FCF

explorer_soul99

Consumer defensive screening: | Stock | Market Cap | ROE | EV/EBITDA | FCF Yield | |:--|:--|:--|:--|:--| | PG | $332B | 32.1% | 14.4x | 4.5% | | TGT | $48B | 24.9% | 7.6x | 6.3% | | SFM | $7.5B | 38.0% | 11.0x | 6.1% | | USFD | $17B | 12.2% | 15.7x | 5.8% | | FLO | $2.3B | 13.7% | 8.9x | 14.4% | **Your picks ranked by value metrics:** 1. **SFM (Sprouts)** - Best combo: 38% ROE, 11x EV/EBITDA, 6.1% FCF yield. Health-focused grocery niche. 2. **TGT (Target)** - 24.9% ROE at 7.6x EV/EBITDA is interesting. Beaten down from 2022 highs. Risk: Walmart competition. 3. **FLO (Flowers Foods)** - 14.4% FCF yield at 8.9x EV/EBITDA. Bread/bakery is stable but low growth. 4. **USFD** - Food distribution. Lower ROE (12.2%) but steady business. 5. **PG** - Quality compounder but 14.4x isn't "undervalued" - it's fairly valued for a blue chip. **Screen criteria for defensives:** - ROE > 15% - EV/EBITDA < 12x - Positive FCF yield SFM hits all three and has growth optionality (health/organic trend).

Mountain_Phone1002

Even with all competition it generated tons of FCF.

Friendly-Excuse400

I just looked at GIS. Nicely profitable with significant FCF. Net debt to EBITDA not ridiculous at 3.7x and they have been paying down. Decent dividend at 5.5% which I think is safe. Should hold up well if we go into a recession. I like it and added to my watchlist to consider buying. I think long term, it could retrace to $70ish range so about 50% upside potential.

ritholtz76

How are the valuations (future EPS and FCF Yield)?

FiduciaryArchitect

Excellent analysis OP! SNDL is totally undervalued in the current market. I believe this will be a transformative year with rescheduling, FCF growth and recent acquisitions like 1CM coming to fruition.

Inside_Tour_1408

It's a more a mix of peak rigidity in the UK housing market - which as I've mentioned has signs of being alleviated and a recent announcement for £60million invested in AI between 2026-28 This personally doesn't concern me given the company has a strong track record of rising FCF and paying off debt They currently have only £5mil debt with £40mil+ in cash Perhaps if they were to allocate their AI capital very poorly this could be a problem but I also think this can be offset from higher ad revenues Sources vary but the lowest estimates say 70% of their revenue comes from advertising so a strong lift in that could have a very positive affect It's also a monopoly for UK property websites

Inside_Tour_1408

Rightmove - largest property website in the UK, trades at 19 P/E, rising FCF and falling debt over past 5 years and counting, rejected a takeover bid with 50% upside and UK renters rights act will drive lots of eyeballs to site when minimum tenancies are scrapped in May this year

explorer_soul99

**Key Metrics (Private Prison Operators)** | Metric | GEO | CXW | |:--|:--|:--| | Market Cap | $2.4B | $2.2B | | ROE | 6.5% | 7.4% | | ROA | 2.4% | 3.5% | | EV/EBITDA | 9.2x | 9.5x | **Income Statement (TTM)** | Metric | GEO | CXW | |:--|:--|:--| | Revenue | $2.45B | $2.09B | | Op Income | $280M | $240M | | Gross Margin | 80.6% | 23.7% | | Op Margin | 11.6% | 11.3% | **Cash Flow (TTM)** | Metric | GEO | CXW | |:--|:--|:--| | Operating CF | $240M | $230M | | Free Cash Flow | $130M | $210M | Both trade at similar valuations (~9x EV/EBITDA) with similar ROE (6-7%). GEO has higher gross margin (80.6%) but CXW generates more FCF ($210M vs $130M). The ICE contract risk is real. these are essentially government contractors with political risk. At 6-7% ROE, you're not getting paid much for the headline risk. If you want the sector, CXW's better FCF conversion provides more margin of safety.

explorer_soul99

**Key Metrics (GLP-1 Leaders)** | Metric | NVO | LLY | |:--|:--|:--| | Market Cap | $1,695B | $955B | | ROE | **77.9%** | 102.3% | | ROA | **23.0%** | 16.0% | | EV/EBITDA | **11.5x** | 39.1x | **Income Statement (TTM)** | Metric | NVO | LLY | |:--|:--|:--| | Revenue | $315.6B | $59.4B | | Op Income | $132.7B | $26.1B | | Gross Margin | 82.0% | 83.0% | | Op Margin | **42.0%** | **43.9%** | **Cash Flow (TTM)** | Metric | NVO | LLY | |:--|:--|:--| | Operating CF | $123.8B | $16.1B | | Free Cash Flow | **$62.7B** | $9.0B | NVO vs LLY comes down to valuation: - **NVO:** 11.5x EV/EBITDA, $62.7B FCF, 42% op margin - **LLY:** 39.1x EV/EBITDA, $9.0B FCF, 44% op margin LLY trades at 3.4x NVO's multiple despite similar margins. NVO's recent drop (oral GLP-1 concerns) created a valuation gap. **OZEM ETF** dilutes exposure across the value chain. If you're bullish GLP-1, concentrated positions in NVO (cheaper) or LLY (momentum) outperform diversified ETF. OZEM makes sense only if you can't pick between them.

analbuttlick

My god so many posts about MSFT. Their PE ratio is 32. Their price to FCF is 44. Their P/S is 12. Compared to historical averages of MSFT these valuations are high as fuck. Now you can argue they have transitioned into Cloud and AI, that will boost their revenue, but how much will it boost it with? How much growth are you expecting to justify those valuations? And how much do you think they will have to grow to be valued fairly?

melvinzee

They still have loads of cash, and FCF has been increasing despite these wasteful capex investments. Zuck seemed to think the Metaverse will be a thing and he failed, it was not make or break but it hurt. now he's moved on to what he thinks will be the next big thing. Innovation barely happens if companies don't take risks with their capital and just hoard it.

music_is_gud

Their earnings from ads are still super strong. I don't see earnings contractions in the near future. The capex may affect their FCF but meh, they can justify it as a long term plan. My PT for META is high 700s, I'm playing this as a long term hold 6-12 months

pink_ego_box

Yeah they were FCF positive when they had very low upfront development costs (everybody taking the same courses). Now it will be very different and they'll burn through their cash. It's a very recent change. Just wait for Q4 earnings and see.

Marko-2091

lol? This is a very regarded take. They have been FCF positive for a long time. They have steadily building their cash reserves. I am not saying this should trade at 500 but come on this is false.

DrElkSnout

You are. You see correlation of share price to metals spot price, not the stock price as a result of real earnings prints. The correlation you are witnessing now is the \*expectation of earnings\*, but the actual prints will dramatically alter the value of the underlying security. It's one thing to be able to say that you've calculated 'at $X/oz, company Y should be worth $Z/share', but it's quite another thing for FCF to actually exist in the real world and for those companies to be insanely profitable and have the ability to reinvest those funds, or pay out to shareholders depending on the company. You're not wrong that the spot price at earnings time will affect price, but this is not a 1:1 correlation. Earnings matter. The earnings prints will be enormous. Institutions like that, and what they do not like, is to miss out on the party. The stock prices of the majors will reflect an enormous rise in metals prices even beyond the daily spot as the future of our world shifts technologically toward a more advanced civilization. And please remember that the AI race has nothing to do with ordering a burger at a fast food chain - it is an ARMS race, and America is Hell bent on winning. For that reality to unfold, we need metals and rare earths. Good luck.

Jehoopaloopa

Not sure but the silver miners still haven’t caught up to the current silver price. Their FCF will be huge

callmecrude

I’m a buyer of PYPL anytime it drops below $60. A 10% FCF yield for a business that is expanding margins, growing revenue, has zero net debt, and is trading at a PE of 11 is just too attractive to pass up. There literally isn’t a single other company in the entire US stock market trading at those kinds of metrics.

explorer_soul99

let's add context to those CapEx numbers. Here's the full picture with TTM data (through Q3 2025): **Mag 7 CapEx Ranking (TTM):** | Rank | Ticker | CapEx (TTM) | OCF (TTM) | FCF (TTM) | CapEx/OCF | Business Model | |:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--| | 1 | AMZN | $120.1B | $130.7B | $10.6B | **92%** | AWS + logistics | | 2 | GOOGL | $77.9B | $151.4B | $73.6B | 51% | Data centers for AI | | 3 | MSFT | $69.0B | $147.0B | $78.0B | 47% | Azure + AI infrastructure | | 4 | META | $62.7B | $107.6B | $44.8B | 58% | AI, VR, data centers | | 5 | AAPL | $12.7B | $111.5B | $98.8B | **11%** | Asset-light (outsourced mfg) | | 6 | TSLA | $8.9B | $15.7B | $6.8B | 57% | Gigafactories + charging | | 7 | NVDA | $5.8B | $83.2B | $77.3B | **7%** | Fabless (TSMC makes chips) | **Who's Getting Bang for Buck?** **Best:** **NVDA** and **AAPL** - NVDA spends $5.8B, generates $77.3B FCF = **13.3x FCF/CapEx ratio**. They're fabless, so TSMC bears the capital burden. - AAPL spends $12.7B, generates $98.8B FCF = **7.8x ratio**. Outsourced manufacturing = capital efficiency. **Middle:** **MSFT** and **GOOGL** - Both spending heavily on AI data centers (~50% of OCF). This is a land grab—if AI scales, the ROI is massive. If AI fades, they're stuck with depreciating assets. **Worst:** **AMZN** - Spending $120B (92% of OCF!) on logistics + AWS. This is a **low-margin, high-CapEx** business. FCF is only $10.6B after CapEx. If AWS slows, AMZN is in trouble. **Your Question - "Is this for data centers?"** **AMZN:** 60% logistics (warehouses, trucks, planes), 40% AWS data centers. **GOOGL/MSFT/META:** 80-90% data centers (AI training, cloud compute). **Investment Implications:** - **If you believe AI scales:** GOOGL/MSFT are building moats (CapEx now = market share later). - **If you're skeptical:** AAPL/NVDA are safer (capital-light, generate cash without heavy reinvestment). - **AMZN is a red flag:** $120B CapEx for $10B FCF is unsustainable. They need AWS to accelerate or retail margins to improve. **Bull (for CapEx-heavy):** AI infrastructure = future monopoly **Bear:** Overbuilding, excess capacity, low ROI on $500B cumulative spend My ranking: **NVDA > AAPL > MSFT > GOOGL > META > TSLA > AMZN** (on capital efficiency).

explorer_soul99

"Apple Intelligence" outsourcing to Google is a massive narrative shift, but let's check if fundamentals support your thesis: **GOOGL vs AAPL - TTM Comparison:** | Metric | GOOGL | AAPL | |--------|-------|------| | Market Cap | $3.97T | $3.83T | | YTD Return | +73.4% | +6.4% | | P/E Ratio | 32.0x | 34.6x | | FCF Yield | 1.9% | 2.6% | | ROE | 35.0% | 164.0% | | Analyst Rating | Buy (67/81 analysts) | Buy (67/109 analysts) | **Your Thesis - Reality Check:** 1. **"GOOGL owns AI for entire mobile world"** - TRUE. Gemini powering iOS Siri (rumored $1B+ deal) gives Google data moat + revenue from both platforms. But... Apple historically pays for services (see $20B/year to Google for search). This isn't new; it's scale. 2. **"Apple Services margins take a hit"** - MAYBE. Apple's Services segment has 71% gross margins. Even a $1-2B Gemini tax is ~1-2% of Services revenue ($85B TTM). Not material unless usage explodes. 3. **"GOOGL calls for iPhone 17 cycle"** - DATA SAYS YES. GOOGL is up 73% YTD vs AAPL's 6%. Market already sees this. But GOOGL trades at P/E 32x (slight discount to AAPL's 35x), so some room left. **Reality:** - AAPL is NOT just a "luxury hardware wrapper." Services + Ecosystem lock-in = 164% ROE (highest of Mag 7). They're a cash-printing machine. - GOOGL benefits from AI dominance, but faces antitrust risk (DOJ search monopoly case). **Trade:** GOOGL momentum looks strong (+73% YTD), but I'd ladder in vs YOLO calls. For AAPL puts, you're betting against $99B FCF/year and 164% ROE—gutsy. **Bull GOOGL:** AI infrastructure leader, data moat, cheaper than AAPL on P/E **Bear AAPL:** Services growth slowing, AI outsourced, China risk I'd play a **paired trade** (long GOOGL, underweight AAPL) rather than naked puts on Cook's ego.

DrElkSnout

No one is late cycle yet. The miners haven't reported earnings with the absolutely parabolic rise in metals. Plus, oil / fuel / energy costs are very low right now, so mining costs (AISC, etc.) are basically flat from last few earnings reports. The smart miners like CDE are using this time and record FCF to buy new mines. There is a LOT of upward momentum here and multi-billion dollar deals between companies like Coeur Mining and New Gold and even companies like Rio Tinto and Glencore show that metals is the play right now. FWIW I'm heavily invested in metals, rare earths, oil and nuclear energy.

TimeInTheMarketWins

I like FactSet (FDS) because it is a highly durable, cash-generative business with a most due to its essential workflow integrations for clients. It generates recurring subscription revenue with ~95% ASV retention, operates at a ~35% operating margin and 25% net margin, and produced ~$617M of free cash flow on $2.32B of FY2025 revenue. The company also demonstrates a great ROIC, at roughly 20% it is well above its ~8.3% WACC. What makes it especially attractive to me is valuation and capital return: the stock trades around ~18× earnings and ~17× free cash flow despite FY2025 EPS growing 11.8% to $15.55, implying a ~6% FCF yield. That cash supports a 25+ year dividend growth streak with a ~26% FCF payout ratio and an expanded $1B buyback authorization. If I had the $11 billion needed to buy out the business based on its current market cap, I would in a heartbeat!

Disastrous_Rent_6500

Um, it’s pretty simple. Just buy companies with mountains of cash/FCF, stable revenue during a recession or war, and chill. Big dips are just buying opportunities anyways. Since I’m in energy, a more conflicts just increases the profitability of my shipping stocks so I’m good either way

dvdmovie1

"This is not a growth story. Equity upside requires only EBITDA stabilization, continued FCF generation, gradual deleveraging toward ~3x net leverage." Agree with this. Too many people frame these kinds of stories as "OMG you guyz this is such a great company and there is growth here that nobody gets but me." Petco isn't a great company. So many of the cat/dog food brands are the same brands you find at supermarkets. It isn't going to grow but - as a place to get other pets (fish, birds, whatever) and services (cat grooming, in-store vets) it's probably not going to grow much but it's not the zero the market is acting as if it is.

DrElkSnout

No one is listening but I'm going to keep saying it: The miners lag the metals prices. What you see in gold and silver has NOT yet been priced in. It's reflexive trading based on prices, but without earnings releases. The FCF from these companies is going to be bonkers. Oil prices are very low, so all in sustaining cost of mining is basically flatlined and metals are mooning. If you think you've missed this run, think again. Ignore or downvote IDGAF, but I made over 100% in my portfolio last year screaming from the rooftops that a metals supercycle was beginning and very few people listened. Now I'm telling you it's not over. Good luck.

Strange-Scene4110

To be called a retard for this among a group of retards means this is a good play this week. Anyone expecting instant increases in silver supply in response to a higher price are correct on most commodities, but they have no clue what they’re talking about as it relates to silver. China is putting export controls for silver, of which 70% of the global silver is refined in China. There is 5 years of ongoing annual supply deficits. Bullion banks are caught on the wrong end of the short position. Short covering in Q1, ongoing deficits, and global demand surges, are going to make miners today look extremely cheap by comparison. They’re already very underpriced relative to the price of the metal. Miners are waiting for another price surge to validate the recent rise above $50. Existing mines are mostly operating at capacity already, and new discoveries will take 10+ years to turn a project into a functioning mine. All the easy deposits have already been found and tapped. It’s essentially now mostly mined as a byproduct of other metals. The reason the price of silver cratered after all time highs in the past was because it was a pet rock. It didn’t have very much industrial demand, and the monetary demand has basically been nothing for 50 years after removing silver from the coinage. But now it’s eaten up by industry and thrown away. And simultaneously, the monetary use of it is making a global comeback. The “market cap” of silver is fake because it counts all silver ever mined. But the reality is it’s been so cheap for so long that industries have been built on the back of cheap silver. And it’s used in such small amounts in the components that it is not, and has not been, cost economical to recycle it. The estimates from the world gold council in 2025 suggest the actual above ground silver is 4x more scarce than physical gold. And silver continues to be eaten up and used in industry. The digital world NEEDS silver. Some use cases could swap to copper instead, but the majority of use cases cannot because silver is the most conductive element on the entire periodic table. It’s REQUIRED for high performance electronics, solar panels, batteries, chips, data centers, etc Any price dips will be eaten up by industry, or allow shorts to buy to cover. Both create barriers to a lower price. Not to mention the COMEX and LBMA have issued 300+ paper claims to each oz of physical silver they actually hold. And now that their vaults are being drained, they’re at risk of being exposed. Which would send the price stratospheric as the world races to secure silver. Gold miners compared to the spot price of gold are trading about 75% LOWER than the level prior to 2011. This means miners can 3X from here without any spot price increases, just to get to parity with previous cycles. Silver is even more extreme. Not financial advice, but most investors are oblivious to these miners who are outputting BILLIONS in FREE CASH FLOW, and they’re trading like they’re debt laden. Yet the AI bubble stocks are losing a billion a quarter 😂 I’m retarded, but not retarded enough to ignore the FCF beasts that are literally pulling money out of the ground. Not financial advice. https://preview.redd.it/wxko02vaoscg1.jpeg?width=1152&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5a1b024af563d2ba7726d3d3adaa336aeb68f795

mba23throwaway

I’m on mobile so formatting may be bad. Overall, they seem to be making the right moves. - Deleveraging and interest savings: They’re selling non-core assets to raise cash and pay down debt, and refinancing to reduce interest expense. Debt also overstated with how they have to mark leases on the BS. I don’t really count lease obligations as “debt” even if that’s how they have to be accounted. - Better-than-expected growth in higher-margin areas: Digital growth is outpacing expectations, and table games (not sports) are driving the upside, which should be margin-accretive. - Downside support: The real estate value exceeds the current market cap, providing tangible asset backing. This is a huge downside protection. I have their real estate worth like 4-5x of their market cap, conservatively assuming a sale-leaseback. - Capex cliff: Major capex rolled off in 2025, which should meaningfully increase free cash flow. - Cash flow vs. debt burden: By 2028, the FCF yield is projected to exceed the debt yield. I put a lot of weight on what the debt market is pricing, since lenders have to get paid. - Capital allocation: I have confidence in management and am comfortable with buybacks at these levels. In my view, the stock is a steal at anything below $30.

Weak-Pomegranate-435

Yes, below $200 all of the risk has been priced-in and they are 100% not going bankrupt they have their SAAS business customers already locked-in forever which will always generate FCF to pay off any debt overtime.

Hartmingo

Steady state margins for this company could probably be like 2014 Micros if not higher.. 15% FCF margins. McDonald’s/inspire would be huge catalysts if they get either

GringottsWizardBank

Wait so AAPL gets to use Gemini and they didn’t have blow through years of FCF to achieve it? They won lol. This isn’t defeat.

Much_Candle_942

ASTS has a competitor.. and it's trading at 16 PE, is profitable with good FCF and PS ratio of just 2. Guess which company is it?

i-love-you-sm

2nd profitable Q in a row for TLRY. They’re turning the corner here and soon will be FCF positive. Non-cash charges probably need to be explained better bc it is confusing some people

Mariox

1. Tesla is 1 step away from launching robotaxi without observers. They have at least 7 vehicles now driving in Austin without an observer but no paying passenger. Anyone can buy or test drive a Tesla to see if self driving with cameras work. Can't it will never happen, because is it currently happening. 2. robotics. There are a couple of companies testing humanoid robots but that is all. Maybe can count Amazon, but they don't have hands. They can only move things around. Tesla is currently working on their Optimus production line, something most every other robot maker don't have, they build them by hand. 3. Energy growth, auto sales, superchargers, services, lithium refining, battery production, semi production.... Elon has been to optimistic on timelines and the only thing Tesla has failed on has been solar roofs. But that happens with most companies when they are working on something very hard to do. Here is the advantage Tesla has over everyone else in robotaxi or robots. $42 billion in cash and no debt making $2 billion FCF a quarter. Everyone else has to spend a lot of time promoting their product, making promo videos to raise money and limit how fast they can spend money. You may not find much for bullish thesis around Tesla on reddit, you will find many haters here, try searching for videos on youtube and honestly consider what Tesla bulls are saying. Bulls spend a lot more time researching Tesla then bears do.

tachyonvelocity

Related to the theme of buying stocks with cheap P/FCF, when I bought WBD at $9, now sold at $28, CMCSA looks amazingly cheap here. Without TV networks, I can see CMCSA easily trading at $40, >4 EPS, <10x valuation. These deep value stocks can make you a lot of money. Just look at how AT&T went up 100% after spinning off WarnerBros for example.

The-zKR0N0S

Rocket Lab flips to FCF positive once Neutron starts flying

jarkon-anderslammer

Fair point—I should have accounted for that. You're right that Meta has roughly $30B off-book through the Beignet SPV with Blue Owl, on top of the ~$29B on-balance-sheet debt. That's a different picture than I painted. And Blue Owl specifically is having a rough go. Their stock is down 30%+ this year, they're the most shorted among private credit peers, they had to scrap a fund merger after it would have forced a 20% haircut on investors, and they're now facing class action lawsuits over allegedly hiding redemption pressures. The broader pattern is worth watching too—Oracle, Meta, xAI, and CoreWeave have collectively moved $120B+ off their balance sheets through SPVs. One analyst called the Meta/Blue Owl structure "off-balance-sheet gymnastics 24 years after Enron." The debt is rated A+ because it's effectively backstopped by Meta's residual value guarantee, but that means the risk sits with Meta even if it doesn't show up on their books. I still don't think Meta specifically is in trouble—$52B annual FCF covers a lot of sins—but the systemic point about private credit opacity is legitimate. If these SPV structures start showing stress across multiple lenders simultaneously, that's a different beast than individual company leverage.

DrElkSnout

The gold and silver miners are beginning to show robustness in spite of moderate price corrections in the metals prices themselves. Looks like someone is realizing that low oil prices combined with massive rallies in metals overall = low AISC and high FCF. In \~40 days we get earnings for a bunch of the big boys. I can't wait. Are you brave enough to hold?

ChiTownHoosier

TOST is the only fully vertical OS system taking over the restaurant industry quickly and quietly. Still widely misunderstood as just another POS/payments provider by investors and even some of TOSTs analysts, it’s shockingly undervalued. Having only reached GAAP profitability about a year ago it doesn’t screen well, but it’s nearing an inflection point. Without a proper re-valuation it would be trading at a PE in the low 20s by mid year this year - drastically lower than the current reported and misleading PE of 77. No debt and rapidly increasing margin/FCF. Net retention 110% (which doesn’t exclude closures) in an industry where business failure rate is so high means voluntary switching away from TOST is virtually non-existent. ‘Competitors’ are scrambling to look less like commodity POS they are and more like TOST - Clover (Fiserv) and Shift4 have both recently allocated major capital to risky acquisitions meant to try and offer more of a vertical solution resembling something more like TOST and Block entered into a clunky/complex partnership with Sysco recently for the same purpose. High growth, wonderful compounder quickly being recognized within an industry as the backbone you can’t live without (literally for many restaurants). And all of this without a mention of recent beginnings of international expansion and entry in to new industry markets. #TOST is best value you could possibly find out there - for the moment.

cbusoh66

Current valuations on the darlings like of RKLB (P/S over 70 with no profits) or ASTS which has no revenue and always behind schedule are just not sustainable. They may There are some growing space companies that still have some reasonable valuations, some suggested MDA Space but it's Canadian. RDW and LUNR are still reasonable (in comparison) and growing fast into space and national security defense. There are some legacy satellites companies but they're all struggling one way or the other mostly because of Starlink, GSAT has a deal with Apple but they're already over-valued based on their prospects. IRDM and VSAT have good defense units, IRDM has very good FCF. VSAT has an activist investor trying to spin off the defense unit. There are others like VOYG and FLY but not very good management. SATS is turning into a holding company after they sold off their spectrum and now own like 3% of SpaceX. Of course you could wait for SpaceX IPO but it's ridiculously overvalued as well considering all the smaller companies eating away at their business.

Coyote_Tex

Yes, you are exactly right. FCF is the most under-rated or overlooked measure by most investors. That is the key factor in the company growing and sustaining itself to grow more.

DJ_Mimosa

Also, trailing PE is highest ever, and forward PE is at a ceiling that it almost never surpasses. Don’t like PE and more of a FCF person? Also bad news, those yields are atrocious. I’m not calling for a crash, but can’t see forward returns being spectacular right now, not when SGOV is paying a safe 4.25%.

Belhross

APPS, digital turbine is the best positioned to benefit from the alternative app stores in 2026, google monopoly is coming to an end, and they will have great benefits from May 2026 onwards in terms of huge increase of ebitda QoQ and FCF. The impact of Singletap, their technology, will be enormous, but its just starting right now, they are poised to be the next Applovin

Cozyteammate

Growth is too slow to justify their valuation as attractive. Paying 37 P/E for 17% revenue growth is not cheap. It's expensive. Let's say using analyst estimates for earning growth throughout 2028: Looking forward at 2028, buying at current price: NFLX will have 24 P/E While other Mag 7 names in 2028: MSFT will have 19 P/E NVDA will have 18.5 P/E AMZN will have 20 P/E GOOG will have 21 P/E META will have 13.5 P/E You can't argue that NFLX moat is sticky Because moat of those 5 Mag7 names is as sticky as NFLX is, with much cheaper valuation compared to growth. You can use other metrics like P/FCF, EV/EBITDA, you would still get the same picture.

DrElkSnout

yes, it's wild. Long overdue though. There are going to be some bumps in the road, but gold will hit $5K and continue to climb and silver will go over $100/oz and eventually settle there. Keep in mind there are TONS of opportunities right now as the miners like CDE, NEM, HL and others earnings lag the metals rips. We are going to see some blow off tops for miners as FCF increases dramatically. Combine it with low oil prices and your AISC for mining are insane. There is a shitload of money to be made and I hope you're in on it for your sake. Good luck.

DocInABox33

>”it has no cash flows, it produces nothing” Could have sworn you were talking about US treasuries… BTC literally collateralizes loans (JPM literally is using it as collateral) and in third world countries it’s used to buy everyday items. It literally will have a finite supply (a company can dilute shareholders no matter how much FCF it generates). But sure keep telling yourself it’s just art and something to look at. There’s a reason the median 400k house costs only a few BTC when 5 years ago it cost hundreds of BTC IYKYK 🤷‍♂️

TimeInTheMarketWins

I like FactSet (FDS) because it is a highly durable, cash-generative business with a most due to its essential workflow integrations for clients. It generates recurring subscription revenue with ~95% ASV retention, operates at a ~35% operating margin and 25% net margin, and produced ~$617M of free cash flow on $2.32B of FY2025 revenue. The company also demonstrates a great ROIC, at roughly 20% it is well above its ~8.3% WACC. What makes it especially attractive to me is valuation and capital return: the stock trades around ~18× earnings and ~17× free cash flow despite FY2025 EPS growing 11.8% to $15.55, implying a ~6% FCF yield. That cash supports a 25+ year dividend growth streak with a ~26% FCF payout ratio and an expanded $1B buyback authorization. If I had the $11 billion needed to buy out the business based on its current market cap, I would in a heartbeat! If you want my full write up on the company DM me!

_hiddenscout

OSIS, GHM, ITT, FEIM, ATI, BELFB, MOG.A I own all these, haven't look at the current fundamentals, but basically all these are actually generating FCF.

_hiddenscout

One thing that has worked for me, is not worrying too much about how much something has run, as long as the fundamentals support the valuation. I think so interesting names to look into: TOITF, spin off from CSU. Software is getting killed since there is fears around AI. Since it spun off, some of the TTM numbers look larger, but should be a great long term compounder. THR - it's up 30% YoY so a bit over. They are a niche industrial play. Valuation isn't too bad and it's a play around onshoring/data centers. SYF - Also 30% YoY, however fundamentals are pretty cheap. Pays a little dividend. They do a ton of store credit cards, like the ones for Sam's Club and Gap. They also do the financing for some brands. PEGA - Enterprise software company that is seeing explosive growth in the cloud. Valuation isn't the worst, but seeing a lot of FCF growth because of the cloud growth. It's also reoccurring revenue. Like they saw around 35% YoY growth in FCF. For full year, they are forecasting 30%.

_hiddenscout

I'm so mixed on that one. Like I remember the DOGE stuff clearly impacting the defensive names, but knowing that will be a nothing burger. Even as a software engineer, not sure how I feel about software, however, valuation is compelling and it's cool to see the company generate FCF.

_hiddenscout

Oh totally, I've known the name for a bit, but never bought because of the valuation. However, valuation actually makes sense and the company is now generating FCF.

_hiddenscout

Anyone here follow PATH at all? Haven't really looked too much into them, but valuation doesn't seem too terrible at these levels and I think they profitable now and actually generating FCF. Kind of an interesting name.

throwawaybuythedip

Non gaap and FCF doesn’t mean anything when it’s just SBC rising Their net margins and gaap losses are the same and have shown zero improvement

Rich-Use1484

Fair point on deceleration—growth's slowed from 100%+ peaks to 23% YoY. Guidance is conservative (FY26 $1.001B, +22%; Q4 $271M, +20%), but they've beaten estimates consistently and raised intra-year. Margins? Actually killing it—non-GAAP op margin hit 7% Q3 (+1200 bps YoY from -5%), FCF positive at 6%. Thesis holds: Undervalued at \~4x sales with AI tailwinds, enterprise wins (1,572 big customers +20%), and rebound potential vs. CRWD. Risks? More slowdown if macros bite...

DifferentDependent62

Feels more like momentum based on news. 1. The next Bluebird is scheduled by Falcon. 2. Top tech no doubt. 3. Lot of partnership news, these are not contracts to get money. 4. Telecom sector doesn’t have that much FCF to execute within 4 Qtrs. 5. The volatility is bonkers.

The-zKR0N0S

CROX pops. Their FCF will increase by ~$100 million.

sshinski

My video is based on facts and data at its core. Im well aware that everyone still sees this as a shit company but while everyone looked elsewhere for alpha clover has been slowly building and growing its platform. Q3 clover had a 50.1% yoy revenue growth with a positive FCF. 2026 is a 4 start payment year and they are looking at massive growth on top of a cohort who they will easily maintain. I suggest you take some time and watch the video before putting off a potential rebound That nobody else is looking at.

Super_Highway_3405

TSLA holds like $40 billion with FCF around $16 billion, so basically, no, and no to the last question too.

ChillMeerkat

I hold Mckesson for 4 years now, funny thing is its the only healthcare stock I didnt sell, still a good business forward PE below 20 and P/FCF 16

Crunch101010

It’s a very hated company on reddit, but there are plenty of people who don’t care about their provider and just keep paying the bill. I bought some not too long ago at $38 in a tax sheltered account. Forward FCF yield is around 12%+, forward PE around 8.5x, dividend over 7% and a safe payout ratio. At this price, I don’t need much earnings growth to happen (although the market thinks they will keep growing eps at about 3%-4%). As for upside, I expect their next move should be to replace the indian customer support army with AI. That would dramatically cut costs, provide a lot more data, and also improve the customer experience. I have direct experience seeing the new AI customer support agents at another company, and they are incredible- most people don’t even realize it’s AI. And they are tied into the system to make most actions without human involvement. In general, I see it as a safe value stock in the sense that if the overall market drops 20%+ this year, VZ won’t. It’s already beaten down. And in a recession, people will do just about anything before they cut off their phones and internet (VZ sales only dropped 1% in 2008). By having a few defensive stocks like this (waste management is another example, BTI is another), I’m comfortable leaning harder into more risk in other investments.

Massive_Plantain3949

XOM and CVX have already committed to generate FCF and give to investors through 2030. What does it mean? It means that all these oil companies will reduce CapEx (drill less, less spending on potential rigs etc). As most major companies tighten their CapEx, the production will be decreased (By the way, the Permian Basin producion has become negative YoY in Dec. 2025). As the production will be decreased or cut, there is a potential scenario that the demand will be higher than the supply. The oil price is sensitive to the inflation and even 1% less supply than the demand could drive the oil price 2x or 3x higher (Remember 2020? The production was dead due to Covid-19, so that we had 10% less supply than the demand. The crude oil price surged from $16 to $110.). Also geopolitical risks are not underestimated. There is no guarantee that the oil price will drop or be flat. It could surge. The question is rather when. It is matter of time.

QuietRequirement9067

If I were building this for the **long run**, I’d start with **fundamentals first** \- specifically **high and stable ROIC and strong free cash flow** (that’s what I screen for using **FindGreatStocks(dot)com**). Based on that, my first **high-confidence adds** would be: * **META** * **NFLX** * **V** * **ADBE** These already show durable ROIC and FCF that support long-term compounding. Next, I’d add companies where **ROIC isn’t as high yet but is clearly expanding** and the business quality is improving: * **UBER** * **PYPL** * **ORCL** * **AMZN** * **AVGO** As a **#10**, I’d allow **one speculative bet**: * **NBIS** \- not enough fundamentals yet, but a bet on the **team**. These are the same people who built Yandex in Russia and successfully competed with Google, Uber, Spotify, and others. Core = quality + cash flow. Speculation = small, intentional, and last.

Vegetable-Bug-9779

Check also growth. Revenue CAGR, net income cagr, operating margin, FCF, operating cashflow. If fundamentals are growing, in lost cases stock will follow

mollusc_in_the_wind

Yes, and the key point I think you’re missing is that “moatless” is not me claiming NBIS’ engineers are incompetent or that their software is definitely bad. It’s me making a structural statement about the business model and the incentives in this market. 1) “Moatless” does not mean “zero execution risk priced in.” It means “low barriers and weak pricing power.” In GPU rental / “AI cloud”, the core inputs are commoditised and available to anyone with enough capital: NVIDIA GPUs, standard networking, standard data-centre shells, and a control plane built on broadly known patterns (often leveraging open tooling). If multiple credible players can offer “good enough” provisioning, the customer decision collapses to unit economics, reliability, and contract terms. That’s not me speculating on NBIS’ software quality. That’s just the normal endpoint of infrastructure markets where buyers can multi-home and suppliers sell similar capacity. 2) The “software flywheel” claim is exactly what should be proven, not assumed. If NBIS has a real software moat, it should show up in hard outcomes (sustainably better realised pricing per GPU-hour (or better margins at the same price; stronger renewals / higher retention) Until you can point to those, “software flywheel” is meaningless investor jargon that their C-suite wants you to gobble on. 3) Brookfield entering this lane is evidence that the barrier is *capital* When a giant infrastructure allocator can spin up the same basic product (GPU capacity leased out of their data centres) with dedicated funding, that’s not “just competition exists”: it’s clear evidence that the business is replicable. And once it’s replicable, the long-run economics tend to get competed away toward whoever has: • cheaper cost of capital • better power economics • faster time-to-build • deeper balance sheet staying power That is exactly why I’ve been negative on NBIS: you are underwriting a capex-heavy, depreciating-asset model and hoping it earns tech-like returns. And Brookfield, in my view, is structurally advantaged because of its energy business. 4) This also supports my broader bear view that people keep hand-waving away As I’ve said before: negative FCF / negative earnings matter in a capex-led model, because the equity becomes the shock absorber (dilution risk). Customer bargaining power matters, because the whales have alternatives and can squeeze pricing/terms as supply grows. And hardware depreciation risk matters, because if utilisation/pricing softens, you’re left holding rapidly ageing GPUs. So no, I’m not claiming “Radiant will be perfect” or “NBIS software is useless.” I’m saying: if your bull case requires assuming a durable software moat and a flywheel, you should be able to evidence it in unit economics and contract structure. If you’re bullish, the burden of proof is simple: show me the numbers (margins/ROIC/retention/contract protections) that demonstrate NBIS can defend returns as well-capitalised entrants pile into the same commodity lane.

superbilliam

Find a brokerage you like (I personally like Fidelity). Start a "backbone" investment for basic stability like VT, which is an Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) that holds a large portion of all stocks across the entire world. It will move with the economy, but is something you should not ever sell. If it dips down 5%, buy more to average down. If it dips down 10%+ back up your truck and load up. What you don’t do is sell it for a loss, EVER! You hold it and wait, it will go back up unless the world is under attack by aliens or some other unlikely event. It may take a year or two if we have a market crash, but this will go back up. That is one thing I can guarantee to you. Once you have that, explore a few stocks you like. You don’t need to buy everything, just dabble. Only buy it if you really understand it. Individual stocks can drop and never return to previous prices. They don't have the guardrails that a fund like VT does. I recommend watching a few videos and reading about fundamentals like Free Cash Flow (FCF), Price-to-Earnings (P/E), Revenue vs Earnings Per Share, etc. Joseph Carlson om youtube does a good job analyzing stocks. Plain Bagel or Ben Felix do a good job explaining stock related information (they are a bit dry, but spot on usually). Dividend Talks is a good place for ideas and to see analysis in practice, I don't recommend blindly buying everything they mention. Dividend Compounders with Cheese does some pretty good analysis. Tread lightly though on youtube...never buy something just because they said it is good. Always read up and make your own decisions. They are good places for ideas, not guaranteed compounding machines. Hope this helps! Best of luck and a Happy New Year to you and all!

usrnmz

Not sure what point you're trying to make. If a company has positive FCF because of SBC it is not profitable and shareholders are footing the bill.

Rationalbets

Clarivate (clvt): trades at 15% FCF yield and is pursuing strategic alternatives to divest something. Good chance of rerating in 2026

Working-Guard-7848

CAPEX absolutely comes out of net.... it takes years, and I think current chips is 6 years to zero? R&D comes out at 100%. So a million dollars of capex would come out 1/6 at a time for the next 6 years My point was not to get into a discussion about accounting, it was to say; watch FCF... "profitable" is subjective, IMO. FCF is a way better metric to watch

Working-Guard-7848

well, CRWD has about 1B in free cash flow (FCF) annually. Normally this would be very close to same # as net income. However, for a company that is focussed on growth, they take their FCF and reinvest it into capitol expenditures (think, build more data centers, buy more chips). That's why net income is almost zero, while FCF is a billion+. They are choosing to reinvest and expand.

c-u-in-da-ballpit

$845M cash, zero debt. $622M FCF (47% YoY growth). $5B+ backlog through 2026. 100% domestic content qualifies for IRA tax credits. Q2 FY26 estimated revenue $905M (42% YoY), It’s my number one holding at 9% of my portfolio.

KopOut

Repeat after me: "the price per share is irrelevant" Look at market cap, P/S, P/E, Fwd P/E, PEG, Debt/Equity, FCF, Margins etc. Right now it is trading at PS of 2, and a Fwd PE of nearly 32. Net Margin stands at under 6%. FCF in a downtrend. I think basically everything has to go right for NKE in order for it's current valuation to be justified. I would start to get interested in it if the forward PE dips below 25 and they can improve their net margin some.

my_wing

We all needed to understand that TSMC most important customer is Apple, there is no indication that iPhone is not releasing in Sep/Oct, it is around 6 months from HVM to product available, the most educated guess is that TSMC is more reasonable to be in HVM around Feb and not Dec, the website a number of sites out there is linking is an old website from TSMC which is a prior estimate. This is a trick, just treat you did not heard that TSMC had HVM N2, as there is no indication that Apple has shift its iPhone launch schedule. TSMC N2 is going to be in HVM in Feb 2026, there is the most reasonable educated guess. As mentioned FCF have a component of growth to be added. With Intel, AMD, Qualcomm leaving or planning to leave TSMC most advance node, i.e. the most profitable, there is no indication that TSMC can fill up the gap that left by Intel, remember the first N3 class customer is launch by Apple > Intel > nVidia / AMD > mediatek > Google, that No 2 spot make Intel a more important customer to TSMC then nVidia even Intel is making a loss. That is a "-" & "-", TSMC needed to find a customer that can replaced Intel and another one to maintain growth, that seems remote, nVidia is not going to fill that gap, they need a node that has D0 < 0.1 in order to manufacture a large die area chip, which Apple and Intel did not needed, therefore even N3B was in trouble, Apple's chip is smaller (as mobile vs server) and can absorb the loss. CC Wei @ TSMC = Bob Swam @ Intel. CC Wei need to go, he lead the company into a no High NA EUV company, did not even investigate other technology e.g. Dry Photo Resist, Pattern Sharpening. Quad Patterning, i.e. Good Luck, so instead of asking why I think Samsung can catch up, the better way to ask is why do you think other will slow down, while TSMC slow down. From this webpage the slide headed EUV Lithography Process and Roadmap challenge [https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/lam-research-tokyo-electron-jsr-battle](https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/lam-research-tokyo-electron-jsr-battle) You can clear see that what TEL is thinking and that is why TSMC N2 is still at 0.021 um\^2 which is the same as Intel 18A, both 18A and N2 is already hole pitch \~36nm (the TEL slide use 26nm) i.e. what TEL think is the limit for Low NA EUV, even with multiple patterning, if TSMC is using a sharper Dry Photo Resist then might push this limit, while Line Pitch can be push by Pattern Shaping (Applied Materials), because of these limit, from day 1 I am very skeptic that TSMC can scale > 1% density (SRAM) from N3E, (N3B in itself is a kinda of fail node not going to count). Whatever TSMC is say, I am not believing since that is the limit set by a number of industry research that I read. Intel will widen the PPA gap to TSMC and Samsung will close the Gap, that is going to happen, especially under CC Wei as their CEO.

my_wing

The previous valuation is base on TSMC has a node advantage. As an accountant valuation no matter normal is using FCF, TSMC is over valued. The last 2 years see that Intel has shift production to TSMC most advance node, i.e. that is the growth component, since that Intel shift that production back to its own foundry, sorry that grow is not going anyways. The last 2 years we also see that Pixel CPU is move to TSMC from Samsung. The last 3-5 years also seen that nVidia shift back to TSMC from Samsung. Growth is already well reflected. Currently is the other way around, AMD / Qualcomm all considering moving to Samsung or Intel, demand is reduced. TSMC growth is going to go slow, as Samsung is going to catch up in 2028 as High NA enter production in Samsung. TSMC node disadvantage is going to be widen as Intel using High NA for 14A in HVM. This is a professional finance analyst from a Chartered Accountant my friend. TSMC is a sell and sell it fast

_hiddenscout

Because the valuation is compelling. No one knows how the deal will play out, but if you are looking at a long term position, it's probably not going to be a that big of a deal in like 3-5 years from now. You are buying a company that has a great track record of high ROIC, good gross and operating margins. Revenue growth is impressive with how big of company they are. Seems like the market is probably pricing in some of that uncertainty. I think the debt part not great in terms of how they are paying for it. However, company generates a decent amount of FCF. 2023 and 2024 both produced around 7B in FCF and I think it's like 9B this year. Worst case, I wonder if they could pull some levers and cut down on content generation a few years after buying WB, since they are going to increase their catalog a ton. Also NFLX says they will save about 2-3B a year annually on operational efficiencies. However, I don't know a ton about the movie industry, just think the company valuation is compelling at these levels.

Legitimate_Height424

Aren't that profitable? Newmont posted FCF of 1.7B in Q2 of 2025 and FCF of 1.6B in Q3? Are you insane?

bhutjolokia79

(I‘m not a professional in corporate finance and this is a very simplified response.) Net Income is profits minus depreciation and amortisation and taxed. It’s the part you pay dividends to investors out of and reinvest the rest in business. FCF is the money you have at hand. To calculate FCF from Net Income you add Depreciation and Amortisation to it.

Key_Variety_6287

In God We trust, everyone else must bring data. Oracle is currently trading at 35 times EV/EBIT and has a negative FCF yield and Debt to EBITDA ratio of 4.64 Let's look at META in 2022, EV/EBIT of 9.70, FCF yield of 7.2% and Debt to EBITDA ratio of 0.58. The only similarity is that the fall in share price. One became sort cheap and the other is still very richly valued despite the fall.

mollusc_in_the_wind

Ok how about we have a productive conversation about NBIS? A few reasons why I think it’s a poor investment: No margin of safety, no earnings, no FCF. Value is about buying future cash flows at a discount. Nebius has negative FCF, negative earnings and will need years of flawless execution plus multiple rounds of dilution just to maybe get to steady-state. You’re not buying discounted cash flows, you’re buying a story. Structurally grim economics. This is a capex-hog business that has to: Buy insanely expensive GPUs up front from Nvidia and friends. Build giant, power-hungry sheds. Then hope the hyperscalers (MSFT/META etc.) keep renting at decent prices. … If demand undershoots, or efficiency gains mean fewer GPUs per unit of workload, the vendors (who have all the bargaining power) still win. Nebius is left holding rapidly depreciating hardware in giant barns. Commodity product, no real moat. They rent generic compute in a knife fight against CoreWeave, IREN, CIFR, BITF and every ex-bitcoin miner with a pulse. The hyperscalers care about unit cost and reliability, not “brand”. The idea that this is some unique, irreplaceable asset is pure cope. Customer concentration & power imbalance. A couple of monster customers lock them into long contracts on their terms. If economics tighten, MSFT/META will renegotiate, squeeze them or walk away. Equity holders are last in the food chain. Optics & baggage. You’re kidding yourself if you think “ex-Yandex Russian spin-off is in charge of your sovereign AI compute” is a non-issue for EU governments. That’s a headline risk you don’t get paid for. If you want to take a speculative swing on “maybe the AI DC landgrab keeps going long enough that someone pays a silly multiple for this”, fine – but that’s growth / momentum gambling, not value investing. NBIS is a leveraged bet that a capital-intensive, low-margin, commodity business in a brutal competitive landscape will somehow turn into a compounding machine.

Ok_Currency_6390

I mean with oil so cheap and metal prices so high it's almost difficult for a miner to not make money If you are even half decent at valuing businesses and can avoid the obvious pitfalls the potential is just unbelievable Even if you think miners are doomed it's worth chucking a few bucks into at least the ETF's, the risk / reward asymmetry is just unbelievable right now For example, AEM's (Agnico Eagle) FCF is going up *faster than the stock price*. And it's up 124% on the year. That is absolutely wild

Dstein99

It’s something to keep an eye on but they can afford it. I think that Meta is one of the more dangerous mag 7 stocks, but far from one of the most risky AI stocks in the market. Even after this pullback the stock is up 460% over the past 3 years so there’s no harm in taking profits at this level. They’re essentially at 2023 levels of Free Cash Flow. In the Trailing Twelve Months compared to FY 2023 their OCF grew from $71B to $107B ($36B) and their Capex grew from $27B to $62B ($35B). Their OCF is growing rapidly (averaging 22% per year since 2020) so they likely are seeing effects of AI, but I always assume that the company will earn 0% return on their AI spend. Would you be happy owning Meta producing $45B in FCF after earning $23B in 2020, $39B in 2021, $19B in 2022, $43B in 2023, $54B in 2024, and $45B in TTM which is close to FY 2025? 37x FCF is too expensive for me to pay especially considering that FCF will likely be lower next year due to increased capex. It’s not something I would want to own, but $45B FCF companies aren’t everywhere and they won’t go out of business if they get no return on their AI spending.

Prudent-Corgi3793

Dude, stop buying puts on TSLA for your own good. We all know it's 5-10x overvalued using a FCF or EPS model, but it genuinely does not trade on fundamentals. When people say it trades as a meme stock, to be more precise, it trades on short-term options activity and the subsequent price action that results when market makers (who buy or sell options) need to buy or sell the underlying to cover up their underlying. Consider TSLA vs. MSFT and BRK.B. I chose these because they are also two megacaps in the trillion dollar club and because they have similar prices per stock, meaning that the value of each options contract will be similar. Now look at how much difference there is between the option volume for the 0DTE: |Underlying|Current Price|Call Volume|Put Volume| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |[TSLA](https://optioncharts.io/options/tsla)|480.09|831,847|542,274| |[MSFT](https://optioncharts.io/options/msft)|487.47|30,369|13,214| |[BRK.B](https://optioncharts.io/options/brkb)|498.20|1,652|1,228| TSLA has nearly 30 times the 0DTE call volume of MSFT and more than 500 times the 0DTE call volume of BRK.B. Those stocks trade on expectations of future earnings, TSLA trades on arbitrage and hedging. You might think you're smarter than an army of apes, but they're going to rip your arms off until enough of them leave.

Historical_Air_8997

I’m at work so can’t do a big response atm. But I was seeing SpaceX 2025 revenue around $15.5B so at $800m that’s 50x sales and where I got the 100x for the $1.5T target. Also should note their revenue in 2024 was over $13B so they had 10% growth. RKLB is like 50%. I also meant to specify that RKLB is for sure overvalued. Not trying to say it’s a value stock or even a buy at these prices. Rather that I think it’s a better buy with less risk than SpaceX IF they ipo at $1.5T. You may be right and 2026 sucks, but long term the price today isn’t gonna matter at their growth rate. To the r&d cost thing, RKLB should be FCF positive by the end of 2026 into 2027. They have enough cash on hand to maintain their level of spending for over 2 years (not counting the reduced cost once neutron is finished). So dilution really isn’t an issue, unless they want to make an acquisition but they’ve proven to make good acquisitions that benefit shareholders. The point is they don’t *have* to dilute shares to keep operations and r&d going. Ofc SpaceX is in a better financial position and are FCF positive since they’re a more mature company with an unlimited budget. Lastly, is neutron works out as planned their ability to scale should be insane since they’re can 3D print the majority of the rocket and engines. The margins with reduced labor costs will likely be the best in the industry once they scale neutron. Outside neutron, electron will have about 30-35% gross margins next year (once they hit 24+ launches a year) and the space systems (core business) already has something like 40% gross margins with long term goal of 45%. Yeah I know net margins are sorta more important but there can be some accounting. Long term you’re right margins won’t reach tech levels but they should be pretty high.

No-Doctor9742

FCF growing, balance sheet getting better, business not dying but priced like it is…

DrElkSnout

After their new acquisition of New Gold they're going to compete with the big boys soon. I'm holding CDE long term now. Currently holding over 9,000 shares. Had 12K at one point but took profits. Imagine the fucking ludicrous profits they're going to be announcing at these gold and silver prices. I mean, what the actual fuck it's going to be insane. FCF is going to be wild. Coeur Mining saw it and pounced on the next big thing, with exposure to copper as well. Good luck bro. Don't get impatient.

TheGhostOfStanSweet

You’re talking like it’s an investment. It’s a horrible investment that is pre-revenue. No one has any idea of they’ll last 10 years, or able to actually earn FCF. This is buy the rumour, sell the news. Only an idiot would actually hang on long term. If you really want to hang on, wait for it to do double, and then sell 75% of your shares. This way you’ve dumped most of your position while profitable, and still hold something in case it continues to fly.

OverheadPress69

1. Get a birds-eye view of the company. What does the company do? How do they make their money? What sector are they in? Tailwinds/headwinds in the industry? Who is the CEO? What is current sentiment? What direction is the business going and what stage in the business cycle is it at currently? 2. Look a little deeper into the fundamentals of the stock. I personally look at: market cap, revenue growth, profit margin, margin growth, book value, forward PE, EPS, debt, FCF, revenue/margins of each of the business’ market sectors (ie Amazon’s retail financials and their AWS financials). I am personally looking for two things here — 1, proof of growth potential and 2, disqualification. If any of these numbers are red flags based on my understanding established in the first step, I move on or dig deeper depending on the company. Basically, you want to see profitability, growth potential, and the ability to survive if something goes wrong. 3. Look below the hood. This can often tell you more than anything else. Are there share buybacks going on? What is the dividend history? What is the short ratio? What level of institutional investment is there? What are industry analysts’ price targets? Are there any catalysts on the horizon? Potential regulatory hurdles? Is the industry faring well? Who are the primary competitors? What is the company’s position in the industry? How can they grow/maintain market share? Who are the business’ customers? Are they stable? Is there a backlog? What about their suppliers? Are they sensitive to interest rates, commodity prices, consumer sentiment, etc.? Is their success dependent on another company? Is a M&A angle in play? What ETFs are the company included in, how is the fund performing, and will it be added to the DJIA/S&P500/QQQ etc. in the near future? 4. Look at the stock’s price. Compare to 52w high and low. Compare to ATH & ATL. Look at volume patterns. See if there is a base of support in the chart or resistance spots. Compare to the chart of similar companies. Compare to the S&P500. Looking for momentum & support levels; I’m a believer in time in the market, so this step is primarily to determine position sizing, if I’ll be DCAing or lump buying, etc. 5. Check out different sources to see if anyone has information you missed. I personally start on Reddit, then use some combination of YouTube, Yahoo! Finance, Morningstar, Moody’s, IBD, Bloomberg, WSJ, & CNBC. 6. Look at your portfolio. How would this stock change its composition? Does it improve your expected returns? Add/reduce volatility? Affect the Sharpe ratio? What sizing should you use? Does it improve diversification? Is it redundant? What is the r/r to adding it? What is the opportunity cost of tying up money in this stock? 7. At this point, you should have a really solid feel for the business. You should know whether you want to buy or not. If you do, pull the trigger now. You have done the research. Trust yourself. If you don’t, put it on the watchlist, and note why you didn’t buy. If something materially changes, it may become a good investment. 8. Come up with your thesis. Why are you buying, what are the exit strategies, what will you do to mitigate risk. Plan for a worst case, best case, and base case scenario. None of this requires advanced quant analysis, specialized data or tools, or anything more than about an hour of your time. I research 2-3 stocks per day. I have a running list of 1000+ stocks sorted by industry & market cap within the industry. I only launch this process if I want to buy. It’s worked well for me. You don’t need to spend too much time on any one step, but unsatisfactory results for any of the steps disqualifies it from investment in my strategy. You should at least consider each of the factors I’ve listed, though you don’t have to go down the list like a checklist. Use your brain, not your heart. Most importantly, write things down. Anything you feel may be important. Start a fresh sheet of paper/new document for your notes and findings while you’re researching each stock and then save it in a folder regardless of if you buy or not. You’ll very quickly build up a reference library of DD that you can return to for many reasons. Perhaps to invest in the future if the situation changes, perhaps to look back at successes and see what led to the success, perhaps to look back and see where you erred in logic if a stock doesn’t meet your expectations. Information is power. The more you do this (and not rely on others) the more confident you’ll be in your ability to analyze a stock. I’m at the point where I don’t really care what anyone else says about a stock if I’ve researched it and formed an opinion. I trust my ability more than anyone else’s, and you will too. Trust me. Dm if you’d like more info/guidance

PTRBoyz

Up until now it’s been all about AI infrastructure, 2026 will be about applications and use cases now. Agentic AI should outperform the chips and data centers. I’m long CRM and PATH to play that angle, but also like NOW despite the M&A overhang. Also very bullish RBRK which has flipped into positive earnings and FCF while still growing sales rapidly.  BA probably outperforms this year as well with the same principle, flipping FCF positive with commitments underway. 

EntropyAccount

The law hasn't changed, and it might not (there's a chance they blame this and that). Trump signed a document, he did his part. Since Feb '21 the entire sector has been in decline. There has been ZERO federal reform since then, and this EO isn't reform. Most companies are generating losses, and only a few (like maybe 2 or 3) are truley FCF+ after taxes paid. A few more are FCF+ but hold tax liability on the balance sheet. The revenue growth is basically stalled. Look at the acutal P/E ratios of these companies. They aren;t cheap, especially since projected growth isnt much. What part about these makes you bullish on "macro"? Since Feb '21 - Cole memo removed, bank custody removed - so if anything it's actually gotten more restrictive. There will undoubtably be an explosion of optimism if S1->S3 officially. Can that overcome strategic short selling, especially when hunting to expire ITM calls worthless (I have absolutely no idea)? How do you "invest" in this sector? It's in perpetual decline. You can only trade it. To even consider the tide is turning, MSOS needs to clear 11.40 to break weekly market structure. Anything below that is still HTF bearish trend, or at best within a long-ass accumulation range. Nothing so far has changed the HTF bearish structure since 2021. Is this bullish macro in the room with us?

iMakeGOODinvestmemts

Once robotics automate $Amzn We will see 30%+ FCF that's $130B FCF COMING RIGHT UPPP

_hiddenscout

Anyone here follow **STVN?** Came across them screening this morning, kind of an interesting name. This is what they do: >Stevanato Group S.p.A. engages in the design, production, and distribution of products and processes to provide solutions for biopharma and healthcare industries in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, North America, South America, and the Asia Pacific. >It operates through two segments, Biopharmaceutical and Diagnostic Solutions; and Engineering. The company offers drug containment solutions comprising pre-fillable syringes, cartridges, vials, and ampoules; in-vitro diagnostic solutions; drug delivery systems, including pen injectors, auto-injectors, and wearable injectors; diagnostic laboratory consumables; analytical and regulatory support services; medical devices; pharmaceutical visual inspection machines; assembling and packaging machines; glass forming machines; and after-sales services, such as spare parts and maintenance services. They have some exposure to GLP1s, but worry about the pill taking off. Kind of a smaller float name too. From a PE level, it's a bit high, but PEG is at 1.5, so if they can keep up the growth, it's somewhat a fair value price. [https://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=STVN&p=d](https://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=STVN&p=d) Sounds like they are trying to expand more into the US, so CAPEX could weight down some of the FCF. [https://ir.stevanatogroup.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/165/stevanato-group-secures-200-million-in-financing-from](https://ir.stevanatogroup.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/165/stevanato-group-secures-200-million-in-financing-from) Here's the last ER press release: [https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/\_aae890553e83cfe634709424614dffec/stevanatogroup/news/2025-11-06\_Stevanato\_Group\_Reports\_Revenue\_of\_303\_2\_Million\_171.pdf](https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_aae890553e83cfe634709424614dffec/stevanatogroup/news/2025-11-06_Stevanato_Group_Reports_Revenue_of_303_2_Million_171.pdf)

Agitated_Iron_7

Amazon has the potential to be the world’s first 10 trillion dollar company. However, that doesn’t mean they necessarily will… but they *could*. To get there, Amazon could choose to turn on the money printers whenever they want and generate monstrous free cash flow. More FCF than any company on Earth. We got to see a brief glimpse of that before they began spending like crazy on capex within the last year. Why don’t they stop spending? The prudent move for the company is to invest in AI. It is simply too great of an opportunity to pass-up. Advertising, AWS, 3rd Party Seller Services, and Subscriptions are all high margin segments of Amazon that are all growing fabulously. AWS isn’t all there is at Amazon. That’s an outdated narrative. Robotics have the potential to synergize their network, making tight margins high and high margins even higher. Amazon’s share of global retail is still only 4-5%! Their runway is still unfathomably large. Their TAM may as well be infinite at this point in time. Additionally, Amazon still has not instituted a capital return program in the form of dividends and/or buybacks. An annual share buyback program could go a long way towards compounding their stock price. I hold a lot of Amazon. I’m fine accumulating them silently while the market hysterically follows other opportunities. Amazon’s day will come, and their potential gains can still be face melting. The bet here is asymmetrical. There isn’t much risk investing in arguably the most important and valuable American business. As far as I’m concerned, Amazon will be worth 10 trillion dollars at some point. The matter of when is the only question. From here, that’s a 4x gain…

Green-Grass-8782

I’ve been in Uber since earlier this year at $60 and have more conviction than ever that they have a bright future. There is not going to be a winner takes all scenario like some imply. As bullish as I am I hesitate to say it’s severely undervalued. I’ve plugged in different inputs using FCF and I come out in the $90-100 range myself. I think if management executes like I think they will then it most certainly could be a trillion dollar market cap in the next decade.

ptexpat

i was looking at AROC and they seem to have had heavy CAPEX in some of the recent quarters leading to low / -ve FCF in some of them. Were you able to get comfortable with the drivers of that? Also, just wondering whether you have looked at FTI?

asianrockstar2009

FCF is easily manipulated, just offer lots of Stock-Based Compensation and that line gets added into

TeamConsistent5240

I know, right? When you do FCF analysis, it’s based on operating cash flow. Amazon isn’t become less profitable.. it’s making more.. I’m buying for AWS and robotics. Look pretty good to me at 28x next years earnings. Could care less about the retail business apart of marketing and the potential to leverage robotics as a massive moat.

Vegetable-Bug-9779

Not so much in this case. Amazon has low FCF due to high Capex. They have high Capex due to very high demand for AWS. So the Capex will likely result in increased future FCF.

Budget_Initiative740

Due to high CAPEX which will improve future capacity. Even if Ai buildout turns out to be a bubble, just reducing their CAPEX budget will bring FCF right back up as their OCF is relatively stable despite macro conditions

digital_odysseus

Fiserv FISV looks like a classic special situation to me. The market is still anchoring to guidance and communication from the previous management, while the new management team hasn’t fully proven itself yet, so there’s understandable skepticism. That said, the new leadership actually looks quite strong on paper. The CFO is ex-Global Payments with VC experience, and the co-president is the former Stripe CFO. That’s a meaningful upgrade in fintech and payments expertise. Strategically, their plan to integrate services makes sense, especially in the current AI environment where rewriting legacy systems, reducing tech debt, and optimizing operations are finally becoming feasible. They’re also looking at AI primarily as an optimization lever (not hype), and they’re investing in a stablecoin strategy that could meet global merchant needs and improve cost efficiency over time. While management still needs to prove execution, I found the Q3 earnings call refreshing. The tone was one of candor, not promotional optimism, which I actually view as a positive signal at this stage of a turnaround. From a fundamentals standpoint, the company generates strong and consistent free cash flow. Even with leverage on the balance sheet, the FCF quality is solid. With ongoing optimization, product integration, and platforms like Clover, I think there’s a reasonable path to mid-term earnings growth. This is still a competitive and capital-intensive industry, so it’s not without risk. However, payments and financial infrastructure continue to grow globally, and Fiserv has meaningful exposure to international markets. At the current valuation, the stock looks closer to a bargain than a value trap, in my view, and I see it as an attractive 3–5 year investment if management executes.

phosphate554

Adobe is probably my #1 pick for 2026-2030. One of the highest quality business in the word, growing at 10+%, margin expansion (insane, already at 89%), FCF machine and huge buybacks.

TheVariantView

What we're seeing happening to Nike has been happening to Lululemon as well, granted that, as a few other posters here have said, Nike lacks growth opportunity in China, while Lululemon has that opportunity. But, they struggle with the same increased competition, tariffs & margin contraction, partly fueled by tariffs. I've seen some commenters mention that revenue figures are "up", this is probably one of the worst numbers you could be looking at this time in Nike's cycle, they're pushing heavy discounts to further sales, and this is evident in the contracting gross-margin which, contrary to popular belief, isn't entirely tariffs driven. A much better look into their financials is in terms of EBITDA margins and FCF, where both have been heavily weakening over the years due to these struggles that have seen no fundamental change. Nike has been very sluggish on turning over their inventory, it is getting increasingly difficult for them to sell (without discounts), which temporarily propped up uFCF. fwd PE is at \~31x which is well above all comps, and honestly can't be justified by brand equity; we're clearly seeing a shift away in discretionary purchases towards cheaper newer alternatives. I think something interesting to talk about is what came out in the news recently about Lululemon, Elliott took a large stake & is looking to place a turnaround CEO in the position. They noted core problems with Lululemon are: (1) Brand Dilution and Discounting (2) Lack of Innovation & Newness for Newness' Sake (3) Strategic Drift Beyond the Core (4) Leadership and Execution Problem 1 is the same as Nike's, and was the same at Ralph Lauren prior to its turnaround. Problem 2 is same as Nike, though it's a bit unclear what Elliott means by "innovation" imo (it's clothing & apparel after-all). Problem 3 is similar, but in a different way, for lululemon it meant drifting from the core leggings, whereas Nike this seems to be traditional partnerships, shoe lines, etc. Problem 4 directly contradicts the other commenter referring to Nike needing a non-"woke" CEO, Lululemon has one, and they're struggling. For a company as large as Nike, it's going to be a long ride and very difficult turnaround that is unlikely to begin with current management and compensation structure. Catalysts seems very far out, while sluggish returns are much closer and realistic. **TLDR: NIKE is trading above all peers and a turnaround seems unlikely and complicated with their core issues. This is not a stock to buy at these levels.** *Note: This is just a quick surface-level overview of Nike, if anyone is truly interested, I'm happy to do an entire write-up over the weekend to further my points.*

RiPFrozone

Being in Broadcom for years I’d say it’s the most diversified of the semiconductor companies. They have a near 50:50 split in revenue from semiconductor revenue and software revenue after the VMware acquisition. Along with that if you are bullish on the future of ASICs or simply Google TPUs (Broadcom is their partner to make them) it might be the only company which holds a candle to Nvidia long term. Their earnings were great, but investors just didn’t like the QA of the call where Hock Tan really didn’t give much clarity on how much of the 500b backlog we can expect to see in 2026. The company will rally again once sentiment shifts. Today’s valuation is definitely at a premium, so even this dip doesn’t make it “cheap”. However, if you believe in their long term execution to increase FCF to 78b by 2028 it’s trading at around 20x FCF which is reasonable.

Ok_Foot2530

Important fundamentals don’t change over time - moat (pricing power, sustained market share, high entry barrier, high ROIC, etc. as signs), good economics (ROE, sustainable margins), predictability (risks are manageable on most fronts, and downside case not too detrimental), valuation (discount vs FCF, margin of safery). In an environment of excess liquidity and narratives-driven concentration (today), I look away from AI hype and even outside US most of time now, to find high quality ones. Plenty undervalued sectors / stocks - I think housing related ones are cheap in the US, and I think China consumer stocks are too beaten down, etc. and many are overvalued - SaaS stocks are not valued right today, their multiples and margins will be lower given AI’s commoditization forces and SaaS integration of AI / upcoming R&D and S&M spend to stay relevant with AI.