Quarterly - expectations, page-37

With all due respect this is getting a bit silly, what the market looks at for assessing the fair value and risk : So a rise from 369 to 1.2m (as an imaginary number) will simply be accurately substantial and does tell a story. Only a chemical effected ANZ trader could possibly start assessing qtr on qtr rise on revenue from the previous at $3000 and say dump the stock.
You say the 4C should be taken with a grain of salt but that's not what happens, and yes I agree the half is a much better picture, but we are up to the 4C this week. However there are several missing the point I make, that terms of trade and cash flow are two major components of how a stock is risk rated. You can't get around that, it's just the way it is. On textbook Finance theory 90 day terms are higher risk than 30. And that will be reflected in the sp. So 7 days of risk is less than 90 days of risk, but more, within the 90 days they are receiving even more product and so the risk actually escalates further before the supplier can stop supply for non payment than it would at 7 or 30 days. I don't actually know of one company in Australia for example who would accept 90 days terms, someone enlighten me if they do.
My point is that is how the market looks at the situation, and that is how the sp is risk rated and valued. I'm not actually debating whether they should or shouldn't, do it, it's up to them of course. My personal opinion is if they have patent on the product and it's cheaper than the nasty stuff why extend terms? Business is actually sophisticated warfare, when you hold the power and advantage it must exercised. (I'm sure that comment will get a few responses!)