By
Tim Beyers
|
More Articles
September 20, 2007
|
Well, OK. I stand corrected. Electronic Arts (Nasdaq: ERTS ) is more than a one-hit wonder. But mine isn't the only gaffe in this debate. Quoting Rick's bull argument:
Paying nearly 30 times next year's profitability may seem expensive, but EA is worth it. It's growing its earnings at an increasingly fast pace these days. (Emphasis mine.)
Um, no:
|
Normalized
|
TTM
|
FY 2007
|
FY 2006
|
FY 2005
|
FY 2004
|
|
Year-over-year growth
|
(77.1%)
|
(63.1%)
|
(42.8%)
|
(8.2%)
|
45.8%
|
Source: Capital IQ, a division of Standard & Poor's.
And the top line isn't much better:
|
Revenue
|
TTM
|
FY 2007
|
FY 2006
|
FY 2005
|
FY 2004
|
|
Year-over-year growth
|
2.5%
|
4.7%
|
(5.7%)
|
5.8%
|
19.1%
|
Source: Capital IQ.
As members of the Rule Breakers research team, Rick and I are used to paying 30 times earnings (or more) for fast movers. Massive growth is quite often worth it. With EA, all you have is the promise of massive growth -- a promise it has yet to keep.
Spitting into a tailwind may be a bad idea, but so is spitting on your portfolio. Save your sore thumbs for a stock that's cheap enough to deserve your dollars.
Check out the other arguments in this Duel, and then vote for a winner.