Don't expect the earnings to go anywhere till FY23.
— Tar \u26a1 (@itsTarH) August 10, 2021
Real growth will only come post FY24.
I expect the stock to either correct or stay muted till then. https://t.co/lUQfzxojTO
Cause everyone wanted to buy it at 300+ and no one wants to buy it at 200
Market is short sighted and loves to buy high and sell low
Sequent is a long gestation stock, it won't deliver it's real earnings until FY23-25
Not suitable investment for those who want 100% return/yr
@itsTarH hey Tariq, any idea why is Sequent falling?
— Vivek (@pa_stock) September 27, 2021
More from Tar ⚡
And just to clarify before people start posting
"Rocket Emojis with to the moon tags"
this business wouldn't hit 3lk cr market cap in next 3 yrs but it can steadily compound at 25-30% YoY for next 10 yrs
At 25% CAGR over 10 yrs, you get a 10 bagger
Keep expectations in check.
"Rocket Emojis with to the moon tags"
this business wouldn't hit 3lk cr market cap in next 3 yrs but it can steadily compound at 25-30% YoY for next 10 yrs
At 25% CAGR over 10 yrs, you get a 10 bagger
Keep expectations in check.
Lets talk results #lauruslabs
— Tar \u26a1 (@itsTarH) July 29, 2021
Always zoom out and view the results, never take a QoQ approach.
Here is how Sales, Op.Profit and PAT looks like when you zoom out.
The upwards trends continues.
No business will move linearly up or linearly down. pic.twitter.com/O9UUt1rEE5
More from Sequent
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?