly, I've never really understood — again, see my original TRIB post).

This move would obviously reach / surpass my Intrinsic Fair Value target.

Which begs the obvious question — what's an appropriate fair value target for UNG now?!

Judging by that, and other industry takeout multiples, TRIB could be worth a lot more than my Fair Value target in a takeover situation.

Which knocked my Fair Value targets back to 5.1 p & 6.8 p per share, respectively.

Not exact matches

Sometimes, the court decides that the acquiring company paid the right price — or even too much compared to the target's fair value.

Actual results, including with respect to our targets and prospects, could differ materially due to a number of factors, including the risk that we may not obtain sufficient orders to achieve our targeted revenues; price competition in key markets; the risk that we or our channel partners are not able to develop and expand customer bases and accurately anticipate demand from end customers, which can result in increased inventory and reduced orders as we experience wide fluctuations in supply and demand; the risk that our commercial Lighting Products results will continue to suffer if new issues arise regarding issues related to product quality for this business; the risk that we may experience production difficulties that preclude us from shipping sufficient quantities to meet customer orders or that result in higher production costs and lower margins; our ability to lower costs; the risk that our results will suffer if we are unable to balance fluctuations in customer demand and capacity, including bringing on additional capacity on a timely basis to meet customer demand; the risk that longer manufacturing lead times may cause customers to fulfill their orders with a competitor's products instead; the risk that the economic and political uncertainty caused by the proposed tariffs by the United States on Chinese goods, and any corresponding Chinese tariffs in response, may negatively impact demand for our products; product mix; risks associated with the ramp - up of production of our new products, and our entry into new business channels different from those in which we have historically operated; the risk that customers do not maintain their favorable perception of our brand and products, resulting in lower demand for our products; the risk that our products fail to perform or fail to meet customer requirements or expectations, resulting in significant additional costs, including costs associated with warranty returns or the potential recall of our products; ongoing uncertainty in global economic conditions, infrastructure development or customer demand that could negatively affect product demand, collectability of receivables and other related matters as consumers and businesses may defer purchases or payments, or default on payments; risks resulting from the concentration of our business among few customers, including the risk that customers may reduce or cancel orders or fail to honor purchase commitments; the risk that we are not able to enter into acceptable contractual arrangements with the significant customers of the acquired Infineon RF Power business or otherwise not fully realize anticipated benefits of the transaction; the risk that retail customers may alter promotional pricing, increase promotion of a competitor's products over our products or reduce their inventory levels, all of which could negatively affect product demand; the risk that our investments may experience periods of significant stock price volatility causing us to recognize fair value losses on our investment; the risk posed by managing an increasingly complex supply chain that has the ability to supply a sufficient quantity of raw materials, subsystems and finished products with the required specifications and quality; the risk we may be required to record a significant charge to earnings if our goodwill or amortizable assets become impaired; risks relating to confidential information theft or misuse, including through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusion; our ability to complete development and commercialization of products under development, such as our pipeline of Wolfspeed products, improved LED chips, LED components, and LED lighting products risks related to our multi-year warranty periods for LED lighting products; risks associated with acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures or investments generally; the rapid development of new technology and competing products that may impair demand or render our products obsolete; the potential lack of customer acceptance for our products; risks associated with ongoing litigation; and other factors discussed in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including our report on Form 10 - K for the fiscal year ended June 25, 2017, and subsequent reports filed with the SEC.

Both our GAAP targets and non-GAAP targets do not include any estimated changes in the fair value of our Lextar investment.

The GAAP and non-GAAP targets do not include any estimated change in the fair value of Cree's Lextar investment.

It's trading at what Lash says is fair value, but she has a sell price target on it of $ 71.55, meaning it is possible for the stock to head higher.

Nonstatutory Stock Options, or NSOs, will provide for the right to purchase shares of our common stock at a specified price, which may not be less than fair market value on the date of grant, and usually will become exercisable (at the discretion of the administrator) in one or more installments after the grant date, subject to the participant's continued employment or service with us and / or subject to the satisfaction of corporate performance targets and individual performance targets established by the administrator.

The index tracked by CEFL specifically targets those funds trading at a discount, with the idea that a cheaper market price boosts yield relative to the yield on the fair value of assets.

The latter firm has a 12 - month target price in line with my fair value calculation, which would make this idea even more compelling.

At this point, we hope that we have at least convinced you to be careful about arbitrarily placing a PE multiple on a firm's earnings to arrive at a target price (fair value).

Most investment research publishers focus on arriving at a target price or fair value estimate, but fall short of providing a technical or momentum assessment to bolster buy and sell disciplines.

It is thus fair to ask: what precisely is the added value of FWS, when other federal programs provide more substantial and better - targeted forms of financial aid, and when the private sector already provides ample opportunities for students to work?

I felt the pricing on the new model car... was fair and the trade in value on target.

was fair and the trade in value on target.

The latter firm has a 12 - month target price in line with my fair value calculation, which would make this idea even more compelling.

This would be the average equity target for my portfolio when market valuations are average (or fair value).

My current Fair Value Price Target is virtually unchanged at GBP 8.08 p per share, offering an Upside Potential of 138 % from the current GBP 3.4 p share price.

Based on M&A multiples in the industry (plus cash on the balance sheet), I'd now peg my secondary price target at a $ 16.69 Relative Fair Value.

First, we need to talk about size again... It's astonishing how many investors take a position without calculating a specific fair value or price target (the two aren't necessarily the same).

I'm sure you've noticed I'm not shy about setting Fair Value Price Targets for recommended stocks.

My last fair value price target was $ 8.84 per share — we need to do a fresh survey.

[I'd also highlight the dollar's recent strength, which should significantly increase my target price range & fair value (all else being equal)-RSB-.

My Fair Value Price Target is much unchanged at EUR 0.941, offering a low risk, but hefty, upside.

That being done, upgrading my price target (to a EUR 20.57 Fair Value per share, based on averaging Scenarios B & C) would certainly become a real possibility.

You've essentially forced yourself to base all decisions on the current share price, vs. your latest fair value estimate and / or price target.

Next, instead of using the market's long - term P / E average of 15 to define fair value, we use Target's own long - term average P / E ratio.

The fair value of contingent deferred consideration is primarily dependent on the future performance of both the acquired businesses and the Group against predetermined targets and on management's current expectations thereof.

That offers a potential Secondary Price Target of EUR 13.41 Fair Value per share, for an eventual 160 % Upside Potential.

Similarly, I don't have a Fair Value Price Target, but with 25 % of the fund currently invested in unlisted stocks (which should reduce) I prefer to calculate my own adjusted NAV.

I've tweaked my Fair Value Price Target v slightly to EUR 0.944, for a Potential Upside of 110 %.

If I'm near my target, it may mean a new wave of investors are getting involved / interested, so I won't necessarily have disposed of all of my position at fair value.

Overall, this leaves TOT on a P / E of only 6.2, and implies very v minor amendments to my Fair Value Price Target, which now stands at EUR 0.912 per share, for an Upside Potential of 103 % vs. the current EUR 0.45 share price.

I say «reluctant» because of the discount to Intrinsic Fair Value, but also because I have a secondary price target for TRIB.