Amazon is trading only at 133x next year's earnings. If Zillow traded more inline with Amazon's astronomical P/E, it would trade down to about $66, which, interestingly, is where it has decent support and where I think this will eventually settle.
Zillow usage has been falling for two months straight. For a company that depends on more and more eyeballs and is spending at a rate faster than they're earning revenues, it points to a future problem.
The downtrend from the post-approval sell-off appears to have been broken. Now buyers are firmly establishing a floor around the $4.15 level. I'm seeing a potential rebound once ATRS presents OTREXUP clinical data this weekend.
The amount of frustration is definitely showing in the stock. Buyers have turned into sellers, and now price behavior suggests waiting on the sidelines a little while longer. The expected upward moving failed, so now the stock looks like it just wants to drift, barring any positive news.
Today's Bullish Hammer has gotten replaced with an even stronger Bullish Engulfing, all while completing an intraday double bottom and reclaiming the 50DMA. This is very positive. Also liking that huge purchase of the $5 November calls. Something's up.
The way those $5 November call options are trading, it's acting like someone knows something. The open interest in that contract is huge.
We're getting a Bullish Hammer candlestick now, and momentum indicators are shifting from negative to positive.
Excluding the tax benefits and how they changed the composition of earnings, EPS would have been just in line rather than a beat, had they presented earnings like how they have done in the past. This quarter, to make their numbers, they moved a couple apples into the orange pile and said they beat estimates.
Not sure how long you can keep cutting costs and buying back shares when the source of those funds continues to shrink. After hours is looking like a disaster. CEO must have sneezed funny during the conference call.
It looks like it wants to go to about $83. It just seems like there's buyers every step of the way up.
Just curious what the assumptions are that drive you to either be long or short this name.
That's kind of the point. Since they were the underwriters and have everything to gain, it would seem like they would try to give it a target price and valuation that's as high as possible to justify the current pricing. The fact that their target price is at $61 makes one wonder if the price has disconnected from reality, and who knows how long that disconnect can last.
I've seen this story before back in 2000 with the internet stocks. There's a "blind spot" where there's tremendous revenue growth, but no real earnings, and there isn't enough data yet for good inputs for valuation models get a good grasp of a clean measure. It's where I've seen the most speculative excess, and this just repeats the story we've all heard before. I think there's a lot of money to be made in these blind spots, and the way it's acting, it's holding true again. Musk will be seen as a very shrewd salesman with the ability to sell a vision, but the likelihood is that his business models will be far too capital intensive to generate enough free cash flow over time to justify the valuations the market has bestowed upon his stocks.
"We derive the target multiples that we apply to our estimates from a broader comp group
consisting of high-end luxury auto manufacturers, auto technology companies, and high
growth companies that have revenue growth characteristics similar to what we expect
from Tesla over the next few years."
Sounds reasonable enough, since TSLA is a pseudo tech company and luxury auto manufacturer with high growth.
They use different metrics: EV/Sales, EV/EBITDA, P/E, and DCF models. Here are the average fair values for each:
EV/Sales: 2013 = $16, 2014 = $18, 2015 = $22, 2016 = $34, 2017 = $41, 2018 = $42
EV/EBITDA: 2013 = $2, 2014 = $13, 2015 = $18, 2016 = $34, 2017 = $42, 2018 = $42
P/E: 2013 = $1, 2014 = $21, 2015 = $24, 2016 = $48, 2017 = $59, 2018 = $57
DCF : 2013 = $64, 2014 = $64, 2015 = $64, 2016 = $64, 2017 = $64, 2018 = $64
Average of all models: 2013 = $25, 2014 = $34, 2015 = $38, 2016 = $53, 2017 = $61, 2018 = $61
Average of 2017-2018 Valuation: $61
I think it's a brilliant idea, and solves a lot of the "range anxiety" issues. Economically though, I'm not sure someone would want to be on the owning end of one of the changing stations given the very high capital requirements. I also think that people will be rather protective of their batteries and will probably opt for a supercharge rather than get one that's been depleted. With 50 batteries on hand, how many do you need to keep swapping to make money as an owner? You get $50 per swap and only 50 on hand, that's $2,500 per day assuming you use all 50 up in a day. A more realistic figure would probably be 1 or 2 per day. The charging station costs at least $500,000 to build, plus land/leasing costs, etc. makes the economic case very hard to digest, unless there was some federal subsidy to make it worth my while to take that risk. And even then, no business that relies on tax subisidies to make money is ever really a good idea.
The concept of battery swapping is a fantastic idea. The economics of it are just hard to justify.
If this kind of good news isn't going to drive the stock higher, what will? And what's next on the news front? TSLA price action depends a lot on the news flow. Just troubling to see it weaken so much.
I think you're early on the gold miners. Solid downward thrust from improved inflation picture with Fed tapering means there's going to be some pressure on gold.
"Our six-month price target for Tesla (Neutral) is $61."
That's just silly. That's going to have to move up. But I don't see it going up to the current price level either.