All these are Pharma sector companies. Company F consistently reports -ve cash flows. It's stock price never compounded. All other examples reported multi-years of +ve cash flow generation. These stocks have been multi-baggers over the years.
Focus on Cash Flows vs News Flows.
More from Sajal Kapoor
When we put a high multiple to sales, the most important thing to worry about is - what could disrupt those cash flows. A lower multiple to sales (like a 1x or 2x) justifies Yo-Yo cyclicality and 10x sales implies relatively stable gross margins, cash flow and business economics.
It's amazing \U0001f60a 25% NP
— Avinash (@Aviral_Bharat) February 17, 2022
$8b revenue
$2b Profit
$92b MCap
At 11 times revenue, it seems to be cheap compared to\U0001f609
More from Pharma
Indian Pharma Dream 11 Q-compliance ranking: (1st Edition July 2021)
1.Natco (Captain)
2.Neuland (Vice-Captain)
3. Alkem (WB)
4.Cipla(Team coach)
5. Lupin
6. Laurus
7. Hikal
8.Cadila
9.Sun
10.Alembic
11. Unichem
12.Torrent
13. DRL
14. Strides
15.Wockhardt
Investors review tip👇
a) Whenever any major regulatory inspection happens at mfg sites of:
a) #1 to #7, remain fully assured of a success
b)#8 to #13, read Hanuman chalisaa or any sacred book as per faith every day till the inspection lasts.
c) #14 and #15 sell ur position and pick anyone of Dream 11
1.Natco (Captain)
2.Neuland (Vice-Captain)
3. Alkem (WB)
4.Cipla(Team coach)
5. Lupin
6. Laurus
7. Hikal
8.Cadila
9.Sun
10.Alembic
11. Unichem
12.Torrent
13. DRL
14. Strides
15.Wockhardt
Investors review tip👇
Sir also select the coach, captain and Vice captain also
— Ram (@ramnath2015) July 1, 2021
a) Whenever any major regulatory inspection happens at mfg sites of:
a) #1 to #7, remain fully assured of a success
b)#8 to #13, read Hanuman chalisaa or any sacred book as per faith every day till the inspection lasts.
c) #14 and #15 sell ur position and pick anyone of Dream 11
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?