This is the announcement of the winners of the May Value Idea Contest.
These are the articles.
RG Barry (DFZ, Financial)
Alex does a good job of describing the business. More discussions of competitors or alternatives in the industry will help the strength of the article. Valuation should go deeper. Sounds like the business is under pressure so the management is going out and doing deals to fill the hole? Risks seem higher than author admits. Greater focus on valuation would have been helpful. Good interaction with readers.
Cato (CATO, Financial)
Best overall article. Good intro with overview of the company’s structure, balance sheet, etc. Nice discussion of management and dual share structure. Extensive valuation work using multiple approaches. Comparisons to multiple other retailers. Need to expand on company risks. Nice summary of thesis.
Staples (SPLS, Financial)
Comparison and discussion of competition and challenge will certainly strengthen the idea. Valuation work needs to go much deeper than just looking at historical valuations. No real explanation of the business. Just a mention that it is very good company is not strong enough. But the discussion on why it is a good company will certainly help. Discussion of management and financial strength is needed to support the argument.
Petrobank (PBEGF, Financial)
This article is extensively researched and an obvious amount of effort went into it. But it needs a nice intro with a overview of the companies to be discussed. Readers are lost with all the subsidiaries. Author must assume that the reader is not up to speed. Organization is needed, but I liked the information and the work that went into it. Good discussion on mgt and their philosophy.
Rimage (RIMG, Financial)
Ben Graham may have liked Rimage, but the idea it is without risks is faulty. Management can easily destroy the capital. Little discussion on management’s plans. Valuation involves pointing to the cash. This article left readers wanting more in all areas. Description of the business, valuation, discussion of management, etc.
China Mobile (CHL)
Great idea… a company that is very underfollowed, but the article doesn’t do the idea justice. Author points to many reasons why the company looks undervalued but he doesn’t sell it. Better description of the business is warranted. Management? Good discussion of financial strength (net cash, little debt, etc) Need some comparison to valuations of other large cap telecoms. Why CHL and not TEF or VOD or T? The article did not go far enough in convincing readers of the merits of owning the stock. Seemed like an intro rather than a complete article. This is a winning idea if the author rewrites with our criteria in mind… and a look at past winning articles.
Remedent (REMI, Financial)
Excellent description of the business, but what is the market value, stock price? How many shares? What happens if/when another competitor steps in? Answer these questions will certainly help the thesis. Also need more discussion of risks. Need a clear valuation approach, not just statements about credit lines and cash on the balance sheet. This article will be better and attract more readers’ interest if the author organizes everything better. The bold idea and the discussion of the business are certainly interesting.
TAT Tech (TATT, Financial)
A clear thesis and an excellent valuation approach. Good discussion of the business and its structure. Could have used more discussion about other participants in the industry. But overall I thought it flowed well with excellent points about possible catalysts, discussion of management, and obvious value proposition. A strong article…
These are the score from our judges:
Therefore the winners are:
The First Place ($500): Value Ideas Contest : Cato Corporation - Cheap and unfollowed by Adib Motiwala
The Second Place ($200): TATT an Asset-Based Value with a Dual Catalyst by John Emerson
Congratulations!
Please contact us to claim your prizes. Other participates, please also contact us to claim your $50 award for submissions. We pay by check or PayPal. If you have not done so, a Free Lance Agreement needs to be signed, scanned and emailed to [email protected]. You can download it here.
With this announcement, we are open for our June Value Idea Contest. We have already received three submissions:
· Value Thoughts - Amazon.com, Inc. by wax
· The Value of Vodafone by batbeer2
· CSS Industries – A Gift Wrapped Opportunity? By Nathan Tedford
Submit your value ideas now!
These are the articles.
These are the comments from the judges:
RG Barry (DFZ, Financial)
Alex does a good job of describing the business. More discussions of competitors or alternatives in the industry will help the strength of the article. Valuation should go deeper. Sounds like the business is under pressure so the management is going out and doing deals to fill the hole? Risks seem higher than author admits. Greater focus on valuation would have been helpful. Good interaction with readers.
Cato (CATO, Financial)
Best overall article. Good intro with overview of the company’s structure, balance sheet, etc. Nice discussion of management and dual share structure. Extensive valuation work using multiple approaches. Comparisons to multiple other retailers. Need to expand on company risks. Nice summary of thesis.
Staples (SPLS, Financial)
Comparison and discussion of competition and challenge will certainly strengthen the idea. Valuation work needs to go much deeper than just looking at historical valuations. No real explanation of the business. Just a mention that it is very good company is not strong enough. But the discussion on why it is a good company will certainly help. Discussion of management and financial strength is needed to support the argument.
Petrobank (PBEGF, Financial)
This article is extensively researched and an obvious amount of effort went into it. But it needs a nice intro with a overview of the companies to be discussed. Readers are lost with all the subsidiaries. Author must assume that the reader is not up to speed. Organization is needed, but I liked the information and the work that went into it. Good discussion on mgt and their philosophy.
Rimage (RIMG, Financial)
Ben Graham may have liked Rimage, but the idea it is without risks is faulty. Management can easily destroy the capital. Little discussion on management’s plans. Valuation involves pointing to the cash. This article left readers wanting more in all areas. Description of the business, valuation, discussion of management, etc.
China Mobile (CHL)
Great idea… a company that is very underfollowed, but the article doesn’t do the idea justice. Author points to many reasons why the company looks undervalued but he doesn’t sell it. Better description of the business is warranted. Management? Good discussion of financial strength (net cash, little debt, etc) Need some comparison to valuations of other large cap telecoms. Why CHL and not TEF or VOD or T? The article did not go far enough in convincing readers of the merits of owning the stock. Seemed like an intro rather than a complete article. This is a winning idea if the author rewrites with our criteria in mind… and a look at past winning articles.
Remedent (REMI, Financial)
Excellent description of the business, but what is the market value, stock price? How many shares? What happens if/when another competitor steps in? Answer these questions will certainly help the thesis. Also need more discussion of risks. Need a clear valuation approach, not just statements about credit lines and cash on the balance sheet. This article will be better and attract more readers’ interest if the author organizes everything better. The bold idea and the discussion of the business are certainly interesting.
TAT Tech (TATT, Financial)
A clear thesis and an excellent valuation approach. Good discussion of the business and its structure. Could have used more discussion about other participants in the industry. But overall I thought it flowed well with excellent points about possible catalysts, discussion of management, and obvious value proposition. A strong article…
These are the score from our judges:
| Company | Ticker | Business Quality | Financial Strength | Management | Analytical Depth | Undervalued? | Presentation | Comments | Total |
| RG Barry | DFZ | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 23 |
| Cato | CATO | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 26 |
| Staples | SPLS | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 17 |
| Petrobank | PBEGF | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 24 |
| Rimage | RIMG | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 19 |
| China Mobile | CHL | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 18 |
| Remedent | REMI | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 19 |
| TAT Technologies | TATT | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 25 |
Therefore the winners are:
The First Place ($500): Value Ideas Contest : Cato Corporation - Cheap and unfollowed by Adib Motiwala
The Second Place ($200): TATT an Asset-Based Value with a Dual Catalyst by John Emerson
Congratulations!
Please contact us to claim your prizes. Other participates, please also contact us to claim your $50 award for submissions. We pay by check or PayPal. If you have not done so, a Free Lance Agreement needs to be signed, scanned and emailed to [email protected]. You can download it here.
With this announcement, we are open for our June Value Idea Contest. We have already received three submissions:
· Value Thoughts - Amazon.com, Inc. by wax
· The Value of Vodafone by batbeer2
· CSS Industries – A Gift Wrapped Opportunity? By Nathan Tedford
Submit your value ideas now!
