SGH (ASX) The 'sell' and 'not held'

Originally posted by croasian ↑

Aaagghhhh I make no advice to sell, I have to have a sentiment to post. That's my personal view, you will do your own research make your own decision with your own money and bear the consequences of that.
At this point with a $30m Market Cap it doesn't matter much what you choose.
What I have said in the past was that I wasn't sure Quindell could make money, clearly parts of it can but all the skeletons are out of the closet at this point (which we could only speculate on previously). The business as it stands is losing money (sure it has profitable parts but they are worth less than the debt).
It could prove to be a large earner if the banks supported it but it is like an individual who can't pay their bills, is underwater on the mortgage and has already renegotiated it a couple of times but just can't pay.
Any highly leveraged business has the potential for high returns as effectively the risks of ownership are transferred to lenders. That's not their business though, it's not their job to bear the risks of ownership while passing returns to third parties.
Oftentimes fluctuations in stock market prices represent undervalued or overvalued situations (at present predominantly overvalued worldwide).
Assuming the companies results and impairments are genuine the fallen shareprice represents a genuine loss of earnings potential in this case. This is evidenced by poor returns from the business in the year preceeding.
One year is certainly not enough to judge a turnaround but I don't see why the banks would support a business losing money with negative equity.
Always prepared to change my view on the basis of fact.

Expand

Great post Croasian. I have a question and wondering what your thoughts are.

My understanding of the history of SGH is that a lot of the growth in revenue came through acquisitions. These are called roll-up mergers and with the assistance of some accounting trickery it is very easy to hide poor organic growth or performance in the underlying business when these are frequently happening.

In any case I'm wondering if the growth in revenue and profits was mostly as a result of these roll-up mergers or was the underlying business organically growing market share and improving efficiency.

This leads to the more important question which is if SGH will be able to grow revenue in the future if they are unable to continue to acquire smaller practices?

In absence of this strategy, the only way this would be possible will be to win market share from other companies. If they haven't been doing this successfully in the past and were relying mostly on acquiring smaller firms and given the hit their reputation has taken, this could take some time to get back on track.

What are you thoughts?