Introducing Nakama Group (LON:NAK), The Stock That Tanked 87%
Some stocks are best avoided. We really hate to see fellow investors lose their hard-earned money. Spare a thought for those who held Nakama Group plc (LON:NAK) for five whole years - as the share price tanked 87%. And some of the more recent buyers are probably worried, too, with the stock falling 49% in the last year. Shareholders have had an even rougher run lately, with the share price down 54% in the last 90 days.
We really feel for shareholders in this scenario. It's a good reminder of the importance of diversification, and it's worth keeping in mind there's more to life than money, anyway.
View our latest analysis for Nakama Group
Because Nakama Group made a loss in the last twelve months, we think the market is probably more focussed on revenue and revenue growth, at least for now. Generally speaking, companies without profits are expected to grow revenue every year, and at a good clip. That's because it's hard to be confident a company will be sustainable if revenue growth is negligible, and it never makes a profit.
Over half a decade Nakama Group reduced its trailing twelve month revenue by 13% for each year. That puts it in an unattractive cohort, to put it mildly. So it's not that strange that the share price dropped 33% per year in that period. This kind of price performance makes us very wary, especially when combined with falling revenue. Of course, the poor performance could mean the market has been too severe selling down. That can happen.
The image below shows how earnings and revenue have tracked over time (if you click on the image you can see greater detail).
Balance sheet strength is crucial. It might be well worthwhile taking a look at our free report on how its financial position has changed over time.
A Different Perspective
Investors in Nakama Group had a tough year, with a total loss of 49%, against a market gain of about 7.6%. However, keep in mind that even the best stocks will sometimes underperform the market over a twelve month period. Regrettably, last year's performance caps off a bad run, with the shareholders facing a total loss of 33% per year over five years. We realise that Buffett has said investors should 'buy when there is blood on the streets', but we caution that investors should first be sure they are buying a high quality business. While it is well worth considering the different impacts that market conditions can have on the share price, there are other factors that are even more important. Take risks, for example - Nakama Group has 4 warning signs (and 2 which are a bit concerning) we think you should know about.
Of course, you might find a fantastic investment by looking elsewhere. So take a peek at this free list of companies we expect will grow earnings.
Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on GB exchanges.
If you spot an error that warrants correction, please contact the editor at editorial-team@simplywallst.com. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. Simply Wall St has no position in the stocks mentioned.
We aim to bring you long-term focused research analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Thank you for reading.
A landmark settlement is meant to punish Meta (META). If the 1998 tobacco deal is any guide, it might protect it.

Any moat with an opt-out clause for your competitors is just a fence around your own garden.
Worth looking at what previous legal action actually did to Meta rather than reaching for tobacco. The FTC's record five billion dollar privacy fine in 2019 was met with the stock rising, because it came in below fears and removed an open question. GDPR was designed to constrain large platforms and increased their share of the European ad market, because compliance cost fell hardest on small intermediaries. The FTC's antitrust case, the one that could genuinely have broken the company up, was decided in Meta's favour last November. The only thing that ever meaningfully hurt the business was Apple changing a tracking default, and Meta out-spent that too, while the ad-tech firms that could not afford to rebuild disappeared. The pattern is not that Meta survives regulation. It is that regulation keeps costing its smaller competitors more.
Andrew LeggetGreat earnings season, but are the earnings real?
