RE:RE:RE:Jason Mann past picks are his idea of "investable"Sorry Lattice but the cash flow of 92M per Q is enough.
Andrew Mcreath had MT on and asked him CF will be aout 350M/year and MT said yes.
Q1 being the weekest Q for the year and they did 92M which is 368M pace.
Mcreath invested in CXR with those numbers and the numbers will be better than expected.
Therefore, CF is enough.
Lattice wrote: TickerTwit wrote: Roller007 wrote: So Cxr is not investable but two his last three investable top picks are down 25% each. And his third was shorting teck resources at $12 where he covered around $9 but the stock went to $3. This loser is another bnn genius.
It is better to focus on the reason Mann gave for it being "uninvestable": the swings. Another way to say it is, 'Not behaving on fundamentals, therefore it's only fit for speculating and not for investing.'
Analyze his reason, not his past performance (which is irrelevant).
This concludes the logic lesson for today..
Jason Mann Verbatim: 2016-06-03 "The challenge is, if there is a deal you could see this in the mid to high $40s, but if there is no deal, they have a lot of debt and it is a very volatile stock and not generatng the kind of earnings that support the cash flow for their debt."
Bang on. The adjusted eps that all these drug companies pitch is nothing more than spinning straw into gold. The balance sheet is boned and the chickens are happily roosting.