-jaba

If enough people want it, I’ll have them set it up.

Think of it in your personal finances. If you make $500 more each month than you spend, you can build up a savings account. After a few months, you have a few thousand dollars in there. Now, assuming you don’t need to pay off credit cards or have any big expenses coming up (eg., a wedding, home purchase), that few thousand dollars is “excess cash” to you.

Yeah, you’re right. I think the company is still undervalued, but you bring up some great points. It may not be the best play right now.

Joe,

I think you should take a look at this post on my blog. I explain the potential issues with your valuation model undervaluing companies with high returns on equity and how that problem manifested itself in your evaluation of Buffett/Coca-Cola.

I understand that you’ve really got your investment/valuation method down, but I think that you’re missing out by not using a better model. You’re not going to miss any bargains because we both only invest in no-brainers. However, why fog up the valuation?

Anyways, the post is here: http://reasoninvestor.wor…

-Adam

I am trying to run and understand the analyzer but am not an Excel wizard by any stretch of the imagination. From what I can tell, the median/growth rate (cell B27) is derived from the average CROIC of the past ten years. However, this rate is then applied to the 2009 revenue numbers which wildly inflates future estimates of revenue. For example, the default KO revenues go from a 2007-2009 range of around $30 billion to being compounded by 23% year-over-year for 10 years, so that by 2019 they are $245.5 billion. Can someone suggest a fix?

Here is the screen shot of the FWS Analyzer Summary page. You may need to zoom in to see the image clearly.

http://www.flickr.com/pho…@N04/?saved=1

Thanks

Ranajit

e.g

even though the cell C3 in the summary tab uses the expression

=’Balance Sheet’!C2

the cell is populated by the value ’2000′ even though the cell C2 in the balance sheet tab is populated by the number’2001′

I am not sure what’s wrong. Does anyone have a clue?

Otherwise looks like a great spreadsheet.

Thanks Joe.

You’re right on the above figures, I took a quick glance at google finance financial statements for AMS (the numbers that popped into my head are nothing like those on morningstar).

That said, for me it’s too much of a once trick pony with a half trick being dependant on the FDA (proton knife). As a personal principle I wouldn’t go for small medical or biotech like this as the have the habit of being snapped up by the big fish for pocket change when they have a bad quarter.

From a business perspective, I just don’t like the fact that the majority of free cashflow is from Depreciation and amortisation, and that proportion is getting bigger year on year. This suggests that they don’t currently have an economic moat to speak of. This is fine if we’re talking about a net net assets play and we’re buying the thing for less than the value of the quick assets. I’ve still no idea about the size of the market or how many brain tumours are operated on a year, that’s a key one.

In summary, if it’s 40% discounted based on cash flow but has 50% or greater chance of not pulling off FDA approval for proton beam techniques, or increasing market penetration for gamma knife I personally wouldn’t give it much more attention, unless if made the net net asset play category.

I may keep an eye on it though as things can get very good for small companies like this, very quickly, without the market price moving. At that stage, I’ll be into the reports to see if I can make some money.

Good luck with it if you decide to buy it I have less exciting but surer plays on the go at the moment.