The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investors' Roundtable / Rule Maker Companies

URL:  https://boards.fool.com/eid-yes-i-guess-it-might-seem-a-little-15090244.aspx

Subject:  Re: RM MASTER LIST - Updated 3/31/2001 Date:  6/1/2001  5:34 PM
Author:  TMFTribe Number:  8016 of 8329
eid,

Yes, I guess it might seem a little disturbing at first glance. However, if you look at the numbers a little closer, I think the reason for the disparity is easy to see.

First, let's take a look back at the list:

Score  Company              Period    Competitors            Post #  Ranker
44     Siebel Systems       FY '99    ORCL, DRTE             5326    JohnVibes1
35     Siebel Systems       FY '99    ORCL, DRTE, CLFY       5356    JohnVibes1

If you look at these two listings, you will notice that the only difference between the two is the list of competitors. In the ranking with the lower score, it adds Clarify (CLFY) to the analysis. If we jump back over to the post in question (http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=11887768), we will see the following numbers for CLFY, along with SEBL's for comparison's sake:

                    SEBL            CLFY
                 ==========      ===========  
Gross Margins       77.1%           76.2%
Net Margins         15.4%            6.5%
Cash to Debt         2.69          No Debt!
Net Cash            506.0           58.0
Flow Ratio           1.29            1.06

These numbers aren't drastically better or worse than SEBL's, with the possible exception of the flow ratio. Therefore, the expectation is that scores should be somewhat similar. Since that is not the case, then I don't think we can assume that the change in competitors is responsible for the wide variance in scores.

Since the scores happen to quite far apart, I believe the cause is due not to the numbers think there may have been an error in the poster's analysis. If you compare the data for SEBL between the two analyses, you will see that the "Cash and Cash Equivalents" number is not the same (806 in one, and 1106 in the other), which causes a dramatic difference in the flow ratio (1.29 vs. 0.09). Using the lower figure, we get two extra points under Financial Location, three extra points in the Financial Direction section, and four extra points in the Monopoly Status section. If we use the corrected flow ratio, the analysis should show a final score of 44 - (2 + 3 + 4) = 35 points. Amazingly enough, this is the same as the other ranker, which is what we would expect.

I'll see if I can't repost a corrected version of this ranker this weekend, and correct the master list to reflect the change.

Sorry for the confusion.

the LanceMan
Copyright 1996-2022 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us