Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

DT is a market player like Milti is.

He is knowledgeable unlike the horiates like your good self.

Me... a horiatis?

Why you little… !@#$%^&*

[Paphitis]

DT is a market player like Milti is.

He is knowledgeable unlike the horiates like your good self.

Me... a horiatis?

Why you little… !@#$%^&*

But you just not with it mate.

It pains me to say that to you, because you are an otherwise intelligent fucker, but lets face it, your knowledge of high finance is just pretty pathetic.

Not that my knowledge is that of an expert, but you seem to have as much insight on the stock market as my Great Pappou from Tsada did and he was a great man.

[miltiades]

After a hard night last evening, I must admit it has taken it's toll on me.
Going to sleep now, will be, I hope, ...richer tomorrow!!

[Pyrpolizer]

Tom Tom Market Capitalisation (based on its current share price) = 2.114 Billion

https://ycharts.com/companies/TMOAY/market_cap

It’s profit in the last quarter was 17.2 million. It’s net cash position is 172 million

It’s total 3/4 net profit is 60.4 million. Therefore total profit for the year should be about 80 million.

It pays a yearly dividend of 0.35 per share = just under 5%. That is it’s anticipated net yield per share (dividend)

So the shares are not over priced.

https://corporate.tomtom.com/news-relea ... 18-results

I didn't ask for it's Market Capitalization, I asked for the nominal value of each share. The reason I asked is because the nominal value is closer to the real value of a company. Interesting to see it currently has about 300 million shares to the public. Can you do the multiplication Paphitis? 300 ^6 *0.35=105.7 million. Are you trying to tell me it's going to distribute all it's profit + in dividends??

And since when is TomTom is paying 0.35 dividends per share??
https://corporate.tomtom.com/investors/ ... end-policy
TomTom has no current plans to distribute dividends.


https://www.gurufocus.com/term/Dividend ... omTom%20NV
It's all zeros from 2013 to date. Even the shaded years from 2008 to 2012 look like zeros to me

Yes you did.

You said that most stocks are over-priced by a factor of about 10.

The market capitalisation for Tom Tom hovers around 2 Billion, which seems to be pretty standard for a company that has 800 million in sales and 80 Million declared profit.

Their profit is probably more than that, as some of their expenses could also have been used to buy other assets. You need to also look at their Balance sheet. What they also have declared is that they have 172 million in cash on hand, so they are pretty flush and healthy.

Their profit equates to about 4% of their market capitalisation and their dividend is 0.35 per annum.

So they do not appear to be over-priced at all.

The level of communication with you is zero to non existent.

I said:

I didn't ask for it's Market Capitalization, I asked for the nominal value of each share.

and you replied:

Yes you did.

You said that most stocks are over-priced by a factor of about 10.

The truth is I never said that. You just can’t resist your habit of starting every post with a denial! What I said in an earlier post was this, which is way off from what you claim.

They were all pumped up and up and on top of everything included the value of expected profits for at least the next decade.

It’s clear you read one thing and understand another. Just like you ‘ve read EPS in TomTom’s balance sheet (Earnings per share) and you thought that was a dividend at a time I ‘ve given you links proving that they never actually paid any dividends, nor do they plan to pay anything in the future.

So they do not appear to be over-priced at all.

Your method is simply hot air. There are various mathematical methods to find the intrinsic value of a share. Here’s a basic one assuming they do pay the dividends…

=[Current Dividend per share * (1+ Dividend Growth rate) ] / (Required rate of return - Growth Rate)

NB. Next time make sure the images you have in memory are correct .

[Paphitis]

Tom Tom Market Capitalisation (based on its current share price) = 2.114 Billion

https://ycharts.com/companies/TMOAY/market_cap

It’s profit in the last quarter was 17.2 million. It’s net cash position is 172 million

It’s total 3/4 net profit is 60.4 million. Therefore total profit for the year should be about 80 million.

It pays a yearly dividend of 0.35 per share = just under 5%. That is it’s anticipated net yield per share (dividend)

So the shares are not over priced.

https://corporate.tomtom.com/news-relea ... 18-results

I didn't ask for it's Market Capitalization, I asked for the nominal value of each share. The reason I asked is because the nominal value is closer to the real value of a company. Interesting to see it currently has about 300 million shares to the public. Can you do the multiplication Paphitis? 300 ^6 *0.35=105.7 million. Are you trying to tell me it's going to distribute all it's profit + in dividends??

And since when is TomTom is paying 0.35 dividends per share??
https://corporate.tomtom.com/investors/ ... end-policy
TomTom has no current plans to distribute dividends.


https://www.gurufocus.com/term/Dividend ... omTom%20NV
It's all zeros from 2013 to date. Even the shaded years from 2008 to 2012 look like zeros to me

Yes you did.

You said that most stocks are over-priced by a factor of about 10.

The market capitalisation for Tom Tom hovers around 2 Billion, which seems to be pretty standard for a company that has 800 million in sales and 80 Million declared profit.

Their profit is probably more than that, as some of their expenses could also have been used to buy other assets. You need to also look at their Balance sheet. What they also have declared is that they have 172 million in cash on hand, so they are pretty flush and healthy.

Their profit equates to about 4% of their market capitalisation and their dividend is 0.35 per annum.

So they do not appear to be over-priced at all.

The level of communication with you is zero to non existent.

I said:

I didn't ask for it's Market Capitalization, I asked for the nominal value of each share.

and you replied:

Yes you did.

You said that most stocks are over-priced by a factor of about 10.

The truth is I never said that. You just can’t resist your habit of starting every post with a denial! What I said in an earlier post was this, which is way off from what you claim.

They were all pumped up and up and on top of everything included the value of expected profits for at least the next decade.

It’s clear you read one thing and understand another. Just like you ‘ve read EPS in TomTom’s balance sheet (Earnings per share) and you thought that was a dividend at a time I ‘ve given you links proving that they never actually paid any dividends, nor do they plan to pay anything in the future.

So they do not appear to be over-priced at all.

Your method is simply hot air. There are various mathematical methods to find the intrinsic value of a share. Here’s a basic one assuming they do pay the dividends…

=[Current Dividend per share * (1+ Dividend Growth rate) ] / (Required rate of return - Growth Rate)

NB. Next time make sure the images you have in memory are correct .

They normal valuation for each share should translate to the approximate real value of the entire company.

Given the fact that the company has 162 million on hand, has virtually no debt, and has a net profit of 80 million per year ++++ (it’s always a plus because usually some of the profits are hidden with the purchase of other assets).

An astute trader knows what calculations to make and where to look on the Balance Sheet to work out the underlying fundamentals.

If this company is taken over by another (and it appears to be a likely scenario), it will go for anywhere between 2 to 4 billion because even the name brand of Tom Tom is formidable in its market space and worth money just like Apple, Daimler Benz, and Audi are. These naming rights are sometimes worth hundreds of millions.

This company is in a very good position right now.

[Pyrpolizer]

Tom Tom Market Capitalisation (based on its current share price) = 2.114 Billion

https://ycharts.com/companies/TMOAY/market_cap

It’s profit in the last quarter was 17.2 million. It’s net cash position is 172 million

It’s total 3/4 net profit is 60.4 million. Therefore total profit for the year should be about 80 million.

It pays a yearly dividend of 0.35 per share = just under 5%. That is it’s anticipated net yield per share (dividend)

So the shares are not over priced.

https://corporate.tomtom.com/news-relea ... 18-results

I didn't ask for it's Market Capitalization, I asked for the nominal value of each share. The reason I asked is because the nominal value is closer to the real value of a company. Interesting to see it currently has about 300 million shares to the public. Can you do the multiplication Paphitis? 300 ^6 *0.35=105.7 million. Are you trying to tell me it's going to distribute all it's profit + in dividends??

And since when is TomTom is paying 0.35 dividends per share??
https://corporate.tomtom.com/investors/ ... end-policy
TomTom has no current plans to distribute dividends.


https://www.gurufocus.com/term/Dividend ... omTom%20NV
It's all zeros from 2013 to date. Even the shaded years from 2008 to 2012 look like zeros to me

Yes you did.

You said that most stocks are over-priced by a factor of about 10.

The market capitalisation for Tom Tom hovers around 2 Billion, which seems to be pretty standard for a company that has 800 million in sales and 80 Million declared profit.

Their profit is probably more than that, as some of their expenses could also have been used to buy other assets. You need to also look at their Balance sheet. What they also have declared is that they have 172 million in cash on hand, so they are pretty flush and healthy.

Their profit equates to about 4% of their market capitalisation and their dividend is 0.35 per annum.

So they do not appear to be over-priced at all.

The level of communication with you is zero to non existent.

I said:

I didn't ask for it's Market Capitalization, I asked for the nominal value of each share.

and you replied:

Yes you did.

You said that most stocks are over-priced by a factor of about 10.

The truth is I never said that. You just can’t resist your habit of starting every post with a denial! What I said in an earlier post was this, which is way off from what you claim.

They were all pumped up and up and on top of everything included the value of expected profits for at least the next decade.

It’s clear you read one thing and understand another. Just like you ‘ve read EPS in TomTom’s balance sheet (Earnings per share) and you thought that was a dividend at a time I ‘ve given you links proving that they never actually paid any dividends, nor do they plan to pay anything in the future.

So they do not appear to be over-priced at all.

Your method is simply hot air. There are various mathematical methods to find the intrinsic value of a share. Here’s a basic one assuming they do pay the dividends…

=[Current Dividend per share * (1+ Dividend Growth rate) ] / (Required rate of return - Growth Rate)

NB. Next time make sure the images you have in memory are correct .

They normal valuation for each share should translate to the approximate real value of the entire company.

Given the fact that the company has 162 million on hand, has virtually no debt, and has a net profit of 80 million per year ++++ (it’s always a plus because usually some of the profits are hidden with the purchase of other assets).

An astute trader knows what calculations to make and where to look on the Balance Sheet to work out the underlying fundamentals.

If this company is taken over by another (and it appears to be a likely scenario), it will go for anywhere between 2 to 4 billion because even the name brand of Tom Tom is formidable in its market space and worth money just like Apple, Daimler Benz, and Audi are. These naming rights are sometimes worth hundreds of millions.

This company is in a very good position right now.

Are you trying to tell me that when this share was traded at 60 Euros that "should translate to the approximate real value of the entire company"??

[Paphitis]

I do not all that share ever trading at 60 euros.

One more thing, market cap is determined by the number of shares on issue multiplied by their value. They could be 60 Euros but with like 1 tenth of the volume of shares resulting in the same market cap. So you need to find out how many shares are on issue.

I use to work for Cobham and was issued with some shares that are worth 300 British pounds each.

Companies issue and buy back shares all the time.

[cyprusgrump]

They normal valuation for each share should translate to the approximate real value of the entire company.

Surely, the value of any share in any company is the price that somebody is prepared to buy it for...? Or should I say sell it for...?

[Paphitis]

They normal valuation for each share should translate to the approximate real value of the entire company.

Surely, the value of any share in any company is the price that somebody is prepared to buy it for...? Or should I say sell it for...?

Of course it is.

But some shares represent better value than some others. In other words, shares can be over priced and sometimes represent a nice bargain.

[Pyrpolizer]

I do not all that share ever trading at 60 euros.

Stats do recall

TomTom.png

One more thing, market cap is determined by the number of shares on issue multiplied by their value. They could be 60 Euros but with like 1 tenth of the volume of shares resulting in the same market cap. So you need to find out how many shares are on issue.

They were the same both before the 60 Euros boom and after

I use to work for Cobham and was issued with some shares that are worth 300 British pounds each.

Companies issue and buy back shares all the time.