Somewhere near the end of the discussion with Stevenson, Gary Kaminsky, the program's co-host, began to rabidly insist that ATT was a growth company which wasn't appreciated as such.
While Stevenson politely attempted to deflect Kaminsky, the latter badgered the CEO about why ATT dividends out so much income, when they should be growing even more rapidly, in necessary, through acquisition.
After Stevenson's departure, Faber tried to talk some sense into Kaminsky by reminding him that ATT wasn't just a wireless firm. That it, for better or worse, still has a long distance unit and substantially more corporate business than merely running a consumer wireless unit which features the iPhone.
I took a look at ATT's recent income statement. Let me assure you, it's no growth firm. I checked my proprietary analyses of the S&P500 for consistently superior revenue growth. ATT isn't among those firms. Not for at least the last several years. The firm simply does not exhibit the sort of revenue growth that characterizes a growth firm.The nearby five year price chart for ATT and the S&P500Index illustrates that the firm certainly isn't valued, over time, as a growth firm. It barely outperforms the index over the past five years. And I'm being generous giving it that, since the difference is microscopic, and doesn't adjust for the risk of holding ATT versus a basket of 500 equities.
I wonder what Gary Kaminsky was drinking or smoking before that program? Because he ought to quit whatever it was.
No comments:
Post a Comment