FCF

foo-bar-nlogn-100

Decent valuations? They owe 125B to in leases. Information reported they were making only making 20% margins off H100. Other reports -70B total FCF until 2030. They either have to cancel deals or risk being huge debt load and no way to pay off the debt Its like you taking out a 5M mortgage on 100K income

MapleCat2021

Well said. JPM's recent paper is spot-on. https://privatebank.jpmorgan.com/nam/en/insights/markets-and-investing/ideas-and-insights/is-ai-a-bubble-here-are-5-ways-to-find-out. At a recent conference, the head of Bain's real estate practice offered even more staggering numbers. The contraction in FCF of the hyperscalers is eye-popping: \~60% + of FCF committed to CapEx spend through 2030 by Meta, MSFT. And then there is Oracle. Publicly traded real estate is trading at a 25-year relative low. Pension fund allocations to RE are generally below target due to profound value contraction and redemptions over the past 5 years. It could be time to look at public REITs, in particular in industrial and retail, where OpEx creep and rent contraction are far less onerous than they are for office and multifamily.

iyankov96

It's extremely overpriced. It was at fair value at $150 a share in the middle of this year. Now it's the most expensive in its history in many aspects. Record Price/Sales, record EV/FCF, increasing CapEx means more of the income goes towards just maintaining their datacenters and infrastructure. Come back when it's trading at 4-5x sales.

AlwaysSilencedTruth

googl P/FCF is almost 50...

_hiddenscout

Not long, but seems interesting. It's hard to find battery names and BESS names that I want to invest in, since a lot aren't at valuations I like or even generating FCF. Just a lot of speculative stuff gets hit whenever there is going to be down turns in the market. There's a canadian name I came across that is kind of interesting, but marketcap/price might be too small to share, but they are opening a factory in the US soon and now becoming profitable.

Mobile_Breadfruit706

NFLX is overvalued from a FCF perspective and the drama around WBD acquisition puts me off. They may end up overpaying for it, too. HOOD also overvalued, and it’s a business with no moat. This would be my last choice among those three. AVGO is cheap at the moment given it’s FCF and near term growth projections. Long-standing partnership with Google on their TPUs which are gaining traction as an alternative to GPUs for AI applications. This would be my pick (indeed, I have picked a bunch of shares over the last couple of days).

Wowmuchrya

Meta is burning through its FCF faster than any hyperscaler and MSFT tied itself to ScamAI which it will need to bail out, so yea they don’t have any money for 3 year old neocloud gpu’s.

Leroy--Brown

Yeah I saw your DD. Believe it or not I read it. Why is PMI fcf higher, and why is their FCF growth qoq at a higher rate? Their conversion rate seems to not matter if their debt is unsustainably high compared to PMI and their FCF growth is immediately eaten up by that massive dividend

Cav829

Yeah, this has been the thing holding Shift4 back and the million dollar question as to whether and when the stock takes off. Investors want to see them start paying down that debt so all these FCF projections start coming true. They seem more interested in short-term acquisitions and stock buybacks. They might be right to do that in the long-term, but it has made figuring out the entry point for them a nightmare. And meanwhile they've got short-term headwinds with the hospitality industry in retraction. I still like the thesis behind the company, but it could be rocky until the likely catalyst of the World Cup.

Glittering_Water3645

The PE is wrong because of one-time injections. Look at P/OCF and P/FCF instead of exclude this.

Historical_Air_8997

I still like it, it’s grown to a pretty sizable position from my 4% allocation at $313. It’s close to 10% of that portfolio now, so I’m not adding. Honestly I’m not a fan at adding much at near highs regardless, but if I didn’t have a position I’d maybe buy 1/4-1/3 of my normal allocation. It’s still trading at like 25x FCF which isn’t bad for a company like medp. I think there may be some solid tailwinds with the new administration, may be more demand to navigate the changing rules. Also with lowing rates small biotechs will up their research and give business to medp.

ReserveDrunkDriver

I understand the sentiment that corporations are bad, however, what you are saying is literally the opposite of what is true. The CHIPS Act was specifically for the Micron (MU) NY, ID, and VA manufacturing facilities to expand the US supply chain for memory. MU & the USA are working together to increase the supply of memory for the US, which will ultimately lower the cost for the American people as production expands to meet demand. The money was not just "taken" it was an investment in which the US government will recoup their investment via profit share after helping the American people with the memory shortage. The asshole move by the best/largest US memory company would be if they refused to expand CAPEX/production and just turned the FCF machine on to create the most shareholder value.

Alarming-Maize-8611

It first started as a liberty media share arbitrage, but they raised their stake i presume for a few reasons. First, Sirius has meaningful Price to FCF ratio of approx. 6.3 That amount of cash flow for such a low valuation is pretty extraordinary. On top of that SiriusXM is buying back a meaningful amount of shares. This along with the dividend present a pretty strong ROE case for a large shareholder such as Berkshire. Im also guessing that they believe that even with fairly modest subscriber losses, the earnings and free cash flow story wont be meaningfully effected enough for it to matter. I also think that SIRI is making some pretty big moves in investing in content to refurbish its service for newer customers. Whether that works or not, time will tell. 2026 will be a consequential year for SIRI whether their strategy works out or not.

Valvador

> P/FCF is ~20× - the lowest it has ever been by a mile. Isn't 20x kind of high for a company of this type? What sector is Acorn Energy in? They seem to be utilizies/hardware, which historically sits at P/FCF of around 10x on average. [Source.](https://www.stocktitan.net/articles/ev-fcf-ratio-explained#:~:text=Table_title:%20Industry%20Benchmarks:%20Know%20Your%20Playing%20Field,Industry:%20Utilities%20%7C%20Typical%20EV/FCF:%208%2D15x%20%7C) Basically high margin businesses (like Software) are usually higher P/FCF or P/E.

PerfectInAllThings

Fundamentals, DCF, FCF, etc. mean nothing in this market. My responsible stocks averaged flat for the year. My speculative bs stocks made me a ton of money.

AlwaysSilencedTruth

they grow pretty fast, but they also dilute the fuck out of shareholders. FCF per share grew like 16% per year over the last 5 boomy years

AlwaysSilencedTruth

70x FCF multiple.. no

illinformed-will

AI post made with ChatGPT explaining OpenAi circle jerk is cooked. Oh the irony, love it 👌 Last resort will be dilution, now the norm for capex datacenter and fake FCF positive stocks. Wonder who will be willing to buy when it drop another 40% tho... Difference between "discount buy" and "next stop bankruptcy" will be hard to gauge on this one 🤦

karouse

The valuation is simply too high, it is trading at 90 P/E (42 forward),70 P/FCF, 28 P/S. At this valuation, I won't be surprised to see it drop on good earnings, it has so many things already priced in. Not to mention they have the problem of concentration of revenue from just a few top customers.

Fun_Corner_2954

I saw a comment in the daily thread that the dip occurred after it was said in the earnings report that VMware margins were slowing and that Hock Tan used the word "deterioration" to describe FCF for that business (or other?) unit.

plznodownvotes

The growth never really stopped. Market overreaction happens every so often (see AAPL when they stopped reporting iPhone sales, META when it dropped to like $70 and went on a non-stop 700% rally). The facts are that LULU is experiencing extremely rapid international growth with a bit of Americas slowdown. Has over $1bil in cash and increasing FCF, and no debt. I’m not going to mention its “competitors” that Redditors like to mention because they literally don’t matter and will almost likely go under in the next year. LULU’s lawsuit against Costco’s dupes tells you all you need to know about who they saw as competition.

King_Chron

**Trump Cannabis EO Leak (Dec 11, 2025)** WaPo reports Trump is preparing an **executive order directing HHS + DEA to move marijuana to Schedule III**. This would **end 280E**, recognize medical use, and align with Biden’s 2024 rescheduling push. White House says “no final decision yet,” but sources expect announcement soon. **Market / Sentiment:** * X: **#TrumpWeed** trending (500k+ mentions). * $MSOS up **8% after-hours**. * Reddit: 65% positive, heavy hype around **280E tax relief**. * Industry-wide benefit: **$2–3B/yr** in saved taxes. # Big Winners if Schedule III happens (280E gone) **Company | 2025 Rev | Est. Annual 280E Savings | Impact** * **Curaleaf** – $1.4B | $150–200M | Major cash unlock * **Green Thumb** – $1.1B | $100–150M | Margins 25%+ * **Trulieve** – $1.2B | $120–180M | Huge FCF reversal * **Verano** – $950M | $80–120M | Major EBITDA lift * **Cresco** – $850M | $70–100M | Debt relief + expansion * **Jushi** – \~$260M | $25–35M | Big % improvement * **Cannabist (Columbia Care)** – \~$350M | $35–50M | Margin recovery * **Planet 13** – \~$95M | $9–14M | Small cap, high % benefit * **Marimed** – \~$160M | $15–25M | Thin margins → strongest lift **Why it’s huge:** * Current effective tax rates are **60–70%** for many operators. * Schedule III removes 280E → normal 21–30% corporate tax. * Every MSO becomes more profitable **instantly** once the rule is finalized. **Bottom line:** If this EO drops and DEA confirms Schedule III, this becomes the **biggest single catalyst** the industry has ever had. Massive for MSOs and cash-strapped tier-2 players. 🚀

King_Chron

**Trump Cannabis EO Leak (Dec 11, 2025)** WaPo reports Trump is preparing an **executive order directing HHS + DEA to move marijuana to Schedule III**. This would **end 280E**, recognize medical use, and align with Biden’s 2024 rescheduling push. White House says “no final decision yet,” but sources expect announcement soon. **Market / Sentiment:** * X: **#TrumpWeed** trending (500k+ mentions). * $MSOS up **8% after-hours**. * Reddit: 65% positive, heavy hype around **280E tax relief**. * Industry-wide benefit: **$2–3B/yr** in saved taxes. # Big Winners if Schedule III happens (280E gone) **Company | 2025 Rev | Est. Annual 280E Savings | Impact** * **Curaleaf** – $1.4B | $150–200M | Major cash unlock * **Green Thumb** – $1.1B | $100–150M | Margins 25%+ * **Trulieve** – $1.2B | $120–180M | Huge FCF reversal * **Verano** – $950M | $80–120M | Major EBITDA lift * **Cresco** – $850M | $70–100M | Debt relief + expansion * **Jushi** – \~$260M | $25–35M | Big % improvement * **Cannabist (Columbia Care)** – \~$350M | $35–50M | Margin recovery * **Planet 13** – \~$95M | $9–14M | Small cap, high % benefit * **Marimed** – \~$160M | $15–25M | Thin margins → strongest lift **Why it’s huge:** * Current effective tax rates are **60–70%** for many operators. * Schedule III removes 280E → normal 21–30% corporate tax. * Every MSO becomes more profitable **instantly** once the rule is finalized. **Bottom line:** If this EO drops and DEA confirms Schedule III, this becomes the **biggest single catalyst** the industry has ever had. Massive for MSOs and cash-strapped tier-2 players. 🚀

King_Chron

**Trump Cannabis EO Leak (Dec 11, 2025)** WaPo reports Trump is preparing an **executive order directing HHS + DEA to move marijuana to Schedule III**. This would **end 280E**, recognize medical use, and align with Biden’s 2024 rescheduling push. White House says “no final decision yet,” but sources expect announcement soon. **Market / Sentiment:** * X: **#TrumpWeed** trending (500k+ mentions). * $MSOS up **8% after-hours**. * Reddit: 65% positive, heavy hype around **280E tax relief**. * Industry-wide benefit: **$2–3B/yr** in saved taxes. # Big Winners if Schedule III happens (280E gone) **Company | 2025 Rev | Est. Annual 280E Savings | Impact** * **Curaleaf** – $1.4B | $150–200M | Major cash unlock * **Green Thumb** – $1.1B | $100–150M | Margins 25%+ * **Trulieve** – $1.2B | $120–180M | Huge FCF reversal * **Verano** – $950M | $80–120M | Major EBITDA lift * **Cresco** – $850M | $70–100M | Debt relief + expansion * **Jushi** – \~$260M | $25–35M | Big % improvement * **Cannabist (Columbia Care)** – \~$350M | $35–50M | Margin recovery * **Planet 13** – \~$95M | $9–14M | Small cap, high % benefit * **Marimed** – \~$160M | $15–25M | Thin margins → strongest lift **Why it’s huge:** * Current effective tax rates are **60–70%** for many operators. * Schedule III removes 280E → normal 21–30% corporate tax. * Every MSO becomes more profitable **instantly** once the rule is finalized. **Bottom line:** If this EO drops and DEA confirms Schedule III, this becomes the **biggest single catalyst** the industry has ever had. Massive for MSOs and cash-strapped tier-2 players. 🚀

Inevitable_Butthole

They have 10B + FCF when you put aside the AI capex But yeah, still not enough

Heineken_500ml

This market is going nowhere. COST trading at 100x FCF LMAO AVGO trading at 100 PE, chip sales can double but earning can't 5x LMAO LULU losing sales in NA 2% in a quarter, shrinking margins, shrinking EPS LMAO

Far-Travel-5206

ORCL’s miss definitely shakes the hype a bit.. negative FCF from AI spending is real money leaving the business. But the market might shrug it off if QE keeps liquidity high and AI excitement stays strong. Could be a short-term pause rather than a full rally killer.

Technical_Cry_5878

Oracle’s numbers highlight the tension in the AI trade: to stay relevant, everyone has to spend aggressively, but the capex surge temporarily wrecks free cash flow. ORCL missing revenue and posting negative FCF makes the market wonder how many quarters of this the big platforms can absorb before investors start questioning the “AI = infinite margins” narrative. The bigger question is whether this is a company-specific stumble or a preview of what happens when hyperscalers and enterprise players all hit the same capex wall. If multiple AI names start showing the same pattern, that’s when the rally becomes vulnerable. But policy can overshadow fundamentals. If the Fed drifts closer to QE-lite, liquidity alone can keep valuations elevated even while earnings get choppy. That’s why some analysts (think of the style of Ian King Microcap Convergence) focus more on liquidity cycles than quarter-by-quarter results. So in the near term, ORCL might not “break” the AI rally by itself, but it’s the kind of print that becomes important if a few more players confirm the same trend.

EntropyAccount

The point is you can buy a bond/MM fund with similar yield but there is no real upside potential beyond this yield. If things improve with the company the stock can return capital gains and the company can increase the dividend. If you want higher returns with higher risk - buy tech. If you can't stomach any losses buy risk-free. At this junction, CN has a stable yield at the risk-free rate with a p/e of 15-17, and generating FCF to reinforce the dividend. The current management team took on more debt than ever to buyback stock, and that bet didn't work out. RR typically get better ROIC by expanding rail capacity, not financial engineering. I think they felt pressured to do something because of the CPKC deal and constantly over guiding didn't help. I'm not a huge fan of the current team, but going forward it seems stabilized (grain shipments are at record highs too). Revenue is likely to increase marginally and the cost control measures are in place. Personally, I model this company to return a dividend of 2.5% and capital gain of 3-5% annually over the next few years if the economy grows 1-2%, tariffs remain in effect, and the US dollar does collapse. Weaker USD can lead to lower traffic. The downside is likely limited here, but obviously not guaranteed.

Mr-Dotties-Dad

Don’t point out NVIDIA’s FCF to OP.

samara_farrel

ORCL doing the classic ‘good on paper, ugly under the hood.’ RPO moon numbers look great until you realize FCF is evaporating faster than Larry Ellison’s patience. Feels like one of those quarters where the headlines pump it and the footnotes drag it. Not touching unless it stops pretending the AI boom automatically fixes everything.”

redpillsbluepills

You’re welcome. Still plenty of room to grow. PL has been FCF positive the last three quarters and continues to crush earnings QoQ. Space stocks in general are just beginning to moonshot. ASTS, RKLB, BKSY, etc. are the frontier of a new era. Idc what anyone else says. Look at how bullish the current administration is, including the FCC Chairman who expedited all of ASTS’ approvals. 2026 is going to be a huge year, and yes, I will admit I’m biased AF because I’m balls deep in this area.

JankyPete

AI data centers is a last ditch effort to say this slow dieing company. That FCF 🙈

WorkingCorrect1062

RPO is up so adding more worry for investors how ORCL is going to fund the infra capex. Basically, the stock is running on upside down logic. There is not other negative as such, FCF negative due to capex means lot of value investors are out.

No-Doctor9742

11x current FCF, heading to more like 5x FCF by mid 2026

rydenh99

In past corrections there was almost complete euphoria. People invested and didn't worry. They didn't even look at the market on a daily. There was complete faith that everything would just keep going up! That is not today's market. There is significant pessimism and concern. There are mini pull backs. Industry/sector scrutiny with investors moving between. All this is healthy! Does it mean the market will just go up? No. And everyone understands that. If earnings are strong, companies benefit. If a company has a mis step and can't support the valuation, expect a pullback. Do I expect the market, as a whole in 2026 to deliver the returns we enjoyed in 2025? No! But if I am invested in strong companies, executing well, delivering earnings to support the valuation and strong FCF, then I expect I will do better being invested in the market vs alternatives.

microdosingrn

FCF.

thri54

A mature industry is a natural competitive barrier that prevents new entrants. No one wants to invest the capital required to fight Autozone for a low growth market. FCF is higher, more like $2B. It looks like they’re on a spree of upgrades with how capex has exceeded depreciation in the last few years. Negative book equity isn’t a problem, per se. Frequently, it’s a sign of business strength when you can tap lenders deep below book equity value. E.g., Verisign, Planet Fitness, and Oracle all have (or had) strong free cash flow and high profit margins. This allowed them to borrow with unsecured at reasonable rates below their book equity. It’s only a problem when you also have high cost of debt or financial distress. IMO the stock value still looks a little rich. They had one of the best stock returns of the last 25 years — over 100x. Even though their profit growth was average, they perpetually traded at a low multiple and juiced returns through stock buybacks. I guess this new high multiple is the market correcting itself.

gatovision

In this bubble of ai/software they were actually a pretty good value play, trading at 6xs sales so thats a good pickup for something growing with good FCF. Theres more smaller software out there like that.

RNGesusDoesntLoveMe

If he was able to see the future dont you think he would have kept it? He sold a lot of it to buy worse companies. I know why he sold it, but it still reflected his lack of foresight or confidence. Each company must be evaluated independently and fairly. Its harder to cheat FCF and its there, there is no ai bubble. 

TJMBeav

These tech companies. Going from low capital, higher than fuck margins and historic FCF. To vertically integrated, high capital, cash sucking data center companies. Brilliant

Vegetable-Bug-9779

Meaning they have $19B cash and $25b debt. They generated $5.85B FCF last quarter while paying dividends and buying back shares. Market cap is $642B. They can pay all their debt next quarter if they want to.

Routine-District-588

Metaverse is a shit show, yes it will be a sunk cost. they burnt like 17B on the metaverse last year. The market didn't like that FCF being down q3 2025 on q3 2024. This wil change with money big chunk of money from the metaverse moving to Ai spend or to buybacks.

Maakus

There are many stock analysis sites that provide insider trading with names of insiders. He has been selling like this for the whole year. It's hard to invest when executives have so many shares and stock based comp. This company takes all of its 3% FCF and gives it to employees. Thats what makes it risky so buyer beware. [Heres the last ten insider trades. ](https://imgur.com/a/c4qV75f)

PTRBoyz

I loaded the boat on META AMZN TSLA during the panic the past couple of weeks. Those were my focus stocks for 2026 (alongside GOOGL and UNH which I already own). I entered into starter positions in RBRK and PATH (very small position honestly, they need to show growth accelerating and and DBNR over 120% for me to be real bullish, but just gamble sized) today which I think could end up being good winners next year (both should get bought out).  I’m also eying BA as a value play now that they’re flipping FCF positive. And would buy RL for some non tech exposure if it consolidated or corrects a little. 

Rude_Judgment7928

Gotta keep the debt pile growing to keep that FCF for share buybacks to keep exec compensation as high as possible.

Strawforce57

Focus your prompts on structure, sources, and falsifiability rather than “give me picks”: e.g., “You are a buy‑side analyst, break down {SECTOR} in plain English: 3 secular growth drivers vs 3 cyclical headwinds; 5 KPIs experts track (define each); key regulatory/supply‑chain risks; and a table of the top 10 holdings of {SECTOR ETF} with 3‑yr revenue CAGR, FCF margin, net debt/EBITDA, ROIC.” Then: “Using {SECTOR ETF} constituents, rank a top‑5 by a transparent composite, growth 40%, profitability 30%, balance sheet 20%, valuation 10%, show your math and uncertainty.” For single names: “Explain {TICKER}, give 5 bull/5 bear points, 3 catalysts with ‘what would falsify this?’ indicators, and red‑team the thesis.” I sanity‑check LLM output with a simple signal dashboard like **Prospero.ai’s** 10 signals (0–100) to avoid pretty‑sounding narratives; you still make the call (NFA).

1Mby20201212

This is a volatile stock sure but it’s been falling since September. If you are buying it 2 weeks in after the big dip, you need to wait a lot more for this pay off. Especially since your breakeven price is +30% off. Price that far off is unreachable unless there is a major catalyst and you have not put that in the reasoning other than FCF. Not for me I guess.

TJMBeav

FCF is what counts

thri54

Operating income was down 40% YoY in 2022. It was lower than FY 2020, too. Reality Labs’ loss had increased from $6.6B in 2020 to $13.7B in 2022. Free cash flow halved year over year, primarily because capex jumped 66% in 2022. Most of that money was investment for Reality labs. FCF was the lowest it had been since 2018. Family of apps was still highly profitable, but reality labs was weighing heavily on their consolidated financial picture. It rebounded because Zuckerberg cut RL’s spending.

TJMBeav

Revenue of $20B, $14.4B debt, FCF $2.2B Buy it

TJMBeav

Data center problems with power are just now starting to bite. Why do you think they all just raised capital? They are getting to close to being FCF negative

TheDonFulio

My math doesn’t make sense? Why? Because it doesn’t fit your narrative? 2020 12.87 billion (15.2%) 2021 15.8 billion (22.67%) 2022 17.61 billion (11.54%) 2023 19.41 billion (10.24%) 2024 21.51 billion (10.8%) 2026 projected 25.87 billion (9.21%). Your math skills are severely lacking or you’re saying bullshit because of your bias. That’s deceleration of 30-50% with revenue over the last five years. In regard to free cash flow—did you even check the financial statement? You can clearly see net income jumped from unusual items. It’s a crazy outlier from the previous years which explains the “FCF growth” if you normalize it like any sane investor would. Then no-they did not grow FCF at 47% Lastly, spending all their FCF on buybacks with deceleration is ADBEs management waving the white flag. They spent 12 billion on stock buybacks with 5 billion SBC adjusted free cash flow. What the actual F? That’s more than double what they make. That won’t continue. Plus, buying back 20% of stock over the next 2 years is 10% returns a year. Which brings me back to the point. Buy the SP500 for the same or better returns with much much less risk.

NVDA_Gaped_Me

That recovery is dependent on Zuck not blowing through all their FCF on projects that aren't proven returns on investment.

TheMarketMenace

-45% YoY quarterly revenue growth -139.61% Profit Margin -25.59% operating margin (ttm) -1.98B operating FCF these are just some things I noticed at a quick glance. it looks like they need a hail mary miracle at this point.

dbasea

Looks more like a repricing of leverage and rate risk as Oracle front loads AI capex with thinner near term FCF and Cerner drag, so watch FCF-to-interest, net leverage, the maturity ladder, and CDS vs peers to judge crack vs cycle noise; you can find more at mr-profit com.

Glittering_Water3645

Nvidia have a good estimated EPS growth for next year but that will decline fast in the coming years. AMD is projected to accelerate their growth and surpass nvidia in growth from mid-2026. AMD is cheaper in forward PE and PEG for earnings from 2027 and onwards. TSM is traded higher in terms of PEG because they have a lower current valuation (higher OCF and FCF yield) and also deliver to broadcom and google, which makes it a less volatile investment. If broadcom or google takes market share from nvidia and AMD then TSM still wins.

jubilantBeatbox

# Financial Health & Ratios Based on the most recent financial data available (as of **November 14, 2024**, Yahoo Finance and Simply Wall St): || || |Metric|Value (as of Nov 2024)| |**Market Cap**|\~$9.11M (intraday)| |**Enterprise Value (EV)**|$6.48M| |**Cash on Hand (mrq)**|$3.43M| |**Current Assets vs. Liabilities**|Not fully disclosed, but short-term assets exceed liabilities per WallStreetZen \[July 24, 2025\]| |**Long-term Debt**|Not disclosed; Debt/Equity ratio not available| |**Debt-to-Equity Ratio**|Not available (marked as "--")| |**Interest Expense**|Not disclosed| |**EPS (TTM)**|**-$1.82**| |**Return on Equity (ROE)**|**-1,191.73%**| |**Net Margin**|**-47.28%**| |**Book Value**|Not available| |**Market-cap-to-cash ratio**|\~2.66x ($9.11M / $3.43M)| |**Annual Cash Burn**|\~$4.51M (Levered FCF TTM)| |**Estimated Cash Runway**|\~9–10 months (based on $3.43M cash and \~$4.51M annual burn)| The company is **not profitable**, with negative EPS and ROE, and has **missed earnings expectations** in multiple recent quarters (Q1, Q3 2025). The **forecast breakeven date has been pushed back to 2027** \[Simply Wall St, Oct 5, 2024\], and there are **going-concern warnings** implied by negative equity and cash burn.

jubilantBeatbox

# Financial Health & Ratios Based on the most recent financial data available (as of **November 14, 2024**, Yahoo Finance and Simply Wall St): || || |Metric|Value (as of Nov 2024)| |**Market Cap**|\~$9.11M (intraday)| |**Enterprise Value (EV)**|$6.48M| |**Cash on Hand (mrq)**|$3.43M| |**Current Assets vs. Liabilities**|Not fully disclosed, but short-term assets exceed liabilities per WallStreetZen \[July 24, 2025\]| |**Long-term Debt**|Not disclosed; Debt/Equity ratio not available| |**Debt-to-Equity Ratio**|Not available (marked as "--")| |**Interest Expense**|Not disclosed| |**EPS (TTM)**|**-$1.82**| |**Return on Equity (ROE)**|**-1,191.73%**| |**Net Margin**|**-47.28%**| |**Book Value**|Not available| |**Market-cap-to-cash ratio**|\~2.66x ($9.11M / $3.43M)| |**Annual Cash Burn**|\~$4.51M (Levered FCF TTM)| |**Estimated Cash Runway**|\~9–10 months (based on $3.43M cash and \~$4.51M annual burn)| The company is **not profitable**, with negative EPS and ROE, and has **missed earnings expectations** in multiple recent quarters (Q1, Q3 2025). The **forecast breakeven date has been pushed back to 2027** \[Simply Wall St, Oct 5, 2024\], and there are **going-concern warnings** implied by negative equity and cash burn.

No-Doctor9742

its not contracting revenue they are growing while trashing the donuts in grocery store regardation … they are growing. FCF positive and can manage their debt. They arent absolutely crushing it - but they shouldnt be sub 7x ‘26 FCF. There ya go^

Upstairs_Whole_580

Well, I don't know how long they can sustain it, but they're going to have a MONSTER year next year. They'll have 250B+ in FCF in F'27. At THAT point, there has to be more of a return on investment or at least we have to be moving closer to one outside of just AMZN, MSFT, and GOOGL. I'd say the next decade of AAPL is safer. The next Decade of NVDA has more upside and more downside(much more of both). But the next \~18 months... that should easily be NVDA.

kaapooj

Boeing sees FCF 'closer to' 2B Boeing CFO says $10B long-term cash goal attainable Boeing CFO sess recovery 'in full force' BA +3.25% in the last 2 minutes lol

GringottsWizardBank

Because they are going to implement Gemini and they didn’t have to blow through years of FCF to do it.

synthetic350

AAPL’s FCF has been stagnating for like 16 quarters yet still hitting ATH’s

GringottsWizardBank

More like Apple doesn’t want to blow through years of FCF to do what its business partner, GOOG, is already doing. I love how it’s bearish sentiment for a company to not spend $100$+ building out infrastructure with no obvious ROI.

barrybadhoer

I was about to say, cormedix is criminally undervalued with a EV/FCF of like 3-4 and a rapidly growing business. One of my biggest holdings

nickpapa88

I get the concern, but I think the competitive picture is more nuanced. Lilly’s drugs may show stronger efficacy on some metrics, but the GLP-1 market isn’t winner-take-all — it’s supply-constrained, demand is global, and switching costs for patients are extremely sticky. Novo doesn’t need to be the best drug to compound; it just needs to continue being one of the two dominant suppliers in a market where demand massively exceeds capacity. As for pricing power and margins, those are determined by payers and regulators, not consumer choice, and both companies are still negotiating from a position of strength. Growth is slowing from extraordinary to normal, but FCF, margins, and global penetration still support long-term compounding. Being first to scale — not just first to market — is a moat that doesn’t decay nearly as fast as people assume. Either way you don’t “print cash” on stock price — stock is associated with sentiment and hype. The core finances prove that novo is a financial stalwart even if you personally like their competition better.

mdatwood

One of NVDA's biggest customers is OpenAI who has ~1.4T in total commitments lined up. There is a real question if OpenAI will be able to satisfy all its commitments and therein lies one of the big risks to NVDA. MS, Google, and Amazon are less likely to back out, but if the FCF spend does not start to generate real returns, shareholders will start demanding the money go elsewhere. Also, NVDA is not talking about 500B in AR, but expected orders or as their CFO was quoted "visibility on $500 billion in revenue from the beginning of the year to the end of 2026" [1]. Honestly, this feels a bit like trying too hard to keep the stock propped up with weasel words. I say all this as someone who is fairly bullish on AI overall, but it's hard to ignore that NVDA is riding a knifes edge. [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nvidia-reports-strong-guidance-ai-220009255.html

himynameis_

Ya know. It's fair to say that yes, ASICs are doing different things from Nvidia GPUs and CUDA. However. It is already a customer concentration risk for Nvidia that a big majority of their revenue is from 5 customers. And also that 3 of those xustomers, (AWS, google, Microsoft) are actively developing their own chips to reduce reliance on Nvidia. Not only that. There was a financial Times article recently showing that 39% of Microsoft cloud backlog is for OpenAI, 58% for Oracle, and 16% for Amazon. So, it just seems a bit chunk of the spend on Nvidia chips is going to OpenAI somehow. And anthropic is probably 2nd place. So, my concern is. The customer concentration, plus customer making their own chips, plus a big chunk of cloud customer demand being OpenAI/Anthropic...there's just a lot of concentration there. And, if OpenAI implodes due to all the commitments they're making, it would put some hurt into Nvidia short-term. However. Forward estimates suggest that forward PE for Nvidia is ~26. Which is quite low for something like Nvidia that is firing on all cylinders. They have purchase commitments for $500B for Blackwell+Rubin. I believe it was over 5 quarters but someone on Reddit said 2 years. Either way, assuming TTM FCF margin that's ~$200B in FCF for 1 year, roughly. Up from the ~$70B range in TTM. It's just... Nvidia needs to execute right now and they're firing on all cylinders. But there's risks here imo. Not sure how you're getting the $260 and $210 numbers.

Macready123

They are all crappy compared to PM miners that actually make money, look at their FCF. In U land, $CCJ as the poster child is insanely expensive already. I do like Uranium though.

Doctor_Raymos

What are you talking about? Hyperscalers have explicitly stated they do not fund capex through FCF alone. They also fund it through existing operating cash flow, which is extremely stable. Hyperscaler FCF fluctuates quarter to quarter because these companies choose to invest aggressively, not because cash generation is weakening. These firms do not need consistently flat FCF to maintain high capex, and they never have.

Monkey_1505

The question isn't whether FCF is a one off pool of money, it's whether it's being replenished at a rate that is => than spend. It currently isn't. I'd certainly be interesting in the AI specific capex numbers if you have them? (Note, it being often mixed together I think is actually usually for making the argument more favourable for sustainability, due to non-ai historical expansion)

Doctor_Raymos

Hyperscaler FCF is not a one-off pool of money, they run capex cycles that grow, not shrink. The idea that they "run out" in 1-2 years misunderstands how hyperscalers budget. That 300B is an indicator you are just regurgitating what you hear, because it is the total hyperscaler capex across ALL infrastructure. Only a fraction of it is related to Nvidia. Capex also does not vanish next year. Again, total capex has increased over the past 10 years, not decreased. Every company involved says explicitly this is a multi-year investment cycle. Not a single one suggests it stops in 2026. The idea that spending falls off a cliff contradicts every single earnings call. Beyond this, Nvidia is actively diversifying beyond hyperscalers and dependence is shrinking, not growing. Even if AI demand stayed flat (it isn't), Nvidia is already properly diversified to give ample parachute to leverage revenue lost from hyperscalers.

Monkey_1505

Well if we are talking Nvidia, revenues primarily come from finite, quickly depleting hyperscaler FCF. Which is likely the much bigger issue than revenue padding. I tend to think the depreciation argument is supportive rather than primary.

JesusBoughtPuts

Everyone who trades Micron off trailing FCF misses the entire upcycle. it’s been the same story for 20 years. Good luck with your investing

Hot-Fox-8797

Sector allocation: FCF yield. Cash doesn’t lie Early warning sign: very sector dependent. there are lots. Aside from obvious ones like wage growth unemployment sentiment etc. following credit card data can be helpful

Hot-Fox-8797

No generally you don’t collab with other PMs unless it’s some sort of cross over name across sectors. Credit and equity have a lot of the same underwriting but there are differences. Equity focuses more on things like growth/margins while credit focuses on balance sheet, FCF, interest coverage, etc. generally speaking. But the more general SWOT/porter 5 forces the same type of thinking

OrdinaryReasonable63

NICE has become an uncomfortably large position for me after the most recent drop. I was kind of shocked at the drop, on heavy selling volume. seemed like a big over reaction or possibly non-public info being traded upon... The firm they acquired (Cognigy’s) financials weren’t disclosed but I assume its cash burn can’t be that bad if they are guiding for the acquisition to be accretive to their FCF within 18mo. Would be helpful to see some insider buys from execs…

DoobsNDeeps

Growth is simple, invest until growth starts to slow or margins start to slip. Value is easy as well, find the highest FCF yield stock that will still exist in its current form 10 years from now.

Hot-Fox-8797

We’re so big that the asset allocation stays pretty stable. Exception being growing asset classes growing like private credit etc. But high level stock vs bond pretty stable. I think hy bonds look good compared to stocks currently when looking at HY bonds YTW vs a lot of stocks FCF yields

Morely7385

You should, Build a tight weekly workflow that screens, reads filings, and tracks catalysts, not headlines. Screen small/mid caps for 15%+ revenue growth, rising FCF, gross margin expansion, net debt/EBITDA <2, SBC <10% of sales, and >$1M avg daily dollar volume; add 3–6 month relative strength. Use WhaleWisdom for new 13F positions, OpenInsider for cluster buys, and TradingView alerts for earnings, guidance, and 52‑week highs. Read 10-K/10-Q/20-F for liquidity, S-3/ATM dilution, and cash runway. I use Koyfin for factor screens and Quartr for quick call listening; Ask Edgar helps me speed-read filings and flag dilution. Tag FX and ADR details, set a USD base, and cap risk at 0.5–1% with stops. Simple, repeatable process and risk rules win.

Morely7385

Okay here is a word, If China risk is blocking you from adding, it’s reasonable to rotate-but cap META size and stage the move. I dumped BABA/KWEB in 2022, kept a token Tencent stake, and redeployed into META/GOOG over a few months; no regrets because I slept better and had clearer catalysts. If I were OP: 1) exit JD unless you see a hard catalyst (logistics spin, sustained margin expansion); 2) trim Tencent, keep a 1–2% “tracker” to stay engaged; 3) DCA META in 4–6 tranches, and set a max position (10–15%). Pair META with GOOG or AMZN to avoid single-name risk. Wash sale isn’t an issue here, but use the realized loss to offset gains. Define your sell rules now: if META’s ad growth or engagement rolls over or capex/Reality Labs overwhelms FCF, you cut. I lean Tencent-over-JD if you must hold China (WeChat ads, games, mini-programs), but rotating with size limits is the cleaner path.

RiPFrozone

My mistake. QoQ is really a useless metric when valuing a company long term. The YOY growth is explosive FCF was up 47%, AI revenue up 63%, net revenue up 22%. Fourth quarter guidance is 17.4b. Investors also love how the VMware acquisition created a near 50/50 split in revenue from software + semiconductor. This makes the company more resilient to the cyclicality of the semiconductor industry. Now with the meta google TPU news, that’s a new catalyst for Broadcom.

dont_downvote_SPECIL

My $400 price objective for Broadcom is based on 37x CY26E P/E, at the upper end of its 10x-38x historical range, still in-line with 1x-2x PEG framework for high-growth compute vendors, and justified given double-digit EPS growth and best-in-semis profitability, FCF generation, and returns.

RiPFrozone

For one they did 63b in revenue 29.5b in FCF this year. Projected to do 85b revenue 42.4b in FCF 2026, 113b in revenue 57.5b in fcf 2027.

thenuttyhazlenut

When you start using 'forward PE' constantly in your arguments, you know you're trying to justify buy/holding at a high valuation. The market is forward looking, sure. But let's focus on what is. Promises and expectations are baked into forward valuations, and those are always uncertain. A lot can change in 12 months. The past 12 months is proof of that. PLTR is currently trading at over 200x FCF. NVDA at over 50x FCF. One industry is moving the entire S&P500 to the point where the S&P depends on it. Being bearish doesn't mean you're 100% cash or buying puts. I'm pretty bearish, and hold a % of my portfolio in defensives and bonds. Refusing to buy companies at super high valuations is exactly what people like Buffett did for the past decades....

ImprovementMain7109

This reads like the classic mature-hardware playbook: cut heads, talk about "efficiency," guide EPS a bit lower than the Street, and hope multiple compression does not get worse. A few things jump out: First, if they are cutting 4k-6k jobs on a base of roughly 50-60k employees, that is high single digit percent of the workforce. You do not do that if you think this is just a short, cyclical wobble in PC/printer demand. That is a structural signal, not a timing signal. Second, the fact that they are lowering 2026 EPS *despite* cost cuts tells you more than the press release spin. When management is actively reducing the denominator (employees) and still cannot hit prior EPS expectations, it implies they see either weaker pricing power, lower volumes, or sustained higher costs from regulation and supply chain workarounds. Probably some mix of all three. Third, on the "regulations" angle. Blaming US trade rules and China-related workarounds is not crazy, that stuff really does raise frictional costs. But it is also a very convenient story to avoid saying "our legacy businesses are commoditized and under competitive pressure." I would want to see how their gross margin trajectory compares to peers like Dell and Lenovo before I buy the idea that this is mostly about government policy rather than industry structure. From an investing lens, HP at this stage is basically a capital return / financial engineering story, not a growth story. You are underwriting: 1) Flat to slightly declining revenues in PCs/printers over time. 2) Management defending margins with periodic cost programs like this. 3) Free cash flow shoveled into buybacks and dividends so your per-share numbers look respectable even if the top line is stagnant. That can work as a thesis if you are buying at a low enough multiple. Cash cows can be good investments. The risk is that you model a "slow fade" and reality turns into a "faster fade." If unit volumes or pricing erode a few points faster than you baked in, the terminal value that justifies your current purchase can evaporate quietly over a few years. One thing I would watch: how aggressive they get on buybacks relative to the balance sheet and the cycling of the PC market. HP has a history of leaning pretty hard on repurchases. In a structurally challenged business, that is fine as long as leverage does not creep up just as the industry hits another downdraft. I am not saying HP is uninvestable. It can be a reasonable value / yield play if you accept what it is. But reading this, it reinforces the idea that you are not buying "PC growth" or "AI PC upside". You are buying a managed decline where the game is extracting cash faster than the business decays. Curious if anyone here has updated numbers on HPQ's current FCF yield and net leverage, and how that stacks against Dell on a like-for-like basis. That seems like the real comparison set for this kind of news.

LEAP-er

GOOG is highly profitable, huge and growing nicely FCF, with significant momentum and positive narrative behind it currently. Not the best put or short option.

fredfred547

As someone who works in B4 accounting, extending depreciation cycles isn’t fraud. This isn’t even unusual; I’ve seen it personally in other industries. 2 things: 1. There is a fair amount of thought/consideration that goes into these extensions. There has to be a basis for doing this. 2. Companies rarely use net income as a KPI. Extending depreciable life does increase earnings, but only from a net income perspective. Most companies and investors are using adjusted EBITDA (or some variation of this/FCF). Extending depreciable lives has no impact on these metrics, and therefore, has very minimal impact on investor decision making and valuation.

microcapman

Huh? FCF is getting a nice boost from under-taxation. I'm getting 5-6 years of tax shelter based on $240M of deferred tax asset which corresponds to almost $1.0B in future pre-tax income that can be sheltered and using 2025 YTD pre-tax run rate. So what re-working is required before 2030?

Hot-Celebration5855

Like I said, I’ve seen this movie before. Look at Amazon. They never made a profit for years because they ploughed all their FCF into building out their physical and digital infrastructure. Now they make billions in profit since they’ve decided to start monetising it all. I think AI will be the same but we can agree to disagree.

not_totally

What’s your basis for that? Just feelings and round numbers? Or you have any investing basis on things like ev ebitda or FCF or just even compute expansion?

Hot-Celebration5855

None of these companies is even sniffing financial distress. They all have legacy businesses that generate billions in FCF. They can fund this kind of capex for years if necessary

jackflash223

I don't see how Ubisoft is worth owning right now. They have no FCF. If they live up to their guidance it looks like around 2027 it may actually be worth buying.

GringottsWizardBank

As they grow they are going to need to spend more and more to keep up with demand. Either by diluting again or taking on debt like CRWV. Where does profitability come into play? Revenue and growth are great and all but at some point it needs to translate in FCF and profit.

JimmyInvestor

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.

Masterandcomman

If you define FCF by deducting all capex, then yes.

Much_Candle_942

Can't believe my eyes.. $TDOC - price/sales 0.5, and FCF at juicy 20%! Saw a tiny insider volume today, and wondering why the insider isn't buying more?  🤔 

Much_Candle_942

You need a few (max. 10) small caps that can yield a fantastic bumper, but with a very ruthless stop loss. If they don't jump, just say Goodbye and move on. Today, I just saw **$TDOC** that had a tiny insider buy volume. It's FCF ratio is very, very good, and personally I like the business model of remote healthcare.  It's just an example, but a few such companies can really skew your returns.

truedog1528

Focus on total return and set hard rules so a few high-yield names can’t wreck your principal. What helped me after a big drawdown: cap any single risky dividend name to 2–3% and the whole “yield” sleeve to \~10–15%. Use clear sell triggers: dividend cut, FCF payout >85–90%, net debt/EBITDA creeping past \~3–4, or interest coverage slipping below \~3. Track IRR, not just dividends; if total return lags T‑bills for 4–6 quarters, rotate. For steadier income, I keep a core in SCHD/JEPI and park near-term cash in T‑bills or short-term Treasuries. If your loan rate is high, paying it down is a near risk-free return; I’d prioritize that over adding more high-risk yield. If taxable, harvest the loss to offset gains and up to $3k ordinary income. I screen in Koyfin, sanity‑check payout risk with Simply Safe Dividends, and use Ask Edgar to quickly pull debt terms and red flags from filings and transcripts. Bottom line: judge by total return and enforce risk limits, not headline yield.