MCap is a function of market sentiments. Balance sheet, cash flows, R&D execution, talent acquisition, regulatory compliance, M&As and so on....are a function of management/governance. Never mix the business with the stock. Stock is not the business. Business is not the stock :)
It's simple, if ""FY23 PAT of this API to CDMO = FY21 PAT of largest pure-play CDMO/API"" then the FY23 Mcap of this API/CDMO= FY21 Mcap of largest pure-play CDMO/API, am I correct Sajal saab??
— richman (@greatrichman3) June 14, 2021
More from Sajal Kapoor
Technology is enabling new ways of credibly accessing medical knowledge via smart phones / tablets.
— Conviction | Patience (@unseenvalue) November 8, 2018
Android, iOS have > 5k health / fitness apps like @Medscape, pointing to a future where the Tech. drives a part of medical knowledge and therapeutic guidance instead of a Doctor!
More from Accounting
https://t.co/KQkupOeFzp financial statements and results on quarterly basis to evaluate whether your thesis on company is still intact through growth in revenue, profits and cash. You cannot rely only on whats app forwards or brokerage updates.
2.Quarterly Con-Calls post result covering enviornment of the sector in which company operates, future expansion plans, & companies confidence in responding to fund managers. (For eg, in my evening walks, i listen to con-calls on You tube rather than music to utilize the time.)
3. High conviction is build when you compare py qtr or py year con call scripts and see whether company giving forward statements were met in subsequent quarters or not. For eg company said they will be doing CAPEX for 100 crores in FY 2020 and then we can see current state.
4. Profits not growing qtr or qt or yr on yr is not the sign for low conviction. You need to screen the balance sheet to see if the company has taken huge R&D expenditure which they believe is right for company as they build new products for future years, then that make sense
You May Also Like
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?