|
On the subject of bad articles, what's the deal with the million+ weird websites with what appear to be computer generated articles published everyday about every single publicly traded company? They all have weird generic names like the "Week Herald" or "The Lincolnian Online" and most of them don't even make sense. Since they never seem to have advertising and constantly spam you with requests to sign up for news letters or receive notifications, I suspect they must be part of some kind of shady effort to manipulate stock prices. Like if they can get a few thousand gullible folks to sign up for their alerts they might be able to use them in a pump and dump scheme.
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
cowofwar posted:Ads Ah so I dug into this a bit, starting randomly with one site called "stocknewstimes." It republishes content from another website called "Marketbeat," which is owned and operated by the author of this book about email marketing. So it's not literally a scam. It's just that all of these sites are part of a single effort to collect hundreds of thousands of email addresses for resale to marketing firms. Huh, in this era of highly efficient spam filters I thought spam mail was obsolete but I guess it still has some value!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:I like talking about politics through the lens of economics and so this subforum and thread are preferable to me when compared with the limp-dicked teenage socialist contingent romping around in D&D and C-SPAM but don't bring your MAGA CHUD Milton Friedman quoting rear end in here without a modicum of insight into how directly racism and xenophobia influence the "crisis on the Southern border" that Donald Trump is attempting to manufacture to the misery of everyone. Milton Friedman was pro-illegal immigration because unlike legal immigrants and refugees, you could pay them under the table and stiff them on benefits like SS and welfare. Milton Friedman ftw. . .
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
What is this threads position on valuing companies using Discounted Cash Flow? Also is there any advice for reading corporate financial reports? What sort of red flags do you look for to see if there's trouble?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
a messed up horse posted:This thread probably has a few people who do that kind of analysis since the other investing thread throws a fit at anybody who isn't buying index funds in an IRA and there's nowhere else for it. That's the thread for smart people. I however insist on acting cleverer than I am. I found trying to calculate a DCF from yahoo finance or the other big stock ticker websites kind of annoying since they don't usually provide free cash flow, but this website: https://www.advfn.com/ Has free cash flow for annual and quarterly reports easily accessible going back a number of years. Too bad the format is really annoying, otherwise its a real handy website. Fortunately I found a script with which I can just download the relevant statistics for calculating moving averages and rates of change with relative ease, which is convenient. Starting to read corporate filings though is a challenge, hard to tell what I need to look for and what's just there to fluff the company up and make it look good. edit: BattleMoose posted:There are many ways to value a company and this is a totally legitimate way of doing it. One of the major issues with the method though is an assumption of what future cash flows will be and we have recently seen a slew of lower guidance from many major and bell-weather corporations. Maybe use it to get a guide of what fair value is but it would need to be coupled with other valuation metrics and a view on what the likely changes in earnings would/could be. yeah estimating future cash is certainly a big problem. What other metrics would you recommend pairing with DCF? Squalid fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jan 14, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Personally I try not to focus on individual metrics too much. The most important thing I look for is whether a particular company has a good macroeconomic outlook, ie. growing but also fairly valued and then for "safety" as in what assets it has. Assuming (I know, I know) a company's earnings are relatively safe, a high dividend and asset base can provide a very strong floor for how far the price of a stock can fall. In the end, the decisions are largely subjective but informed by what quantitative data is available. I don't think just depending on quantitative metrics is a good idea, regardless of how good they look, they always need to be paired with a narrative of how the business will perform going forward. and just thinking about this now, the record profits so many companies earned this past year should really throw off valuations and make everything look more valuable than it really is. Seeing things like lower guidance though is why I want to make a point about going through financials and letters to the shareholders, so I can get that story. The models are just about framing the narrative.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2019 03:40
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:Lol valuation has no relevance to stock price. Especially when it comes to predicting future stock price. So on the subject of valuation I've working over my portfolio. There's one company I found that by most metrics is real mediocre. Cash flow growth per year was only 1% on average over the last five years, possibly inflated by last years tax cuts. Macro environment seems mediocre as well. All evidence suggests I should sell and put the cash in an index fund to maximize returns. However, by my conservative estimate the company is undervalued by 25%. Would it be reasonable to try and wait for the price to rise to something more closer to my valuation over the next two or so years? Or is it more rational to sell immediately at the discounted price and get my money into something that is safer? I'm leaning towards selling immediately just because the growth has been so laggard, I'd be better off putting my money to work elsewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Something I saw on a bogleheads forum thread ages ago about value investing: Yeah, that's how how feel. The company involved here was HPE, how do tech people feel their business is effected by the rise of cloud storage and computing? I only own them due having owned HPQ when they split.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2019 07:25
|
|
|
i'm sure the thread has done this to death already, Eisenhower just went into plenty of detail on the last page even, but why has Tesla doubled in value since last May? That company is quite the roller coaster
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2020 09:36
|
|
|
so have any of the tesla shorts finally made money
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
uh guys i feel like i'm beginning to go crazy and think Tesla might be more than just hype. Somebody tell me I'm crazy to go long on the stock at this price because I feel crazy I know this is the stock gambling thread and so is more about guessing what will happen from month to month, but somebody try and convince me Rivian or BMW is going to come in and eat their lunch, or that they're about to run out of cash or something
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 15:51
|
|
|
Yeah, I have no doubt that the Tesla's valuation is very absurd, and could easily plummet in the near term. Basically this was what I concluded a long ago and then I never thought about Tesla again for years and years. It was only after the giant jump in value tesla experienced in the last year that made me come back and look at telsa again. There are so many grifters and weirdos who have latched onto Tesla that I really didn't trust anything about the company in popular media. But. . . I was reading about the technical details lately and drat, like for all the problems their cars have had they really are obviously way out ahead of every other automaker on the planet when it comes to a ton of vital tech. Like the growth case for Tesla looks real to me, even if it is still overvalued at this moment. And it seems extremely unlikely VW or Toyota is going to catch up in EV car technology in the next 3 years
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
jokes posted:A lot of weirdos made a lot of money at bitcoin. It doesn't mean they were right or anything, bitcoin is still dumb. It's about conning others into believing your poo poo. bitcoin it actually useless though except for buying drugs. Tesla on the other hand actually does real poo poo and its competitors are literally incapable of replicating what it does and will be for years in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:That's not actually true though, they're just more willing to take chances with things like "autopilot" or pushing their batteries harder than other manufacturers. I can't think of one place where their tech is ahead anymore. For example, compare a Taycan doing repeated 1/4 mile runs to a Model S: So not being a tech guy I can pretty much just parrot things people more professional than me said. My impression that Tesla has a technological edge is mostly based off the tear downs of tesla vehicles by Sandy Munro, a very old school Michigan automotive manufacturing expert. Munro did not start as a Tesla fanboy and has repeatedly criticized them for botching basic manufacturing procedures. However when he looked on the inside, Munro found that Tesla was doing things that nobody else in the business was doing, and it was doing a lot that nobody else in the business could do. For example here he is taking a look at some of the electronics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOjvYOEaja4 Now Munro is not entirely an objective observer. He makes money by selling his manufacturing analysis so he has some motivation to play up how exciting his findings are. But, well, it's still hard to come up with arguments against him. Now does all this mean Tesla really is worth 8x Ford or GM? Uh, probably not. But it seems very likely that the company will continue to grow exponentially for years more. edit: I feel conflicted because i increasingly feel like Tesla is a solid company, but like the speculation around it is so wild it could easily halve its value unexpectedly for no reason, even if its growth continues on the present trajectory. It's definitely not a value stock. And god it creeps me out how the fanboys talk about the company. Squalid fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jul 8, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 21:02
|
|
|
really even if i am right and Tesla is going to continue to grow rapidly, I can't make an argument that it's share prices will increase in step with that, because the price is so wildly high and speculative. It could grow sales 10x in the next five years without its price moving. Ah well, thus is the way of investing. I just wish i had actually started doing research on the company last year.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
I bought into Tesla at 1500 this run up has annoyed me mostly because it’s gotten in the way of me buying more
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
For real though any price between here and 3000 seems completely reasonable for Tesla to me. . . I would not expect a return to 400 anytime soon. Like what's there to stop Tesla from hitting those 50% growth in sales targets next year? Nothing. Tesla is the incumbent electric automaker.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2020 06:42
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:What's messed up is I thought you were being serious until I gave the return to $400 a second thought, serious Poe's Law going on with any TSLA related post. Maybe that's because I'm on Twitter too much. I am 100% serious. Like the other day I read a CNBC article which estimated an $800 valuation for Tesla assuming they sell 1.5 million vehicles in 2025 with similar margins as other large manufacturers. However based on Tesla’s own forecasts, history, and production line expansion 3 million or above seems more reasonable to me. And when Tesla is charging 8000 for a piece of software a quarter of customers are buying their margins are almost guaranteed to be much better than traditional manufacturers. So does that mean the current valuation is justified? Well I don’t know I would go that far, I don’t see any reason it can’t plunge back down to 1000. But there’s no way to ignore that the company is actually adding a ton of value and will be much larger in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:Tesla will be in the 400s next week drat you got me there
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
professsional tesla bull sells his tesla stock so he can buy a new tesla, and apologizes to Elon Musk for doing it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q4Wmu9X1Zw
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2020 03:14
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:What’s the bull case for Tesla? Like if they manage to sell as many cars in a year as Ford are their margins so much better that their price deserves to be through the roof? The problem for a company like Ford is that electric cars are now better than a comparable ICE vehicle in just about every way. And Tesla's cars are by far the best electric vehicles on the market. For a long time it has been assumed the incumbent automakers would be able to exploit their size to beat tesla on price. However thus far Ford's electric vehicles stink, in fact it is increasingly obvious that the reason they haven't yet matched Tesla is because they can't. Turns out building gas powered engines is completely different engineering than electric cars. If you look at upcoming electric vehicle offerings, Ford has stuff like the Mustang E coming out soon. But in terms of every performance and price metric its worse than a tesla. Not only that, but there is absolutely no plan to scale production. Because they can't secure enough batteries. Ford is only predicting they will make 50,000 of them. They aren't alone in having this problem, all the big automakers are struggling to secure suppliers. Tesla by contrast, already has contracts locked down for the foreseeable future. The same problem is also evident in other competitors like Paccar. Paccar has exactly zero plans to put an electric truck into mass production. All they have are a few prototypes. Paccar said in their 2019 investor report that they aren't planning on seriously developing the technology until buyers start asking for electric. In effect, they are saying they won't bother trying to compete with Tesla until Tesla already has the best semi-truck on the market. By that point they are likely to be many years behind Tesla, their products will be inferior and they'll start losing market share with the rest of the industry. All this creates a situation in which Tesla is going to keep stealing market share from ICE carmakers for many years ahead. 1.7 million cars by 2023 is really not much of a stretch. Like their gigantic new factory going up in Austin has to do something. Their Berlin factory projected to start limited operation at the end of this year, is eventually supposed to employ 12,000 people. The only thing that is stopping Tesla from meeting their annual 50% growth in sales targets is their ability to scale production. And right now they seem to be doing everything right on that front.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2020 01:35
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:That's what I wasn't sure about. So one issue is that a lot of those incumbent advantages you mention have turned out to be liabilities. Look at the classic automaker distribution system of car dealerships. Who the gently caress has ever had a good experience at a car dealership? In the past it was possible to doubt Tesla's direct sales model but I'd say they've made it work, and the future regulatory environment will likely improve in states including Texas. In regards to supply chains the big automakers have made horrible mistakes, as with the example I posted regarding Ford. For whatever reason they can't get the batteries, and that's a supply chain gently caress-up they are years away from correcting even in the best case scenario. Regarding technology I'm not the best person to explain Tesla's advantage, but I think at this point it is at least inarguable that it exists, and that everyone else is still years away from matching them. One area in which they have this advantage is in software, where Tesla is much better at integrating all the components of a car. This is very important for stuff like battery performance. This was illustrated recently when VW had to delay sales of ID.3 because of bugs. Now VW is talking about building their own operating system from scratch just so they can catch up to Tesla, and are still years away from accomplishing that goal. When it comes to how Tesla excels when it comes to the hardware inside a car, the best source is Sandy Munro, a grumpy old Detroit industrial engineer who's company analyzes costing and manufacturability of automotive design. He primarily sells his reports to manufacturers but has released a lot of his low level analysis of Tesla Model Y. He found that the Model Y is probably more profitable for Tesla than the Model 3, among other conclusions.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOjvYOEaja4 Note I'm not really bullish on Tesla for the rest of the year. When i looked at tesla this spring i decided $2-3 thousand was probably a conservative valuation, assuming driveless taxis don't appear in the foreseeable future. Since nothing has changed since then I can't think of a reason the stock is going to double again.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2020 13:13
|
|
|
fougera posted:https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/14/barra-gm-conducted-appropriate-diligence-on-2-billion-nikola-deal.html it doesn't really matter what GM does anyway, since their deal was basically a sham from the start. Nikola gave GM a bunch of worthless shares while GM promised to deliver cars and technology only on the condition that they be paid for them FIRST. Literally GM gave up nothing of substance while Nikola offered them nothing but branding. edit: you can see this described on this CNBC interview. Nikola wasn't even supposed to bring any technology into the deal, and if Nikola couldn't fork over more money GM wasn't gonna build poo poo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v5L6Z202rI Squalid fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Sep 15, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:halting new sales and grandfathering in old stuff means that the infrastructure work would be happening 2035-2050 probably true, but i still wouldn't want to invest in something like a new gas station anymore if i was a small business person. if California is serious about getting ICE cars off the road what are the industries that are going to feel it first?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2020 22:34
|
|
|
I think MomsJeans and Bob both made good points, but I wonder even if people using supercharging stations are still likely to buy food and stuff, how often are they going to actually use superchargers? If most people are able to charge at home 90% of the time and mostly only use superchargers on rare long trips, that's still going to kill most gas stations. I couldn't find it again after looking a couple minutes, but Goldman Sachs or some other Wall Street firm put out a report about this a couple years ago. They were predicting that electric vehicle adoption could have significant impacts on big snack companies that sell a lot of product in convenience stores, for basically the same reason i just described. edit: found it. The report came from Morgan Stanley. https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/electric-vehicle-disruption quote:Since growing EV adoption will mean reduced demand for gasoline, gas stations will have to adapt. The report points to several actions that stations could take to remain competitive and find niche differentiators. Morgan Stanley estimates these actions, combined, could boost station retail sales by 10-20%. Squalid fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Sep 23, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
The problem with Ford is that it has a real chance of going out of business in the next decade. Unless it goes all in on EVs immediately, something there is no indication it has any plans to do, it’s hard to imagine much of a future for the company.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2020 16:39
|
|
|
saintonan posted:That seems really dramatic. Truck sales alone will keep Ford going for quite a while, at least domestically. yeah probably. two or maybe three decades is more likely.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
Jack Daniels posted:TSLA and X shorts anyone?? If you are going to go short on tesla you might be interested in seeing what the people you are betting against are thinking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3WE2XGS_TI
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2020 05:29
|
|
|
Technical analysis is basically cargo cult statistics. A bunch of frauds and fools who think scribbling lines o. A time series somehow can foretell the future. Just listen to them for a minute — anytime they start to make an actual forecast they will immediately hedge their argument to oblivion, because their methods are so inaccurate as to make their conclusions entirely meaningless
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
Crazyweasel posted:Honestly those are loaded questions - I’d start with checking out YouTube videos, Investopedia, reading links from this thread and on the Reddit boards. Just a couple days of aimless clicking will probably give you a better feel and more concrete questions that you can take action on. And whatever sources you are using BEWARE. There are absolutely shady actors out there who will try and mislead you to manipulate the price of securities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt1B-hpluCc To echo what others have said moctopus, reading financial statements is I believe extremely important for any investor. After all if you don't do that, how are you supposed to estimate a companies value? Without a good value estimate how do you know if you are getting a good price? Valuing a company is like looking up the Kelly Blue Book value of a car before buying. It doesn't guarantee you aren't getting a lemon, but it can save you from getting ripped off. Here's a friendly intro to reading a companies financials from a professional: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vdmHxcuGTY
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2021 17:23
|
|