RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Why Ranbaxy?truthseeker2012 wrote: Paying 42 million for a deal that earns 40 million for itself in 4 years tops is a bad deal to you??? Cipher said it will be accretive for earnings in 2 years which leads me to believe it pays for itself in 2 years not 4. They also did not specify how much cash Innocutis had in the bank when bought. According to Styless stupidess unless Cipher buys things for free they are bad deals.
This is marketing, not finance. What does "earns 40 million for itself" mean? Does it mean:
* The company currently has free cash flow that in two years will pay back more than $40M? Not likely.
* The company will generate enough free cash flow within two years to generate an equity value on that extra free cash flow in excess of $40M? That would be nice.
* The company will create enough sales growth to increase equity value on a growth/momentum basis?
Rather than making a lot of very vague promises that cannot be measured, I would like to see the free cash flow we are buying as of the moment we paid $40M. And if there is not a free cash flow, there could at least be some metric they calculate to show the potential in detail.