Well, our board is about rapidly growing growth stocks. It’s as simple as that.
These questions are primarily rhetorical, but I think could be good for mulling over and might even help some folks frame their investing decisions for a given company:
- What is the cut-off for “rapidly growing”?
- Once a company’s revenue growth has slowed below 30% year-over-year or is projected or suspected to do so, does it then get tossed out (see recent: Arista Networks)?
- Does a company that had previously been growing like a weed, but then slows revenue growth to 25%, 20%, or even as low as 15%; does it remain “on-limits” for discussion here since it had previously been “rapidly growing”? (I note that Ubiquiti’s last quarter only had 14.7% y-o-y revenue growth.)
- Would “mere” 10% year-over-year revenue growth knock a company out of the category of being on-topic?
- Would earnings or cash flow growth rates be more appropriate as a consideration than simple revenue growth for whether a company were on/off-topic for this board? (Using the same example of Ubiquiti Networks, they turned the 14.7% revenue growth into about 26% year-over-year adjusted EPS growth.)
-volfan84
Still long UBNT (shares-only at present)
And I would agree and add that (not naming names) it’s not appropriate for board contributors to post options positions either
Nobody here wants to read through that or cares
Thank you
MusiCali, I’ll admit that I am one who includes that information at times, so I’ll name the poster volfan84 as guilty of this.
I agree with you in regards to any post that mentions only a poster’s options positions, but I disagree that it should never be included or that it is inappropriate. If it is mentioned simply to provide context of a posters’ true/full position size and/or to provide a disclosure of their holdings and thus potential biases that could be behind their thoughts, I don’t think it should be considered a problem. I am a proponent of full disclosure rather than partial disclosure.
Also, I am quite grateful to bulwnkl providing the Foundation Medicine idea to the board here and that he clearly laid out potential binary events associated with the idea (Medicare re-imbursement and Roche buy-out) along with the context of selective use of options. I also recognize that I missed out on a big part of the gains associated with FMI by not simply owning shares and holding them up until the buyout from Roche came to pass.
-volfan84