The Citigroup report isn't a buy/sell recommendation at all. It is an investor analysis of the market position of nuclear power in the EU it had nothing to do with Southern unless they were touting a plan to build a nuclear plant in the UK.
Were they?
Trying to cover your earlier cock-up by fabricating a supposed "touting" of "expectations for the growth in the solar manufacturing industry" circa 2009?
Really? How freaking pathetic can you get? First, I doubt we were "touting" any stock in any sector. Second, I seriously, seriously doubt we made ANY predictions about growth in the solar industry (writ large) that were excessive since the actual performance in that sector since China jumped in with both feet has been far greater than anyone hoped. And third, how fucking desperate do you have to be to support a utility building a nuclear plant that you would write this garbage? I mean really comparing observations on generic trends in the solar sector with a market sell report for a specific utility is your idea of a reasoned response. (see the header)
Since you insist we'll look at your "correction" of the OPs "error".
You wrote:
The real reason for SO to be in the sell column is that the company is overpriced relative to the industry (price/book and price/sales) and their EPS has been in a multi-quarter decline while they're overleveraged (and not just for nuclear power)
Overpriced relative to the industry is fine, no problem with that part; but then to say they are "in a multi-quarter decline while they're overleveraged" is pure technobabble when, in fact, you are just saying they spent too much money and the money they've spent/obligated isn't earning them any money and wont for an unknown length of time.
Both of those issues are the major reasons the much ballyhoo'd nuclear revival has been all fizzle and no flash.
= new reply since forum marked as read
