+Follow
teest
No personal profile
12
Follow
1
Followers
0
Topic
0
Badge
Posts
Hot
teest
2021-06-11
Good
Alibaba Vs. JD.com: Which Chinese Stock Is The Better Buy
teest
2022-06-10
120 or higher by end of this month.
teest
2021-03-27
Nice
Disney+, Netflix Hikes Bring Cost of Cord-Cutter Package to $92
Go to Tiger App to see more news
{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"3563098470976246","uuid":"3563098470976246","gmtCreate":1600343293915,"gmtModify":1704447493618,"name":"teest","pinyin":"teest","introduction":"","introductionEn":null,"signature":"","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2536c4ab98a5677e34669482a66595ce","hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a8758340a08196056f8bc1e54805193","hatId":"ca_profile_frame_Lm11L6","hatName":"","vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":1,"headSize":12,"tweetSize":6,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":1,"name":"萌萌虎","nameTw":"萌萌虎","represent":"呱呱坠地","factor":"评论帖子3次或发布1条主帖（非转发）","iconColor":"3C9E83","bgColor":"A2F1D9"},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":0,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":"success","userBadges":[{"badgeId":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493-3","templateUuid":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493","name":" Tiger Idol","description":"Join the tiger community for 1500 days","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8b40ae7da5bf081a1c84df14bf9e6367","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f160eceddd7c284a8e1136557615cfad","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/11792805c468334a9b31c39f95a41c6a","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2024.10.27","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},{"badgeId":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be-3","templateUuid":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be","name":"Legendary Trader","description":"Total number of securities or futures transactions reached 300","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/656db16598a0b8f21429e10d6c1cb033","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/03f10910d4dd9234f9b5702a3342193a","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0c767e35268feb729d50d3fa9a386c5a","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2023.10.14","exceedPercentage":"93.57%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100},{"badgeId":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03-1","templateUuid":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03","name":"Boss Tiger","description":"The transaction amount of the securities account reaches $100,000","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c8dfc27c1ee0e25db1c93e9d0b641101","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f43908c142f8a33c78f5bdf0e2897488","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/82165ff19cb8a786e8919f92acee5213","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2022.06.28","exceedPercentage":"60.48%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1101},{"badgeId":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789-1","templateUuid":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789","name":"Knowledgeable Investor","description":"Traded more than 10 stocks","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e74cc24115c4fbae6154ec1b1041bf47","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d48265cbfd97c57f9048db29f22227b0","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76c6d6898b073c77e1c537ebe9ac1c57","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1102},{"badgeId":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84-1","templateUuid":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84","name":"Real Trader","description":"Completed a transaction","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100}],"userBadgeCount":5,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be-3","templateUuid":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be","name":"Legendary Trader","description":"Total number of securities or futures transactions reached 300","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/656db16598a0b8f21429e10d6c1cb033","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/03f10910d4dd9234f9b5702a3342193a","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0c767e35268feb729d50d3fa9a386c5a","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2023.10.14","exceedPercentage":"93.04%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100},"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":null,"starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"hot","tweets":[{"id":9058231795,"gmtCreate":1654839948217,"gmtModify":1676535521209,"author":{"id":"3563098470976246","authorId":"3563098470976246","name":"teest","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2536c4ab98a5677e34669482a66595ce","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3563098470976246","authorIdStr":"3563098470976246"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"120 or higher by end of this month.","listText":"120 or higher by end of this month.","text":"120 or higher by end of this month.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9058231795","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":190,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":188939812,"gmtCreate":1623418953736,"gmtModify":1704203120736,"author":{"id":"3563098470976246","authorId":"3563098470976246","name":"teest","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2536c4ab98a5677e34669482a66595ce","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3563098470976246","authorIdStr":"3563098470976246"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/188939812","repostId":"1195128984","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1195128984","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623416618,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1195128984?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-11 21:03","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Alibaba Vs. JD.com: Which Chinese Stock Is The Better Buy","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1195128984","media":"Seekingalpha","summary":"Alibaba Group and JD.com Inc. are high-growth players that benefit from digitalization and growing consumer spending in China.BABA and JD operate with different business models, which is why BABA generates significantly higher margins.The Chinese middle class is growing quickly, which results in strong consumer spending growth. On top of that, Chinese consumers use e-commerce solutions widely, which naturally means that there is a very large, and growing, market opportunity for online shopping c","content":"<p><b>Summary</b></p>\n<ul>\n <li>Alibaba Group and JD.com Inc. are high-growth players that benefit from digitalization and growing consumer spending in China.</li>\n <li>BABA and JD operate with different business models, which is why BABA generates significantly higher margins.</li>\n <li>The growth outlook is very strong for both companies, but investors should consider valuation differences between the two companies.</li>\n</ul>\n<p><b>Article Thesis</b></p>\n<p>The Chinese middle class is growing quickly, which results in strong consumer spending growth. On top of that, Chinese consumers use e-commerce solutions widely, which naturally means that there is a very large, and growing, market opportunity for online shopping companies such as Alibaba Group (BABA) and JD.com Inc. (JD). In this article, we will take a look at these two companies, how they compare, their similarities and differences, and try to find out which company is the better pick at current prices.</p>\n<p><b>Alibaba Stock Price</b></p>\n<p>BABA is one of the largest Chinese tech companies, being valued at $590 billion. Its shares are up by triple digits since the IPO a couple of years ago, but over the more recent past, BABA has not been a strong performer. At $214 today, shares are down around one-third from the peak that was hit last fall. This underperformance was, in part, driven by thefailed Ant Financial IPOand by increased scrutiny by Chinese regulators.</p>\n<p>These factors have, however, not negatively impacted BABA's results. Instead, the company kept generating strong growth rates in recent quarters, which indicates that the recent share price underperformance was likely driven by weak sentiment and reluctance to invest in Chinese companies to a significant degree.</p>\n<p>Based on current earnings forecasts for this year, BABA shares are trading for just 21x this year's earnings. This seems like a very inexpensive valuation -- especially when one considers that the company is still growing at a rapid pace, with revenue growthranging from 36% to 81%during the last four quarters.</p>\n<p><b>JD.com Stock Price</b></p>\n<p>JD is, like BABA, a company that has seen its shares rise strongly over the last couple of years. It shares another similarity with its larger peer, however, as its shares have also underperformed in the recent past. JD's shares peaked in February and are down by 33% from the high today, dropping from $108 to $72 in a couple of months. As stated above, growing reluctance when it comes to investing in Chinese equities, coupled with some worries about a regulatory crackdown, play a role in JD's weak share price performance.</p>\n<p>The company has, at the same time, seen its shares peak at a similar time to those of other high-growth, high-valuation stocks such as Tesla (TSLA). The share price underperformance in recent months may thus also be driven by a shift fromgrowth stocks to value stocks, and by the so-called reopening trade. At its current share price, JD.com is valued at around $110 billion, which is around one-fifth of Alibaba's valuation.</p>\n<p>Unlike BABA, JD is not trading at a discount to the broad market, as shares are currently valued at 45x this year's earnings per share, using current consensus estimates for adjusted EPS, which back out some one-time items. JD thus trades at a 100%+ premium compared to BABA, although it should be mentioned that other e-commerce players from different countries, such as US-based Amazon (AMZN), trade at similar or even higher valuations. Amazon trades at 59x this year's expected EPS, for example, while South America-focused MercadoLibre (MELI) trades at more than 2000x this year's expected net profits. JD thus is clearly way more expensive than BABA, but in comparison to international peers, its valuation is not at all outrageously high.</p>\n<p><b>Are JD.com and Alibaba Competitors?</b></p>\n<p>JD.com Inc. and Alibaba Group both operate in the e-commerce space, although their business models are not exactly the same. Alibaba is primarily a platform provider, where third-party sellers offer their merchandise while Alibaba receives a platform fee without handling packaging, logistics, etc. themselves. JD.com, on the other hand, sells, like Amazon, products themselves, which includes handling, transportation, packaging, etc. JD does offer a marketplace for third-party sellers as well, but this is not their primary business, which differentiates them from BABA to some degree. JD, due to handling logistics themselves, has invested heavily in tech in this area, which includes using drones and robots to deliver products to customers.</p>\n<p>Both companies do, on top of operating e-commerce operations, also invest in a wide range of other projects and businesses. This includes, for example, BABA's<i>Alibaba Cloud</i>and JD's autonomous vehicles venture.</p>\n<p>Despite the fact that the two companies do operate somewhat different business models, they are, of course, still competitors. Both serve the Chinese online shopping/e-commerce consumer market, and both seek to maximize their platforms' share of dollars that are spent online in the country. Luckily, the Chinese e-commerce market islarge and grows rapidly, which means that both companies can grow their top lines at the same time - there is enough room for both to grow profitably.</p>\n<p><b>What Is The Difference Between Alibaba And JD?</b></p>\n<p>The aforementioned fact that both companies have somewhat different business models is one key difference between the two, and it has implications for the fundamentals these companies are operating with:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c26f2ff289114ca6ac216d075961f252\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"515\"></p>\n<p>Data byYCharts</p>\n<p>Since BABA does operate asset-light, and without having to handle a lot of logistics, BABA generates significantly higher margins than JD, no matter whether one takes a look at gross margins, EBITDA margins, or operating margins. JD's margins look more like those of Amazon, i.e. significantly lower, which isn't a large surprise -- like Amazon, JD has high expenses for packaging, handling, storage, and so on.</p>\n<p>Another big difference is the respective size of the two companies. BABA, being valued at 5x JD's market cap, and generating net profits that are about 10x higher than those of JD, is a significantly larger company. The two don't differ too much in terms of revenue generation, however, which can be explained by the different business models -- JD has high revenue per product, at a low margin, whereas BABA's business model that focuses on platform fees generates lower revenue per product at much higher margins.</p>\n<p>Overall, I'd rate BABA's business model more attractive. In a downturn, BABA's way higher margins will allow the company to stomach some margin pressure more easily, and its fee-based operations are lean and do result in low capital expenditure requirements. This, in turn, allows BABA to put a lot of free cash towards other business units, such as its cloud computing unit, while BABA has also been highly active in M&A as well.</p>\n<p><b>Alibaba Vs. JD.com: Which Is The Best Chinese Stock To Buy?</b></p>\n<p>Several things should be considered here, including fundamentals, growth, valuation, and risk factors. As stated above, BABA's business model allows for better fundamentals, and I believe that this will not change in the foreseeable future, as the much higher margins seem to be inherent for a company utilizing this platform approach.</p>\n<p>Looking at growth, we see that both have grown rapidly in recent years, including during pandemic-impacted 2020. Current analyst consensus estimates for the coming years look like this:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/dd91edeaa64807108941f40b4570b3e8\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"535\"></p>\n<p>Data byYCharts</p>\n<p>Alibaba is forecasted to grow its revenue by 21% in 2022, and by 18% in 2023. JD.com, meanwhile, is forecasted to grow its top line by 21% in 2022, and by 19% in 2023 -- these are very similar growth rates. Long-term earnings per share growth estimates are not too far from each other, either, as BABA is seen growing its EPS by 27% a year, whereas JD is seen growing its EPS by 32% a year.</p>\n<p>It makes, I believe, sense to expect that JD will grow its net profits faster, due to the fact that its margins have more upside potential, and that operating leverage should be more beneficial for a company like JD with its high fixed costs. Nevertheless, the growth outlook is relatively similar for these two companies. Since both operate in a similar market with their core businesses and will benefit from ongoing consumer spending growth and digitalization, it makes sense that there are no ultra-large discrepancies here.</p>\n<p>Looking at risk factors for both companies, we can say that both are heavily exposed to the Chinese economy, with all potential risks this entails. If economic growth slows down in China, both will be impacted. Similarly, if regulators crack down on e-commerce, both would be impacted. If a new strong competitor enters the Chinese e-commerce market, both companies could lose market share.</p>\n<p>Since Alibaba is a larger company, and since its founder Jack Ma seems to be more politically exposed compared to key execs at JD.com, one could argue that political/regulatory risks are more pronounced at Alibaba compared to JD.com. I personally do not see this as a very large risk factor, however, as it would not seem logical for Chinese politicians to hurt either of these two high-growth tech companies.</p>\n<p>To sum this section up, I'd say that Alibaba trades at a massive discount compared to JD.com, which is the key argument here. Growth may be a little better at JD, while fundamentals are a little better at BABA. But these differences pale compared to the ultra-large difference in the valuations of both companies: BABA, at 21x this year's earnings, seems like a better pick than JD, at 45x this year's earnings.</p>\n<p>BABA's valuation is also significantly lower when we look at other metrics such as EV to EBITDA, which accounts for different debt levels. Here BABA is also way cheaper than JD, trading at 17x forward EBITDA (according to YCharts), compared to a 30x forward EBITDA valuation for its smaller peer.</p>\n<p>BABA is my favorite among these two right now, with valuation being the key factor. If JD were to trade at a similarly low valuation as BABA, the story might be a different one. But I don't think JD is a better pick than BABA when having an almost identical growth outlook while trading at a 100%+ premium. I welcome you to share your opinion on this question and your reasoning for preferring one of these over the other in the comment section!</p>","source":"seekingalpha","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Alibaba Vs. JD.com: Which Chinese Stock Is The Better Buy</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAlibaba Vs. JD.com: Which Chinese Stock Is The Better Buy\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-11 21:03 GMT+8 <a href=https://seekingalpha.com/article/4434233-alibaba-vs-jd-com-better-buy><strong>Seekingalpha</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Summary\n\nAlibaba Group and JD.com Inc. are high-growth players that benefit from digitalization and growing consumer spending in China.\nBABA and JD operate with different business models, which is why...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4434233-alibaba-vs-jd-com-better-buy\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"09988":"阿里巴巴-W","JD":"京东","09618":"京东集团-SW","BABA":"阿里巴巴"},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4434233-alibaba-vs-jd-com-better-buy","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5a36db9d73b4222bc376d24ccc48c8a4","article_id":"1195128984","content_text":"Summary\n\nAlibaba Group and JD.com Inc. are high-growth players that benefit from digitalization and growing consumer spending in China.\nBABA and JD operate with different business models, which is why BABA generates significantly higher margins.\nThe growth outlook is very strong for both companies, but investors should consider valuation differences between the two companies.\n\nArticle Thesis\nThe Chinese middle class is growing quickly, which results in strong consumer spending growth. On top of that, Chinese consumers use e-commerce solutions widely, which naturally means that there is a very large, and growing, market opportunity for online shopping companies such as Alibaba Group (BABA) and JD.com Inc. (JD). In this article, we will take a look at these two companies, how they compare, their similarities and differences, and try to find out which company is the better pick at current prices.\nAlibaba Stock Price\nBABA is one of the largest Chinese tech companies, being valued at $590 billion. Its shares are up by triple digits since the IPO a couple of years ago, but over the more recent past, BABA has not been a strong performer. At $214 today, shares are down around one-third from the peak that was hit last fall. This underperformance was, in part, driven by thefailed Ant Financial IPOand by increased scrutiny by Chinese regulators.\nThese factors have, however, not negatively impacted BABA's results. Instead, the company kept generating strong growth rates in recent quarters, which indicates that the recent share price underperformance was likely driven by weak sentiment and reluctance to invest in Chinese companies to a significant degree.\nBased on current earnings forecasts for this year, BABA shares are trading for just 21x this year's earnings. This seems like a very inexpensive valuation -- especially when one considers that the company is still growing at a rapid pace, with revenue growthranging from 36% to 81%during the last four quarters.\nJD.com Stock Price\nJD is, like BABA, a company that has seen its shares rise strongly over the last couple of years. It shares another similarity with its larger peer, however, as its shares have also underperformed in the recent past. JD's shares peaked in February and are down by 33% from the high today, dropping from $108 to $72 in a couple of months. As stated above, growing reluctance when it comes to investing in Chinese equities, coupled with some worries about a regulatory crackdown, play a role in JD's weak share price performance.\nThe company has, at the same time, seen its shares peak at a similar time to those of other high-growth, high-valuation stocks such as Tesla (TSLA). The share price underperformance in recent months may thus also be driven by a shift fromgrowth stocks to value stocks, and by the so-called reopening trade. At its current share price, JD.com is valued at around $110 billion, which is around one-fifth of Alibaba's valuation.\nUnlike BABA, JD is not trading at a discount to the broad market, as shares are currently valued at 45x this year's earnings per share, using current consensus estimates for adjusted EPS, which back out some one-time items. JD thus trades at a 100%+ premium compared to BABA, although it should be mentioned that other e-commerce players from different countries, such as US-based Amazon (AMZN), trade at similar or even higher valuations. Amazon trades at 59x this year's expected EPS, for example, while South America-focused MercadoLibre (MELI) trades at more than 2000x this year's expected net profits. JD thus is clearly way more expensive than BABA, but in comparison to international peers, its valuation is not at all outrageously high.\nAre JD.com and Alibaba Competitors?\nJD.com Inc. and Alibaba Group both operate in the e-commerce space, although their business models are not exactly the same. Alibaba is primarily a platform provider, where third-party sellers offer their merchandise while Alibaba receives a platform fee without handling packaging, logistics, etc. themselves. JD.com, on the other hand, sells, like Amazon, products themselves, which includes handling, transportation, packaging, etc. JD does offer a marketplace for third-party sellers as well, but this is not their primary business, which differentiates them from BABA to some degree. JD, due to handling logistics themselves, has invested heavily in tech in this area, which includes using drones and robots to deliver products to customers.\nBoth companies do, on top of operating e-commerce operations, also invest in a wide range of other projects and businesses. This includes, for example, BABA'sAlibaba Cloudand JD's autonomous vehicles venture.\nDespite the fact that the two companies do operate somewhat different business models, they are, of course, still competitors. Both serve the Chinese online shopping/e-commerce consumer market, and both seek to maximize their platforms' share of dollars that are spent online in the country. Luckily, the Chinese e-commerce market islarge and grows rapidly, which means that both companies can grow their top lines at the same time - there is enough room for both to grow profitably.\nWhat Is The Difference Between Alibaba And JD?\nThe aforementioned fact that both companies have somewhat different business models is one key difference between the two, and it has implications for the fundamentals these companies are operating with:\n\nData byYCharts\nSince BABA does operate asset-light, and without having to handle a lot of logistics, BABA generates significantly higher margins than JD, no matter whether one takes a look at gross margins, EBITDA margins, or operating margins. JD's margins look more like those of Amazon, i.e. significantly lower, which isn't a large surprise -- like Amazon, JD has high expenses for packaging, handling, storage, and so on.\nAnother big difference is the respective size of the two companies. BABA, being valued at 5x JD's market cap, and generating net profits that are about 10x higher than those of JD, is a significantly larger company. The two don't differ too much in terms of revenue generation, however, which can be explained by the different business models -- JD has high revenue per product, at a low margin, whereas BABA's business model that focuses on platform fees generates lower revenue per product at much higher margins.\nOverall, I'd rate BABA's business model more attractive. In a downturn, BABA's way higher margins will allow the company to stomach some margin pressure more easily, and its fee-based operations are lean and do result in low capital expenditure requirements. This, in turn, allows BABA to put a lot of free cash towards other business units, such as its cloud computing unit, while BABA has also been highly active in M&A as well.\nAlibaba Vs. JD.com: Which Is The Best Chinese Stock To Buy?\nSeveral things should be considered here, including fundamentals, growth, valuation, and risk factors. As stated above, BABA's business model allows for better fundamentals, and I believe that this will not change in the foreseeable future, as the much higher margins seem to be inherent for a company utilizing this platform approach.\nLooking at growth, we see that both have grown rapidly in recent years, including during pandemic-impacted 2020. Current analyst consensus estimates for the coming years look like this:\n\nData byYCharts\nAlibaba is forecasted to grow its revenue by 21% in 2022, and by 18% in 2023. JD.com, meanwhile, is forecasted to grow its top line by 21% in 2022, and by 19% in 2023 -- these are very similar growth rates. Long-term earnings per share growth estimates are not too far from each other, either, as BABA is seen growing its EPS by 27% a year, whereas JD is seen growing its EPS by 32% a year.\nIt makes, I believe, sense to expect that JD will grow its net profits faster, due to the fact that its margins have more upside potential, and that operating leverage should be more beneficial for a company like JD with its high fixed costs. Nevertheless, the growth outlook is relatively similar for these two companies. Since both operate in a similar market with their core businesses and will benefit from ongoing consumer spending growth and digitalization, it makes sense that there are no ultra-large discrepancies here.\nLooking at risk factors for both companies, we can say that both are heavily exposed to the Chinese economy, with all potential risks this entails. If economic growth slows down in China, both will be impacted. Similarly, if regulators crack down on e-commerce, both would be impacted. If a new strong competitor enters the Chinese e-commerce market, both companies could lose market share.\nSince Alibaba is a larger company, and since its founder Jack Ma seems to be more politically exposed compared to key execs at JD.com, one could argue that political/regulatory risks are more pronounced at Alibaba compared to JD.com. I personally do not see this as a very large risk factor, however, as it would not seem logical for Chinese politicians to hurt either of these two high-growth tech companies.\nTo sum this section up, I'd say that Alibaba trades at a massive discount compared to JD.com, which is the key argument here. Growth may be a little better at JD, while fundamentals are a little better at BABA. But these differences pale compared to the ultra-large difference in the valuations of both companies: BABA, at 21x this year's earnings, seems like a better pick than JD, at 45x this year's earnings.\nBABA's valuation is also significantly lower when we look at other metrics such as EV to EBITDA, which accounts for different debt levels. Here BABA is also way cheaper than JD, trading at 17x forward EBITDA (according to YCharts), compared to a 30x forward EBITDA valuation for its smaller peer.\nBABA is my favorite among these two right now, with valuation being the key factor. If JD were to trade at a similarly low valuation as BABA, the story might be a different one. But I don't think JD is a better pick than BABA when having an almost identical growth outlook while trading at a 100%+ premium. I welcome you to share your opinion on this question and your reasoning for preferring one of these over the other in the comment section!","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":195,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":356469971,"gmtCreate":1616807517093,"gmtModify":1704799237381,"author":{"id":"3563098470976246","authorId":"3563098470976246","name":"teest","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2536c4ab98a5677e34669482a66595ce","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3563098470976246","authorIdStr":"3563098470976246"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/356469971","repostId":"1135688585","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1135688585","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1616760078,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1135688585?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-03-26 20:01","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Disney+, Netflix Hikes Bring Cost of Cord-Cutter Package to $92","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1135688585","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"With recent increases, streaming bundle price equals cable TV\nNew services such as Paramount+ and Di","content":"<ul>\n <li>With recent increases, streaming bundle price equals cable TV</li>\n <li>New services such as Paramount+ and Discovery+ vying for users</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The financial incentives that have driven millions of Americans to dump cable TV for streaming services are disappearing fast.</p>\n<p>With recent price increases at Disney+ and Netflix -- along with the debut of Paramount+ and Discovery+ -- the streaming landscape is evolving quickly. And it’s getting more expensive to assemble a top-notch streaming collection, with the cost rapidly approaching the level of a traditional cable bundle.</p>\n<p>If you put together the flagship streaming services from the biggest media and tech companies, including Amazon.com Inc.,AT&T Inc.,Netflix Inc. and Walt Disney Co., it would now cost you $92 a month in the U.S. That’s almost as much as a typical cable-TV subscription, which S&P Global Market Intelligence puts at $93.50.</p>\n<p>That doesn’t include services such as Fox Nation, which is aimed at die-hard Fox News fans, or AMC+, an outlet with movies and “The Walking Dead.” It also assumes you’re willing to pay full freight for Netflix,Comcast Corp.’s Peacock and ViacomCBS Inc.’s Paramount+, rather than the lower-end versions. Many consumers get Amazon’s service when they sign up for Prime shipping benefits, but the video platform on its own costs $9.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b235b4b1c77b27eaf53b229b63a27d6e\" tg-width=\"968\" tg-height=\"673\"></p>\n<p>Of course, few viewers want so many streaming services -- and fewer still could watch all that content -- but it shows the dilemma facing TV lovers. While the market is now crowded with quality programming, consumers who cut the cable cord risk building a streaming bundle that eclipses the cost of their old pay-TV bills.</p>\n<p>That’s unlikely to drive customers back into the arms of cable-TV providers, but it may send them searching for more budget-friendly options -- like advertising-supported services. AT&T plans to offer a cheaper version of HBO Max with ads in June.</p>\n<p>“People are stacking services on top of each other -- at this point, there isn’t any end in sight,” said Steve Nason, research director at Parks Associates, a market-research firm. “It was all about the bundle. Then the unbundling. Now, people are rebundling again, and it’s hitting their wallet directly.”</p>\n<p>For now, U.S. consumers seem to be reveling in the choices. A typical streaming household subscribed to about four services as of January, according to Ampere Analysis. That’s up from roughly two in 2017, the firm estimates.</p>\n<p>A Parks Associates survey of households last year found that about one-third have four or more, and fewer than a quarter have no streaming subscriptions.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>And their bills are going up. Disney+, which amassed 100 million users within 16 months of launching, is raising its price by $1 to $8 a month on Friday. The company’s premiere streaming bundle, which includes ESPN+ and an ad-free version of Hulu, now costs $20.</p>\n<p>Netflix, meanwhile,bumped the price of its premium plan, which has higher-resolution video, to $18 from $16 late last year. Its standard offering increased by $1 to $14.</p>\n<p>Many of the TV industry’s most-talked-about new shows are appearing exclusively on streaming, such as Disney+’s “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.” That makes it harder to say no.</p>\n<p>Still, a do-it-yourself bundle has some big gaps, for now at least: news and sports.</p>\n<p>Media giants are adding more sports to their streaming services, including Peacock, Paramount+, and, of course, Disney’s ESPN+. The companies’ blockbuster deal with the NFL this month involved getting more telecasts online.</p>\n<p>But the chance of finding the exact game you want remains low. For that, you may need to either sign up for a live-TV service like YouTube TV or get yourself a digital antenna and go back to watching local broadcast channels.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Disney+, Netflix Hikes Bring Cost of Cord-Cutter Package to $92</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nDisney+, Netflix Hikes Bring Cost of Cord-Cutter Package to $92\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-26 20:01 GMT+8 <a href=http://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-26/disney-netflix-hikes-bring-cost-of-cord-cutter-package-to-92?srnd=markets-vp><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>With recent increases, streaming bundle price equals cable TV\nNew services such as Paramount+ and Discovery+ vying for users\n\nThe financial incentives that have driven millions of Americans to dump ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"http://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-26/disney-netflix-hikes-bring-cost-of-cord-cutter-package-to-92?srnd=markets-vp\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AMZN":"亚马逊","DIS":"迪士尼","AAPL":"苹果","NFLX":"奈飞"},"source_url":"http://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-26/disney-netflix-hikes-bring-cost-of-cord-cutter-package-to-92?srnd=markets-vp","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1135688585","content_text":"With recent increases, streaming bundle price equals cable TV\nNew services such as Paramount+ and Discovery+ vying for users\n\nThe financial incentives that have driven millions of Americans to dump cable TV for streaming services are disappearing fast.\nWith recent price increases at Disney+ and Netflix -- along with the debut of Paramount+ and Discovery+ -- the streaming landscape is evolving quickly. And it’s getting more expensive to assemble a top-notch streaming collection, with the cost rapidly approaching the level of a traditional cable bundle.\nIf you put together the flagship streaming services from the biggest media and tech companies, including Amazon.com Inc.,AT&T Inc.,Netflix Inc. and Walt Disney Co., it would now cost you $92 a month in the U.S. That’s almost as much as a typical cable-TV subscription, which S&P Global Market Intelligence puts at $93.50.\nThat doesn’t include services such as Fox Nation, which is aimed at die-hard Fox News fans, or AMC+, an outlet with movies and “The Walking Dead.” It also assumes you’re willing to pay full freight for Netflix,Comcast Corp.’s Peacock and ViacomCBS Inc.’s Paramount+, rather than the lower-end versions. Many consumers get Amazon’s service when they sign up for Prime shipping benefits, but the video platform on its own costs $9.\n\nOf course, few viewers want so many streaming services -- and fewer still could watch all that content -- but it shows the dilemma facing TV lovers. While the market is now crowded with quality programming, consumers who cut the cable cord risk building a streaming bundle that eclipses the cost of their old pay-TV bills.\nThat’s unlikely to drive customers back into the arms of cable-TV providers, but it may send them searching for more budget-friendly options -- like advertising-supported services. AT&T plans to offer a cheaper version of HBO Max with ads in June.\n“People are stacking services on top of each other -- at this point, there isn’t any end in sight,” said Steve Nason, research director at Parks Associates, a market-research firm. “It was all about the bundle. Then the unbundling. Now, people are rebundling again, and it’s hitting their wallet directly.”\nFor now, U.S. consumers seem to be reveling in the choices. A typical streaming household subscribed to about four services as of January, according to Ampere Analysis. That’s up from roughly two in 2017, the firm estimates.\nA Parks Associates survey of households last year found that about one-third have four or more, and fewer than a quarter have no streaming subscriptions.\n\nAnd their bills are going up. Disney+, which amassed 100 million users within 16 months of launching, is raising its price by $1 to $8 a month on Friday. The company’s premiere streaming bundle, which includes ESPN+ and an ad-free version of Hulu, now costs $20.\nNetflix, meanwhile,bumped the price of its premium plan, which has higher-resolution video, to $18 from $16 late last year. Its standard offering increased by $1 to $14.\nMany of the TV industry’s most-talked-about new shows are appearing exclusively on streaming, such as Disney+’s “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.” That makes it harder to say no.\nStill, a do-it-yourself bundle has some big gaps, for now at least: news and sports.\nMedia giants are adding more sports to their streaming services, including Peacock, Paramount+, and, of course, Disney’s ESPN+. The companies’ blockbuster deal with the NFL this month involved getting more telecasts online.\nBut the chance of finding the exact game you want remains low. For that, you may need to either sign up for a live-TV service like YouTube TV or get yourself a digital antenna and go back to watching local broadcast channels.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":189,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":188939812,"gmtCreate":1623418953736,"gmtModify":1704203120736,"author":{"id":"3563098470976246","authorId":"3563098470976246","name":"teest","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2536c4ab98a5677e34669482a66595ce","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3563098470976246","authorIdStr":"3563098470976246"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/188939812","repostId":"1195128984","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1195128984","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623416618,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1195128984?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-11 21:03","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Alibaba Vs. JD.com: Which Chinese Stock Is The Better Buy","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1195128984","media":"Seekingalpha","summary":"Alibaba Group and JD.com Inc. are high-growth players that benefit from digitalization and growing consumer spending in China.BABA and JD operate with different business models, which is why BABA generates significantly higher margins.The Chinese middle class is growing quickly, which results in strong consumer spending growth. On top of that, Chinese consumers use e-commerce solutions widely, which naturally means that there is a very large, and growing, market opportunity for online shopping c","content":"<p><b>Summary</b></p>\n<ul>\n <li>Alibaba Group and JD.com Inc. are high-growth players that benefit from digitalization and growing consumer spending in China.</li>\n <li>BABA and JD operate with different business models, which is why BABA generates significantly higher margins.</li>\n <li>The growth outlook is very strong for both companies, but investors should consider valuation differences between the two companies.</li>\n</ul>\n<p><b>Article Thesis</b></p>\n<p>The Chinese middle class is growing quickly, which results in strong consumer spending growth. On top of that, Chinese consumers use e-commerce solutions widely, which naturally means that there is a very large, and growing, market opportunity for online shopping companies such as Alibaba Group (BABA) and JD.com Inc. (JD). In this article, we will take a look at these two companies, how they compare, their similarities and differences, and try to find out which company is the better pick at current prices.</p>\n<p><b>Alibaba Stock Price</b></p>\n<p>BABA is one of the largest Chinese tech companies, being valued at $590 billion. Its shares are up by triple digits since the IPO a couple of years ago, but over the more recent past, BABA has not been a strong performer. At $214 today, shares are down around one-third from the peak that was hit last fall. This underperformance was, in part, driven by thefailed Ant Financial IPOand by increased scrutiny by Chinese regulators.</p>\n<p>These factors have, however, not negatively impacted BABA's results. Instead, the company kept generating strong growth rates in recent quarters, which indicates that the recent share price underperformance was likely driven by weak sentiment and reluctance to invest in Chinese companies to a significant degree.</p>\n<p>Based on current earnings forecasts for this year, BABA shares are trading for just 21x this year's earnings. This seems like a very inexpensive valuation -- especially when one considers that the company is still growing at a rapid pace, with revenue growthranging from 36% to 81%during the last four quarters.</p>\n<p><b>JD.com Stock Price</b></p>\n<p>JD is, like BABA, a company that has seen its shares rise strongly over the last couple of years. It shares another similarity with its larger peer, however, as its shares have also underperformed in the recent past. JD's shares peaked in February and are down by 33% from the high today, dropping from $108 to $72 in a couple of months. As stated above, growing reluctance when it comes to investing in Chinese equities, coupled with some worries about a regulatory crackdown, play a role in JD's weak share price performance.</p>\n<p>The company has, at the same time, seen its shares peak at a similar time to those of other high-growth, high-valuation stocks such as Tesla (TSLA). The share price underperformance in recent months may thus also be driven by a shift fromgrowth stocks to value stocks, and by the so-called reopening trade. At its current share price, JD.com is valued at around $110 billion, which is around one-fifth of Alibaba's valuation.</p>\n<p>Unlike BABA, JD is not trading at a discount to the broad market, as shares are currently valued at 45x this year's earnings per share, using current consensus estimates for adjusted EPS, which back out some one-time items. JD thus trades at a 100%+ premium compared to BABA, although it should be mentioned that other e-commerce players from different countries, such as US-based Amazon (AMZN), trade at similar or even higher valuations. Amazon trades at 59x this year's expected EPS, for example, while South America-focused MercadoLibre (MELI) trades at more than 2000x this year's expected net profits. JD thus is clearly way more expensive than BABA, but in comparison to international peers, its valuation is not at all outrageously high.</p>\n<p><b>Are JD.com and Alibaba Competitors?</b></p>\n<p>JD.com Inc. and Alibaba Group both operate in the e-commerce space, although their business models are not exactly the same. Alibaba is primarily a platform provider, where third-party sellers offer their merchandise while Alibaba receives a platform fee without handling packaging, logistics, etc. themselves. JD.com, on the other hand, sells, like Amazon, products themselves, which includes handling, transportation, packaging, etc. JD does offer a marketplace for third-party sellers as well, but this is not their primary business, which differentiates them from BABA to some degree. JD, due to handling logistics themselves, has invested heavily in tech in this area, which includes using drones and robots to deliver products to customers.</p>\n<p>Both companies do, on top of operating e-commerce operations, also invest in a wide range of other projects and businesses. This includes, for example, BABA's<i>Alibaba Cloud</i>and JD's autonomous vehicles venture.</p>\n<p>Despite the fact that the two companies do operate somewhat different business models, they are, of course, still competitors. Both serve the Chinese online shopping/e-commerce consumer market, and both seek to maximize their platforms' share of dollars that are spent online in the country. Luckily, the Chinese e-commerce market islarge and grows rapidly, which means that both companies can grow their top lines at the same time - there is enough room for both to grow profitably.</p>\n<p><b>What Is The Difference Between Alibaba And JD?</b></p>\n<p>The aforementioned fact that both companies have somewhat different business models is one key difference between the two, and it has implications for the fundamentals these companies are operating with:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c26f2ff289114ca6ac216d075961f252\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"515\"></p>\n<p>Data byYCharts</p>\n<p>Since BABA does operate asset-light, and without having to handle a lot of logistics, BABA generates significantly higher margins than JD, no matter whether one takes a look at gross margins, EBITDA margins, or operating margins. JD's margins look more like those of Amazon, i.e. significantly lower, which isn't a large surprise -- like Amazon, JD has high expenses for packaging, handling, storage, and so on.</p>\n<p>Another big difference is the respective size of the two companies. BABA, being valued at 5x JD's market cap, and generating net profits that are about 10x higher than those of JD, is a significantly larger company. The two don't differ too much in terms of revenue generation, however, which can be explained by the different business models -- JD has high revenue per product, at a low margin, whereas BABA's business model that focuses on platform fees generates lower revenue per product at much higher margins.</p>\n<p>Overall, I'd rate BABA's business model more attractive. In a downturn, BABA's way higher margins will allow the company to stomach some margin pressure more easily, and its fee-based operations are lean and do result in low capital expenditure requirements. This, in turn, allows BABA to put a lot of free cash towards other business units, such as its cloud computing unit, while BABA has also been highly active in M&A as well.</p>\n<p><b>Alibaba Vs. JD.com: Which Is The Best Chinese Stock To Buy?</b></p>\n<p>Several things should be considered here, including fundamentals, growth, valuation, and risk factors. As stated above, BABA's business model allows for better fundamentals, and I believe that this will not change in the foreseeable future, as the much higher margins seem to be inherent for a company utilizing this platform approach.</p>\n<p>Looking at growth, we see that both have grown rapidly in recent years, including during pandemic-impacted 2020. Current analyst consensus estimates for the coming years look like this:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/dd91edeaa64807108941f40b4570b3e8\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"535\"></p>\n<p>Data byYCharts</p>\n<p>Alibaba is forecasted to grow its revenue by 21% in 2022, and by 18% in 2023. JD.com, meanwhile, is forecasted to grow its top line by 21% in 2022, and by 19% in 2023 -- these are very similar growth rates. Long-term earnings per share growth estimates are not too far from each other, either, as BABA is seen growing its EPS by 27% a year, whereas JD is seen growing its EPS by 32% a year.</p>\n<p>It makes, I believe, sense to expect that JD will grow its net profits faster, due to the fact that its margins have more upside potential, and that operating leverage should be more beneficial for a company like JD with its high fixed costs. Nevertheless, the growth outlook is relatively similar for these two companies. Since both operate in a similar market with their core businesses and will benefit from ongoing consumer spending growth and digitalization, it makes sense that there are no ultra-large discrepancies here.</p>\n<p>Looking at risk factors for both companies, we can say that both are heavily exposed to the Chinese economy, with all potential risks this entails. If economic growth slows down in China, both will be impacted. Similarly, if regulators crack down on e-commerce, both would be impacted. If a new strong competitor enters the Chinese e-commerce market, both companies could lose market share.</p>\n<p>Since Alibaba is a larger company, and since its founder Jack Ma seems to be more politically exposed compared to key execs at JD.com, one could argue that political/regulatory risks are more pronounced at Alibaba compared to JD.com. I personally do not see this as a very large risk factor, however, as it would not seem logical for Chinese politicians to hurt either of these two high-growth tech companies.</p>\n<p>To sum this section up, I'd say that Alibaba trades at a massive discount compared to JD.com, which is the key argument here. Growth may be a little better at JD, while fundamentals are a little better at BABA. But these differences pale compared to the ultra-large difference in the valuations of both companies: BABA, at 21x this year's earnings, seems like a better pick than JD, at 45x this year's earnings.</p>\n<p>BABA's valuation is also significantly lower when we look at other metrics such as EV to EBITDA, which accounts for different debt levels. Here BABA is also way cheaper than JD, trading at 17x forward EBITDA (according to YCharts), compared to a 30x forward EBITDA valuation for its smaller peer.</p>\n<p>BABA is my favorite among these two right now, with valuation being the key factor. If JD were to trade at a similarly low valuation as BABA, the story might be a different one. But I don't think JD is a better pick than BABA when having an almost identical growth outlook while trading at a 100%+ premium. I welcome you to share your opinion on this question and your reasoning for preferring one of these over the other in the comment section!</p>","source":"seekingalpha","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Alibaba Vs. JD.com: Which Chinese Stock Is The Better Buy</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAlibaba Vs. JD.com: Which Chinese Stock Is The Better Buy\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-11 21:03 GMT+8 <a href=https://seekingalpha.com/article/4434233-alibaba-vs-jd-com-better-buy><strong>Seekingalpha</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Summary\n\nAlibaba Group and JD.com Inc. are high-growth players that benefit from digitalization and growing consumer spending in China.\nBABA and JD operate with different business models, which is why...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4434233-alibaba-vs-jd-com-better-buy\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"09988":"阿里巴巴-W","JD":"京东","09618":"京东集团-SW","BABA":"阿里巴巴"},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4434233-alibaba-vs-jd-com-better-buy","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5a36db9d73b4222bc376d24ccc48c8a4","article_id":"1195128984","content_text":"Summary\n\nAlibaba Group and JD.com Inc. are high-growth players that benefit from digitalization and growing consumer spending in China.\nBABA and JD operate with different business models, which is why BABA generates significantly higher margins.\nThe growth outlook is very strong for both companies, but investors should consider valuation differences between the two companies.\n\nArticle Thesis\nThe Chinese middle class is growing quickly, which results in strong consumer spending growth. On top of that, Chinese consumers use e-commerce solutions widely, which naturally means that there is a very large, and growing, market opportunity for online shopping companies such as Alibaba Group (BABA) and JD.com Inc. (JD). In this article, we will take a look at these two companies, how they compare, their similarities and differences, and try to find out which company is the better pick at current prices.\nAlibaba Stock Price\nBABA is one of the largest Chinese tech companies, being valued at $590 billion. Its shares are up by triple digits since the IPO a couple of years ago, but over the more recent past, BABA has not been a strong performer. At $214 today, shares are down around one-third from the peak that was hit last fall. This underperformance was, in part, driven by thefailed Ant Financial IPOand by increased scrutiny by Chinese regulators.\nThese factors have, however, not negatively impacted BABA's results. Instead, the company kept generating strong growth rates in recent quarters, which indicates that the recent share price underperformance was likely driven by weak sentiment and reluctance to invest in Chinese companies to a significant degree.\nBased on current earnings forecasts for this year, BABA shares are trading for just 21x this year's earnings. This seems like a very inexpensive valuation -- especially when one considers that the company is still growing at a rapid pace, with revenue growthranging from 36% to 81%during the last four quarters.\nJD.com Stock Price\nJD is, like BABA, a company that has seen its shares rise strongly over the last couple of years. It shares another similarity with its larger peer, however, as its shares have also underperformed in the recent past. JD's shares peaked in February and are down by 33% from the high today, dropping from $108 to $72 in a couple of months. As stated above, growing reluctance when it comes to investing in Chinese equities, coupled with some worries about a regulatory crackdown, play a role in JD's weak share price performance.\nThe company has, at the same time, seen its shares peak at a similar time to those of other high-growth, high-valuation stocks such as Tesla (TSLA). The share price underperformance in recent months may thus also be driven by a shift fromgrowth stocks to value stocks, and by the so-called reopening trade. At its current share price, JD.com is valued at around $110 billion, which is around one-fifth of Alibaba's valuation.\nUnlike BABA, JD is not trading at a discount to the broad market, as shares are currently valued at 45x this year's earnings per share, using current consensus estimates for adjusted EPS, which back out some one-time items. JD thus trades at a 100%+ premium compared to BABA, although it should be mentioned that other e-commerce players from different countries, such as US-based Amazon (AMZN), trade at similar or even higher valuations. Amazon trades at 59x this year's expected EPS, for example, while South America-focused MercadoLibre (MELI) trades at more than 2000x this year's expected net profits. JD thus is clearly way more expensive than BABA, but in comparison to international peers, its valuation is not at all outrageously high.\nAre JD.com and Alibaba Competitors?\nJD.com Inc. and Alibaba Group both operate in the e-commerce space, although their business models are not exactly the same. Alibaba is primarily a platform provider, where third-party sellers offer their merchandise while Alibaba receives a platform fee without handling packaging, logistics, etc. themselves. JD.com, on the other hand, sells, like Amazon, products themselves, which includes handling, transportation, packaging, etc. JD does offer a marketplace for third-party sellers as well, but this is not their primary business, which differentiates them from BABA to some degree. JD, due to handling logistics themselves, has invested heavily in tech in this area, which includes using drones and robots to deliver products to customers.\nBoth companies do, on top of operating e-commerce operations, also invest in a wide range of other projects and businesses. This includes, for example, BABA'sAlibaba Cloudand JD's autonomous vehicles venture.\nDespite the fact that the two companies do operate somewhat different business models, they are, of course, still competitors. Both serve the Chinese online shopping/e-commerce consumer market, and both seek to maximize their platforms' share of dollars that are spent online in the country. Luckily, the Chinese e-commerce market islarge and grows rapidly, which means that both companies can grow their top lines at the same time - there is enough room for both to grow profitably.\nWhat Is The Difference Between Alibaba And JD?\nThe aforementioned fact that both companies have somewhat different business models is one key difference between the two, and it has implications for the fundamentals these companies are operating with:\n\nData byYCharts\nSince BABA does operate asset-light, and without having to handle a lot of logistics, BABA generates significantly higher margins than JD, no matter whether one takes a look at gross margins, EBITDA margins, or operating margins. JD's margins look more like those of Amazon, i.e. significantly lower, which isn't a large surprise -- like Amazon, JD has high expenses for packaging, handling, storage, and so on.\nAnother big difference is the respective size of the two companies. BABA, being valued at 5x JD's market cap, and generating net profits that are about 10x higher than those of JD, is a significantly larger company. The two don't differ too much in terms of revenue generation, however, which can be explained by the different business models -- JD has high revenue per product, at a low margin, whereas BABA's business model that focuses on platform fees generates lower revenue per product at much higher margins.\nOverall, I'd rate BABA's business model more attractive. In a downturn, BABA's way higher margins will allow the company to stomach some margin pressure more easily, and its fee-based operations are lean and do result in low capital expenditure requirements. This, in turn, allows BABA to put a lot of free cash towards other business units, such as its cloud computing unit, while BABA has also been highly active in M&A as well.\nAlibaba Vs. JD.com: Which Is The Best Chinese Stock To Buy?\nSeveral things should be considered here, including fundamentals, growth, valuation, and risk factors. As stated above, BABA's business model allows for better fundamentals, and I believe that this will not change in the foreseeable future, as the much higher margins seem to be inherent for a company utilizing this platform approach.\nLooking at growth, we see that both have grown rapidly in recent years, including during pandemic-impacted 2020. Current analyst consensus estimates for the coming years look like this:\n\nData byYCharts\nAlibaba is forecasted to grow its revenue by 21% in 2022, and by 18% in 2023. JD.com, meanwhile, is forecasted to grow its top line by 21% in 2022, and by 19% in 2023 -- these are very similar growth rates. Long-term earnings per share growth estimates are not too far from each other, either, as BABA is seen growing its EPS by 27% a year, whereas JD is seen growing its EPS by 32% a year.\nIt makes, I believe, sense to expect that JD will grow its net profits faster, due to the fact that its margins have more upside potential, and that operating leverage should be more beneficial for a company like JD with its high fixed costs. Nevertheless, the growth outlook is relatively similar for these two companies. Since both operate in a similar market with their core businesses and will benefit from ongoing consumer spending growth and digitalization, it makes sense that there are no ultra-large discrepancies here.\nLooking at risk factors for both companies, we can say that both are heavily exposed to the Chinese economy, with all potential risks this entails. If economic growth slows down in China, both will be impacted. Similarly, if regulators crack down on e-commerce, both would be impacted. If a new strong competitor enters the Chinese e-commerce market, both companies could lose market share.\nSince Alibaba is a larger company, and since its founder Jack Ma seems to be more politically exposed compared to key execs at JD.com, one could argue that political/regulatory risks are more pronounced at Alibaba compared to JD.com. I personally do not see this as a very large risk factor, however, as it would not seem logical for Chinese politicians to hurt either of these two high-growth tech companies.\nTo sum this section up, I'd say that Alibaba trades at a massive discount compared to JD.com, which is the key argument here. Growth may be a little better at JD, while fundamentals are a little better at BABA. But these differences pale compared to the ultra-large difference in the valuations of both companies: BABA, at 21x this year's earnings, seems like a better pick than JD, at 45x this year's earnings.\nBABA's valuation is also significantly lower when we look at other metrics such as EV to EBITDA, which accounts for different debt levels. Here BABA is also way cheaper than JD, trading at 17x forward EBITDA (according to YCharts), compared to a 30x forward EBITDA valuation for its smaller peer.\nBABA is my favorite among these two right now, with valuation being the key factor. If JD were to trade at a similarly low valuation as BABA, the story might be a different one. But I don't think JD is a better pick than BABA when having an almost identical growth outlook while trading at a 100%+ premium. I welcome you to share your opinion on this question and your reasoning for preferring one of these over the other in the comment section!","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":195,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9058231795,"gmtCreate":1654839948217,"gmtModify":1676535521209,"author":{"id":"3563098470976246","authorId":"3563098470976246","name":"teest","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2536c4ab98a5677e34669482a66595ce","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3563098470976246","authorIdStr":"3563098470976246"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"120 or higher by end of this month.","listText":"120 or higher by end of this month.","text":"120 or higher by end of this month.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9058231795","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":190,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":356469971,"gmtCreate":1616807517093,"gmtModify":1704799237381,"author":{"id":"3563098470976246","authorId":"3563098470976246","name":"teest","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2536c4ab98a5677e34669482a66595ce","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3563098470976246","authorIdStr":"3563098470976246"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/356469971","repostId":"1135688585","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1135688585","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1616760078,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1135688585?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-03-26 20:01","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Disney+, Netflix Hikes Bring Cost of Cord-Cutter Package to $92","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1135688585","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"With recent increases, streaming bundle price equals cable TV\nNew services such as Paramount+ and Di","content":"<ul>\n <li>With recent increases, streaming bundle price equals cable TV</li>\n <li>New services such as Paramount+ and Discovery+ vying for users</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The financial incentives that have driven millions of Americans to dump cable TV for streaming services are disappearing fast.</p>\n<p>With recent price increases at Disney+ and Netflix -- along with the debut of Paramount+ and Discovery+ -- the streaming landscape is evolving quickly. And it’s getting more expensive to assemble a top-notch streaming collection, with the cost rapidly approaching the level of a traditional cable bundle.</p>\n<p>If you put together the flagship streaming services from the biggest media and tech companies, including Amazon.com Inc.,AT&T Inc.,Netflix Inc. and Walt Disney Co., it would now cost you $92 a month in the U.S. That’s almost as much as a typical cable-TV subscription, which S&P Global Market Intelligence puts at $93.50.</p>\n<p>That doesn’t include services such as Fox Nation, which is aimed at die-hard Fox News fans, or AMC+, an outlet with movies and “The Walking Dead.” It also assumes you’re willing to pay full freight for Netflix,Comcast Corp.’s Peacock and ViacomCBS Inc.’s Paramount+, rather than the lower-end versions. Many consumers get Amazon’s service when they sign up for Prime shipping benefits, but the video platform on its own costs $9.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b235b4b1c77b27eaf53b229b63a27d6e\" tg-width=\"968\" tg-height=\"673\"></p>\n<p>Of course, few viewers want so many streaming services -- and fewer still could watch all that content -- but it shows the dilemma facing TV lovers. While the market is now crowded with quality programming, consumers who cut the cable cord risk building a streaming bundle that eclipses the cost of their old pay-TV bills.</p>\n<p>That’s unlikely to drive customers back into the arms of cable-TV providers, but it may send them searching for more budget-friendly options -- like advertising-supported services. AT&T plans to offer a cheaper version of HBO Max with ads in June.</p>\n<p>“People are stacking services on top of each other -- at this point, there isn’t any end in sight,” said Steve Nason, research director at Parks Associates, a market-research firm. “It was all about the bundle. Then the unbundling. Now, people are rebundling again, and it’s hitting their wallet directly.”</p>\n<p>For now, U.S. consumers seem to be reveling in the choices. A typical streaming household subscribed to about four services as of January, according to Ampere Analysis. That’s up from roughly two in 2017, the firm estimates.</p>\n<p>A Parks Associates survey of households last year found that about one-third have four or more, and fewer than a quarter have no streaming subscriptions.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>And their bills are going up. Disney+, which amassed 100 million users within 16 months of launching, is raising its price by $1 to $8 a month on Friday. The company’s premiere streaming bundle, which includes ESPN+ and an ad-free version of Hulu, now costs $20.</p>\n<p>Netflix, meanwhile,bumped the price of its premium plan, which has higher-resolution video, to $18 from $16 late last year. Its standard offering increased by $1 to $14.</p>\n<p>Many of the TV industry’s most-talked-about new shows are appearing exclusively on streaming, such as Disney+’s “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.” That makes it harder to say no.</p>\n<p>Still, a do-it-yourself bundle has some big gaps, for now at least: news and sports.</p>\n<p>Media giants are adding more sports to their streaming services, including Peacock, Paramount+, and, of course, Disney’s ESPN+. The companies’ blockbuster deal with the NFL this month involved getting more telecasts online.</p>\n<p>But the chance of finding the exact game you want remains low. For that, you may need to either sign up for a live-TV service like YouTube TV or get yourself a digital antenna and go back to watching local broadcast channels.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Disney+, Netflix Hikes Bring Cost of Cord-Cutter Package to $92</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nDisney+, Netflix Hikes Bring Cost of Cord-Cutter Package to $92\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-26 20:01 GMT+8 <a href=http://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-26/disney-netflix-hikes-bring-cost-of-cord-cutter-package-to-92?srnd=markets-vp><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>With recent increases, streaming bundle price equals cable TV\nNew services such as Paramount+ and Discovery+ vying for users\n\nThe financial incentives that have driven millions of Americans to dump ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"http://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-26/disney-netflix-hikes-bring-cost-of-cord-cutter-package-to-92?srnd=markets-vp\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AMZN":"亚马逊","DIS":"迪士尼","AAPL":"苹果","NFLX":"奈飞"},"source_url":"http://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-26/disney-netflix-hikes-bring-cost-of-cord-cutter-package-to-92?srnd=markets-vp","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1135688585","content_text":"With recent increases, streaming bundle price equals cable TV\nNew services such as Paramount+ and Discovery+ vying for users\n\nThe financial incentives that have driven millions of Americans to dump cable TV for streaming services are disappearing fast.\nWith recent price increases at Disney+ and Netflix -- along with the debut of Paramount+ and Discovery+ -- the streaming landscape is evolving quickly. And it’s getting more expensive to assemble a top-notch streaming collection, with the cost rapidly approaching the level of a traditional cable bundle.\nIf you put together the flagship streaming services from the biggest media and tech companies, including Amazon.com Inc.,AT&T Inc.,Netflix Inc. and Walt Disney Co., it would now cost you $92 a month in the U.S. That’s almost as much as a typical cable-TV subscription, which S&P Global Market Intelligence puts at $93.50.\nThat doesn’t include services such as Fox Nation, which is aimed at die-hard Fox News fans, or AMC+, an outlet with movies and “The Walking Dead.” It also assumes you’re willing to pay full freight for Netflix,Comcast Corp.’s Peacock and ViacomCBS Inc.’s Paramount+, rather than the lower-end versions. Many consumers get Amazon’s service when they sign up for Prime shipping benefits, but the video platform on its own costs $9.\n\nOf course, few viewers want so many streaming services -- and fewer still could watch all that content -- but it shows the dilemma facing TV lovers. While the market is now crowded with quality programming, consumers who cut the cable cord risk building a streaming bundle that eclipses the cost of their old pay-TV bills.\nThat’s unlikely to drive customers back into the arms of cable-TV providers, but it may send them searching for more budget-friendly options -- like advertising-supported services. AT&T plans to offer a cheaper version of HBO Max with ads in June.\n“People are stacking services on top of each other -- at this point, there isn’t any end in sight,” said Steve Nason, research director at Parks Associates, a market-research firm. “It was all about the bundle. Then the unbundling. Now, people are rebundling again, and it’s hitting their wallet directly.”\nFor now, U.S. consumers seem to be reveling in the choices. A typical streaming household subscribed to about four services as of January, according to Ampere Analysis. That’s up from roughly two in 2017, the firm estimates.\nA Parks Associates survey of households last year found that about one-third have four or more, and fewer than a quarter have no streaming subscriptions.\n\nAnd their bills are going up. Disney+, which amassed 100 million users within 16 months of launching, is raising its price by $1 to $8 a month on Friday. The company’s premiere streaming bundle, which includes ESPN+ and an ad-free version of Hulu, now costs $20.\nNetflix, meanwhile,bumped the price of its premium plan, which has higher-resolution video, to $18 from $16 late last year. Its standard offering increased by $1 to $14.\nMany of the TV industry’s most-talked-about new shows are appearing exclusively on streaming, such as Disney+’s “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.” That makes it harder to say no.\nStill, a do-it-yourself bundle has some big gaps, for now at least: news and sports.\nMedia giants are adding more sports to their streaming services, including Peacock, Paramount+, and, of course, Disney’s ESPN+. The companies’ blockbuster deal with the NFL this month involved getting more telecasts online.\nBut the chance of finding the exact game you want remains low. For that, you may need to either sign up for a live-TV service like YouTube TV or get yourself a digital antenna and go back to watching local broadcast channels.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":189,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}
