Just like your call for a secular bull market in oil? That's even the energy sector which should be your specialization. All you do is repeat various untrue claims despite overwhelming evidence.
Right. I fantasize about various things as well. But a microencephalized illiterate will never be my master.
We've missed your antics. You were great in the 80s.
Michael Pachter is the worst analyst I've ever seen. It might surprise you just how bad these people can be and keep their jobs.
oh yeah, as Netflix gets to a market cap of 200 million? All this clowning around, I think you are simply confusing yourself.
ah ok, I did that already. You wrote that as if you were adding something interesting, and I couldn't figure out what it was.
Precisely. Plus he has no absolute sense of the proper valuation for PCLN or NFLX.
The problem Sibz is you aren't explaining the basis for this generic commentary. Even if it's based on charts you haven't explain that either. It is not difficult to justify Netflix's valuation particularly at 20B, and from 20,000 feet PCLN doesn't even look that expensive. If these companies fundamentally execute there's no reason to expect an extended decline.
I'll certainly grant more performances like Q3 will lead to problems.
Tech is marching in his own fantasy land with powerup mushrooms and float scams dropping spikey shells as he beats his head on the bottom of sky-boxes hoping for a coin to pop out.
Philjoe sounds like one of those greaseballs that talks really loud and thinks he's interesting because he managed to drink a 12 pack in 30 minutes.
Note this 'rally' wasn't that impressive on the indexes but completely crushed the VIX. You are gonna need a new story beyond oil at this point IMO.
A low VIX is friendly to speculation and if PCLN and NFLX start running you better have a game plan. Your IYT probably won't do so much damage.
I'd wager 99% of the posters here are unable to create even the most basic financial model.
One should at least spitball estimate the # of cameras required to support the valuation, how that compares to some other product like the iPod or iPad, and whether it seems plausible. A strong consideration for the stability of margins should be made as well. And then of course toss in the Media story.
You won't find much quantitative thought on a yahoo board though. It's all gamblers with hunches and mostly minimum wage jobs or inherited money.
An increase in share supply doesn't change the value of the company. This isn't supply and demand like the naive posters here would argue. A large seller can disrupt the price so long as the rest of the market is suspicious they might be acting on negative information. In this case, there is no confusion about why a bunch of shares are being put onto the market and so rational buyers should and will take advantage of any technical dips.
The drop from 76 is rather easily explained by the obscene number of cameras required to support that value, and the challenges in getting there.
Or if that continues to be too abstract for you.
Time Warner, Fox, Apple, Amazon, and Disney's ESPN get together and formulate a response. They sell some vested interested to the ISPs and they produce a perfectly valid alternative that beats Netflix at it's own game...
Netflix achieves saturation early at 50M subs, and attempts another price hike but finds customers unwilling to pay leading to a negative outcome and nowhere else to go.
Despite early leads, Netflix discovers that locally grown versions of their company are able to outmaneuver them and provide superior service, partially because they have better access to local content, partially simply because of jingoistic loyalties.
Netflix continues to underperform on originals. Binge watching is revealed as a silly idea.
Reed Hastings quits from health problems and the new guy puts in advertising and VOD and customers hate it. He backpedals but it's too late.
Netflix screens 'the Interview', and North Korea wipes out their Los Gatos headquarters with a homemade bomb of Yak dung and Panda urine.
You note, properly, that the market anticipates value and assigns the 4000 early. My original question was how to explain the discrepancy given the market is forward looking. The market knows a lot more about Netflix now than a year ago, and has assigned a lower value to it. You go the opposite direction and predict a 12x higher value.
What was your price target before the Q3 miss?
How does competition stop Tesla from cornering the market and being worth 800 Billion? How does competition stop Amazon from cornering all eCommerce and being worth 2 Trillion? Why did Microsoft fail to maintain supremacy in computing? Why has Intel failed to capture significant marketshare in mobile computing?
The discussion starts with you grokking why analysts never put 12x price targets on a stock. I can cite pretty much any of the bear thesis and they all have some nonzero probability of being true. It's not hard to cast aspersions on a 12x prediction, particularly given you are competing against a market that is typically smarter than any given person.
Your approach is akin to George Bush's approach on foreign policy: "that's too complicated Colin- let's just smoke em out of their caves and be done with it"
So you're down 160k+ today I take it despite the help from NFLX.
You are gonna find those gains from October can disappear rather quickly.
Yes. 300 Billion in revenue makes it worth 4000. They only need to increase their current revenues by 60x to do so. You managed to squash all doubts of that happening in a couple sentences, but like a moron I wasn't able to remember your airtight explanation. My bad.