How can a profitable business trade at a third of its value in

no one gonna answer?

Which stock you mean?

>/unrealistic hypotheticals general/

>>1318898
What does that mean?

>>1318397
Show me the stock
>>1318949
If english is your first language... god help you

I hate to post it but I know there will be more stocks like it.

Emerson Radio Corp (NYSEMKT:MSN)

>>1318963
>Emerson Radio Corp
Oh so you're speculating on sub 50MM stocks ok

That's why. They're littered with fraud and market makers can manipulate it to their hearts content.

>>1319025
By market manipulators do you mean the company. Look at the financials they look rock solid.

Also ADVM and CHMA are both below liquidation value.

>>1319052
No you fuckin moron. Protip: don't buy

>>1319052
>Look at the financials they look rock solid.
It makes me sad how profoundly stupid people on /biz/ can be. That you could possibly look at this company's financials and conclude that they look "rock solid" is probably the dumbest statement on this board in 2016, and that includes all the crypto bullshit threads.

A quick scan of the company's most recent 10K shows:

- major tax disputes
- major issues with the controlling foreign parent
- unhealthy supplier concentration
- falling year-to-year sales
- falling year-to-year revenue

This company is a shit-show that does nothing other than slap the "Emerson" brand name on Chinese-made crap appliances, which it then tries to sell in the highly-competitive North Amerson consumer markets. It doesn't make anything, doesn't own anything, and doesn't have any plants, warehouses, or facilities. It's headquarters is a small 4th-floor office in a largely empty B-Class office building in Hackensack, New Jersey. It doesn't even have a credit facility. It could disappear from the face of the Earth tomorrow, and no one (other than perhaps its literal Chinese overlords) would even notice.

And this is what you call "rock solid" financial?

>>1319385
Don't forget to mention even if it was financially ''''solid''' its low volume makes it an easy target for pump and dumps

>>1319385
I called it rock solid because if it left the face of the earth tomorrow then then the shareholders would get 3 times their money back (cash + marketable securities- total debt) or am I missing something?

>>1319410
As soon as it reaches the appropriate value then you dump it anyway.

>>1319529
You're fucking retarded. But you also are probably using robinhood with sub 10k balance so you really have nothing to lose anyways.

Wouldn't this be an SEC violation?

>>1318397
I'm new to business

can someone explain what ops post means as if you were explaining it to a 2 year old?

thanks

how can shareholder get a 200% return if the company is bankrupt even if there is some technical aspect saying it be worth more dead?

>>1319529
Oh and you're retarded because of being so naive about bankruptcies

>>1319548
cause I can only imagine creditors profiting from a bankruptcy not shareholders

>>1319553
I don't think they have any debt which is what the OP seems to be getting at. Let me read.

>>1319579
OP don't be a nigger. They are close to being delisted.

>>1319553
Well I am apparently wrong, but what I meant was in the event of liquidation debt holders get first right to the assets. Once they get their money back then the shareholders get the remaining value of the assets, with preferreds being paid out first. That leaves common share holders with the remaining balance. However in the case of MSN I thought since cash plus marketable securities added together then minus total liabilities (they get paid first) was significantly higher then the market cap this company would be financially rock solid. Even leaving the common shareholder with money at the end in the event of bankruptcy.

Of course with this type of invest I can see too major things normally going wrong. Either the company is so poorly managed at the piss away capital or in the actual event of liquidation the assets are worth shit. However they're sitting with more than enough cash, restricted cash and marketable securities to be actually worth something if they go tits up.

> That was my logic away but I fucked up somewhere and others seem to be pointing it out now. Thanks

>>1319591
so what I think your saying is that shareholders have more incentive to keep you afloat when you are in debt rather than free and clear?

>>1319599
They are a way to export cash from China. They aren't a real business.

File: wgi-1.png (25KB, 647x521px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 647x521px

>>1319622
I am just talking about liquidation value here. Worst case scenario the firm goes bankrupt. Best case is the income statement improves, the firm gets acquired or theres a pump and dump. I am just planning and (hoping) for bankruptcy.
>I think in this case A/R and inventory is 0.