PP, with all due respect, I think that is dangerous thinking....

PP, with all due respect, I think that is dangerous thinking.

There are two alternatives here if you want to use a multiple to find a relative value for the stock:

You annualise the first half profit and call the second half a short-term blip.

Or; alternatively you annualise the second half profit as it is closer to historical trend growth.

Co-incidently, second half profit would be about $18mil if my calculations are correct. That is $36 mil or 20 cents per share.

If history rhymes, as it often does, then the first-half result is a multi-year outlier and will most likely take some years of sustainable growth to surpass again.

The operating margins in 2012 and the first half of 2013 were well above the historical mean. For what reason do you expect that these will be sustainable over the long-term?

Happy to be wrong, but I could never figure out why anyone was paying more than $2.50 per share for a cyclical company like this, experiencing record margins and revenue earnt, where there was not much evidence to suggest this is sustainable over the long-term.