Jump to content

CST - CASTILE RESOURCES LTD


colaiscute

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 22k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • forrestgump

    1573

  • rog

    1833

  • dr_dazmo

    1257

  • skorpian

    1585

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Was listening to Derryn Hinch (dunno why) on way home from work yesterday and he was talking to a man in England (maybe a doc...missed it) and they were discussing how big a problem TB had become there and that the government had announced it was committing $25m towards it and finding a solution to thier 'epidemic'. Apparently it had been brought into the country by the large amount immigrants coming into the country in recent times and now it cant be gotten rid of.

 

Anyway, thought that maybe relevant to CST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

CST VALUATION SPREADSHEET [Cross posted from Ozestock]

 

 

Okay, I've finally put together my DCF style valuation additions to my CST Valuation Spreadsheet.

 

If you are interested I have attached it to this post (good to see that we can now upload spreadheets)

 

As always, I have absolutely no problem with you copying, modifying, sharing or doing whatever else you wish with it. Of course I offer no warranty as to the accuracy, validity etc of the spreadsheet. I do suggest, however, that you read the following. Bear in mind that I am no expert and am certainly not trying to "teach Grandma to suck eggs". Writing this stuff is as much for my benefit (in getting my thoughts tidied up) as anything else. If I have something wrong then I am perfectly happy to discuss it.

 

NOTES/CAVEATS/RAMBLINGS

 

1. While I have referred to the additional section as a "DCF style" valuation it is not exactly a classic DCF (Discounted Cash Flow) valuation. This is for a number of reasons not the least being that a DCF valuation is normally only usefull for a "mature" (not speculative) company. I guess each person can make their own assessment of the level of speculation in their CST investment.

 

2. Basically, this type of valuation is based on the premise that all earnings (read profits) of the company belong to us, the owners of the company. This is regardless of whether those profits are retained as cash, used to build infrastructure, used to purchase other investments or paid back to us as dividends. The "discounting" part of this valuation is a method of expressing the fact that earnings made this year are worth more than earnings made next year. The analogy that I use is a bank term deposit. ie the interest paid to you this year is of more value to you than the interest earned next year.

 

3. The first part of the spreadsheet (PE valuation) remains essentially unchanged from my previous spreadheet other than the fact that I have optimistically extended it out to 20m tests p.a.. As previously, you can play with the figures in this section to be whatever you think is realistic. The new part of the spreadsheet allows you to enter your estimate of the sales for each of the ten years 2004 through 2013. The spreadsheet will then turn these figures into earnings for each of these years by looking up the appropriate NPAT figures in the PE part of the spreadsheet. (obviously, as it is, you can only specify whole millions of sales each year and cannot exceed 20m tests in any year).

 

4. "Earnings Rate". This figure is similar to the "Discount Rate" that is normally used in a DCF valuation. There is a fine difference between the two but I prefer to use an earnings rate. Normally a discount factor is expressed as percentage rate that you wish to discount next years earnings by. An earnings rate is the percentage rate that you wish to earn on your investment to achieve next years earnings. As I said, its a fine difference but makes more sense to me as we all think in terms of "% return" rather than "discount %". As this percentage is usually related to alternate investments (bond rate, bank interest rate etc) that are expressed as % return then I feel happier this way round.

 

5. Expressing Risk. It is this Earnings Rate figure that is used to express your return in exchange for risk. If you want zero risk then you can put your money in the bank and earn 4 or 5% interest per year. Clearly, an investment in a speculative share (or even a blue chip) has a risk of greater than zero. The Earnings Rate can be a way of expressing the "interest rate" that you want to earn on your investment in exchange for this increased risk. Quantifying risk is not easy and it largely comes down to personal judgement and requirements. In other DCF valuations that I have seen I have seen Discount rates of between 10% and 30%. Interestingly, Warren Buffet sees this slightly differently than most. He takes the approach that he has already assessed the risk and would not be investing if the risk is high. He therefore generally seems to use a discount rate not too far from the bond rate (he often uses 10%). He then looks to purchase the shares at less than the DCF valuation to give him some room.

 

6. My spreadsheet discounts the earnings over the next ten years to calculate a current value for the share (based on the Earnings rate % chosen). In effect, limiting it to ten years is saying that after ten years the company ceases to exist. This is clearly not the case. Other DCF valuations that I have seen run out to 30 years. I presume that 30 years is used because (a) it corresponds to the quoted 30 year bonds; and ( b ) earnings that far out, by the time they are discounted, will have a negligable impact on current DCF valuation. Given all the assumptions that we have made so far, it just seems to me that any "predictions" on CST earnings that far out would be just plain silly. What I have done instead is to provide the ability to insert a value on the company as at 2014. Of course such a value is a guess also. What value to use? My suggestion would be the revenues as at 2103 multiplied by 10 (= PE of 10). In the supplied spreadsheet I have left this blank. If you wish to put this figure in then just insert it in box L29.

 

7. The figures in the spreadsheet supplied are not necessarily my predictions - they are just convenient figures for testing. I would be very interested in seeing the figures that you decie upon.

 

8. Remember that in getting down to this final Discounted Value we have made many many assumptions along the way. The more assumptions that we make, the more unreliable our final figure is. All I am saying is that we cannot use the final figure to incontovertibly say "CST is worth $x".

 

 

Have Fun

 

Peace

Fforrest

CSTVAL0104.xls

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

CST SUMMARY SHEET

 

The attached document is a summary sheet for Cellestis.

 

It is not a research document as such, just a concise overview of salient facts. I have valiantly attempted to keep my opinion out of it.

 

This is actually a part of a project that a few friends and I are toying with. I don't know about you, but I get many stocks mentioned to me as ones to watch. Unfortunately, the amount of work involved in researching these means that often they end up getting put into the "too hard" basket. The thought is that a brief summary that can be read in a few minutes may make it possible to very quickly identify whether it is worthwhile delving a little deeper or not. Many of us have intimate knowledge of different stocks and our feeling is that if we could develop a standard summary sheet format then it would be an ideal way for each of us to benefit each other.

 

This is a work in progress and I have used CST as my initial example because that is the stock that I know most about.

 

As usual, feel free to do whatever you will with it (copy, modify, share, bin etc..)

 

If you have any comments on the format or information provided I would be most interested in hearing them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IN REPLY TO A POST BY forrestgump, Tue 24/02/04 12:07pm   [READ POST]

CST SUMMARY SHEET

The attached document is a summary sheet for Cellestis.

It is not a research document as such, just a concise overview of salient facts. I have valiantly attempted to keep my opinion out of it.

This is actually a part of a project that a few friends and I are toying with. I don't know about you, but I get many stocks mentioned to me as ones to watch. Unfortunately, the amount of work involved in researching these means that often they end up getting put into the "too hard" basket. The thought is that a brief summary that can be read in a few minutes may make it possible to very quickly identify whether it is worthwhile delving a little deeper or not. Many of us have intimate knowledge of different stocks and our feeling is that if we could develop a standard summary sheet format then it would be an ideal way for each of us to benefit each other.

This is a work in progress and I have used CST as my initial example because that is the stock that I know most about.

As usual, feel free to do whatever you will with it (copy, modify, share, bin etc..)

If you have any comments on the format or information provided I would be most interested in hearing them.

Whoops ... seems the attachment didnt work. Tying again.

 

cst.doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

CST going 'great guns' today. You beauty!!!!!

 

http://www.asxboard.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif

LC

 

Today: 02-Apr-2004 Time(AEST) Price Volume Value Condition Codes

12:04:58 1.8500 4,000 7,400.00

12:04:01 1.8500 12,888 23,842.80

11:59:12 1.8000 6,000 10,800.00

11:59:12 1.8000 1,112 2,001.60

11:54:12 1.8000 3,888 6,998.40

11:51:29 1.7500 3,000 5,250.00

11:51:29 1.7500 330 577.50

11:51:29 1.7500 530 927.50

11:51:07 1.7500 3,000 5,250.00

11:50:54 1.7500 1,470 2,572.50

11:50:54 1.7500 1,530 2,677.50 XT

11:49:47 1.7500 220 385.00

11:49:47 1.7500 9,780 17,115.00

11:49:36 1.7500 220 385.00

11:49:36 1.7500 1,580 2,765.00

11:48:06 1.7500 1,420 2,485.00

11:46:54 1.7400 2,000 3,480.00 XT

11:44:34 1.7400 3,000 5,220.00

11:44:34 1.7400 2,000 3,480.00

11:38:56 1.7200 852 1,465.44

11:38:03 1.7200 3,000 5,160.00

11:36:17 1.7200 2,148 3,694.56

11:36:17 1.7200 3,652 6,281.44

11:34:52 1.7200 4,000 6,880.00

11:34:52 1.7200 5,000 8,600.00 XT

11:17:44 1.7100 7,000 11,970.00

11:17:44 1.7100 780 1,333.80 XT

11:06:10 1.7100 1,220 2,086.20

11:06:10 1.7100 1,280 2,188.80

10:56:21 1.7100 4,000 6,840.00

10:55:54 1.7100 7,000 11,970.00

10:49:41 1.7000 9,868 16,775.60

10:49:31 1.7000 132 224.40

10:49:31 1.7000 2,000 3,400.00

10:49:31 1.7000 2,868 4,875.60

10:30:24 1.7000 1,132 1,924.40 XT

10:30:24 1.7000 2,000 3,400.00 XT

10:30:24 1.7000 6,666 11,332.20

10:30:24 1.7000 2,650 4,505.00 XT

10:30:24 1.7000 40,000 68,000.00

10:30:24 1.7000 18,641 31,689.70 XT

10:30:24 1.7000 7,611 12,938.70

10:30:24 1.7000 5,000 8,500.00

10:30:16 1.6900 8,000 13,520.00

10:30:16 1.6900 10,000 16,900.00

10:30:16 1.6900 5,000 8,450.00 XT

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest Cellestis announcement (issued after market 2/4/04) regarding the release of the results of the pivotal Japan study will also have a significant impact. This study is about to be published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (AJRCCM) and a summary can be read on here

 

The Japan study found that QFT test, used in conjunction with two specific antigens, gave a specificity of 98.1% in detecting latent TB whereas the skin test, or TST, gave a specificity of 35.4%.

 

The study also noted that the specificity of QFT could be higher than calculated.

 

The QFT test, with the two antigens, is the second generation Quantiferon test and is known as QFT-Gold.

 

In regards to the current and proposed methods of diagnosing latent TB and comparing those with the Quantiferon (IFN) test the Japan test concluded by saying that:-

 

In addition to the high diagnostic accuracy resulting from the use of M. tuberculosis specific antigens, the whole blood IFN assay offers many methodological and logistical advantages, both over the TST and other laboratory methods of immunological testing.

 

The test requires a single patient visit, does not induce boosting of subsequent test results, and can provide results within one day. Inter-reader variability is low and results are highly reproducible[27] as it is a controlled laboratory assay. Importantly, whole blood testing uses minimal labor and simple equipment, allowing large numbers of samples to be tested concurrently.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...