FCF

spacebizzle

Massive comeback, Thought they were gonna BK. Now like 2xs cash to debt, positive FCF, great margins, etc. “clean beautiful coal” ha. You could basically inverse things Biden was against and make big money the past two years. So many people on WSB were hating on fossil fuels in 2020-21, i remember Cramer called them “uninvestable”. I bought a bunch of oil major shares and long term calls the day Biden was elected. Been great, nothing but up although i think a top is close with crude starting to really tank so make sure to take some profits.

Badboyardie

DD Plays $PDD: -62% of float used FCF yield: 35% Exp Cash: 11M Thesis: Overvalued Play: Long ( Short term) 80C 12/9/22 @ 1.30 $XPEV: 200% of flat used FCF yield: 16% Exp Cash: 11M Thesis: Overvalued Play: Short 7P 1/6/23 @ 1.01 Speculative Play: $XOM: -79% of float used FCF yield: 15% Exp Cash: 276M Thesis: Close to value Play: Long 22C 12/30/22 @ 1.04

joe-re

I agree that FB's bad reputation overshadows the money they are making. However, if I look at fundamentals, I still don't see a great buying opportunity. PE, P/FCF, PEG, growth, P/B, dividend...nothing of that strikes me as wow. The big growth story was in the past, then the stock lived off monetary oversupply and momentum, and while I think they ate still an OK to earn money, I just don't see the potential for making lots of money. Also, I think the regulatory winds as well as the companies they rely on (GOOG and AAPL) remain hostile. Maybe I miss something, but I remain unconvinced.

skinniks

From the Outlook section (emphasis mine): > Revitalization of the Edison brand, including product innovation, packaging and post harvest processing and increased investment in building brand equity within the **premium segment, geared toward securing higher margins;** Someone had recently commented on this gap in OGI's lineup. I guess OGI is on it. We'll see if Beena can pull it off. They do have some great genetics. I'm hoping that starts to matter more one day. This made me extremely happy: > Cash flow > The Company expects to have positive cash flows from operating activities during Fiscal 2023 and positive free cash flows ("FCF") during calendar 2023. Again from the outlook section. These guys are who I used to believe Aphria was.

Badboyardie

As we speak, BofA downgrades them. But notes the good FCF. Lol. They also believe long term, they look good. Lol. Good thing it’s a speculative play.

JohnnyJCurve

I’ve seen the discussion of “moat” brought up so many times on here & Twitter. Why does it matter if a company has a moat? I’ve used the example of AMD in the the past for this. AMD had no moat a decade ago. They were behind both Intel, AMD and arguably some others. Their returns over the last decade have still been absolutely outstanding. Not every company is AMD, I get that, but my point is not every company needs a moat in order to be investible. Most growth names will never have a moat, yet can still yield great returns. There are just way more important factors to success imo. Moat is a fun conversation but should never be used as a real metric to invest in a company (especially since you can’t even place a real value to such a thing). Just my two cents. I don’t know much about $TWLO, but I do think there’s other things to look at with this company aside from their moat. When it comes to potential high growth companies I like to w always: revenue growth rate, cost of revenue, margin improvements, increase in FCF, exp. horizon to profitability, etc.

m1lh0us3

Stay the fuck away from this stock, they scam investors. Negative FCF and huge stock based compensation

JollibeeNo1Customr69

PEP and MCD. Price is trading way above FCF, and forecasted earnings growth for next year and the years after are not looking to appealing either. The charts show these things way overextended and overbought, reaching 52 week all time highs.

VisualMod

>$MMM- 329% of float used. FCF yield: 11% Exp Cash: Good Thesis: Near value Play: Long ( Short term) 140C 1/20/23 @1.12

orbing

I would like to share my dividend scorecard of Hasbro (HAS). If you find it informative there are more over at: youtube.com/DailyDoseOfDividend Metrics and thresholds being used in the scorecard: Sales Past 5Y: Over 4% EPS Past 5Y: Over 8% EPS Next 5Y: Over 8% RoIC Past 5Y: Over 12% Debt/FCF: Under 5 years Dividend Yield: 2-6% Buyback Yield: Positive Payout Ratio: Under 70% Growth Rate (5Y): Over 5% Growth Years: Over 10 years

AP9384629344432

DIS is profitable now? It had a brief period of profitability during Covid lockdowns obviously, but has posted profits in the green since June 2021. Maybe you just mean Disney+? I'm also seeing positive FCF per share since 2018.

shawman123

I think better metric for MELI should be P/FCF. That is because they are heavily reinvesting into their business. That is more reasonable at 28.6.

SunsoutNeedMoney3150

That is the best answer, good luck to you sir. I see its trading at 0.58a share. Just can't pull the trigger on this one. Day’s Range $0.56 - $0.6018 52-Week Range $0.55 - $3.42 Previous Close $0.59 Volume 314.38K Average Volume (3M) 826.34K Market Cap $149.27M Enterprise Value $117.63M Total Cash (Recent Filing) $83.55M Total Debt (Recent Filing) $51.90M Price to Earnings (P/E) \-1.4 Beta 1.88 Next Earnings Feb 26, 2023 EPS Estimate \-$0.07 Last Dividend Ex-Date Jul 13, 2015 Dividend Yield N/A 1Y Price Target N/A EPS (TTM) \-0.43 Shares Outstanding 230,648,396 R-Squared 0.16 Standard Deviation 0.24 10 Day Avg. Volume 934,619 30 Day Avg. Volume 826,342 Price to Book (P/B) 6.39 Price to Sales (P/S) 175.26 Price to Cash Flow (P/CF) N/A P/FCF Ratio \-2.00 Enterprise Value/Market Cap 0.79 Enterprise Value/Revenue 135.20 Enterprise Value/Gross Profit \-11.60 Enterprise Value/Ebitda \-1.13 Price Target Upside N/A Rating Consensus N/A Alpha \-0.02 Number of Analyst Covering 0 Show less VBI Vaccines News VBI Vaccines downgraded to Outperform from Strong Buy at Raymond James VBI Vaccines downgraded to Outperform from Strong Buy at Raymond James Raymond James analyst Steven Seedhouse downgraded VBI Vaccines to Outperform from Strong Buy with a price target of... 15d ago VBIV VBI Vaccines downgraded to Outperform from Strong Buy at Raymond James VBI Vaccines downgraded to Outperform from Strong Buy at Raymond James Raymond James analyst Steven Seedhouse downgraded VBI Vaccines to Outperform from Strong Buy with a price target of... 16d ago VBIV VBI Vaccines reports Q 3EPS (9c), consensus (8c) VBI Vaccines reports Q 3EPS (9c), consensus (8c) Reports Q3 revenue $300Kvs. $100K last year. Published first on TheFly See Insiders’ Hot Stocks on TipRanks >>... 16d ago VBIV See More VBIV News > Financials Income Statment Balance Sheet Cash Flow Income Statement > Risk Analysis Main Risk Category Tech & Innovation Risks related to the company’s reliance on technology and ability to make innovative products Detailed Risk Analysis > Product Monthly Users Sorry, No Data Available There is no website visitor data available for this stock. \--- VBIV FAQ What was VBI Vaccines’s price range in the past 12 months? What is VBI Vaccines’s market cap? When is VBI Vaccines’s upcoming earnings report date? How were VBI Vaccines’s earnings last quarter? Is VBI Vaccines overvalued? Does VBI Vaccines pay dividends? What is VBI Vaccines’s EPS estimate? How many shares outstanding does VBI Vaccines have? What happened to VBI Vaccines’s price movement after its last earnings report? Which hedge fund is a major shareholder of VBI Vaccines? \--- VBI Vaccines Stock Smart Score 5 NEUTRAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Blogger Sentiment Bullish VBIV Sentiment 100% Sector Average 71% Hedge Fund Trend Increased By 163.1K Shares Last Quarter. Crowd Wisdom Very Negative Last 7 Days ▼ 1.2% Last 30 Days ▼ 1.9% News Sentiment Neutral Bullish news 50% Bearish news 50% Technicals SMA Negative 20 days / 200 days Momentum \-78.77% 12-Months-Change Fundamentals Return on Equity \-90.95% Trailing 12-Months Asset Growth \-23.29% Trailing 12-Months

callmecrude

I’m not sure how you walked away with the exact wrong conclusion. But if your goal was to play a game of “you belittled them so I belittle you”, I guess take a bow? P/S is literally useless to compare profitable companies if you don’t cite other data. OP failed to cite other data. > useful for comparing profitable companies - which is what it’s used for This is 100% wrong. PS is a useful ratio on **unprofitable companies** If you have a profitable company, and feel the need to boil down its value to just one metric, you’ll use P/FCF.

yldf

I did, and the financials don’t support your arguments. FCF for instance seems to be dropping out of control. They are nowhere near profitable.

Wirecard_trading

I need this mf to go below 100 to buy. Valuation still too high for me. It is around fair value if you believe in the growth story of the next 5 years but there is too much uncertainty. A lot can happen in 5 years. Rn they make around 4 bucks per share, therefore I need them around 100, given their margin and FCF lead towards legacy.

KakaakoKid

The most rigorous way is probably to compute the present value of future cash flows. Search for Discounted Cash Flow and you'll find plenty of tutorials. Predicting the future is a big challenge, but learning about DCF will help you understand why intrinsic value is more of a probability distribution than an absolute figure. I often start my screens with a simpler approach, one that involves the ratio of Free Cash Flow to Market Value (the inverse of P/FCF). I want this ratio to be significantly higher than long-term interest rates.

Kriegprojekt

TTM EPS Growth, current AAA Bond Yield, estimated 5YR EPS growth. Its a basic intrinsic value calculation. Its basically where the price of an equity should be looking at future growth compared to AAA bond rates. I created a spreadsheet about 70 equities I track through the year within all the sectors to see potential buys/sells etc. I use other measures but this is one of the more basic ones. I use FCF for dividend longs, PEG ratios, financial statements, etc. Not perfect but it has worked for me.

scroogemcduckIII

I would venture to say 80% of people in this group have a few hundred bucks they tossed in some meme stock and they now feel like they are in the "capital markets" because the flashy lights and confetti of their robinhood app made them feel special when they made a whopping six trades without even knowing what FCF or MOAT even is lol not exactly seasoned captialists in my estimation.

Jeff__Skilling

> Why? Why is someone else willing to pay more money for a share if the company grows? Why is one related to the other? Is a share more than just a vote? Because the presumption generally holds that: increase ROI on your FCF dollars > decrease in cost of capital by using those FCF dollars to pay a dividend. This assumes that, some day, this delta will become smaller and smaller (Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns), at which point, management decides it makes more sense to use that cash to reward equity holders by way of a distribution than to spend it internally on capex.

Tronbronson

Non dividend stocks use buy backs to convert FCF into shareholder value. It's more tax friendly. When we invest, we invest in growing cashflows, even if they get reinvested into the company, they attract investors.

Accomplished-Gear527

[https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/RDFN/cash-flow?p=RDFN](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/RDFN/cash-flow?p=RDFN) That's what I'm seeing as well--big FCF burn

stiveooo

a reminder that with SA companies you need to look at avg PE more and debt+FCF. on avg their PE is always low cause they are more risky

whiskeyinthejaar

What are you two numb heads talking about? Apple is trading at 22 PE and 20x FCF. In perspective, the S&P is trading at 19 PE. That aside, the company has great margins, still growing, well managed, financially stable, and exceptional capital allocation. Apple had 48% ROCE over the last two years, and 30% over the last decade What type of valuation should apple trade at? Please entertain me with your valuation model, which I am sure you don’t even have. Also, how many companies have more powerful brand than Apple? Nike? Starbucks? ULTA? Now compare the MOAT, revenue growth, and margins. Have you read the PiperSandler survey? Customer loyalty surveys Top brands surveys? Or you again talking out of your ass about brand loyalty? Sony has 7B in Net Income over the past TTM, Apple has 99B! Its laughable that you compare both companies without even looking at any KPI or financial metrics. Apple makes more money from the App store than Sony from their gaming and music divisions combined. I really want you or the other numb nut to give me a valuation model for Apple beyond a random number like $90

VisualMod

>$DOLE -137% of float used FCF yield 6% Thesis: Overbought Exp cash: Good Play: Short ( Short term) 12/16 10 P @ .15 $COHR - 78% of float used FCF yield : 7% Thesis: Undervalued

m1lh0us3

Negative FCF and huge stock based compensation. big no

_hiddenscout

I mean here's a few. DKS, reported this morning and raised full year guidance. Bought back 8% of their stock YoY. PE and Forward PE is around 9. PS ratio is 0.5. Pays 1.7% Dividend yield. ROC is 21% UPFI is another boring, great company. Buying back shares. Forward and TTM PE is 7. PS ratio is 0.5 Great job of doing M&A and solid books. ROC is 37%. Also pays a 1.17% yield. WIRE has a PE of 4. 0 Debt with with a ton of FCF. ROC is 85%. PS is 0.89. Buying back a ton of shares as well.

WuTang360Bees

And that shit’s not true anyway. TSLA’s numbers are all worse. - BYD is more profitable - BYD has better financial growth prospects - BYD brings in, and is sitting on, more cash - BYD is significantly less encumbered by debt - BYD’s stock is trading at 2x sales, which is reasonable as fuck **BYD** Gross Profit - 27.44B Qtrly Revenue Growth (YoY) - 67.90% Qtrly Earnings Growth (YoY) - 197.70% Total cash per share (mrq) - 15.87 Current debt ratio (mrq) - 0.84 Operating cash flow - 99B Levered FCF - 38B Forward P/E - 36.36 Price/sales - 1.95 **TSLA** Gross Profit - 13.61B Qtrly Revenue Growth (YoY) - 41.6% Qtrly Earnings Growth (YoY) - 97.80% Total cash per share (mrq) - 6.04 Current debt ratio (mrq) - 1.43 Operating cash flow - 14.8B Levered FCF - 5.96B Forward P/E - 37.31 Price/sales - 11.21

Stoli1387

They are free cash flow positive and the valuation is MUCh better like you said...it needs to keep dropping but it's getting closer to getting me interested...last I checked it's p/FCF was 31x which is really not too terrible given their growth trajectory

NW_Fresh_PDX

On the valuation discussion, like it was mentioned, total debt vs FCF for ford and GM is atrocious compared to Tesla

Basic-Look249

They make 10.2k profit per car + 15k for fsd and then 250$ a month Other car companies only make 2.8k profit. Look at the yearly revenue growth and yearly production growth Compare all their debt and FCF. Then tesla has energy storage solar Bots charging station network You can make a proper evaluation just buy looking at market cap that said I hop tesla drops to 70$ or 100$ so I can buy a shit tone of leap and retire of off PMCC

L1ME626

legacy auto dont even have one good product, they have shit lineup. teslas all cars are fantastic products. why you poeple dont understand that you dont need more lineups you need couple good car models in each class. not some weird autistic looking models every year. this is why apple and tesla are still winning they make one good product and build it for years. Tesla has 21billion cash in hand and 0debt, pretty sure with teslas FCF and profitability they have much much more recourses compared any other car company

rRawkus

Investors don't like Amazon because they reinvest all their cash flows back into the business instead of giving it back to investors. Netflix is perceived as not having enough of a competitive moat. However, the are still light years ahead of any other streaming service out there, in that they don't need to reinvest as much, thereby leading them into a more profitable FCF outcome.

orbing

I would like to share my dividend scorecard of 3M (MMM). If you find it informative there are more over at: youtube.com/DailyDoseOfDividend Metrics and thresholds being used in the scorecard: Sales Past 5Y: Over 4% EPS Past 5Y: Over 8% EPS Next 5Y: Over 8% RoIC Past 5Y: Over 12% Debt/FCF: Under 5 years Dividend Yield: 2-6% Buyback Yield: Positive Payout Ratio: Under 70% Growth Rate (5Y): Over 5% Growth Years: Over 10 years

seank11

I'm personally not invested in it, (I'm in BTU instead) but ARCH hits all your boxes. Metallurgic coal miner, big divvy, low PE, very high FCF to EV yield, but not as high as BTU (which doesn't have a divvy yet). Yeah it's coal which isn't sexy. But FCF is sexy

Jeffwul

I took profits on Enphase, but yeah I wouldn’t short it at all. If there is a big correction it will be with the market. Between FCF and sales growth, the valuation doesn’t scream out short to me.

kriptonicx

> It does not trade at 35x FCF if you calculate out their SBC. 55% of their operating cash flow came from Sharebased compensation. So you are playing 50x FCF not 35x times. Which given the current interest rates is a lot. That's fair. All I can say is that I don't think it's expensive based on my models. But fair value is always relative. At the end of the day the company is growing at 50% YoY which is around 2-4x what a typical FANG might grow at and most FANGs trade around 20-25x FCF. So even if we use your 50x FCF number it's still not expensive relatively speaking when adjusting for growth rates. Look at it this way, would you rather own AAPL at ~20x FCF growing at around 5-10% YoY and buying back ~4% of their stock YoY, or CRWD at ~35x FCF growing at 50% YoY while diluting ~3% YoY? There's not a correct answer, but in my books that level dilution is almost irrelevant when you consider the growth. > SBC is increasinng, not coming down - also why would management cut SBC. It is literally in their interest to get more shares. Increasing relative to what? It's declining as a percentage of shares outstanding. Also it's not in managements interest to "get more shares" if those shares are declining in value. There's a reason why companies like AAPL buy back shares instead of issuing as many shares as possible - there isn't a free lunch here. What's right or wrong depends on the company's individual circumstances - which is something this sub (not saying you specifically) never seems to appreciate. From a pure capital allocation perspective if $1 of CRWD stock is worth less than $1 cash then one could argue it's always better they compensate in stock instead of cash. Only when $1 of stock is worth $1 or more of cash should a company cut SBC and buy back shares. I think the math is more nuanced than this personally, but the point I'm trying to make here is that SBC isn't always good or bad - it's just a capital allocation tool companies have. If you want to view each $1 of SBC as a $1 cash expense though I think in general that's an okay rule. I also find non-GAAP numbers that remove SBC deceptive because it's obviously an expense to share holders even if it isn't to the company balance sheet. > So that your stake gets diluted doesn't worry you? If they have this excessive SBC your stocks are worth less each year as your ownership gets diluted. > The S&P on average returns about 10%. If your company trades at 42 PE, it needs to grow 20% for a decade to have the same return. However as you get diluted a lot, It's one of the many risks for sure - and one I always watch. But like I say this is a risk fully within managements control so "high SBC" isn't a risk I personally give much weight to anyway. It's like being bearish on a great company because it's over staffed. As far as problems go, that's a good problem to have because it's so easily solvable if it's having a negative impact on the company. The assumption that a company will remain over staffed or continue with excessive SBC at the determent of company performance assumes stupidity which generally isn't a good assumption to make. Finally, their SBC isn't "high" when compared to other companies in their industry or when adjusting for growth. Diluting share holders by around 3% YoY when gross profits are up 60% YoY isn't something I worry about. Were profit margins to decline and growth to slow, then sure, it starts to become more of an issue. But this isn't the case currently. > No, because if their stock goes down - many people leave (as seen with Shopify). It creates wrong incentives to focus on the stock price. I've seen this argument quite a lot recently and I think it's largely BS in the environment because where these employees going to go? Another tech company who's share price is down 40% and who has just announced a hiring freeze? I think the incentives of SBC are generally good though, it's just this year has been an exception to that trend. For years it's been one of tools high growth tech companies have had to secure top talent without the cash expense. As a share holder I don't view this as bad, which again is why I don't view SBC as universally bad and just a tool which can be used in both in good or bad ways. ----- Btw, I'm fine with you not liking the stock. I think what's interesting here is your reasoning for not liking it so just sharing some thoughts.

Jeff__Skilling

What makes you say this, beyond looking towards COVID index additions? You make the case that ENPH doesn't have the financials to back it up, so I pulled some broker research to get more familiar with their near term financials, capex spend, and cash flow forecast. It looks like they've been [spending capex like crazy recently](https://imgur.com/a/zPUOoc4), but they'll reap the gains from those capital investments through FYE 2024, which effectively doubles OCF and FCF YoY if you compare 21A vs 22E, 22E vs 23E, and 23E vs 24E. Hard for me to see this going the way of Peloton (consumer goods that had demand skyrocket only to then fall back to earth) or any of the de-SPAC ShitCos that had no business being publicly traded companies in the first place (Lucid). Operationally, just looking at their most recent earnings release, it looks like [they're moving microinverters quickly through their supply chain](https://www.bamsec.com/filing/146310122000111/2?cik=1463101&hl=4635:4654&hl_id=4ybcwalit). Seems like they're moving quickly, considering they didn't begin shipping products until around [this time last year](https://www.bamsec.com/filing/146310122000112/1?cik=1463101&hl=125252:125916&hl_id=n1wmf0xut) Seems like this is a short play where you're relying on historical price performance to drive future returns......not sure if that's the best investment thesis on the planet....

DartFanatic

>At the current run rate they're trading at around 35x FCF. That doesn't seem unreasonable at all for a company growing 50% YoY in an industry with secular growth trends? It does not trade at 35x FCF if you calculate out their SBC. 55% of their operating cash flow came from Sharebased compensation. So you are playing 50x FCF not 35x times. Which given the current interest rates is a lot. ​ > The thing to remember about SBC is that it's a lever fully within the control of management. If it has a negative impact on the company they'll just cut it. SBC is increasinng, not coming down - also why would management cut SBC. It is literally in their interest to get more shares. ​ >The only time I worry about SBC is when I worry a company would struggle to afford to compensate with cash (TWLO or CRM is a good example of this). I don't see this as a risk for CRWD. So that your stake gets diluted doesn't worry you? If they have this excessive SBC your stocks are worth less each year as your ownership gets diluted. The S&P on average returns about 10%. If your company trades at 42 PE, it needs to grow 20% for a decade to have the same return. However as you get diluted a lot, your company now needs to grow even more. So unless Cloudstrike grows more than 25% for a whole decade, you will probably not make a good return here. Not even the FANG stocks grew that much btw. So the chances are extremely slim. ​ >Also, if you think the valuation is excessive you should support companies paying their employees with stock. No, because if their stock goes down - many people leave (as seen with Shopify). It creates wrong incentives to focus on the stock price. >This is the only reason I don't like it personally is because I rather them not be issuing stock when I believe the company is trading below fair value - it's an inefficient use of capital. Agree, but it also dilutes you. So terrible.

kriptonicx

At the current run rate they're trading at around 35x FCF. That doesn't seem unreasonable at all for a company growing 50% YoY in an industry with secular growth trends? Plus that 22% will almost certainly come down as the company grows. The thing to remember about SBC is that it's a lever fully within the control of management. If it has a negative impact on the company they'll just cut it. The only time I worry about SBC is when I worry a company would struggle to afford to compensate with cash (TWLO or CRM is a good example of this). I don't see this as a risk for CRWD. Also, if you think the valuation is excessive you should support companies paying their employees with stock. This is the only reason I don't like it personally is because I rather them not be issuing stock when I believe the company is trading below fair value - it's an inefficient use of capital.

BFE_Duke

Almost debt free? Lmao they literally have $8.7B in debt, and most of their "assets" to offset that are "Goodwill and Intangibles." It will take them 9.65 years to pay off that debt, and that's IF they can even (1) keep up the FCF, and (2) don't pay any of that out in dividends or buybacks. Now add that to the coming economic contraction and the fact that their inventory is growing... Now obviously Burry knows something else about their potential growth, but at least put in some real effort to make a bear case in your thesis.

1xndsu

Being cheap means you are trading below intrinsic value. There’s no FCF in it, how could it ever be cheap.

mogiyu

BABA with a slight revenue miss but beats on EPS and FCF growth. Forward P/E at these earnings without is around 9. Pretty good considering the macros but China's risk premium is still very high. There is the outstanding issue of their accounts being approved by the PCAOB. A positive result could be the catalyst for a big pump and a negative for a mega dump.

JuniorB721

OP is looking for long term investments so the year to year performance shouldn't matter. You're kind of proving my point. No one knows the future. You have to make decisions based on the information you have now. Whats more likely, a company with a consistent history of excellent metrics (FCF, ROIC, EV, etc) will keep performing well or the other 99% of VOO will suddenly become the best performing companies in the world?

A_KY_gardener

HOLY. SHIT. FCF on alphaspread has value at $15/share

interrobangbros

That Sonos YoY inventory increase of 145% oh nooooo. Brutal quarter. Revenue declined YoY by 12%. Gross margin fell YoY from 46.4% to 39.2%. Operating and net margins worsened even more. FCF/S was the worst in at least 12 quarters, coming in at -39.6%. What an awful capper for their fiscal year.

LionRoars87

Agreed! Actually I just loaded up on CTRA, yesterday and again today. 9.6% div yield, 0.2 debt/equity ratio and 15% FCF annual yield. In Q3 they beat on top and bottom. Looks to me like this should be a $40-50 stock but until that day I'll collect those dividends.

NoPipez

Classic Reddit take? Dying cable NW What is their EV? (Hope you know their their debt) Dividend > FCF Loaded on debt Will have to scrap or lower dividend. This subreddit is disappointing with first level thinking takes everywhere

guacamoledaddy

Google has an extremely wide moat and has a wonderful business model. My opinion is that the value is elusive and isn’t what it appears to be on the surface. Capital expenditures are ramping up to fund AI infrastructure and their stock based compensation will likely approach $20B for the year. FCF after deducting SBC may be in $40B range and you’re paying $1.2T for the business. Think the stock decline has been justified and one could make the argument it’s still expensive.

Basic-Look249

Learn what debt is FCF and how to analyze a balance sheet not making a typo isnt what’s going to make you money

gottahavetegriry

I just ran a fairly basic discounted FCF model, with growth projections I figured were realistic

Conkyshithawk

It’s because prisoners are reinvesting FCF into caped work to become more secure and efficient. Remember when Epstein killed himself? They’re trying to prevent that from happening again.

whiskeyinthejaar

It is really tiny position, but also odd I think similar to RH, but then again BRK tend to navigate long term. LPX is trading at 5x FCF, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they add more in the future

BizPundit

Decrease in rev 30% yoy is okay because it’s an excellent business that prints FCF. *($4.7) million operating loss on $6.2 million revenue* Wait…

ironmagnesiumzinc

I like their products and think it's here to stay, but with a price/FCF or pe so much higher than other tech companies, and a similar price/book... I just feel like it's not in the buying range for me

senrim

you have growth estimates at the bottom. Its not FCF growth per say, but its the closest you can get to see what analysts think.

Accomplished-Gear527

Depends on how you think the interest rates will play out. If interest rates remain where they are today--which isn't a bad bet because they really aren't all that high--then FCF growth could take a hit + the rate used to discount will lower the relative value of those cashflows. \+if inflation remains high, that could further impair the value of future cash flows.

orbing

I would like to share my dividend scorecard of Lockheed Martin (LMT). If you find it informative there are more over at: youtube.com/DailyDoseOfDividend Metrics and thresholds being used in the scorecard: Sales Past 5Y: Over 4% EPS Past 5Y: Over 8% EPS Next 5Y: Over 8% RoIC Past 5Y: Over 12% Debt/FCF: Under 5 years Dividend Yield: 2-6% Buyback Yield: Positive Payout Ratio: Under 70% Growth Rate (5Y): Over 5% Growth Years: Over 10 years

tiger5tiger5

Africa oil corp. aoiff. Trading at 1x FCF with 800M in cash on the balance sheet, $500M of debt, and a 1.2B valuation. Currently buying back 5% of stock per month, and making $2M+ a day on 470M shares. It’s as close to a sure thing as there is

interrobangbros

We still using P/E to value a company that is not going after E right now? Do you use P/S on pre-revenue companies and P/FCF on companies with negative cash flows, too?

This_Professor8379

As a ceo you have three critical jobs 1. You are the face of the company to all third parties, especially customers and investors/shareholders. This alone can be more than a full time job just for the relationship management. Also emotionally it is very exhausting. If you think this is not a shit load of work, you've never prepared a business plan or a shareholder briefing. 2. You have to do resource allocation (time and money) which requires you to be generally aware of as much of the operations as possible because without that you won't be able to properly allocate resources. Depending on site of Organisation you have a team to collect this knowledge but nothing can replace first hand knowledge. For this you need to involve yourself as much as possible into day to day without getting ducked into it too much. 3. You need to make the key strategic decisions like firing 50% of burning most of your FCF on the metaverse. The issue is people just see #3 and think #1 is just a day-per-month type of job. Then yes of course it looks like a 4hr per week job. But the reality is a real ceo will be stuck at/with work more than most other employees..

NextTrillion

Imagine the FCF if they fire every single employee, and stop paying the utility bills… 99.99999% margins bro! Next ER will be lit!

realsapist

and FCF that went from a couple billion per qtr to like $150m. with the promise of increased future investement into metaverse its a risky bet for me but if you like it then GL!

dancinadventures

When your government caps the bill, Do they restrict the sales or LNG at a price point? Or do they subsidize the difference. One matters to a company/industries FCF the other is purely a money printing stimulus delayed inflationary juggle to borrow money at 6%.

AlwaysUnbeknownst

uhhh 4.48% ROC, 1.29% Net Income yield, FCF yield -1.7%...a mega cap needing 10% + growth to be even fairly priced. There's better deals out there...its a pop stock, and it deserved its blood bath.

Fuego1050

1) CFO conversion improving materially for lower transaction/integration expenses and inventory run-down 2) Then with 40% lower capex, $TRUL might be the only truly FCF positive MSO in the 2023. 3) They can EASILY term out any obligations Same w/ $VRNO and $GTI. But no one else Some notes from a good accountant - ben munchin. Not as bad as first look. My only issue is that its a growth company that doesnt have a growth lever for at east another q until georgia/conneticut turn on. From a profitability perspective - Fact is they will be generating meaningfully more cash over the NTM vs the LTM based simply on a lot less in transaction costs & by running through inventory. They are less levered than any peer so can easily expand borrowing to meet any additional obligations.

PandemicInvestor

#VET is one if the best energy companies. This will be up big soon. positive FCF. Screaming buy

wincrypton

3b of additional FCF was just unlocked

Theta_FIRE

Now do the average industry P/E and P/FCF

Jonnyskybrockett

Amazon has historically been valued by their FCF and not PE due to the nature of their businesses. Why? Idk, it’s just what I’ve read from finance people.

A_KY_gardener

You wanna talk strats send me a DM. What helped me tremendously was alphaspread enter the ticker and you’ll get DCF FCF and intrinsic value. Once you see what most of these companies are valued at its hard still invest in them. Firesale on the horizon.

Omnipotent-Ape

It's not absurd. How many companies are valued in line with their FCF? Not many. Especially in bull markets. FCF is great but just like any indicator it's just that.

bullbeartip

If one observers Ms. Wood Valuation basis is with discount rate zero. if you are history student, one will observe the bond market which was suppose to turn 10 years algo has just turned up ( yields)... NO body knows where this will end up, one my reasons Buffet does not invest in stocks with higher multiples. Probability of it coming down is high even business is profitable. Lot of people holding tesla @ 1.2 trillion and 900 billion valuation. That valuation was based on FCF and sales 2030. EV will be pushed. Will companies and US stock market which has Market capitalization of 42 trillion dollars will it go back is the question to ask. With cost of capital going up, and money being placed in CD it will be hard of entire market to recover until new credit wave will start. Which may not be soon. IF you observe the remarks made by J powel, he is not worried that rates are high, he is worried how long the rates will be have to high and that he also does not know...... Great trading environment along with voltality

Sacrificed

Ignore all that. Starting from first principles - furture growth in FCF equals the return they can get on their investments multiplied by the amount they are investing. The amount they are investing is fairly easy to get, management will often break out growth vs maintenance investments. The ROIC on those investments is the hard part. This requires understanding the industry, competition, and how it will evolve over the next decade or so. But once you are confident that say a company is making 20% on incremental investments, and then say the company has little maintenance capex needs, such that they are reinvesting 100% of their cash flows at those returns with a long runway. Then you can conclude that if you purchase the company at roughly the value of its invested capital, you will get a 20% return. If you buy the company at 2x invested capital you will get a 10% return, etc.

skilliard7

> There's a reason YouTube has been unprofitable for so many years and keeps adding ways to charge a viewer like ads, YouTube premium, super chats, channel memberships, and why Netflix increases their subscription prices every year. Youtube has billions of videos that literally never get viewed that they need to pay to store, backup, etc. CURI's concern for profitability is not the cost of media distribution, but rather their high marketing costs, low revenue per user, and lastly, high overhead costs relative to revenue. CURI either needs to grow their way out of the overhead(via either higher ARPU or more users), or cut overhead/marketing to achieve positive FCF

Delfitus

What's your thesis around shorting oil stocks? All of them have huge FCF and are cheaply valued

anygal

99% of the time I go with just the numbers, I have already done extensive DD before I bought the company, and all of my investments are long-term. I don't have time to listen to every earnings call. If it is a biotech company or something I might check what they said. Also, usually I don't even check the ER-s, only if the company swinged huge after it (+-15% or more), then I read up if I should reevaluate my long-term thesis. I usually check up on the metrics on my holdings every 3 or 6 months or so, my favourite metrics are PE, PEG, FCF, I also check the revenue (/revenue growth), and debt.

melvinfoo

I see. I suspect most laymen cannot tell that the theory has changed so much. No one knows what the price elasticity for CURI is - we will see. Even if churn is higher, it might be worth it to increase revenue. Multiple people online have commented that they feel CURi should increase the prices. For $20 a year, I think people will still sign up if it's $5 more with today's cost of living. If churn is not too bad, this itself could result in a 25% increase in revenue. I'm not able to forecast how it can go to 10x, but there is a clear 2.5x if they can generate just a 5M FCF margin. Discovery did grow into a 12B business eventually, and Hendricks was on the Board of Discovery till 2014.

melvinfoo

>What do the markets it operates in look like? Assuming that this issue of cash flow comes from non- cash items and growth investments, how much of a market would be required to reach profitability while generating a return in assets and ROIC that justifies the endeavor relative to cost of equity? (Multi part, but, one general idea.) Thanks for your response. I don't think a DCF is needed because the valuation is already covered by the balance sheet. A DCF will be unreliable as it will be difficult to calculate the terminal FCF margins and revenue growth rate. Netflix's latest operating margin is roughly 25%, however, however, CURI has higher gross margins (because documentaries are cheaper to make). Netflix actually has -ve FCF LOL, it did produce 7% FCF margins in 2020. Assuming: 1. 5M in FCF a the start (5% FCF margin, 100m revenue) 2. for 40 years 3. growing at 10% a year 4. with a 19% WACC That results in 63M in NPV, on top of the 70M of other assets. So also at least a double in terms of current prices. Question 1) Yes, you're right that the main bear argument is that it is unprofitable. The management is guiding to free cash flow positive by Q1 2023, and looking at their financials, they will reach that. When they will achieve GAAP profitability is difficult to tell. The thing is that GAAP "profitability" of Streaming stocks is misleading; how do you accurately value the value of a piece of content? A movie asset, for example, can be estimated to be worth 7M to make and valued at cost, but it can be massively popular and bring in 7M in revenue Q1. Do you amortize 7M of value on the books? What Q2 did you manage to squeeze out another 1M? They need to account for some amortization costs. If not, companies can capitalize their content libraries and never report any expenses - resulting in unreliable profits. So I'm mostly forgoing the use of the income statement and mainly focusing on valuing the company based on its cash & cash flows. What money comes in and out of business? Question 2) As for a large company coming into the space and competitive pressures, I wrote about CURI's potential moats. In the short term: 1. The main "moat" is that its culture and focus are 100% on factual content. Disney - focusing on its big franchises, WBD - focusing on debt, and Netflix - moving into gaming and big-ticket blockbusters. Documentaries are a comparative niche area that can't move the needle for them, but there is still a considerable upside for CURI at these current prices. 2. Distribution with Nebula - CURI has access to 200M people that like to watch factual content. Even with money, you can't get a stake in Nebula. VCs tried. Given a few more years, I believe CURI can build up an even more extensive library & would have brand recognition - being the Discovery Channel for streaming.

taplar

Since the cash flows are so diverse, I get there average. And that's the value I would apply the (FCF/(1 + rate)\^n) into the future. When you say "the revenues", what do you mean? What line items are you referring to? Most of the videos I've watched have said to grab the cash flow from operations.

KakaakoKid

Free cash flow as a percentage of the company's market value. This is the inverse of P/FCF, but seeing the figure as percentage makes more intuitive sense to me.

onehandedbackhand

FCF and the non-GAAP to GAAP bridge. The former because cash is the hardest to manipulated, the latter because this is where the fuzzy magic happens.

anygal

99% of the time I go with just the numbers, I don't have time to listen to every earnings call. If it is a biotech company or something I might check what they said. Also, usually I don't even check the ER-s, only if the company swinged huge after it (+-15% or more), then I read up if I should reevaluate my long-term thesis. I usually check up on the metrics on my holdings every 3 or 6 months or so, my favourite metrics are PE, PEG, FCF, I also check the revenue (/revenue growth), and debt.

seank11

Depends on the company and your investment thesis. Early cycle growth stocks will have different key metrics than mature companies. My only holding is a large coal miner. It's not growing obviously. So the key metrics I look at are: Balance sheet: what does their debt look like. How much debt is left to payoff before I start getting my dividend or buybacks. Cash flow: how much FCF is the company earning. How does that relate to debt and CapEx. Coal prices: how are their average prices vs spot. How will a drop or increase in prices impact FCF moving forward. What is their projected cost moving forward. Tldr you look at different things for different companies