Reddit Posts
Mentions
The main difference though is that Meta is an advertising business with AI tailwinds not an AI businesses that’s a promising business. In my view, CapEx and finance leases increasing are reasonable strategic investments for a business doing 50 billion a quarter on %45 EBIT margin while also growing 20% year over year
If you look into the industry, you will realise that there are plenty of very strong competitors with very comparable solutions but a much broader market footprint out there. SYM is a stock that solely lives of the promise of exponential growth but without a plan to ever turn profitable. Sprinkle some vague “AI” over it (this is not a USP in the industry either) and here you go. They have exactly one customer that is also a large shareholder and any competitor of this customer will be very (!) wary of trusting their core business operation (which is supply chain) with symbotic. They have show that the pipeline they have (wouldn’t fully trust in that either btw) is not profitable and even if it ever becomes profitable, it will be in line with the industry which is somewhere between 5% and 10% EBIT. They are not unique as in “we can do it without the steel” and are less of a pure SW Player than others. Anyway, i have been watching them for a while now and know my way around the industry. i am wondering when they will crash. I don’t understand this one, maybe its me 🤷🏻♂️
their EBIT margin expanded from 2% to 23.4% in the past 12 months. OP is not saying it's a meaningless metric, it's more so it's impossible to gauge where RDDT's earnings will be in 1,2,3 years from now given that the E in PE is growing explosively. Given that gross margins are 90%, there is copious room for margins to expand and EPS to multiply
> but its the reason their financials look 10x better than anyone else in their industry, and THATS a red flag. Because they eliminated 17 - 7 - 15 = ($5mm) in intercompany EBIT? Or because they have $70MM in cash inflows due to NWC from related parties? I'm having a hard time seeing how this makes their financials look 10x better....
SMWB - 100% subscription revenues (half are Multi year), 80% gross margins and mid teens growth. They are a Key Data business that helps large global corporations understand their competitive position, and what their toughest competitors are doing. Their data is Unique as they collect Real Time every minute of every day the activity across global websites, browsers, mobile apps, search engines, and now generative AI driven traffic. These data are hugely valuable to enterprises from JNJ to Coke to JPM to S&P Global to Bloomberg to Google to Samsung to Apple to Disney to Eli Lilly … And the AI platforms also license SMWB data to perform their analytics. Operating margins are scaling Up as they grow their recurring revenues — with 25% EBIT (that’s right EBIT, not EBITDA) visible in the 4 year time frame. SMWB is not well covered (no one has estimates past 2027) — but with their unique data subscriptions growth and profit drop down they’ll be earning over $1 of Cash EPS in a 4 year time frame. They are not capital expenditures dependent. AI is actually helping them spend less on SG&A on the opex side. With their high margins, light capital requirements, and growing Recurring revenues — they should get at least a 20 multiple (many such businesses get 30X). So the stock should be $25-30 in a few years versus $7.45 now. Also, Adobe acquired SemRush (an SEO only company with less analytics than SMWB) for $1.9 billion in cash !! SMWB provides more value to clients, and is currently only a $618 million market cap - so an acquisition is a possibility. I am not pitching that as a preferred outcome but it sure does provide downside protection.
In God We trust, everyone else must bring data. Oracle is currently trading at 35 times EV/EBIT and has a negative FCF yield and Debt to EBITDA ratio of 4.64 Let's look at META in 2022, EV/EBIT of 9.70, FCF yield of 7.2% and Debt to EBITDA ratio of 0.58. The only similarity is that the fall in share price. One became sort cheap and the other is still very richly valued despite the fall.
10x in 5 years is tough, but I think Sea Limited has a good chance to 5x over the next 5 years, and 10x over the next 10 years. And unlike many stocks that are likely to be listed in this thread, downside risk is limited due to the scale they've already achieved. Shopee is already doing \~$125B in GMV for 2025. For a sense of scale, that's about double MercadoLibre. Their e-commerce market share in Southeast Asia is above 50%--that's greater than Amazon's US e-commerce market share of \~40%. The company is growing very quickly (38% YoY in Q3 2025), margins are expanding with a lot of room to expand further, management alignment is uniquely strong, and the company is dominant across all three main segments. Morningstar's current projections have the company growing their EBIT at a 37% CAGR over the next decade. If you assume only that, you get a 5-6x over the next ten years. But I believe Sea will find new, profitable sources of revenue by then which can't be accounted for. At the scale they've achieved, with strong profitability, and at the current valuation, medium to long term downside risk is minimal. Like I said, a 5-year 10x is highly unlikely. But a 5-year 5x is highly plausible, around the upper range of a bullish outcome. And a 10-year 10x is around the middle range of a bullish outcome in my view.
Literally every single indicator you can think of is deep red on tesla. Sales, profit, income, EPS, EBIT, P/E, you name it. The "echo chamber" is simply pointing out (and rightfully so) that this price rally makes absolutely no sense. The only reason one could argue against all this is an enormous future prospect, like robotaxis. But Tesla hasn't shown any substantial progress on any front what so ever during the past year. So yeah, I agree. It's pretty impossible to convince anybody that it is fair valued.
Ford's pivot from pure EVs to hybrids/extended-range EVs is a major strategic shift, impacting investors and commodity markets: Ford (F): Shares are around $13.65 - $13.75 today. The $19.5 billion charge for the EV pivot is a hit, but raising 2025 EBIT guidance to $7 billion signals investor confidence in a more profitable, diversified strategy. Lithium: Not falling out of favor. Battery-grade Lithium Carbonate is around 75,000 CNY/ton (approx. $12,011-$13,572 USD/mt). Prices have recently increased, with Chinese suppliers hiking by 15% due to demand from *all* electrified vehicles, including hybrids. Uranium: Currently at $78.40 per pound. Its demand is primarily tied to nuclear power, so Ford's automotive shift has little direct impact on its market. Oil: WTI Crude is around $55.96 - $56.23 per barrel; Brent around $60.30 per barrel. A move to hybrids/EREVs means continued gasoline consumption, potentially supporting oil demand compared to a full EV world, though global oversupply is a larger current factor.
Dang so you’re not giving any credit towards EBIT? Or are you lying to us rn?
but you said tariffs cut your EBIT in half while saying all the costs were being passed on....those statements don't mix well. in any case this is getting away from my original post that as a whole the inflationary effect has been minimal. The number reinforce that
how do you pass along all costs to stellantis while simultaneously halving your EBIT?
As a controller for a tier 1 automotive manufacturer, tariffs have cut our EBIT in half. We’re charging all of this to Stellantis. What tf do you think they’re doing with that added cost? I’m always curious when I see your opinion
I am interested in Adobe but for some reason market has not discounted it enough to protect from downside. It still trades at an EV/EBIT of 16, which is in the fair value range. It may offer an upside but doesn’t offer downside protection. The other thing to note is that Adobe’s increase in revenue and profit were largely driven by an increase in of 25% or so in its prices not by increase in customer base. On the positive side, this establishes that they have a captive user base that (subset of their customers) who see no potential alternative at this stage. But Canva and others are eating their acquisition channel. And this presents a conundrum, how long can Adobe simply increase prices to grow revenue before it becomes unsustainable for customers? I don’t know. But that’s my thesis. And for that reason, I am hesitant to pull trigger at current valuation!
What do you think of the slight miss on Q2 EBIT guide
a simple way to judge whether a stock is a real long-term investment is to look at three things: (i) unit economics, (ii) durability and (iii) valuation. I like to think about it this way *(it’s a mix of Buffett, Lynch, and Damodaran 😬😬):* **1. Unit Economics (Quality)** \> Start by checking whether the business actually creates value today. \> ROIC above WACC, solid incremental ROIC, a strong reinvestment rate and FCF per share trending up. \> If returns on capital stay high across cycles, the company has a real economic engine **2. Durability (Moat + Runway)** \> Does the company have a defendable position and space to grow? \> Look for switching costs, scale advantages, network effects, cost leadership or regulatory protection \> Check the TAM and whether the company is still early in its penetration curve. \> You want a business capable of sustaining high returns for 10 years (not 10 days) **3. Valuation (Price vs. Outcomes)** \> Use simple scenarios: bear, base, bull. \> Break down sources of return: earnings growth, FCF yield, multiple expansion or compression and dilution. \> Look at P/E (or EV/EBIT, EV/FCF) and ask: "What assumptions does the current price already assume?" \> If the market is pricing in perfection, your long-term returns will be capped regardless of quality. If the business (i) creates economic value, (ii) can defend it, and (iii) the price still offers a reasonable margin of safety, it usually works well for the long run... Hope this helps. btw, I recently wrote about the five investment frameworks that most professionals use, in my newsletter. I can send you the link if you’d like.
My comment from 7 months ago. Ironically, I underestimated their EBIT growth [https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/1kh0b39/comment/mr38wi2/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/1kh0b39/comment/mr38wi2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) \>17 P/E, 15.5 Foward PE, 125B profit for 1.9T valuation, i'll take that price any day median + avg historical PE is 25, assume meager 15% EPS growth (which will be compounded with their future buybacks at low valuation), that's a 25% CAGR for next 5 years. no brainer buy. "but perplexity, chatgpt, etc", once they realize incinerating money is not a business model, suddenly the "dead business" that prints money faster than you can generate prompts looks pretty good
Love this company, but let's zoom out a bit on its chart: in the last 18 months, its price went from 14 cents to 60, and it was just 4 cents 28 months ago (so a price of 60 cents represents a 15x increase from there). While the revenue and profit increases of the last 18 months were undoubtedly impressive, I believe this growth rate was already priced in last year. For this stock to become a multi-bagger from the current price levels ($550M market cap), it would take a multi-billion dollar valuation, which would be hard to achieve without doubling or tripling their current EBIT. I have some doubts since the number of their employees only increased slightly (from 64 to 68) in the last 18 months. However, I am not an industry expert and thus I cannot validate how far they could go with their current lineup and capacities. Everyone expects an M&A since the CEO announced his clear plan for it. Realistically, I'd not expect the buyout price to significantly exceed $1B if it happened within the next 6-12 months (approx. $1 per share). With that said, I think it is a solid investment with very limited downside risk at the current price of $0.52. I just do not see the multi-bagger potential in it, at least not in the next 6-12 months. I am not a buyer at this level, but if the price drops below 30-40 cents again, it is clearly a no-brainer.
That actually doesn't seem all that much honestly... Also I think 12 million is only the packages in the US, right? So global it would be double. So they would save about 2,6 billion. So that would increase their EBIT by about... 2% I mean, it's not nothing but it also doesn't seem very significant.
This is the part FOMO ignores. Company debt: around $8–9B of total / long-term debt. Debt-to-equity: ~600%+. Interest coverage: EBIT doesn’t fully cover interest (ratio ~0.4x). Recent news: they’re negotiating debt restructuring, delaying filings, talking about potential defaults and asset sales. Everyone here has talked about how ambiguous they are on releasing this info. So shorts aren’t convinced, they’re betting that: The capital structure is broken. If there is a restructuring, equity could get diluted hard or wiped out, no matter what happens in a short-term spike. That’s important psychologically: if they believe fair value is close to zero, they can tolerate a move from $1.20 to 1.80 and even $3, without panicking or letting themselves get shorted out, especially if their borrow is locked in via long-term arrangements. Yes there’s been a squeeze ATTEMPT today, and yes shorts will have covered some. But we don’t know how much of that 60M short interest is gone vs. replaced by new shorts fading the spike. NFE definitely has some ingredients for further squeezey moves, but it is absolutely not a clean, low-float “they’re trapped and doomed” setup. It’s a high-risk, two-sided battleground. Could it rip another %50 - %100 on a headline and FOMO? Sure. Could it just as easily toilet on a nasty restructuring update and nuke late longs? Also yes. This is why I’m scared, I don’t want to risk my money and I realize I could have bought in when it was $1.29, I get that. But honestly this thing scares me. I’ll know more in the morning after opening if it’s running and has technical strength.
My pick currently is betsson AB PE 8,6. PE for 2026: 7,7 10-15% estimated EPS growth + 5% dividend EV/EBIT: 6 (superhealthy balance sheet) PEGY ratio of 0,4-0,5 Olympic games and world cup in football coming up soon.
EBIT takes into account depreciation. Earning Before Interest Tax. You are probably thinking of EBITDA.
EBIT doesn't even take into account depreciation
Exceedingly rare, but I can confirm. Both PACS and Ensign have at least one building each that pulls in $1MM+ in EBIT. One in CA, one in AZ.
CRCL had pretty decent earnings , and CRWV is actually the only neocould posting 61% EBIT margins , rest neoclouds are either still making bitcoin or are still nuilding like NBIS. All coreweave needs is 5% more margin to achieve profits , and that is quite possible.
$GM Is a Boomer Trap — Long Ford, Short GM Before Barclays conf next week **$**GM is the most over-owned boomer stock in autos right now. Retail’s chasing it because “Corvette has a manual again, bro!” as if that suddenly gives GM Ferrari margins. Meanwhile, Tesla’s out here renting FSD cars for $60 a day that smoke a Corvette on the motorway. Reality check: * GM’s product lineup is *ancient.* Silverado/Sierra = 2019 tech. Express van = 1996 relic. * Ford’s F-150 just got another full refresh, the Transit rules fleets, and both are tariff-protected cash cows. * GM’s Q3 pump was pull-forward demand + Ford’s aluminum fire. Those tailwinds die fast. * Cruise still burns billions, Ultium rollout is slow, and management will be grilled by hedge-fund PMs at the Barclays Auto conference next week. * Ford’s the real recovery story — cheap, hated, and temporarily supply-choked. **Smart money rotation:** long F, short GM. Crowded GM longs are about to meet a firing squad of analysts asking why they’re paying 8× EBIT for a company still selling 1990s vans. GM’s “peak cycle” moment is ending. Ford’s still early in its rebound. Watch the fade start once the conference Q&A hits — GM down 2–3 %, Ford flat-up.
\> * Operating margins have improved to 12% based on the latest Q4 report, and I’m assuming they’ll get to \~ 15–16% over time. If the invest heavily in marketing those margins would come under pressure. why are you assuming EBIT margins are so low? They have a gross of 72 which is admittedly low for a SaaS but operating leverage always improves with subscription companies. It would not be unrealistic to expect a terminal margin of 30-40% as is the case for most software companies as they reach scale
Exactly. EBITDA is relative measure of profit before and after capital influx. Really to see if your capital investments did anything. I wouldn't call it useless but I also wouldn't be holding myself high if my EBITDA was good but EBIT was negative. Retrospectively, same argument can be made about EBIT - while at the bottom level interest and taxes can't be controlled, you still need to account for it when reporting earnings....
People are not spending less money, just look at earnings. Expedia had their earnings yesterday and everything is up YoY. Gross bookings and revenue is up. | **Metric** | **Q3 2025** | **Q3 2024** | **Δ Y/Y** | |---------------------------------------------|--------------|--------------|------------| | Booked room nights | 108.2 | 97.4 | 11% | | Gross bookings | $30,727 | $27,498 | 12% | | Revenue | $4,412 | $4,060 | 9% | | Operating income | $1,036 | $762 | 36% | | Net income attributable to Expedia Group | $959 | $684 | 40% | | Diluted earnings per share | $7.33 | $5.04 | 45% | | Adjusted EBITDA* | $1,449 | $1,250 | 16% | | Adjusted EBIT* | $1,134 | $892 | 27% | | Adjusted net income* | $962 | $809 | 19% | | Adjusted EPS* | $7.57 | $6.13 | 23% | | Net cash provided by operating activities | $(497) | $(1,493) | (67%) | | Free cash flow* | $(686) | $(1,687) | (59%) | People ARE spending more.
> Apple has a low net debt to EBITDA ratio of only 0.31. And its EBIT covers its interest expense a whopping 673 times over. This is according to Yahoo Finance. So yes Apple has debt but is debt to earnings ratio is very low. Although the debt amount is ‘not low’, as of Sept 2024 it is at 106.6bn but it also has very good free cash flow. So in short, Apple will manage and will probably manage it very well. You can’t really expect a company like Apple to neglect all these.
GM now sees full-year EBIT in a range of $12 billion to $13 billion (previously $10 billion to $12.5 billion), with adjusted automotive free cash flow of $10 billion to $11 billion (previously $7.5 billion to $10 billion). It also forecast adjusted earnings per share (EPS) of $9.75 to $10.50 diluted (versus $8.25 to $10.00 before). Up 14+%
DFLI is unlikely to stop diluting its stock in the near term, given its ongoing financial challenges and reliance on equity offerings to fund operations. Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp (DFLI) has aggressively pursued multiple underwritten public offerings in October 2025, issuing over 56 million shares at discounted prices—$1.25 and $1.35 per share respectively. These moves triggered sharp declines in share price, reflecting investor concern over severe dilution and the erosion of shareholder value. 🔍 Why the Dilution Continues • Cash Flow Deficit: DFLI reported negative operating cash flow of -$3.35M and free cash flow of -$4.20M, indicating it cannot sustain operations without external funding. • Heavy Liabilities: The company holds $88.38M in total liabilities against negative common stock equity of -$16.60M, underscoring a fragile balance sheet. • Profitability Issues: Despite a modest gross margin of 25.6%, DFLI’s EBIT margin sits at -39.3% and net profit margin at -55.84%, suggesting deep operational inefficiencies. • Dilution Strategy: The recent offerings included pre-funded warrants, signaling a continued intent to raise capital through equity rather than debt. 📈 Is There a Path to Stability? While DFLI has shown some revenue growth (26% YoY forecasted for Q3) and formed strategic partnerships (e.g., PACCAR, Nevada Tech Hub funding), these developments have yet to offset its financial instability. Unless the company achieves sustained profitability and positive cash flow, further dilution remains a likely tool to maintain liquidity and fund expansion. May be time to take what you have and run
Wdym expensive. They’re now the cheapest ever by EV EBIT lmao
According to Grok - Decibel has better growth potential than Auxly, thanks to its Moderate Buy analyst rating, a projected 93% stock price upside to C$0.27 from C$0.14, and guidance for C$20M in free cash flow for 2025 amid strong Q2 growth. In contrast, Auxly holds a Hold rating with a modest 46% average upside to C$0.19 and a forecasted negative EBIT of -C$7M.
Adjusted EBIT at $537K for a $10B cap? Calls on APLD.
How does that $141B number and the total debt of these companies compare to their EBIT?
Magic Signal Analysis for GRRR Major Institutional Ownership Surge: Institutional ownership jumped by 115.63% in the last quarter, and institutional owners increased 15.38%. This strong buying from large investors often signals conviction in the company’s long-term prospects. Price Target Significantly Raised: The average one-year price target was recently lifted 28.07% to $37.23, representing a 91.22% implied upside from the last close. Analyst sentiment is materially positive. Landmark Strategic Deal: Shares surged 13% after announcing a $1.4 billion partnership with Freyr in Southeast Asia, materially increasing the company’s forward revenue pipeline. Earnings Highlight Persistent Losses: Despite topline growth, the latest earnings show a net loss of $64.79 million, negative $16 million EBIT, and negative $66 million EBITDA, highlighting ongoing operational challenges. High Volatility & Options Activity: Implied volatility remains extremely high (92.2%), with bullish options positioning (put/call OI ratio 0.33) and rising call volume and open interest. Upcoming Catalyst: The next earnings release (November 13, 2025) is expected to serve as an inflection point for investor sentiment. Technical Analysis: Indicator Value Signal RSI (14-period) 40.61 Neutral SMA (20-period) $18.99 Bearish (Current < SMA) Price vs. SMA (20) -3.06% Bearish MACD -0.2605 Bearish momentum MACD Signal Line -0.2096 MACD Histogram -0.0509 Bearish divergence Put/Call Ratio (OI) 0.33 Bullish positioning Implied Volatility (30d) 92.20% Very High Realized Volatility 66.30% High Interpretation: The overall technical setup is currently neutral to bearish, with the price trading below the short-term SMA and MACD signals pointing toward strengthening negative momentum. However, options flow is decidedly bullish, with heavy call Open Interest (75.2% of total OI) and a low put/call ratio, indicating traders expect potential upside or volatility to the upside. RSI at 40.61 suggests the stock is not oversold, but is moving closer to potential support levels where reversal interest may emerge. Extremely high implied volatility signals a market expecting large price swings; this could be supportive for traders exploiting volatility or positioning for a potential upward catalyst. Market Analysis: Year-to-Date Performance: Shares are down -5.93% YTD, trailing the technology sector index averages and reflecting both sector-wide pressures and company-specific execution questions. 52-Week Trading Range: The stock has seen extreme volatility, trading between $3.71 and $44.15 in the past year—a 12x swing highlighting both opportunities and risks for active investors. Sector Dynamics: GRRR competes in the Technology sector with a focus on AI, cybersecurity, and smart infrastructure. These are high-growth spaces, but also fiercely competitive, with established players and emerging disruptors. Valuation Multiples: Trading at a price-to-sales of 5.05 and price-to-book of 3.84, GRRR is being valued at a growth premium, despite negative earnings and lack of dividend policy. Investment Outlook: Short-term (1-3 months): NEUTRAL | Confidence: 55% Bullish institutional positioning and raised analyst targets create a positive bias, particularly if momentum from the Southeast Asia deal sustains. However, technicals are still weak, and volatility is high, suggesting rangebound action until a decisive catalyst appears. Upcoming earnings (Nov 13) remain a make-or-break event: a positive surprise on margins or deal execution could swing sentiment decisively bullish. Medium-term (3-12 months): BULLISH | Confidence: 70% The closing and ramp-up of the $1.4B deal and evidence of improving sales execution could drive material rerating. Institutional accumulation and analyst optimism are likely to support valuation, provided the company shows progress toward profitability or operating leverage. Long-term sector tailwinds in AI analytics and security, plus prior price target upgrades, suggest higher conviction for positive revaluation as new contracts contribute to topline growth. Risk Assessment: Continued Losses & Cash Burn: Persistent net losses and negative EBITDA highlight the need for effective cost control and margin improvement. Dilution risk or capital raise is present if losses persist longer than expected. Execution Risk on Major Deals: The $1.4 billion contract remains a key test. Failure to deliver, delays, or changes in terms could cause sharp downside. Volatility and Liquidity: With extremely high implied and realized volatility, and a thin float, GRRR may be subject to significant price swings that may not always be fully explained by fundamentals. Competitive Pressure: Technology sector competition is intense—failure to innovate or loss of market share could impair growth outlook. Limited Track Record/Public History: As a recent addition to US markets, the company’s ability to reliably execute in the public eye has yet to be fully demonstrated.
You sound ignorant fyi. PE should never ever be used for new companies or companies that are barely profitable. Reddit just became profitable in the last year. There are good reasons you only hear people talk about the PE ratio of the S&P500 and not the Russell 2000. When revenue is small, fixed costs eat up nearly all the earnings. Once revenue scales past a certain threshold, those fixed costs barely move while revenue keeps increasing so margin expands quickly. Example with totally made up numbers: Company has $10M fixed costs and 30% gross margin. At $40M revenue → gross profit $12M → EBIT only $2M. At $60M revenue → gross profit $18M → EBIT $8M. Revenue up 50%, EBIT up 300%. Assume: share price = $20 Shares outstanding = 10M EBIT at $40M revenue = $2M EBIT at $60M revenue = $8M ignore taxes/interest so EBIT ≈ Net Income. EPS Before Growth: Net Income = $2M EPS = $2M ÷ 10M = $0.20 PE = $20 ÷ $0.20 = 100x EPS After Growth: Net Income = $8M EPS = $8M ÷ 10M = $0.80 PE = $20 ÷ $0.80 = 25x So a realistic 50% revenue increase would drop the PE from 100 to 25.
Qfin finv xyf jfin. But i dont expect much out of them in the short turn (some new regulations going to cause them to lose ~15-30% of EBIT, in next 2 quarters). They are just unfairly cheap and buying back shares. Imo they should trade at 8x net income, Not 2-4
It might be recency bias. I agree that lower price relative to expected future cash flows will always indicate a value premium, but I think we both know that the way most funds try to measure value is usually not through a rigorous DCF calculation but rather by looking at multiples (like P/E, P/B, P/S, EBIT/EV etc...) This usually works in aggregate, because growth rates tend to mean revert, or at least they have in the past as competition erodes competitive moats, so a higher multiple usually means that growth has been over forecasted. I just think we have to acknowledge the possibility that this mean reversion effect might not exist for the current crop of mega cap growth firms. Not just because of recency bias but because of fundamental differences in the way these firms' businesses operate as compared to how firms that have historically dominated the market have operated. This might mean that both the "easy" multiple based approach for tracking "value" AND a traditional DCF (even multi stage), which usually assumes reversion to the mean in both growth and profitability over time, might underestimate intrinsic value for these kinds of firms. I'm not saying this is 100% the case (in fact, I think it likely that it is NOT the case over a very long term time horizon). I'm just saying that if you isolate that segment of the market (represented by MGK here) and hold it in proportion to its weight in the market (where the market is represented by VT) you can effectively hedge this possibility while seeking a traditional value based approach in the rest of your portfolio. I'm not personally currently operating my own portfolio this way, and I think it needs a lot more rigorous analysis before anyone should consider doing something like that. I just think it's an interesting idea to ponder and based on my initial "back of the napkin" analysis that suggests the approach might have held some premium over the past decade might warrant further investigation to confirm or deny if it holds any value over the long term.
The problem with Comcast is that its internal growth is anemic. Look at its EBIT compounding rate and compare that to the inflation rate. It’s barely keeping pace. As a general rule of thumb, I try to avoid companies that can’t outperform the inflation rate because it leaves a very slim margin to absorb downturns. That being said its current valuation is egregiously low. Just from a liquidation perspective alone it should be fetching a much higher valuation. But that alone is not a reason to invest right now.
Looking at their 2024 EBIT, \~3/4 came from gain on sale of ABS to investors. The amazing thing (weird though) is that they can easily sell shitty nonprime loan to customers.
Except that top line growth is slowing down, with negative comparable growth in its key market (US), and both gross and EBIT margins have been contracting, reflecting higher markdowns, higher cost of opening/operating stores. LULU is quite exposed to the recent Trump Admin position on ending the de minimis exemption which will increase the cost of its e-commerce goods in the US (as 60% of US e-commerce sales are actually shipped from Canada).
$NVDA Q2'26 Earnings Highlights 🔹 Revenue: $46.74B (Est. $46.23B) 🟢; UP +56% YoY 🔹 Adj EPS: $1.05 (Est. $1.01) 🟢; UP +54% YoY 🔹 Adj Gross Margin: 72.7% (Est. 72.1%) 🟢 🔹 Data Center Revenue: $41.1B (Est. $41.25B) 🟡; UP +56% YoY Q3 Guidance: 🔹 Revenue: $54.0B ±2% (Est. $52.5B) 🟢; UP ~15% QoQ 🔹 Gross Margin (Adj): ~73.5% (±50bps) 🔹 OpEx: ~$4.2B (Adj) Segment Results: 🔹 Blackwell revenue +17% QoQ 🔹 Compute Revenue: $34.1B (Est. $34.10B) 🟡 🔹 Networking Revenue: $5.07B (Est. $5.07B) 🟡 🔹 Gaming Revenue: $4.3B; UP +49% YoY 🔹 Professional Visualization: $601M; UP +32% YoY 🔹 Automotive: $586M (Est. $592.7M) 🔴; UP +69% YoY Other Q2 Metrics: 🔹 Operating Income (Adj): $30.17B (Est. $29.36B) 🟢; UP +51% YoY 🔹 Operating Expenses (Adj): $3.80B (Est. $4.02B) 🟢; UP +36% YoY 🔹 Net Income (Adj): $25.78B; UP +52% YoY Profitability & Cash Flow: 🔹 EBIT: $28.44B (Est. $28.97B) 🔴 🔹 Free Cash Flow: Mid-$20Bs (prior $26.1B) 🔹 Returned $24.3B to shareholders H1’26 🔹 Share repurchase authorization expanded by $60B CEO Commentary 🔸 “Blackwell is the AI platform the world has been waiting for — demand is extraordinary as reasoning AI drives massive increases in training and inference performance.” – Jensen Huang, CEO
NVIDIA – Q2 2025 Results: Revenue: $46.74B (vs est. $46.02B, beat) Adj EPS: $1.05 (vs est. $1.01, beat) GAAP EPS: $1.08 Net Income: $26.42B EBIT: $28.44B (vs est. $28.97B, miss) Gross Margin: 72.4% Outlook – Q3 2025: Revenue Guidance: $54.0B Other Updates: No H20 sales to China-based customers in Q2
Let’s do another valuation sanity testing on ROOT. This time using a DCF. Forget comps. Now to normally do a DCF you need to project cash flow growth explicitly until it eventually hits a “steady state” terminal value at which point it’s mature and basically growing inflationary. Now we don’t know how big ROOT can get (although it’s safe to say it very likely does have several years of high growth ahead). So let’s assume that ROOT today IS tapped out (which is laughable), and will only grow 2-4% p.a. At its current base (I.e. no more upside, and can only maintain its current customer base). Here’s the calcs: 1. Terminal “Free Cash Flow” : let’s use the annualized recent quarterly EBIT of $27.6m x 4 = $110.4m (as a reasonable proxy) 2. Terminal growth of 3% (inflationary) 3. Discount rate of 12.5% (based on a ‘steady state’ beta of 1.6, equity risk premium of 5%, risk free rate of 4.25%). Using the yahoo finance beta of 2.26 is nonsensical, statistically insignificant, and not reflective of a perpetual risk profile (so I assumed an average beta between 1 & 2.26). I’m ignoring “WACC” calc as this is net cash (I.e more cash than debt) Using the Gordon growth terminal value formula we get: $110.4*1.03/(12.5%-3%) =$1,196.97m enterprise value. Now let’s remove net debt, pref equity, and add back cash & equivalents (I won’t even include c. 327m in liquid investments): - $200.1m in debt, - $112.0m in pref, + $641.4m in cash, totaling + 329m in cash. Add the net cash position of $329m to the calculated Enterprise Value of $1,197, we arrive at basically a ZERO real growth equity value of: $ 1.5bn. Divided by 15.4m shares (basic because I treated stock based comp expenses as cash), we get to ——> basically $ 100per share. So ROOT is worth $100 per share if were to stay as is and never achieve any real growth from this point on, except maintain its business. If we ascribe any premium to growth (which it has been like 5-10% per quarter), this stock has tremendously higher upside. Slapping on a 30% premium to a steady state ZERO real growth fair value of $100 is still very conservative & reasonable, which is why I believe this stock is defendibly worth atleast $130 per share at the present moment.
Let’s do another valuation sanity testing on ROOT. This time using a DCF. Forget comps. Now to normally do a DCF you need to project cash flow growth explicitly until it eventually hits a “steady state” terminal value at which point it’s mature and basically growing inflationary. Now we don’t know how big ROOT can get (although it’s safe to say it very likely does have several years of high growth ahead). So let’s assume that ROOT today IS tapped out, and will only grow 2-4% p.a. At its current base (I.e. no more upside, and can only maintain its current customer base). Here’s the calcs: 1. Terminal “Free Cash Flow” : let’s use the annualized recent quarterly EBIT of $27.6m x 4 = $110.4m (as a reasonable proxy) 2. Terminal growth of 3% 3. Discount rate of 12.5% (based on a ‘steady state’ beta of 1.6, equity risk premium of 5%, risk free rate of 4.25%). Using the yahoo finance beta of 2.26 is nonsensical, statistically insignificant, and not reflective of a perpetual risk profile (so I assumed an average beta between 1 & 2.26). I’m ignoring “WACC” calc as this is net cash (I.e more cash than debt) Using the Gordon growth terminal value formula we get: $110.4*1.03/(12.5%-3%) =$1,196.97m enterprise value. Now let’s remove net debt, pref equity, and add back cash & equivalents (I won’t even include c. 327m in liquid investments): - $200.1m in debt, - $112.0m in pref, + $641.4m in cash, totaling + 329m in cash. Add the net cash position of $329m to the calculated Enterprise Value of $1,197, we arrive at basically a ZERO real growth equity value of: $ 1.5bn. Divided by 15.4m shares (basic because I treated stock based comp expenses as cash), we get to ——> basically $ 100per share. So ROOT is worth $100 per share if were to stay as is and never achieve any real growth from this point on, except maintain its business. If we ascribe any premium to growth (which it has been like 5-10% per quarter), this stock has tremendously higher upside.
Piper Sandler has raised its price target on Hinge Health Inc (NYSE:[HNGE](https://www.investing.com/equities/hinge-health)) to $70.00 from $41.00 while maintaining an Overweight rating on the stock. Currently trading at $56.07, the company has demonstrated strong momentum with a 49% gain over the past six months. According to [InvestingPro](https://www.investing.com/pro/HNGE) data, analysts maintain a bullish consensus on HNGE, with 10 analysts recently revising their earnings estimates upward. The significant price target increase follows Hinge Health’s second-quarter 2025 earnings report, where the company raised its calendar year 2025 outlook for the second consecutive quarter this year. Piper Sandler cited the company’s strong execution and improved operating margins as key factors in its decision to raise the price target multiple to 13.7x EV/CY26E gross profit, up from the previous 7.0x multiple. The research firm’s analysis includes interim third-quarter 2025 app download data, which suggests potential upside to their published estimates that were aligned with the midpoint of company guidance. Piper Sandler’s updated price target represents a significant 70.7% increase from its previous target, reflecting enhanced confidence in Hinge Health’s business performance and growth trajectory. In other recent news, Hinge Health reported impressive second-quarter results that significantly exceeded market expectations. The company recorded revenue of $139.1 million, surpassing consensus estimates of $125.4 million, marking a 55% year-over-year growth. This strong performance led management to substantially raise their 2025 revenue and EBIT guidance, with implied second-half revenue growth expected to exceed 40%. Following these results, Stifel raised its price target for Hinge Health to $63 while maintaining a Buy rating. Similarly, Citizens JMP increased its price target to $65 and retained a Market Outperform rating. Citizens JMP had previously initiated coverage on Hinge Health with a Market Outperform rating and a price target of $58 after the company’s initial public offering. Truist Securities maintained its buy rating and $48 price target after a meeting with company executives, reinforcing its positive outlook. Truist also reiterated its buy rating following the launch of HingeSelect, a provider network for musculoskeletal care, which aims to enhance the member experience using software and AI.
Since you seem to have the right mindset but got the worst answers possible, here's some numbers you must consider: 1. Revenue growth over the last years. Revenue is the main catalyst for a company's growth and you want your investments to keep growing. Hardly a company with growth to it's baseline generates growth. 2. Margins Associated with revenue, on the income sheets is the COGS (Cost Of Goods Sold). A good GROSS MARGIN means management is optimizing the business well. Still on margins, operating margin is way more important than net profit margin, since the latter has costs associated with taxes (that the company cannot control). A better metric is EBIT. 3. Liquidity Make sure your company has nice liquidity in the short-term mainly. - A company that has no way of paying it's liabilities (mainly debt) is basically a house of cards. Current assets (mainly cash and cash equivalents) must be higher than all current liabilities or at least cover up the current debt. REMEMBER: this is not a golden rule; some "current debt" is not debt at all. 4. Feasible long-term debt Debt is not bad. Debt means free money that you can pay at a reasonable rate. That rate being BELOW YOUR GROWTH RATE. Make sure your company of choise has a reasonable amount of debt. Having no debt might be good if a company has enough money to fund it's operations. 5. Cash flow Remember; Cash flow is the lifeblood of a company. Without it, a company CANNOT pay it's obligations and/or feed it's growth. A growing or stable cash flow is important. 6. This all is a not a set and done method. Always have in mind that you won't have a run and gun method. Each company has its own place in a global moving economy and each number is just part of a story. Don't diminish a company to a spreadsheet NOR to a lullaby. - That's why you gotta link the numbers to a story. Hope it helps, if you have any questions just shoot a message.
Not sure why you got downvoted, but quick summary of the earnings release: **Q2 GAAP Diluted EPS:** $1.90 Q2 adjusted EPS: $1.44 **Q2 revenue of $6.5B**, 6% increase QoQ driven by 4% volume increase and 3% currency headwind Secured new credit agreement of $1.75B of revolving credit through 2030..why this matters is less likelihood (at least for now) of equity dilution. **Acetyl Chain** Net sales of $1.1B with 1% decline in volumes Operating profit: $154M, EBIT: $196M, EBITDA: $260M Margins: 14, 18, 23 Notes- continuing to see softening demand that has not yet bottomed, **efficiency gains will be offset by reduced volumes**. **Engineered Materials** Revenue of $1.4B, increase of 12% QoQ with 9% increase in volume **Noted that order books are softening** Operating profit: $165M, EBIT: $214M, EBITDA: $326M Margins: 11, 15, 23 Scott Richardson, CEO notes: >In this low-demand environment that remains uncertain, we will continue to emphasize cash flow. While our order books are developing at a slower pace so far compared to last quarter, we remain agile and are poised to pivot our operations to align with available demand. Considering these dynamics, and our intention to release cash through inventory reduction, we anticipate third quarter adjusted earnings per share to be $1.10 to $1.40. Given the actions we are taking, our expectation remains to deliver $700 to $800 million of free cash flow in 2025. Overall, an OK quarter overshadowed by continuing soft demand in a trough that has yet to make a bottom. They continue to emphasis cash flow, as two quarters ago there was concern that the debt load was too high in comparison to the FCF that a equity offering was rumored to right-side the balance sheet. The balance sheet is obviously better now than it was then, but the overall demand is worse.
Is this old news? Mercedes profit drops 70%, Porsche EBIT down 67% as tariffs and EV slowdown hammer German automakers [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trade-deal-aside-mercedes-and-porsche-see-more-tariff-pain-on-the-way-162251235.html](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trade-deal-aside-mercedes-and-porsche-see-more-tariff-pain-on-the-way-162251235.html)
How can you justify it being profitable using fake numbers? Their EBIT makes it look profitable but when you add back in amortization (or just look at their operating income) they’re not profitable… You’re also being diluted gradually every year.
Rocket Companies (RKT) – The Undervalued Housing Giant with Massive Upside ————————————//—————————————— With interest rate cuts expected soon, few stocks are better positioned than Rocket Companies. When rates fall, remortgaging demand soars—and Rocket, the largest U.S. mortgage originator, has the technology, scale, and automation to capitalise in a big way. But the real game-changer is its recent acquisitions: Redfin – brings millions of property search visits into Rocket’s ecosystem. Mr. Cooper – adds a servicing portfolio worth around $2.1 trillion, enabling recurring revenue and superior customer data. That combination makes RKT fully vertically integrated across the housing journey—from search (Redfin), through finance (Rocket Mortgage), to servicing (Mr. Cooper). No peer in the U.S. has this full funnel, not even Zillow. Despite that, the stock trades at a forward Price-to-Earnings ratio of just 8–9×, suggesting analysts are still valuing it as a plain mortgage business. Even using conservative multiples, the valuation just doesn’t reflect the full platform upside. ————————————//—————————————— Valuation Potential At a Price-to-Earnings ratio of 12×, based on conservative earnings growth expectations, RKT would be around $30 per share. Even more compelling: RKT’s Enterprise Value exceeds its market capitalisation by around 40%. Enterprise Value is approximately $43.2 billion versus a market cap of about $31.7 billion. That means the market is pricing the company below what it would cost to buy it outright, including its debt. Using Enterprise Value multiples on normalized earnings or EBITDA, RKT should be trading well above current levels—implying an even higher upside if fundamentals improve. ————————————//—————————————— The Upside Targets Base-case target: $25+ — priced at around 12× forward earnings or low-end Enterprise Value multiples. Bull-case target: $35–40+ — if the platform gains traction, earnings accelerate, or valuation multiples re-rate to peer fintech valuations (15–17× Enterprise Value to EBIT or earnings). That’s 66–166% upside from current prices. ————————————//—————————————— Risks vs. Rewards High debt and integration complexity — M&A spend is significant—but the goal is huge recurring revenue and funnel control. Current analyst sentiment is “Hold” with around $14 price targets — reflects short-term caution but contrasts with the longer-term platform thesis. ————————————//—————————————— Rocket Companies isn’t just a mortgage originator anymore—it’s evolving into a fintech-driven housing platform. With Redfin and Mr. Cooper acquisitions securing funnel control and recurring servicing revenue, and trading at a forward Price-to-Earnings ratio of just 8–9× while its Enterprise Value exceeds market cap, the upside is compelling: $25+ if Rocket executes and rate cuts fuel refinancing demand. $35–40+ if the full platform story plays out and multiples re-rate. If you believe rate cuts are coming—and Rocket’s transformed into something far bigger than a lender—this looks like a rare risk/reward opportunity.
Sounds like a solid real estate play. 10M sf of warehouse is worth at least $500M plus the retail at $750M. So conservative 8x EBIT plus real estate gets you to a value of $28/share.
TXN GUIDE FOR NEXT QUARTER SHOWS DECELERATION FROM 16% to 10% YOY GROWTH ✅Revenue: $4.45B (Est. $4.31B) [+16% YoY] ✅Adj. EPS: $1.41 (Est. $1.32) Additional Metrics: EBIT: $1.56B (35% Margin) Net Income: $1.23B (27.6% Margin) FCF: $555M (12.3% Margin) FY2025 Q3 Guidance: Revenue $4.45-4.8B [10.5% YoY Growth] EPS: $1.36-1.60
NFLX “While there are important short-term questions to address in Q2 (e.g., FxN revenue, 2H slate/expectations, ’26 EBIT guide), we remain confident in the strength of the business and believe its valuation ultimately reflects its industry moat,” Yoon wrote in a note. “Whether Q2 results beat expectations – supporting momentum – or fall short – potentially triggering near-term swings – we do not see a compelling reason to be bearish in the foreseeable future to question the underlying fundamentals or the long-term value of the company.” “We believe Netflix can reach the Trillion Dollar Club through the fundamental PxQ algorithm, without having to rely on an aggressive market multiple. That said, we expect the stock to trade at a premium, reflecting its moat and the strength of its underlying fundamentals."
Buffett indicator is outdated and isn't viable anymore. Companies are way more international now in their earnings, which has nothing to do with the GDP of USA. There are several better ways to value market like shareholder yield (free cash yield), forward PE, PEG ratio or EV/EBIT relative to growth.
That tender price isn't a clean comp; secondaries bake in a big liquidity haircut. What matters is whether Figma can hold 30%-plus growth and inch toward positive EBIT. If so, an 8–11× 2025 sales multiple gives $40-55 a share even after dilution. I’d sanity-check by comparing ARR per seat with Atlassian and running a quick discounted cash-flow that drops gross margin two points each year. That range feels a lot closer to fair.
I valued the company at roughly $27.50 per share. 1. Revenue growth will taper down from 46% to risk free rate over a 10 year period. 2. Their margins are all over the place in the S-1. So I've assumed that they'll have negative EBIT margins in the upcoming year but those will gradually rise to \~30% matching those of their biggest competitor Adobe. 3. Adding Cash and IPO proceeds (**\~1.5B** based on rumors), Equity value comes up to be \~$15.5B 4. Not counting options, they have roughly \~ 552M shares outstanding
I *cannot stress enough* how good of a time it is for "small business owners" to "start a business". *100% immediate* tax write off on new equipment + constructions. You can write off the full expense of installing a backyard she-shed and the new high-end gaming computer for your "streaming business". $40k SALT deduction increase, so you can write off just about every associated filing fee regardless of what state you're in EBIT calculations will now factor in depreciation & amortization, meaning more deductions And if everything goes to shit, there will probably be another round of PPP loans to bail you out since govt debt doesn't matter anymore. If you're a wagie, start a sole proprietor business today and play the hand the government's giving you.
BBB allows deduction of EBITDA instead of EBIT from 2025-2029. Could help Cannabis companies if rescheduling occurs. Makes carrying interest easier apparently.
I heavily agree with you. Sezzle seems so generic and copy-paste especially their “investor’s presentation”. I was especially attracted to their financials though. Revenue growth (YoY) of 92% and Revenue growth (FWD) of 52%. PEG GAAP of 0.08 and PEG NON-GAAP of 0.21. EBIT Margin of 55%
Controller for a tier-1 automotive supplier in US. Tariffs have nearly cut our EBIT in half. Our forecasting now reflects 80% of the impact will be clawed back from the OEM this year which is delusional imo. Companies in my industry are banking on some kinda bail out from the government to the OEMs that’ll trickle down the supply chain
5 minute analysis: INDO is a *ridiculous* buy within the fossil energy sector. Even after its share price decline its trading at 21 times revenue (I count 20 trading *below* 1 P/S). It just bleeds $3 million a year in operating cash flows, every year, and relies on dilutive secondary offerings to keep on the development treadmill. Too small to attract buyout interest on the oil side, and the prospects on its Java block are all gas. In my experience there's a minimum size at which oil & gas companies have enough scale such that G&A costs don't consume most operating cash flow. Around $300 million annual revenue. In INDOs case, operating revenue is $3 million and G&A costs $5 million. If you just want leverage to the oil price moves, look for E&Ps that offer leverage to near term production. Eg, half the trading interest in BTE (TTM P/S: 0.62, EV/EBIT: 5.4) is small-time speculators that haven't set up commodity trading accounts. It trades 20 times the daily dollar volume of other E&Ps of its scale.
Why the fuk MTCH is trading at 2026PE @ 10.4 and 2027PE @ 9.3. They got $1B cash, $3B debt, $900m EBIT per year, active buybacks.. They own Tinder, Match.com, Meetic, OkCupid, Hinge, Plenty of Fish, OurTime. What other alternatives are out there? Nobody is getting married these days but dating is always on people's minds.
🔥 This is a sharp breakdown — Duolingo's numbers are solid, but a $20B+ valuation still feels like it's priced for perfection. Totally agree that EBIT margins being positive in edtech is rare.
They have been missing performance metrics for a long time running now. It hasn't mattered to the stock price. Here is a little snippet that is now old and the downward trend has only accelerated: “Tesla shares continue to strike us as having become completely divorced from the fundamentals,” J.P. Morgan analyst Ryan Brinkman wrote in a Thursday note, pointing out that “Tesla has missed Bloomberg consensus EBIT in 9 of the past 10 quarters by an average of -16.3%.” Source: [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-tesla-takeaways-shares-become-220207229.html](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-tesla-takeaways-shares-become-220207229.html) If Tesler traded on fundamentals and reality, this would be the easiest short of all time. But it doesn't...
Don’t worry, the DOJ is about to take away 20% of their total EBIT in August but I’m sure it’s already priced in (because everything is priced in always)
(Updated - June 16, 2025 6:11 AM EDT) BofA Securities analysts downgraded CoreWeave (CRWV) from Buy to Neutral with a price target of $185.00 (from $76.00). Analysts comment “Following Q1 results, the stock has run up 145%. We believe much of the near-term upside has been priced in and downgrade our rating to Neutral from Buy. We acknowledge there are positive developments including: (1) a new hyperscaler customer; (2) expansion on OpenAI agreement; and (3) debt raise at lower cost of capital. As such, we raise our PO to $185 from $76. However, with stock trading at 25x CY27e EBIT, a premium to the peer group at 16x, we believe much of the upside is priced in. Our new PO of $185 is 29x CY27e EBIT (vs. 16x previously), or 0.4x adjusted for 69% growth (vs peer group at 16x, 0.9x 18% growth).”
For context, these bozo's went from 91 to 184 million shares outstanding within a year, diluting for $385M CAD. This morning, they announced to dilute for up to $500 million more. Even after setting 10 billion on fire they still can count on the market to hype up their stock every time someone on capitol hill mumbles "weed" in their sleep. It's a miracle that there's still a single buyer for their dog shit stock. They have over twice the valuation of Green Thumb on an EV/revenue basis while their margins are a night and day difference. EBIT margin: CGC: -34% Green Thumb: 17% EV/revenue multiple: CGC: 2,56x Green Thumb: 1.38x Troll shithole sector.
Nvidia Earnings Breakdown RESULTS 🟢 SALES: $44.1B (est $43.2B) 🟢 EBIT: $23.3B (est $22.0B) 🟢 EPS: $0.81 (est $0.75) GUIDE 🔴 Q2 SALES: $45.0B (est $45.7B)** 🟢 Q2 GM: 72.0% (est 71.7%) 🟢 Q2 EBIT: $32.4B (est $28.7B) **Q2 sales outlook reflects a $8.0 billion loss due to the recent export control limitations on H20s
Apple is still up 5% from 1 Year ago and up over 150% the last 5 years - and is close to ATH in terms of P/S and EV/EBIT - just because it was even crazier, doesn't mean it isn't now
> The biggest concern you'll read is AI stealing users away from reddit. I disagree. My concern is the valuation. No matter how bullish I make any of my analysis, the current price is pretty much the top end of any type of analysis. For the current price to make sense, you have to use the following inputs: - You have to assume the cost of equity is around 10%. In none of my models I can get it that low without a huge beta decrease or rate cuts. 12% seems more reasonable - You have to assume R&D stays flat or goes down. Historically it has gone up with higher revenue, not down. - SBC has to normalize. This is relatively likely to happen, so not too worried there. - Revenue grows substantially, +42 %, +40 %, +35 % +25 %, +20 %, +15 %, +10 %, +7 % from now until 2032. - All of that growth has to happen with lower costs than Q4 2024. - 3% perpetual growth after 2032. - 40%+ steady state perpetual EBIT margin And even with all of that, I get to a fair value of ~96$.
You're countering my annual/TTM figures with quarterly figures. Do you see how that doesn't really make sense? Also, the very source you provided shows that the company's TTM EBIT is $8B. Did you not notice that?
No, Tesla's EBIT is $7-8B. No wonder you don't know how to value them.
Tesla EBIT is .339 Billion. That depreciation is doing a lot of work for its ebitda
Good point. $19.9B is not their EBIT though, it's their net.
Former corporate buyer (not WMT). They probably pay about $55B at cost to have $273B of Chinese product sales at retail. Which means a tariff bill of $18B, or 90% of their EBIT. Still unrealistic to expect any company - including WMT - to just “eat” the tariffs.
EBIT (Operating Income) was $399mn (Q1) and revenue from regulatory ZEV credits (100% margin) was $595mn, the core auto and energy business is now loss making excl. regulatory credits!
Still the same thing, the requested data (like EBIT or assets) is completely off\^\^ The fact that the fiscal year 2024 is ignored doesn't even matter.
The price will most likely always stay high, multiple wise. They have incredible latitude given their fixed fee contracts + variable production royalties that require no capex on their end. TPL is essentially LB’s future, with 80% EBIT margins and every cent going towards shareholders
Google will have higher EBIT at around $125b
AAPL - 400 billion turnover - 120 billion EBIT .. NVIDIA - 130 billion turnover - 85 billion EBIT .. these numbers are absolutely insane .. in a positive way (at least from the companies perspective .. not from the customers pov ;-)
Very negative news for UNH, as a UNH shareholder. UNH takes a relatively fixed 5.5% EBIT margin on sales. They want massive revenue growth to increase EBIT because the government won't allow too much margin on medicare/caid spending. Controlling drug prices is a massive negative to revenue growth (deflation), and because of the largely fixed margin, less EBIT growth. The US spends way too much on pharma drugs which have little benefit relative to off-patent drugs. 5% of the world's population consuming 62% of it's pharma spending is dumb. I think we will likely see MAHA reduce revenue growth from the 7-10%+ historical level, to a more normalized 3-4% (population + inflation). Americans will likely be healthier as a result. The difference between medicine and poison is often only dose, and I doubt anyone could coherently argue that the US needs more pharma spending.
$TSM Grew it's april revenue at 48.1% YoY. 57% gross margins, 47.2% operating margins, 25% ROIC, 26% EPS growth (5yr CAGR). Fwd PE of 15ish, and at a forward EV/EBIT of 12ish... People calling the entire market overvalued seem like they lack the will to hunt for names to me... Taiwan risk ofc... but thats basically NVDA, AMD, AVGO, AAPL risk too since cutting edge chips are almost all TSMC
Cronos has an EBIT margin of -46%, which is somehow even worse than Canopy's -33%. But they didnt incinerate their entire cash balance so i guess they deserve credit for that.
$ERJ Reports Q1 revenue $1.1B, consensus $1.1B. Adjusted EBIT reached $62M with a +5.6% margin in 1Q25. Firm order backlog of $26.4B in 1Q25 - surpassed the all-time historical high set in the previous quarter. Backs FY25 revenue view $7B-$7.5B 2025 Guidance reiterated: Commercial Aviation deliveries between 77 and 85 aircraft, and Executive Aviation deliveries between 145 and 155 aircraft. Total company revenues in the $7B-$7.5B range, adjusted EBIT margin between +7.5% and +8.3%, and adjusted free cash flow of $200M or higher for the year.
$RACE "Ferrari (RACE, Financial) reported Q1 2025 net revenues of €1.791 billion, a 13% increase year-over-year. The operating profit (EBIT) rose 22.7% to €542 million, with a net profit up 17% to €412 million. Hybrid models made up 49% of shipments, with plans for six new models in 2025. Ferrari N.V. (RACE) delivered strong financial results for the first quarter of 2025, showcasing a robust performance across key metrics. The company reported net revenues of €1.791 billion, marking a 13% increase compared to the same period in 2024. Ferrari shipped 3,593 units, reflecting a slight growth of 1% year-over-year. Operating profit (EBIT) surged by 22.7% to €542 million, resulting in a margin of 30.3%. Net profits climbed to €412 million, showing a 17% rise from the previous year, with diluted earnings per share (EPS) reaching €2.30, an improvement from €1.95 in Q1 2024. The revenue growth was driven by a diverse and enriched product range, including the Ferrari Roma Spider, 296 GTS, SF90 XX family, and Purosangue. Notably, hybrid models comprised 49% of total shipments, emphasizing Ferrari's commitment to electrification. The company also unveiled two new special versions, the 296 Speciale and 296 Speciale A. Looking forward, Ferrari maintains a strong outlook for 2025, projecting revenues exceeding €7.0 billion, a 5% increase from 2024. They anticipate an adjusted EBIT of approximately €2.03 billion and industrial free cash flow around €1.20 billion, representing a growth of 7% and 17%, respectively. Further, to manage new US import tariffs, Ferrari announced potential price increases of up to 10% for certain models, which may affect profitability margins by 50 basis points. Despite these challenges, Ferrari's strategic focus on product mix and its capacity to uphold premium pricing underscores its resilient business model." I did some large repositioning during the liberation day period, selling out of V, MA, and MANH. RACE was one of the two positions I went into as the valuation felt reasonable enough relative to the company's quality management team, pricing power, and brand strength. I'm not surprised to see them managing the current uncertainty well. I'm really happy about the focus on product mix, as shipments only went up 0.9% despite double digit revenue and EPS growth. The key to being a luxury business is ensuring your brand is not diluted through endless supply or incessant low quality releases. The only disappointment I have is their current F1 season :/
> --Ford Suspends Guidance Due to Tariff-Related Uncertainty; Estimates Tariff-Related Net Adverse Adjusted EBIT Impact of About $1.5 Billion for Full Year 2025
Good move at an EPS of .52 this was a obvious sell. I'm not gonna run a full EBIT /DCF I can just tell this was a cell
Yes I do not think that there is any industry that has produced such catastrophic losses sector-wide. Even the relatively succesful companies have seen a 90% or more decline compared to their highs. Part of this is that the valuations were absolutely bananas. Companies like Tilray or CGC traded at 100-200x revenue at their 2019 peaks and 20-40x revenue at their 2021 peaks - while producing EBIT margins of -50% and net margins of up to -250%. There was only one way for stock prices to go from there: off a cliff. The general issue, and why I think that this sector remains uninvestable, is that this sector has an insane ability to misallocate capital to bad actors. The highest valuations have always been assigned to the absolute worst performers. Liquidity is key: as long as your stock has high liquidity, you get infinite capital through dilution. Even now, after burning a combined 15 billion CAD of shareholder capital, CGC and TLRY trade at a huge premium to other companies like HITI, VFF or OGI which have fared infinitely better in every sense. The bad actors in this sector know that all they have to do is wait for the next meme-y hype run and then they can print some more shares and survive. Rinse and repeat. Some good news in MSOS? CGC shoots up 60% in two days. Print some more shares and another quarter is covered for. We need to see these companies perish before a sustainable uptrend can be achieved.
Without elon, TSLA would lose half of its market cap but double in EBIT. Take your pick I suppose.
Amazon is trading at its lowest forward PE and EV/EBIT in a decade - Things that make you say hmmm
I wouldn't consider using EBITDA given the interest they pay on the leases. I can't come to rely on any non-GAAP figures they provide. I'm looking at lease liability as a percent of the biggest drivers of the business. Therefore, leases as a % of sales and EBIT. To your point on leverage, you have to add to debt: AROs, signed leases that haven't commenced yet (contractual obligations), and Supply chain financing to get the true leverage My thesis is simple. Stores are returning less revenues while leases go up ---> Eventually they will default. just look at lumber liquidators, they are extremely similar. In fact, FND has even more levered than LL
My company large chemical S&P500, is increasing prices for customers across the board. We also start seeing some of our suppliers communicating price increases to us. At the same time we see demand destruction (for now outside US) for the business we export to China due to massive tariffs and as a result we see local china competition accelerate their penetration of some specialty markets we are in (yes they are lower quality, but compared to a +125% price increase, customers learn how to live with that) . Impact on EBIT bottom line this year estimated at -20% this year. We are also planning to let go 10+ percent of employees sometime starting early May. Yes, it is certainly coming...
There's no investor appetite for cannabis sector. Stock market will fall over themselves jumping into palantir at 80x revenue but cant find a buyer for Green Thumb at 1x sales. GTBIF actually has almost twice the EBIT margin of PLTR. I still blame the Canopy's and Tilray's of the world which have eroded all trust in this sector by funneling all investors money into the executives bank accounts. Until they perish or at least leave the spotlight I have a hard time seeing sustained traction for the sector.
What could they discuss, hey if these stay our EBIT gets cut by 80% soooo
manufacturing doesn't just appear out of thin air. there still has to be a business case. For example Americans suddenly demand T-Shirts with a price level of 100$. Then we can talk about a manufacture with EBIT 10-20% in some state with lots of skilled sewers. (maybe New York or LA with all the local sewers for the fashion industry?) Invest: 100 Million $ at 5% 5million p.a. wages: 100 a 50k p.a. --> 5 million p.a. EBIT 20% --> 12 million p.a. target --> 12 million/ 100 = 120k tshirts for 100$ can anyone imagine something like this? [Maybe the market is at 11 b$](https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/apparel/women-s-apparel/t-shirts/united-states), idk. Maybe 20% EBIT is just too low for your everyday US capitalist.
Company was looking for 15% EBIT, we're closing in on that. In the negative. FML