Post by
fdfd12 on Feb 04, 2016 2:55pm
I disagree
One stock with no debt is better. With its cashflow, they will save it for an acquisition without
borrowing money.
The one with debt, with its cashflow, will pay of its debt.
Therefore, the one with no debt should get a much higher PE.
Comment by
sunshine7 on Feb 04, 2016 3:08pm
My earlier point was that a company with no debt is likely smaller and therefore has less sales, earnings and cash flow than a company who made a strategic acquisition that is immediately accretive via debt. What you are describing is CXR today and CXR in 3 years, and yes, it will be worth much more then.
Comment by
Scruggstyle on Feb 04, 2016 3:40pm
fdfd12: I am sorry, but I am afraid that the theory escapes you. I'll give you a hint: Please review the number of shareholders that you expect that you are going to share the net earnings with, under each of your scenarios. This might help to turn the light bulb on.
Comment by
fdfd12 on Feb 04, 2016 3:43pm
Thank you for your kind compliment but I have finished my degree in Finance.
Comment by
notwrong on Feb 05, 2016 1:48am
This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy