Why would analysts recommend buying companies with negative net income?
"The biotechnology sector as a whole is a popular buy recommendation among some analysts these days for a few reasons.  Some analysts feel that the high costs in R&D, even without much profit, are a positive sign for growth because it means a company is working towards finding the next ""blockbuster drug"" or the next class of such drugs. There haven't been many new classes of blockbuster drugs since the development of SSRI's and statins, and many of the new drugs that have been developed have been tweaks to existing classes of drugs. Some analysts feel that ""it's about time"" for a new class of blockbuster drugs to hit the market. A new blockbuster drug means significant profits for the company that develops it; a new class of blockbuster drugs means significant profits for the whole industry.  Since about 2009, the Food and Drug Administration has been more lenient in its approval of new drugs. This wave of new approvals has reduced R&D costs for companies because they don't need to go back to the lab or earlier phases of clinical trials and continually tweak their drugs in order to gain approval. This has also made some analysts optimistic. Genetic engineering is considered an up-and-coming field with potentially significant applications to the pharmaceutical industry. Advances in this field may increase profits for the pharm industry, but since biotech companies are often the ones producing the engineering equipment, research, etc. such advances could be a major source of revenue for the entire biotech industry.  In the US and in the developed world as a whole, the elderly population is growing, and since people consume more medicine as they grow older, this could lead to higher profits for companies involved in the production of pharmaceuticals (which includes biotech companies, of course) in the long run.  In the US, the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act expanded insurance coverage, which gives more people the means to afford pharmaceuticals. Also, in general, people consume more healthcare services when they have insurance (this is called moral hazard), so some analysts expect that the expansion of insurance coverage will only lead to more profits for the pharmaceutical industry and biotechnology firms in general. The global food crisis. As the climate changes, companies like Monsanto, which use various forms of genetic engineering to produce crop strains that can survive in increasingly hostile environments, look more and more appealing to places that need crops designed to grow in such environments. Any methods that could increase yields look increasingly popular, and biotechnology companies often market such methods. (As a side note, I know Monsanto is a contentious example, and there are a lot of misconceptions about ""genetically modified food"" and the genetic engineering methods they do, so I won't get into a debate about that).  In general, technology is a popular subject right now. I've read analyst reports (from analysts that clearly don't follow the biotech sector) that base their forecasts for the biotech sector on the activities of companies like Dell, Zynga, HP, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc. Clearly, it's problematic when an analyst sees the word ""technology"" and automatically assumes that the biotech sector is responsive to the same factors as social media firms, hardware manufacturers, etc. This isn't to say that the biotech sector is completely isolated from this, but when I read a report that talks about Facebook's IPO being bad news for companies like Gilead Sciences without mentioning upcoming FDA decisions about Gilead's products or any biotech-specific factors, I'm not convinced the analyst has performed due diligence.  I keep using the phrase ""some analysts"" because I want to stress that the opinions stated above aren't universal. Although they're popular, not everyone is so optimistic. Also, I don't want you to see these reasons and think that I'm making a buy recommendation, because I'm not. I'm not making a recommendation one way or another.  I'm happy to clarify my answer too; I follow the biotechnology sector extensively. If you want to get a rough feel for the daily movements of the sector as a whole, a good place to start is IBB, the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology Index Fund. The four largest holdings are Regeneron, Gilead Sciences, Amgen, and Celgene, which are all big players in the industry (obviously). These are a little different from the big name pharma companies like Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, etc. but they're still considered pharma companies. It's also worthwhile to follow the FDA press announcements. By the time the news is published there, it's probably already leaked or known to people in the industry (the biotech/pharm sectors are rife with accusations of insider trading), so you might not find trading opportunities, but it's important to get familiar with the information the releases contain if you want to know more about the industry. Volatility trades are always popular trades around FDA drug approvals." Companies in their earliest stages will likely not have profits but do have the potential for profits.  Thus, there can be those that choose to invest in companies that require capital to stay in business that have the potential to make money. Venture Capital would be the concept here that goes along with John Bensin's points that would be useful background material.  For years, Amazon.com lost money particularly for its first 6 years though it has survived and taken off at times. "Most likely because they don't know what they're talking about. They all have a belief without evidence that information set X is internalised into the price but information set Y is not. If there is some stock characteristic, call it y, that belongs to set Y, then that moves the gauge towards a ""buy"" recommendation. However, the issue is that no evidence has been used to determine the constituents of X and Y, or even whether Y exists in any non-trivial sense."
Right, I understand minority interest but it is typically reported as a positive under liabilities instead of a negative. For example, when you are calculating the enterprise value of a company, you add back in the minority interest.    Enterprise Value= Market Share +Pref Equity + Min Interest+ Total Debt - Cash and ST Equivalents.    EV is used to quantify the total price of a company's worth. If you have negative Min Interest on your books, that will make your EV less than it should be, creating an incorrect valuation.   This just doesn't make any sense to me. Does it mean that the subsidiary that they had a stake in had a negative earning? "The company released its 2nd Quarter Revenue of $1,957,921 a couple days ago however the stock did not move up in any way. Why? If the company is making money shouldn't the stock go up. During the time between earnings announcements, analysts occasionally publish their assessment of a company, including their estimate of the company's value and future earnings. And as part of an earnings report, companies often include ""guidance"": their prediction for the upcoming quarter (this will frequently be a conservative estimate, so they're more likely to achieve it). Investors make their purchase and sale decisions based on this information. When the earnings report comes out, investors compare these actual returns to analysts' predictions and the company's guidance. If their results are in line with these predictions, the stock price is unlikely to move much, as those results are already incorporated into the stock price. If the company is doing better than predicted, it's usually a good sign, and the price often rises; conversely, if it's doing worse, the price will likely fall. But it's not as simple as this. As others have explained, for long-term investors, stock prices are based on expectations of future activity. If the results of that quarter include some one-time actions that are unlikely to repeat, investors will often discount that portion." According to pretty well accepted corporate finance principles. They're mature/maturing companies with large durable noncyclical cash flow streams. Increasing their debt load and distributing the proceeds to shareholders would lower their after tax cost of capital and increase the value of their equity. IMO operating with such under levered balance sheets is nonoptimal. It's subjective though. I've spent enough time researching this question where I feel  comfortable enough providing an answer.  I'll start with the high level fundamentals and work my way down to the specific question that I had. So point #5 is really the starting point for my answer. We want to find companies that are investing their money.  A good company should be reinvesting most of its excess assets so that it can make more money off of them. If a company has too much working capital, then it is not being efficiently reinvested.  That explains why excess working capital can have a negative impact on Return on Capital. But what about the fact that current liabilities in excess of current assets has a positive impact on the Return on Capital calculation?  That is a problem, period.  If current liabilities exceed current assets then the company may have a hard time meeting their short term financial obligations. This could mean borrowing more money, or it could mean something worse - like bankruptcy.  If the company borrows money, then it will have to repay it in the future at higher costs.  This approach could be fine if the company can invest money at a rate of return exceeding the cost of their debt, but to favor debt in the Return on Capital calculation is wrong. That scenario would skew the metric. The company has to overcome this debt. Anyways, this is my understanding, as the amateur investor. My credibility is not even comparable to Greenblatt's credibility, so I have no business calling any part of his calculation wrong. But, in defense of my explanation, Greenblatt doesn't get into these gritty details so I don't know that he allowed current liabilities in excess of current assets to have a positive impact on his Return on Capital calculation. The indication is based on the average Buy-Hold-Sell rating of a group of fundamental analysts. The individual analysts provide a Buy, Hold or Sell recommendation based on where the current price of the stock is compared to the perceived value of the stock by the analyst.  Note that this perceived value is based on many assumptions by the analyst and their biased view of the stock. That is why different fundamental analysts provide different values and different recommendations on the same stock. So basically if the stock's price is below the analyst's perceived value it will be given a Buy recommendation, if the price is equal with the perceived value it will be given a Hold recommendation and if the price is more than the perceived value it will be given a Sell recommendation. As the others have said this information IMHO is useless. "If a company is doing well, it seems less likely to go bankrupt.  If a company is doing poorly, it seems more likely to go bankrupt.  The problem is, where is the inflection point between ""well"" and ""poorly""?  When does a company start to head into oblivion?  Sometimes it is hard to know.  But if you don't call that right and hold onto your shares when a company is tanking, others, who call it before you do, will sell off, devalue the share price, and now you've missed your chance to get out at a good profit.  If you hang on too long, the company may just go bankrupt and you've lost your investment entirely. A healthy profitability of the company therefore has to bolster investor confidence in avoiding this very unpleasant scenario.  Therefore, the more profitable a company is, the more shareholder confidence it inspires, and the more willing to pay for it in the form of increased share price.  And, this then has a ""meta"" effect, in that each shareholder thinks, ""all other investors think this way, too,"" and so each feels good about holding the stock, since he knows he can likely easily liquidate it for good cash if he needs to, either now or in the next year or sometime hence." "Greatowl's response is pretty cynical. I'm not a wall street analyst but I do read some of the research and there is a lot of respectable analysis out there. There are many smart analysts who consistently get poached from the equity research departments to join the buy side. I'd also contend that level of accuracy is an incomplete measure of performance. It doesnt matter if you're right or wrong, what matters is how much you make when you are right and how much you lose when you are wrong. Soros is purported to have a 30% ""batting average"" but the guy makes a killing when he's right (source: Inside the House of Money)." P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price.  You take share price divided by annual earnings per share.  You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share.  It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy.  It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth.   A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4.  A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400.  By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other.  One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss).  Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy.  Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk. Talk to almost any large cap CFO or read any corporate finance textbook. McKinsey's Valuation is a great one to own: though yes McKinsey consultants can take a good idea and turn it bad by overdoing it to an extreme.  Why would universal corporate finance principles not apply to large cap tech? Why is having $XXb of unutilized cash for a company with durable cash flow a good thing for equity investors? Agree with mjvcaj, it is rare. Larger cap examples include Nokia and NII Holdings (Nextel).  If cash exceeds market cap, that means total debt is greater than EV, the value of the operating assets. If the debt is partially repaid / matures, the equity is ok. BUT if management is crap and the cash is spent at an ROIC below the interest rate on the debt, now you have a situation where the net debt exceeds the value of the operating assets, the credit quality suffers, debt trades down, you need to recapitalize in order to avoid bankruptcy.  The above assumes debt is greater than cash. Situations where cash exceeds market cap and debt is less than cash (i.e. a negative EV) are exceedingly rare in larger companies and are either a) a wonderfully attractive mispricing or b) market views management as so awful that the cash will get burnt up by the business and the value of that cash will be destroyed. "If there's indeed no reason to trust GS, i.e. those are just guides   then the question is: Why do investors seem to care? Because there's a reason to trust. You're just reading the bottom line - the target price range. More involved investors read the whole report, including the description of the current situation, the premises for the analysis, the expectations on the firm's performance and what these expectations are based on, the analysis of how the various scenarios might affect the valuation, and the evaluation of chances of these scenarios to occur. You don't have to trust everything and expect it to be 100% correct, analysts are not prophets. But you do have an option of reading their reports and critically analyzing their conclusions. What you suspect GS of doing (""I tend to believe those guys just want themselves a cheap buy price a few days before Q2 earnings release"") is a criminal offence." Their net income hangs around zero because they raise expenses as reinvestment in the company (line items like $16.09B in Research &amp; Development expense last year).  Retained earnings is a balance sheet item reflective of assets they're holding for projects in a later fiscal period; they aren't waiting for the next period to reinvest. P/E ratio is useful but limited as others have said. Another problem is that it doesn't show leverage. Two companies in the same industry could have the same P/E but be differently leveraged. In that case I would buy the company with more equity and less debt as it should be a less risky investment. To compare companies and take leverage/debt into account you could use the EV/EBIT ratio instead. Its slightly more complicated to calculate and isn't presented by as many data sources though. Enterprise Value (EV) can be said to represent the value of the company if someone would buy it today and then pay off all its (interest bearing) debt. EV is essentially calculated like this: (Market Capitalization plus cash & cash equivalents)  minus interest-bearing debt.  This is then divided by EBIT (Earnings before interest and tax) to get the ratio. One drawback of this ratio though is that it can't be used for financials since their balance sheet pretty much consists of debt and the Enterprise Value therefore doesn't tell us very much. Also, like the P/E ratio it is dependent on fresh numbers. A balance sheet is just a glimpse of the companys financial situation on ONE DAY, and this could (and probably will, although not drastically for bigger companies) change to the next day. Anyone who claims they can consistently beat the market and asks you to pay them to tell you how is a liar. This cannot be done, as the market adjusts itself. There's nothing they could possibly learn that analysts and institutional investors don't already know. They earn their money through the subscription fees, not through capital gains on their beat-the-market suggestions, that means that they don't have to rely on themselves to earn money, they only need you to rely on them. They have to provide proof because they cannot lie in advertisements, but if you read carefully, there are many small letters and disclaimers that basically remove any liability from them by saying that they don't take responsibility for anything and don't guarantee anything. Because collective bargaining by the gov't and your employer is the only way that we've been able to combat some of the increases. An uninsured individual will be billed 4-10x what your insurance company would pay due to collective bargaining.  The largest employers (Cisco, EMC, and others) are self-insured and pay health care providers to administer their plan. SMBs get the short end of the stick and pay much higher rates for less coverage because they don't have economies of scale.   A public option would allow any uninsured individual to obtain health care at a reasonable, income-based cost.