How do I interpret this analysis from Second Opinion?
"In Second Opinion's opinion, they say ""Do not initiate new position.""  This means do not buy the stock if you do not already own it.   Since they also say to hold if you do own it, this is a very ""who knows what it will do"" neutral position (IMO)." "This is analyst speak for ""the stock isn't going anywhere anytime soon"". Remember these guys are offering advice to the entire universe in a few lines, so the advice gets fortune cookie-like. When I look at these things, I care more about when the analyst changes their opinion more than what the opinion is. If you really trust this person, you should listen to the earnings call for the stock (or read the transcript) and listen for the questions asked by the analyst. Usually you'll be able to understand why the analyst feels the way he does." No, you shouldn't buy it. The advice here is to keep any existing holdings but not make new purchases of the stock.
I don't think it makes sense to allow accounting numbers that you are not sure how to interpret as being a sell sign.  If you know why the numbers are weird and you feel that the reason for it bodes ill about the future, and if you think there's a reason this has not been accounted for by the market, then you might think about selling.  The stock's performance will depend on what happens in the future. Financials just document the past, and are subject to all kinds of lumpiness, seasonality, and manipulation. You might benefit from posting a link to where you got your financials.  Whenever one computes something like a dividend payout ratio, one must select a time period over which to measure.  If the company had a rough quarter in terms of earnings but chose not to reduce dividends because they don't expect the future to be rough, that would explain a crazy high dividend ratio.  Or if they were changing their capital structure.  Or one of many other potentially benign things.   Accounting numbers summarize a ton of complex workings of the company and many ratios we look at could be defined in several different ways.  I'm afraid that the answer to your question about how to interpret things is in the details, and we are not looking at the same details you are. Bloomberg Professional seems to be very popular. It provides any kind of data you can imagine. Analysis is a subjective interpretation of the data. I can probably rent the house out for about $1,600. If sell now I can get 180k at the most. My mortgage will be $1,800 with tax and insurance. If I use the 180k to pay off the house, I can refinance the loan for a lower interest rate too. I think I know what I want to do but just need a second opinion. Thanks btw "I would split the savings as you may need some of it quickly for an emergency. At least 1/2 should be very liquid, such as cash or MMA/Checking.  From there, look at longer term CDs, from 30 day to 180 day, depending upon your situation.  Don't be surprised if by the time you've saved the money up, your desire for the car will have waned.  How many years will it take to save up enough?  2? 5? 10?  You may want to review your current work position instead, so you'll make more and hopefully save more towards what you do want. Important: Be prepared for the speed bumps of life. My landlord sold the house I was renting out from under me, as I was on a month-to-month contract.  I had to have a full second deposit at the ready to put down when renting elsewhere, as well as the moving expenses. Luckily, I had done what my tax attorney had said, which is ""Create a cushion of liquid assets which can cover at least three months of your entire outgoing expenses.""   The Mormon philosophy is to carry at least one year's worth of supplies (food, water, materials) at all times in your home, for any contingency. Not Mormon, not religious, but willing to listen to others' opinions. As always, YMMV.  Your Mileage May Vary." I understand where you're coming from but you're mostly just quoting the plaintiff's attorney. That's not going to be the source of unbiased information. Furthermore, I don't trust general news sources when it comes to complex financial reporting. I don't really even trust business journals as they are mostly filled with j degrees without real experience. Bankruptcy cases can get very complex and unpredictable because judge's have significant leeway; you really need to read the case opinion to see what really went down. I work in finance and deal with bankruptcies on a semi-regular case. I am on the buy side (the side that would be screwed in cases like this) so my inherent bias goes your way against poor management.   If this guy actually moved assets from company 1 to company 2 at a non-arms length transaction then that is misconduct and assets can be recovered from company 2 usually. If Learning Annex was pari passu with Robert and he pulled dividends out to himself, that is misconduct that will be punished by a bankruptcy court. If he did these things they are not smart business practices, and will be punished.  Your condescension does not help your case. I most likely know far more about this topic than you, as I have seen the nuances corporate bankruptcies take on in the real world. I just don't trust grossly oversimplified reporting in a case that is ongoing. Despite a fair number of views, no one besides @mbhunter answered, so I'll gather the findings of my own research here. Hopefully, this will help others in similar situations. If you spot any errors, please let me know! The quant aspect '''''. This is the kind of math I was wondering if it existed, but now it sounds like it is much more  complex in reality then optimizing by evaluating different cost of capital. Thank you for sharing As someone who works on the sell side, I can tell you you're partially right.  Yes, we do make money off of trades (so just getting people to trade gets the company money) but we do try to be right.  We like to look at overall trends with growth projections and earnings estimates, and (as long as the analyst isn't a bad one) will try to get the right answer.  Often, we try to present different angles to the research and aren't afraid to go out on a limb--so that you'll read it. We like being right though.  The reason we like to be right and make people understand that we know what is going on is simple: a company won't respect research if it's bullshit.  And that goes for trading and buy side firms, but also from the companies involved in the research.  For an investment bank, a large chunk (often over 50%) of revenue comes from M&amp;A deals, and often a company will choose to do a deal with companies they know will give a good value-that come's from their first experience with the company-equity research.  So yes, we don't like to beat up on companies, but we do want to be right.    If the analyst has that bad a rate of success, he's probably pretty bad or you're looking at an industry where nobody saw some huge shift coming.  Edit: Oh, and analysts can't buy or sell any company in their sector (I think this is industry-wide, not just my firm)