weehwa45 personal page - To The Moon

weehwa45

weehwa45

No personal profile

46Follow

0Followers

0Topic

0Badge

2021-06-10

[Happy]

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2021-06-04

Good

Where Will Apple Stock Be In 10 Years? What To Consider

2021-02-18

Good

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2021-02-14

Good

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2021-06-12

G

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2021-06-09

Win

Why This Millennial Is Rage-Buying AMC and Crypto

2021-06-07

Good

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2021-06-03

Fly to moon

AMC Stock Is Surging Again. How to Make Sense of the Move.

2021-02-14

Good

Here's the formula for spotting genuinely undervalued companies, claims this investment house

2021-05-31

Good

Sorry, the original content has been removed

Go to Tiger App to see more news

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"3571554572709564","uuid":"3571554572709564","gmtCreate":1608460989781,"gmtModify":1622685895399,"name":"weehwa45","pinyin":"weehwa45","introduction":"","introductionEn":null,"signature":"","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":0,"headSize":46,"tweetSize":0,"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":"2025.01.29","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},{"badgeId":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03-2","templateUuid":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03","name":"Executive Tiger","description":"The transaction amount of the securities account reaches $300,000","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9d20b23f1b6335407f882bc5c2ad12c0","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ada3b4533518ace8404a3f6dd192bd29","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/177f283ba21d1c077054dac07f88f3bd","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2023.07.14","exceedPercentage":"80.83%","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},{"badgeId":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be-2","templateUuid":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be","name":"Master Trader","description":"Total number of securities or futures transactions reached 100","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ad22cfbe2d05aa393b18e9226e4b0307","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/36702e6ff3ffe46acafee66cc85273ca","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d52eb88fa385cf5abe2616ed63781765","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":"80.13%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100}],"userBadgeCount":5,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":1,"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":188254672,"gmtCreate":1623451678196,"gmtModify":1704203876650,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"&nbsp;G","listText":"&nbsp;G","text":"G","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/188254672","repostId":"2142202150","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2054,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":183278014,"gmtCreate":1623334250138,"gmtModify":1704201177563,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"[Happy]&nbsp;","listText":"[Happy]&nbsp;","text":"[Happy]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":5,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/183278014","repostId":"1128810191","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2260,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":189186548,"gmtCreate":1623248043584,"gmtModify":1704199317974,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Win","listText":"Win","text":"Win","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/189186548","repostId":"1188697627","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1188697627","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623247497,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1188697627?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-09 22:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why This Millennial Is Rage-Buying AMC and Crypto","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1188697627","media":"Barron's","summary":"Karl Marx would have loved Reddit. If the German philosopher were alive today, he’d be posting that ","content":"<p>Karl Marx would have loved Reddit. If the German philosopher were alive today, he’d be posting that everyone should get in on trading meme stocks and cryptocurrency. Not to get rich—though that’s a nice side benefit—but to strike back at the investor class. “It’s worthwhile running some risk in order to relieve the enemy of his money,” Marxwrote. I’m right there with you, Karl.</p>\n<p>Working-class millennials have been denied the chance to build generational wealth over the course of our professional careers. Many of us are risking what little we have left as a way of raging against a machine we feel is rigged against us. And we’re following in Marx’s footsteps.</p>\n<p>After a friend died in 1864, Marx received £820 in a bequest, his biographerrecounts. That comes out to roughly $151,500 today after adjusting for inflation and applying current conversion rates. Marx used a portion of his inheritance to become a financial speculator, often engaging in the same sort of penny-stock bubble schemes that the notorious WallStreetBets sub-Reddit has been accused of engaging in this year. “[Stocks] are springing up like mushrooms this year,” Marx wrote in a letter to his uncle, bragging that he had already made £400 from speculation. He added that many of his investments were typically “forced up to quite an unreasonable level and then, for the most part, collapse.”</p>\n<p>Marx’s trading stories are difficult to substantiate, but millennials’ love of meme stocks is very real. I’ve already made more this year from trading meme stocks and cryptocurrency than I have as a professional writer. I’ve come to look at the meme stock boom as millennials’ chance to finally build wealth. But if not, we’re content with making the investors largely responsible for our financial woes feel a bit of the pain they’ve inflicted on us. Short-sellers are losing their shirts to the tune of$4.5 billionon meme stocks so far.</p>\n<p>As a 34-year-old American, almost every generational stereotype applies to me. HuffPost’s Michael Hobbessummed upmillennials’ financial situation best in 2017: “My rent consumes nearly half my income, I haven’t had a steady job since Pluto was a planet and my savings are dwindling faster than the ice caps the baby boomers melted.”</p>\n<p>Perhaps because we’re the only American generation to live through two major recessions and two wars in our coming-up years, we’re the first generation to be financially worse off than our parents, despite beingbetter educatedon average. We paid for it, too. A year of college that cost $10,000 for boomers set millennials back more than $15,000 on average in inflation-adjusted dollars, according toBloomberg. Millennials of color, particularly Black millennials, have it worse. They graduated witheven more student debtthan their white classmates, arefar less likelyto be hired in white-collar professions, and their households earnjust 60%of what their white coworkers make.</p>\n<p>Millennials’ high-priced educations haven’t bought us much job security. A 2018 Gallup studycalledmillennials the “job-hopping generation.” Maybe, but not by choice. A 2019University of Chicago studyfound millennials actually long for a stable career. It should come as little surprise, then, that a generation plagued with job insecurity and mounting debt is leading the“baby bust.”The birth rate is at its lowest inthree decades. There may not be enough working-age Americans to care for the nation’s swelling senior population. Boomers effectively climbed the class ladder, then took a saw and cut off the rungs below them. (And they still ask us when we’ll give them grandchildren!)</p>\n<p>If all that doesn’t make meme stocks and cryptocurrency more appealing, at least it might help explain why some of us just don’t care any more about playing it safe. I’ll be the first to admit that investing in meme stocks isn’t a sustainable way to build wealth. A lot more of us will get hurt than get rich. But I’m not primarily investing to make money: I want the investors who crashed the economy and got bailed out in my senior year of college—thustorpedoingmy career earning potential—to feel at least a little bit of the hardship they put my generation through. And given thepredominantly millennialcomposition of /r/WallStreetBets, I know I’m not the only rage-driven investor.</p>\n<p>There’s plenty to be mad about. Like we saw withGameStop,workers organizing to make the stock market pay out in our favor results in strict blowback. After Redditors speculated GameStop shares through the roof in late January, mobile trading app Robinhood not only restricted trading, but evenreportedlysold investors’ GameStop shares without their consent. (Robinhooddeniesforced-selling occurred.) When it came to light that Robinhood had afinancial relationshipwith firms that help route its customers’ orders, it made a lot of newbie investors like me even more jaded about the markets.</p>\n<p>In March, when New York City opened movie theaters, I decided to buy AMC shares on a lark for $7 apiece. As of early June, my investment has appreciated in value by more than 550%. That could evaporate, but I’m taking a lesson from GameStop. Its stock is still trading at more than $250 per share despite starting the year under $20. I plan on continuing to hold my AMC shares in hopes the value will increase even more. When it’s finally time, I’ll sell half and re-invest my profits in cryptocurrency.</p>\n<p>When that happens, I’ll be far from the only millennial betting big on crypto. According to Business Insider, my generation ischiefly responsiblefor the sudden rise of cryptocurrency in 2021, in which both blue-chip digital currencies like Ethereum, as well as joke cryptocurrencies like Dogecoin, are thriving. Ethereum’s price has gone from $730.97 per coin on Jan. 1 to a peak of over $4,000 in May. Dogecoin hasappreciatedby more than 21,000% since its inception as a meme in 2013. (I’m still kicking myself for selling my Dogecoin when it was trading for less than 10 cents, even though I still made thousands in profit). Millennials’ commitment to crypto is now forcing the giants to play along: In March,Morgan Stanleybecame thefirst bankto offer Bitcoin funds to its wealthy clients. And as if on cue, now that the workers have made a little money in the rigged casino, U.S. regulators are reportedly preparing a “crackdown” on cryptocurrency.</p>\n<p>Millennials went through childhood being told we had to work hard to have financial security. Then we were told we had to shackle ourselves with debt to get a college degree that would get us a good job. Then we were told that only a lucky few actually build wealth from their jobs and that to have true financial success, we should invest. And then when we invested, we were told we were doing it wrong. I get the message. Millennials aren’t meant to win. Financial security isn’t for us. So if we can make a few grand by speculating penny stocks to the moon and hurt a few smug hedge fund vultures in the process, we’ll settle for that.</p>\n<p><b>Corrections &amp; Amplifications</b>: Citadel Securities is a market-maker that provides services for Robinhood, not a hedge fund. An earlier version of this commentary incorrectly reported that a subsidiary of Citadel Securities held a short position in GameStop.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","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>Why This Millennial Is Rage-Buying AMC and Crypto</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\">\nWhy This Millennial Is Rage-Buying AMC and Crypto\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-09 22:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/why-im-still-rage-buying-meme-stocks-51623165336><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Karl Marx would have loved Reddit. If the German philosopher were alive today, he’d be posting that everyone should get in on trading meme stocks and cryptocurrency. Not to get rich—though that’s a ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/why-im-still-rage-buying-meme-stocks-51623165336\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"GBTC":"比特币ETF-Grayscale","AMC":"AMC院线","COIN":"Coinbase Global, Inc."},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/why-im-still-rage-buying-meme-stocks-51623165336","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1188697627","content_text":"Karl Marx would have loved Reddit. If the German philosopher were alive today, he’d be posting that everyone should get in on trading meme stocks and cryptocurrency. Not to get rich—though that’s a nice side benefit—but to strike back at the investor class. “It’s worthwhile running some risk in order to relieve the enemy of his money,” Marxwrote. I’m right there with you, Karl.\nWorking-class millennials have been denied the chance to build generational wealth over the course of our professional careers. Many of us are risking what little we have left as a way of raging against a machine we feel is rigged against us. And we’re following in Marx’s footsteps.\nAfter a friend died in 1864, Marx received £820 in a bequest, his biographerrecounts. That comes out to roughly $151,500 today after adjusting for inflation and applying current conversion rates. Marx used a portion of his inheritance to become a financial speculator, often engaging in the same sort of penny-stock bubble schemes that the notorious WallStreetBets sub-Reddit has been accused of engaging in this year. “[Stocks] are springing up like mushrooms this year,” Marx wrote in a letter to his uncle, bragging that he had already made £400 from speculation. He added that many of his investments were typically “forced up to quite an unreasonable level and then, for the most part, collapse.”\nMarx’s trading stories are difficult to substantiate, but millennials’ love of meme stocks is very real. I’ve already made more this year from trading meme stocks and cryptocurrency than I have as a professional writer. I’ve come to look at the meme stock boom as millennials’ chance to finally build wealth. But if not, we’re content with making the investors largely responsible for our financial woes feel a bit of the pain they’ve inflicted on us. Short-sellers are losing their shirts to the tune of$4.5 billionon meme stocks so far.\nAs a 34-year-old American, almost every generational stereotype applies to me. HuffPost’s Michael Hobbessummed upmillennials’ financial situation best in 2017: “My rent consumes nearly half my income, I haven’t had a steady job since Pluto was a planet and my savings are dwindling faster than the ice caps the baby boomers melted.”\nPerhaps because we’re the only American generation to live through two major recessions and two wars in our coming-up years, we’re the first generation to be financially worse off than our parents, despite beingbetter educatedon average. We paid for it, too. A year of college that cost $10,000 for boomers set millennials back more than $15,000 on average in inflation-adjusted dollars, according toBloomberg. Millennials of color, particularly Black millennials, have it worse. They graduated witheven more student debtthan their white classmates, arefar less likelyto be hired in white-collar professions, and their households earnjust 60%of what their white coworkers make.\nMillennials’ high-priced educations haven’t bought us much job security. A 2018 Gallup studycalledmillennials the “job-hopping generation.” Maybe, but not by choice. A 2019University of Chicago studyfound millennials actually long for a stable career. It should come as little surprise, then, that a generation plagued with job insecurity and mounting debt is leading the“baby bust.”The birth rate is at its lowest inthree decades. There may not be enough working-age Americans to care for the nation’s swelling senior population. Boomers effectively climbed the class ladder, then took a saw and cut off the rungs below them. (And they still ask us when we’ll give them grandchildren!)\nIf all that doesn’t make meme stocks and cryptocurrency more appealing, at least it might help explain why some of us just don’t care any more about playing it safe. I’ll be the first to admit that investing in meme stocks isn’t a sustainable way to build wealth. A lot more of us will get hurt than get rich. But I’m not primarily investing to make money: I want the investors who crashed the economy and got bailed out in my senior year of college—thustorpedoingmy career earning potential—to feel at least a little bit of the hardship they put my generation through. And given thepredominantly millennialcomposition of /r/WallStreetBets, I know I’m not the only rage-driven investor.\nThere’s plenty to be mad about. Like we saw withGameStop,workers organizing to make the stock market pay out in our favor results in strict blowback. After Redditors speculated GameStop shares through the roof in late January, mobile trading app Robinhood not only restricted trading, but evenreportedlysold investors’ GameStop shares without their consent. (Robinhooddeniesforced-selling occurred.) When it came to light that Robinhood had afinancial relationshipwith firms that help route its customers’ orders, it made a lot of newbie investors like me even more jaded about the markets.\nIn March, when New York City opened movie theaters, I decided to buy AMC shares on a lark for $7 apiece. As of early June, my investment has appreciated in value by more than 550%. That could evaporate, but I’m taking a lesson from GameStop. Its stock is still trading at more than $250 per share despite starting the year under $20. I plan on continuing to hold my AMC shares in hopes the value will increase even more. When it’s finally time, I’ll sell half and re-invest my profits in cryptocurrency.\nWhen that happens, I’ll be far from the only millennial betting big on crypto. According to Business Insider, my generation ischiefly responsiblefor the sudden rise of cryptocurrency in 2021, in which both blue-chip digital currencies like Ethereum, as well as joke cryptocurrencies like Dogecoin, are thriving. Ethereum’s price has gone from $730.97 per coin on Jan. 1 to a peak of over $4,000 in May. Dogecoin hasappreciatedby more than 21,000% since its inception as a meme in 2013. (I’m still kicking myself for selling my Dogecoin when it was trading for less than 10 cents, even though I still made thousands in profit). Millennials’ commitment to crypto is now forcing the giants to play along: In March,Morgan Stanleybecame thefirst bankto offer Bitcoin funds to its wealthy clients. And as if on cue, now that the workers have made a little money in the rigged casino, U.S. regulators are reportedly preparing a “crackdown” on cryptocurrency.\nMillennials went through childhood being told we had to work hard to have financial security. Then we were told we had to shackle ourselves with debt to get a college degree that would get us a good job. Then we were told that only a lucky few actually build wealth from their jobs and that to have true financial success, we should invest. And then when we invested, we were told we were doing it wrong. I get the message. Millennials aren’t meant to win. Financial security isn’t for us. So if we can make a few grand by speculating penny stocks to the moon and hurt a few smug hedge fund vultures in the process, we’ll settle for that.\nCorrections & Amplifications: Citadel Securities is a market-maker that provides services for Robinhood, not a hedge fund. An earlier version of this commentary incorrectly reported that a subsidiary of Citadel Securities held a short position in GameStop.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"GBTC":0.9,"COIN":0.9,"AMC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2101,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":114632827,"gmtCreate":1623071667069,"gmtModify":1704195420802,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good&nbsp;","listText":"Good&nbsp;","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/114632827","repostId":"1126396501","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1312,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":116233606,"gmtCreate":1622801911505,"gmtModify":1704191461212,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":7,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/116233606","repostId":"1122373606","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1122373606","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1622793373,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1122373606?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-04 15:56","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Where Will Apple Stock Be In 10 Years? What To Consider","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1122373606","media":"seekingalpha","summary":"Summary\n\nApple has been a great investment over the last decade, but the next decade may look quite ","content":"<p><b>Summary</b></p>\n<ul>\n <li>Apple has been a great investment over the last decade, but the next decade may look quite different.</li>\n <li>Apple has seen its growth slow down over the last decade, and it will likely not be a growth monster in the coming years, either.</li>\n <li>Shares have ample long-term upside, but investors should consider the current valuation before jumping to decisions.</li>\n</ul>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9f2ea192ed76d9772c2c6a820098faf5\" tg-width=\"1536\" tg-height=\"1024\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>Photo by Paopano/iStock Editorial via Getty Images</span></p>\n<p><b>Article Thesis</b></p>\n<p>Apple (AAPL) has been one of the best investments one could have made over the last decade. Over the next decade, its growth may not be the same, however. Yet, thanks to massive shareholder return programs and a move towards services, Apple's stock will likely still be significantly higher a decade from now - even though the current valuation is rather high.</p>\n<p><b>Apple Stock Price</b></p>\n<p>Over the last decade, Apple Inc. has been a great investment:</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5d29aa34bdbc5bab7d0730a4095954e6\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"419\"><span>Data by YCharts</span></p>\n<p>Shares have returned 900% in those ten years, before dividends, for a compounded annual return of approximately 26%, easily trouncing the returns of the broad market during that time frame. Importantly, shares have risen a lot more than the company's market capitalization, which grew by only 550% over the last decade. The difference can be explained by the company's large share repurchase programs, which have lowered the share count drastically over the last decade. The last decade, of course, was a highly successful period for Apple on a business basis, as the company benefited from the rise of smartphones while also having success with new products such as its Watch and tablets, which Apple more or less introduced as a new product category. Right now, shares trade for $125, up 57% over the last twelve months, but down 6% in 2021 to date. Following strong gains during 2020, shares seem to be in a consolidation pattern for now, which is not too much of a surprise, as Apple's valuation had expanded a lot in the recent past, and it seems that the company's business growth has to catch up to the recent share price increases now. The current consensus price target is $156, which implies an upside potential of 25%. Since there are no signs of shares leaving their current trading range right now, I personally do not think that Apple will breach $150 in the near term.</p>\n<p><b>Where Will Apple Stock Be In 10 Years</b></p>\n<p>Apple's stock price in 2031 is, of course, nothing that can be forecasted with any precision. As history has shown, again and again, it is not even possible to forecast share prices precisely over a much shorter period of time. It is, however, possible to craft scenarios to see where share prices could be in the future under certain conditions, to get a feel for what might be a reasonable expectation for the future.</p>\n<p>To craft one such scenario, we have to consider Apple's business growth, Apple's shareholder return program, and the valuation multiple that shares might trade at in the future.</p>\n<p><b>Apple's business growth</b></p>\n<p>Apple Inc. has seen years of stronger growth and years of weaker growth in the past. This mostly can be explained by factors such as new product introductions, e.g. Watch or iPad, and by the strength of the respective current iPhone models, which see varying demand depending on the year. Other factors, such as economic growth or trade issues, play a role as well.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a5b8bd8ef6cdaa13850c1380e870554c\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"419\"><span>Data by YCharts</span></p>\n<p>Overall, revenues have grown by 154% over the last decade, but as we see in the above chart, revenue growth has been relatively uneven. During the early 2010s, Apple generated massive growth on the back of the iPhones \"road to victory\", whereas revenue growth declined to a much slower pace in the following years. There were even some years during which revenues declined on a year-over-year basis, such as 2016. The average annual revenue growth pace was 10% over the last decade, but when we factor in that this was lifted up by the very strong growth in 2011 and 2012, it may not be too reasonable to assume that Apple will grow by 10% a year in the future, too. Investors should also consider that maintaining a high growth rate becomes ever more difficult the larger a company gets. This does, however, not mean that Apple's revenue growth will slow down to zero.</p>\n<p>On the back of price increases for its products and the potential for market share gains in&nbsp;high-growth countries such as China, where more and more people will be able to buy Apple's higher-priced products, it seems reasonable to assume that Apple will generate at least some growth from its core businesses. Add in growth in the services segment - people use their phones more and more, which should lead to higher app spending - and consider the potential for new product launches (although I assume none will be as massive as the iPhone), and Apple should be able to grow its business at a solid pace. I personally assume that a 5%-7% revenue growth rate could be a realistic estimate for the coming years, although some readers will of course have different opinions.</p>\n<p><b>Apple's shareholder returns</b></p>\n<p>Apple has lowered its share count massively in the past, as shown above, and it is, I believe, reasonable to assume that the same will happen going forward. Over the last decade, Apple bought back 36% of its shares. If the same were to happen over the next decade, each remaining share's portion of the company's value would rise by 56%, or 4.6% annualized. Due to the fact that Apple's current valuation is significantly higher than its historic valuation, buybacks could be less impactful in the future, though. Apple has, for example, only reduced its share count by 2.6% over the last year.</p>\n<p>This is why I believe that the share count will not decline by another 36% over the coming decade. When we adjust that downward to 25%, this would result in a ~3% annual tailwind for Apple's growth when we look at per-share metrics, which are the deciding factor for Apple's share price growth. Combined with my 5%-7% business growth estimate, I thus assume that Apple will grow by 8%-10% on a per-share basis in the long term.</p>\n<p><b>Apple's future valuation</b></p>\n<p>AAPL has been valued in a very wide range in the past, seeing its shares trade for very low multiples at some points, whereas investors were willing to pay significantly more at other times:</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/be5cb8bbc04ff0e0a13ee64f6f2bd90a\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"470\"><span>Data by YCharts</span></p>\n<p>Shares could, five years ago, be bought for a very low 10x net earnings, which naturally was a great time to enter or expand positions. In late 2020, however, shares were trading for as much as 40x the company's net earnings, which seems like a quite high valuation. Right now, AAPL trades at 28x trailing earnings, and at around 24x forward profits. In the above chart, we also see the median earnings multiples over the last 3, 5, 7, and 10 years. It is pretty clear that Apple's valuation has expanded over the years, which is why the median values are higher for the shorter \"lookback\" periods. I do not believe that AAPL will trade at the 15.5x net earnings that it has traded at, on average, over the last decade, as this seems like a rather low valuation for a quality company like Apple with a strong brand, massive scale, great margins, and a fortress balance sheet. On the other hand, I also don't believe that Apple will trade at a 24-28x earnings multiple forever - for a company that generates solid but unspectacular business growth in the mid-single-digits, that seems quite expensive. This is especially true when we consider that interest rates will likely be higher a decade from now, which should pressure valuations for all equities, all else equal. I thus believe that a valuation of around 20x net earnings could be a reasonable estimate for 2031, which would be more or less in line with the 3-year median earnings multiple.</p>\n<p><b>Is AAPL A Buy Or Sell Now</b></p>\n<p>Starting our calculation with an EPS estimate of $5.15 for 2021 and assuming that this will grow by 7%-10% a year through 2031, we reach an EPS range of $10.10 to $13.40. Putting a 20x earnings multiple on that leads to a target price of around $200-$270/share. At the midpoint of around $235, shares would thus see gains of around 90% from the current level, or around 6.5% annualized. That surely is not a bad return, and when we add in the dividend, we would get to an annualized return of roughly 7%. This is, on the other hand, also not an outrageously great return, I believe.</p>\n<p>AAPL has, I believe, significant upside potential over the next decade, but that should not be a large surprise - many companies will see significant growth over a time span this long. I personally am not too excited about a 7% expected long-term return. When we consider that shares do have considerable downside risk in the next 1-3 years if Apple's valuation declines, e.g. due to rising interest rates, it may be a better choice to stay on the sidelines for now. Long-term investors will likely not do badly when they buy shares at current levels, but they will likely also not do great. For now, I'd rate Apple a hold, and a potential buy if its valuation comes closer to the longer-term average. Those that are more optimistic about new product launches may disagree and favor buying here, but it could turn out that waiting for a better opportunity is the best choice here.</p>\n<p>Summing it up, I'd say shares do have significant upside potential over the next decade, but the upside potential is not large enough to make me buy shares at current, elevated, valuations.</p>","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>Where Will Apple Stock Be In 10 Years? What To Consider</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\">\nWhere Will Apple Stock Be In 10 Years? What To Consider\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-04 15:56 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://seekingalpha.com/article/4432703-apple-stock-in-10-years><strong>seekingalpha</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Summary\n\nApple has been a great investment over the last decade, but the next decade may look quite different.\nApple has seen its growth slow down over the last decade, and it will likely not be a ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4432703-apple-stock-in-10-years\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AAPL":"苹果"},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4432703-apple-stock-in-10-years","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1122373606","content_text":"Summary\n\nApple has been a great investment over the last decade, but the next decade may look quite different.\nApple has seen its growth slow down over the last decade, and it will likely not be a growth monster in the coming years, either.\nShares have ample long-term upside, but investors should consider the current valuation before jumping to decisions.\n\nPhoto by Paopano/iStock Editorial via Getty Images\nArticle Thesis\nApple (AAPL) has been one of the best investments one could have made over the last decade. Over the next decade, its growth may not be the same, however. Yet, thanks to massive shareholder return programs and a move towards services, Apple's stock will likely still be significantly higher a decade from now - even though the current valuation is rather high.\nApple Stock Price\nOver the last decade, Apple Inc. has been a great investment:\nData by YCharts\nShares have returned 900% in those ten years, before dividends, for a compounded annual return of approximately 26%, easily trouncing the returns of the broad market during that time frame. Importantly, shares have risen a lot more than the company's market capitalization, which grew by only 550% over the last decade. The difference can be explained by the company's large share repurchase programs, which have lowered the share count drastically over the last decade. The last decade, of course, was a highly successful period for Apple on a business basis, as the company benefited from the rise of smartphones while also having success with new products such as its Watch and tablets, which Apple more or less introduced as a new product category. Right now, shares trade for $125, up 57% over the last twelve months, but down 6% in 2021 to date. Following strong gains during 2020, shares seem to be in a consolidation pattern for now, which is not too much of a surprise, as Apple's valuation had expanded a lot in the recent past, and it seems that the company's business growth has to catch up to the recent share price increases now. The current consensus price target is $156, which implies an upside potential of 25%. Since there are no signs of shares leaving their current trading range right now, I personally do not think that Apple will breach $150 in the near term.\nWhere Will Apple Stock Be In 10 Years\nApple's stock price in 2031 is, of course, nothing that can be forecasted with any precision. As history has shown, again and again, it is not even possible to forecast share prices precisely over a much shorter period of time. It is, however, possible to craft scenarios to see where share prices could be in the future under certain conditions, to get a feel for what might be a reasonable expectation for the future.\nTo craft one such scenario, we have to consider Apple's business growth, Apple's shareholder return program, and the valuation multiple that shares might trade at in the future.\nApple's business growth\nApple Inc. has seen years of stronger growth and years of weaker growth in the past. This mostly can be explained by factors such as new product introductions, e.g. Watch or iPad, and by the strength of the respective current iPhone models, which see varying demand depending on the year. Other factors, such as economic growth or trade issues, play a role as well.\nData by YCharts\nOverall, revenues have grown by 154% over the last decade, but as we see in the above chart, revenue growth has been relatively uneven. During the early 2010s, Apple generated massive growth on the back of the iPhones \"road to victory\", whereas revenue growth declined to a much slower pace in the following years. There were even some years during which revenues declined on a year-over-year basis, such as 2016. The average annual revenue growth pace was 10% over the last decade, but when we factor in that this was lifted up by the very strong growth in 2011 and 2012, it may not be too reasonable to assume that Apple will grow by 10% a year in the future, too. Investors should also consider that maintaining a high growth rate becomes ever more difficult the larger a company gets. This does, however, not mean that Apple's revenue growth will slow down to zero.\nOn the back of price increases for its products and the potential for market share gains in high-growth countries such as China, where more and more people will be able to buy Apple's higher-priced products, it seems reasonable to assume that Apple will generate at least some growth from its core businesses. Add in growth in the services segment - people use their phones more and more, which should lead to higher app spending - and consider the potential for new product launches (although I assume none will be as massive as the iPhone), and Apple should be able to grow its business at a solid pace. I personally assume that a 5%-7% revenue growth rate could be a realistic estimate for the coming years, although some readers will of course have different opinions.\nApple's shareholder returns\nApple has lowered its share count massively in the past, as shown above, and it is, I believe, reasonable to assume that the same will happen going forward. Over the last decade, Apple bought back 36% of its shares. If the same were to happen over the next decade, each remaining share's portion of the company's value would rise by 56%, or 4.6% annualized. Due to the fact that Apple's current valuation is significantly higher than its historic valuation, buybacks could be less impactful in the future, though. Apple has, for example, only reduced its share count by 2.6% over the last year.\nThis is why I believe that the share count will not decline by another 36% over the coming decade. When we adjust that downward to 25%, this would result in a ~3% annual tailwind for Apple's growth when we look at per-share metrics, which are the deciding factor for Apple's share price growth. Combined with my 5%-7% business growth estimate, I thus assume that Apple will grow by 8%-10% on a per-share basis in the long term.\nApple's future valuation\nAAPL has been valued in a very wide range in the past, seeing its shares trade for very low multiples at some points, whereas investors were willing to pay significantly more at other times:\nData by YCharts\nShares could, five years ago, be bought for a very low 10x net earnings, which naturally was a great time to enter or expand positions. In late 2020, however, shares were trading for as much as 40x the company's net earnings, which seems like a quite high valuation. Right now, AAPL trades at 28x trailing earnings, and at around 24x forward profits. In the above chart, we also see the median earnings multiples over the last 3, 5, 7, and 10 years. It is pretty clear that Apple's valuation has expanded over the years, which is why the median values are higher for the shorter \"lookback\" periods. I do not believe that AAPL will trade at the 15.5x net earnings that it has traded at, on average, over the last decade, as this seems like a rather low valuation for a quality company like Apple with a strong brand, massive scale, great margins, and a fortress balance sheet. On the other hand, I also don't believe that Apple will trade at a 24-28x earnings multiple forever - for a company that generates solid but unspectacular business growth in the mid-single-digits, that seems quite expensive. This is especially true when we consider that interest rates will likely be higher a decade from now, which should pressure valuations for all equities, all else equal. I thus believe that a valuation of around 20x net earnings could be a reasonable estimate for 2031, which would be more or less in line with the 3-year median earnings multiple.\nIs AAPL A Buy Or Sell Now\nStarting our calculation with an EPS estimate of $5.15 for 2021 and assuming that this will grow by 7%-10% a year through 2031, we reach an EPS range of $10.10 to $13.40. Putting a 20x earnings multiple on that leads to a target price of around $200-$270/share. At the midpoint of around $235, shares would thus see gains of around 90% from the current level, or around 6.5% annualized. That surely is not a bad return, and when we add in the dividend, we would get to an annualized return of roughly 7%. This is, on the other hand, also not an outrageously great return, I believe.\nAAPL has, I believe, significant upside potential over the next decade, but that should not be a large surprise - many companies will see significant growth over a time span this long. I personally am not too excited about a 7% expected long-term return. When we consider that shares do have considerable downside risk in the next 1-3 years if Apple's valuation declines, e.g. due to rising interest rates, it may be a better choice to stay on the sidelines for now. Long-term investors will likely not do badly when they buy shares at current levels, but they will likely also not do great. For now, I'd rate Apple a hold, and a potential buy if its valuation comes closer to the longer-term average. Those that are more optimistic about new product launches may disagree and favor buying here, but it could turn out that waiting for a better opportunity is the best choice here.\nSumming it up, I'd say shares do have significant upside potential over the next decade, but the upside potential is not large enough to make me buy shares at current, elevated, valuations.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AAPL":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1705,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":111168766,"gmtCreate":1622663911155,"gmtModify":1704188398688,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Fly to moon&nbsp;","listText":"Fly to moon&nbsp;","text":"Fly to moon","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/111168766","repostId":"1188552613","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1188552613","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1622627641,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1188552613?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-02 17:54","market":"us","language":"en","title":"AMC Stock Is Surging Again. How to Make Sense of the Move.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1188552613","media":"Barrons","summary":"AMC Entertainment‘s skyrocketing stock price would be easy to dismiss as just meme-trade madness, th","content":"<p>AMC Entertainment‘s skyrocketing stock price would be easy to dismiss as just meme-trade madness, that social media-fueled investor frenzy that has launched the likes of&nbsp;GameStop&nbsp;and&nbsp;BlackBerry&nbsp;into speculative territory.</p>\n<p>But it’s possible that traditional investors have missed a fundamental change in the movie theater business—and it wouldn’t be the first time.</p>\n<p>Shares of AMC (ticker: AMC) surged 23% on Tuesday, closing at $32.04—just off an all-time high of $36.72 set in late May. That puts the movie-theater chain’s market capitalization at roughly $16 billion, more than 15 times what it was in 2018, a record-breaking year at the box office.&nbsp;Shares were up another 34%, to $42.92, in premarket trading Wednesday.</p>\n<p>Even if investors missed an inflection point, though, the math doesn’t add up. The reason might be that market cap isn’t the right measure. Maybe it’s enterprise value, which is essentially market cap and debt. AMC’s enterprise value is about $26 billion, compared with $6.2 billion or so at the end of 2018.</p>\n<p>AMC added debt during the pandemic as theaters in the country’s biggest cities were dark for months. And the numbers make it easy to understand why: The U.S. box office in 2020 generated about $2.1 billion in ticket sales, down 81% from the 2018 record of $11.9 billion.</p>\n<p>So, it seems investors have been vexed by movie theater economics. But it wouldn’t be the first time. The industry essentially went belly up at the turn of the millennium. Regal Cinemas, for instance, declared bankruptcy in 2001.</p>\n<p>Back then, the industry had plenty of capacity because of a new theater design—stadium seating that gave a better view of the screen. That shift meant movie theater chains had to renovate or risk losing all their patrons to movie theaters that offered the better view. In the end, too many seats and not enough patrons meant the return on the stadium-seating investments never materialized.</p>\n<p>The upshot was consolidation. With fewer operators, the number of screens stabilized. Between 2002 and 2007, Regal Cinemas became a cash-generating machine because the stock was mispriced. The stock returned 21% a year on average. The S&amp;P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average both returned less than 9% a year on average over the same period.</p>\n<p>In those days, Regal Cinema’s enterprise value about $5 billion, or about 50% of total U.S. box office sales. That’s far short of AMC today. Something new has to be different for AMC to be worth it.</p>\n<p>Maybe the movie theater business is going to go through another period of consolidation, which can usher in another golden age of returns. AMC’s Tuesday gains, in fact, were catalyzed by new capital raised so the company could go on the offensive, acquiring defunct chains. Monopolies, after all, can be good for stock returns.</p>\n<p>If AMC can increase market share and the U.S. box office sales can return to 2018 levels in a few years, total sales at might be $9 billion—$6 billion from tickets and $3 billion from concessions. Sales in 2018 amounted to $5.5 billion.</p>\n<p>Then, with better gross profit margins derived from larger scale, AMC might be able to generate $600 million in free cash flow annually, which puts the stock at about a 4% free cash flow yield. The S&amp;P 500 trades for about a 3% free cash flow yield. The numbers can work—if they’re stretched.</p>\n<p>There are problems with this scenario, though. There are lots of ifs and mights—and AMC has never generated cash flow like that in the past. Arriving at $600 million in free cash flow is more about justifying current valuations than predicting what is likely.</p>\n<p>Also, with mergers and acquisitions, AMC market shares might rise, but there are still competitors. Regal Cinemas is still out there, owned by Cineworld Holdings (CINE. London). So is Cinemark (CNK). There’s not a true monopoly.</p>\n<p>AMC and its peers have to deal with streaming, too. Windows for exclusive theater showings are shrinking. The pandemic has accelerated that. And if AMC gets too large and demanding for movie makers, the talent can always go to streaming faster, hurting box office sales.</p>\n<p>There is also the problem of the peer stocks. They aren’t trading like this is a brave new world for theaters. Cineworld stock is up 484% from its 52-week low, but shares are still off 72% from all-time highs. Cinemark shares are up 222% from their 52-week low. They are down 47% from their all-time high.</p>\n<p>AMC stock, again, is up almost 1,600% from its 52-week low and is down just 13% from its May all-time high.</p>\n<p>Wall Street just doesn’t see the potential either. Nine analysts cover the stock. The average analyst price target is about $5. Before the pandemic, the average analyst price target was $15. But there were fewer shares back then. The old target enterprise value was roughly $7 billion. It’s tough to get from $7 billion to $26 billion predicting better margins.</p>\n<p>Analysts do have positive free cash flow modeled, though–$13 million in 2022 and $90 million in 2023. That’s a long way from $600 million.</p>\n<p>And that’s just another way of saying that AMC bulls are a long way from making the math work.</p>","source":"lsy1601382232898","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>AMC Stock Is Surging Again. How to Make Sense of the Move.</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\">\nAMC Stock Is Surging Again. How to Make Sense of the Move.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-02 17:54 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/amc-rockets-higher-is-it-worth-it-maybe-51622594691?mod=hp_LEAD_1><strong>Barrons</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>AMC Entertainment‘s skyrocketing stock price would be easy to dismiss as just meme-trade madness, that social media-fueled investor frenzy that has launched the likes of GameStop and BlackBerry into ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/amc-rockets-higher-is-it-worth-it-maybe-51622594691?mod=hp_LEAD_1\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AMC":"AMC院线"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/amc-rockets-higher-is-it-worth-it-maybe-51622594691?mod=hp_LEAD_1","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1188552613","content_text":"AMC Entertainment‘s skyrocketing stock price would be easy to dismiss as just meme-trade madness, that social media-fueled investor frenzy that has launched the likes of GameStop and BlackBerry into speculative territory.\nBut it’s possible that traditional investors have missed a fundamental change in the movie theater business—and it wouldn’t be the first time.\nShares of AMC (ticker: AMC) surged 23% on Tuesday, closing at $32.04—just off an all-time high of $36.72 set in late May. That puts the movie-theater chain’s market capitalization at roughly $16 billion, more than 15 times what it was in 2018, a record-breaking year at the box office. Shares were up another 34%, to $42.92, in premarket trading Wednesday.\nEven if investors missed an inflection point, though, the math doesn’t add up. The reason might be that market cap isn’t the right measure. Maybe it’s enterprise value, which is essentially market cap and debt. AMC’s enterprise value is about $26 billion, compared with $6.2 billion or so at the end of 2018.\nAMC added debt during the pandemic as theaters in the country’s biggest cities were dark for months. And the numbers make it easy to understand why: The U.S. box office in 2020 generated about $2.1 billion in ticket sales, down 81% from the 2018 record of $11.9 billion.\nSo, it seems investors have been vexed by movie theater economics. But it wouldn’t be the first time. The industry essentially went belly up at the turn of the millennium. Regal Cinemas, for instance, declared bankruptcy in 2001.\nBack then, the industry had plenty of capacity because of a new theater design—stadium seating that gave a better view of the screen. That shift meant movie theater chains had to renovate or risk losing all their patrons to movie theaters that offered the better view. In the end, too many seats and not enough patrons meant the return on the stadium-seating investments never materialized.\nThe upshot was consolidation. With fewer operators, the number of screens stabilized. Between 2002 and 2007, Regal Cinemas became a cash-generating machine because the stock was mispriced. The stock returned 21% a year on average. The S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average both returned less than 9% a year on average over the same period.\nIn those days, Regal Cinema’s enterprise value about $5 billion, or about 50% of total U.S. box office sales. That’s far short of AMC today. Something new has to be different for AMC to be worth it.\nMaybe the movie theater business is going to go through another period of consolidation, which can usher in another golden age of returns. AMC’s Tuesday gains, in fact, were catalyzed by new capital raised so the company could go on the offensive, acquiring defunct chains. Monopolies, after all, can be good for stock returns.\nIf AMC can increase market share and the U.S. box office sales can return to 2018 levels in a few years, total sales at might be $9 billion—$6 billion from tickets and $3 billion from concessions. Sales in 2018 amounted to $5.5 billion.\nThen, with better gross profit margins derived from larger scale, AMC might be able to generate $600 million in free cash flow annually, which puts the stock at about a 4% free cash flow yield. The S&P 500 trades for about a 3% free cash flow yield. The numbers can work—if they’re stretched.\nThere are problems with this scenario, though. There are lots of ifs and mights—and AMC has never generated cash flow like that in the past. Arriving at $600 million in free cash flow is more about justifying current valuations than predicting what is likely.\nAlso, with mergers and acquisitions, AMC market shares might rise, but there are still competitors. Regal Cinemas is still out there, owned by Cineworld Holdings (CINE. London). So is Cinemark (CNK). There’s not a true monopoly.\nAMC and its peers have to deal with streaming, too. Windows for exclusive theater showings are shrinking. The pandemic has accelerated that. And if AMC gets too large and demanding for movie makers, the talent can always go to streaming faster, hurting box office sales.\nThere is also the problem of the peer stocks. They aren’t trading like this is a brave new world for theaters. Cineworld stock is up 484% from its 52-week low, but shares are still off 72% from all-time highs. Cinemark shares are up 222% from their 52-week low. They are down 47% from their all-time high.\nAMC stock, again, is up almost 1,600% from its 52-week low and is down just 13% from its May all-time high.\nWall Street just doesn’t see the potential either. Nine analysts cover the stock. The average analyst price target is about $5. Before the pandemic, the average analyst price target was $15. But there were fewer shares back then. The old target enterprise value was roughly $7 billion. It’s tough to get from $7 billion to $26 billion predicting better margins.\nAnalysts do have positive free cash flow modeled, though–$13 million in 2022 and $90 million in 2023. That’s a long way from $600 million.\nAnd that’s just another way of saying that AMC bulls are a long way from making the math work.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AMC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1558,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":110579299,"gmtCreate":1622473438911,"gmtModify":1704184916264,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"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/110579299","repostId":"2139453630","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1589,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":134644129,"gmtCreate":1622231959061,"gmtModify":1704181932267,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Dip","listText":"Dip","text":"Dip","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/134644129","repostId":"2138765488","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2138765488","kind":"highlight","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Reuters.com brings you the latest news from around the world, covering breaking news in markets, business, politics, entertainment and technology","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Reuters","id":"1036604489","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868"},"pubTimestamp":1622215232,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2138765488?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-05-28 23:20","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Tesla shares dip on recall rumors","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2138765488","media":"Reuters","summary":"May 28  - Shares of Tesla Inc fell more than 1% on Friday after an unverified tweet said the electric carmaker had decided to recall some of its Model Y and Model 3 vehicles, citing a note from the company.Tesla did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment and Reuters was unable to verify the statement from the company that was shown in the tweet.","content":"<p>May 28 (Reuters) - Shares of Tesla Inc&nbsp;fell more than 1% on Friday after an unverified tweet&nbsp;said the electric carmaker had decided to recall some of its Model Y and Model 3 vehicles, citing a note from the company.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ba675bb3c29017bd5165f1d31830b19e\" tg-width=\"794\" tg-height=\"614\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>Tesla did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment and Reuters was unable to verify the statement from the company that was shown in the tweet.</p>","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>Tesla shares dip on recall rumors</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\">\nTesla shares dip on recall rumors\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1036604489\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Reuters </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2021-05-28 23:20</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>May 28 (Reuters) - Shares of Tesla Inc&nbsp;fell more than 1% on Friday after an unverified tweet&nbsp;said the electric carmaker had decided to recall some of its Model Y and Model 3 vehicles, citing a note from the company.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ba675bb3c29017bd5165f1d31830b19e\" tg-width=\"794\" tg-height=\"614\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>Tesla did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment and Reuters was unable to verify the statement from the company that was shown in the tweet.</p>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TSLA":"特斯拉"},"is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2138765488","content_text":"May 28 (Reuters) - Shares of Tesla Inc fell more than 1% on Friday after an unverified tweet said the electric carmaker had decided to recall some of its Model Y and Model 3 vehicles, citing a note from the company.Tesla did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment and Reuters was unable to verify the statement from the company that was shown in the tweet.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"TSLA":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1759,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":328958563,"gmtCreate":1615481521552,"gmtModify":1704783517715,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"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/328958563","repostId":"1123395191","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1729,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":360522776,"gmtCreate":1613958343395,"gmtModify":1704886129461,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/360522776","repostId":"1161529893","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1161529893","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1613733842,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1161529893?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-02-19 19:24","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Goldman Sachs is joining the robo-investing party — should you?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1161529893","media":"Marketwatch","summary":"‘Much like in Vegas, the house generally wins,” said Vance Barse, a San Diego, California-based financial advisor who runs a company called Your Dedicated Fiduciary.Robo investing has become increasingly ubiquitous on practically every brokerage platform. Until Tuesday, Goldman Sachs GS, -0.91% restricted its robo-advisory service, Marcus, to people who had at least $10 million to invest.Now anyone with at least $1,000 to invest in can access the same trading algorithms that have been used by so","content":"<blockquote>\n ‘Much like in Vegas, the house generally wins,” said Vance Barse, a San Diego, California-based financial advisor who runs a company called Your Dedicated Fiduciary.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Robo investing has become increasingly ubiquitous on practically every brokerage platform. Until Tuesday, Goldman Sachs GS, -0.91% restricted its robo-advisory service, Marcus, to people who had at least $10 million to invest.</p>\n<p>Now anyone with at least $1,000 to invest in can access the same trading algorithms that have been used by some of Goldman Sachs’ wealthiest clients for a 0.35% annual advisory fee. But investing experts say there are more costs to consider before jumping on the robo-investing train.</p>\n<p>“Much like in Vegas, the house generally wins,” said Vance Barse, a San Diego, California-based financial advisor who runs a company called Your Dedicated Fiduciary.</p>\n<p>Although the 35 basis-point price tag is a “loss leader” to Goldman Sachs, he said companies typically make such offers in order to attract clients to cross-sell them banking products.</p>\n<p>“People forget that banks are ultimately in the business of making money,” he said.</p>\n<p>Goldman Sachs declined to comment.</p>\n<p>The company is among other major financial-services firms offering digital advisers, including Vanguard, Fidelity and Schwab SCHW, +1.03% and startups such as Betterment and Wealthfront.</p>\n<p>Fees for robo advisers can start at around 0.25%, and increase to 1% and above for traditional brokers. A survey of nearly 1,000 financial planners by Inside Information, a trade publication, found that the bigger the portfolio, the lower the percentage clients paid in fees.</p>\n<p>The median annual charge hovered at around 1% for portfolios of $1 million or less, and 0.5% for portfolios worth $5 million to $10 million.</p>\n<p>Robo advisers like those on offer from Goldman Sachs and Betterment differ from robo platforms like Robinhood. The former suggest portfolios focused on exchange-traded funds, while Robinhood allows users to invest in individual ETFs, stocks, options and even cryptocurrencies.</p>\n<p><b>Robo investing as a self-driving car</b></p>\n<p>Consumers have turned to robo-investing at unprecedented levels during the pandemic.</p>\n<p>The rate of new accounts opened jumped between 50% and 300% during the first quarter of 2020 compared to the fourth quarter of last year, according to a May report published by research and advisory firm Aite Group.</p>\n<p>So what is rob-investing? Think of it like a self-driving car.</p>\n<p>You put in your destination, buckle up in the backseat and your driver (robo adviser) will get there. You, the passenger, can’t easily slam the breaks if you fear your driver is leading you in the wrong direction. Nor can you put your foot on the gas pedal if you’re in a rush and want to get to your destination faster.</p>\n<p>Robo-investing platforms use advanced-trading algorithm software to design investment portfolios based on factors such as an individual’s appetite for risk-taking and desired short-term and long-term returns.</p>\n<p>There are over 200 platforms that provide these services charging typically no more than a 0.5% annual advisory fee, compared to the 1% annual fee human investment advisors charge.</p>\n<p>And rather than investing entirely on your own, which can become a second job and lead to emotional investment decisions, robo advisers handle buying and selling assets.</p>\n<p>Cynthia Loh, Schwab vice president of Digital Advice and Innovation, disagrees, and argues that robo investing doesn’t mean giving technology control of your money. Schwab, she said, has a team of investment experts who oversee investment strategy and keep watch during periods of market volatility, although some services have more input from humans than others.</p>\n<p>As she recently wrote on MarketWatch: “One common misconception about automated investing is that choosing a robo adviser essentially means handing control of your money over to robots. The truth is that robo solutions have a combination of automated and human components running things behind the scenes.”</p>\n<p><b>Robos appeal to inexperienced investors</b></p>\n<p>Robo investing tends to appeal to inexperienced investors or ones who don’t have the time or energy to manage their own portfolios. These investors can take comfort in the “set it and forget it approach to investing and overtime let the markets do their thing,” Barse said.</p>\n<p>That makes it much easier to stomach market volatility knowing that you don’t necessarily have to make spur-of-the-moment decisions to buy or sell assets, said Tiffany Lam-Balfour, an investing and retirement specialist at NerdWallet.</p>\n<p>“When you’re investing, you don’t want to keep looking at the market and going ‘Oh I need to get out of this,’” she said. “You want to leave it to the professionals to get you through it because they know what your time horizon is, and they’ll adjust your portfolio automatically for you.”</p>\n<p>That said, “you can’t just expect your investments will only go up. Even if you had the world’s best human financial adviser you can’t expect that.”</p>\n<p>Others disagree, and say robo advisers appeal to older investors. “Planning for and paying yourself in retirement is complex. There are many options out there to help investors through it, and robo investing is one of them,” Loh said.</p>\n<p>“Many thoughtful, long-term investors have discovered that they want a more modern, streamlined, and inexpensive way to invest, and robo investing fits the bill. They are happy to let technology handle the mundane activities that are harder and more time-consuming for investors to do themselves,” she added.</p>\n<p><b>There is often no door to knock on</b></p>\n<p>Your robo adviser only knows what you tell it. The simplistic questionnaire you’re required to fill out will on most robo-investing platforms will collect information on your annual income, desired age to retire and the level of risk you’re willing to take on.</p>\n<p>It won’t however know if you just had a child and would like to begin saving for their education down the road or if you recently lost your job.</p>\n<p>“The question then becomes to whom does that person go to for advice and does that platform offer that and if so, to what level of complexity?” said Barse.</p>\n<p>Not all platforms give individualized investment advice and the hybrid models that do offer advice from a human tend to charge higher annual fees.</p>\n<p>Additionally, a robo adviser won’t necessarily “manage your money with tax efficiency at front of mind,” said Roger Ma, a certified financial planner at Lifelaidout, a New York City-based financial advisory group.</p>\n<p>For instance, one common way investors offset the taxes they pay on long-term investments is by selling assets that have accrued losses. Traditional advisers often specialize in constructing portfolios that lead to the most tax-efficient outcomes, said Ma, who is the author of “Work Your Money, Not Your Life”.</p>\n<p>But with robo investing, the trades that are made for you are the same ones that are being made for a slew of other investors who may fall under a different tax-bracket than you.</p>\n<p>On top of that, while robo investing may feel like a simplistic way to get into investing, especially for beginners it can “overcomplicate investing,” Ma said.</p>\n<p>“If you are just looking to dip your toe in and you want to feel like you’re invested in a diversified portfolio, I wouldn’t say definitely don’t do a robo adviser,” he said.</p>\n<p>Don’t rule out investing through a target-date fund that selects a single fund to invest in and adjusts the position over time based on their investment goals, he added.</p>\n<p>But not everyone can tell the difference between robo advice and advice from a human being. In 2015, MarketWatch asked four prominent robo advisers and four of the traditional, flesh-and-blood variety to construct portfolios for a hypothetical 35-year-old investor with $40,000 to invest.</p>\n<p>The results were, perhaps, surprising for critics of robo advisers. The robots’ suggestions were “not massively different” from what the human advisers proposed, said Michael Kitces, Pinnacle Advisory Group’s research director, after reviewing the results.</p>\n<p></p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","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>Goldman Sachs is joining the robo-investing party — should you?</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\">\nGoldman Sachs is joining the robo-investing party — should you?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-19 19:24 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/goldman-sachs-is-joining-the-robo-investing-party-should-you-11613658128?mod=home-page><strong>Marketwatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>‘Much like in Vegas, the house generally wins,” said Vance Barse, a San Diego, California-based financial advisor who runs a company called Your Dedicated Fiduciary.\n\nRobo investing has become ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/goldman-sachs-is-joining-the-robo-investing-party-should-you-11613658128?mod=home-page\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/goldman-sachs-is-joining-the-robo-investing-party-should-you-11613658128?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1161529893","content_text":"‘Much like in Vegas, the house generally wins,” said Vance Barse, a San Diego, California-based financial advisor who runs a company called Your Dedicated Fiduciary.\n\nRobo investing has become increasingly ubiquitous on practically every brokerage platform. Until Tuesday, Goldman Sachs GS, -0.91% restricted its robo-advisory service, Marcus, to people who had at least $10 million to invest.\nNow anyone with at least $1,000 to invest in can access the same trading algorithms that have been used by some of Goldman Sachs’ wealthiest clients for a 0.35% annual advisory fee. But investing experts say there are more costs to consider before jumping on the robo-investing train.\n“Much like in Vegas, the house generally wins,” said Vance Barse, a San Diego, California-based financial advisor who runs a company called Your Dedicated Fiduciary.\nAlthough the 35 basis-point price tag is a “loss leader” to Goldman Sachs, he said companies typically make such offers in order to attract clients to cross-sell them banking products.\n“People forget that banks are ultimately in the business of making money,” he said.\nGoldman Sachs declined to comment.\nThe company is among other major financial-services firms offering digital advisers, including Vanguard, Fidelity and Schwab SCHW, +1.03% and startups such as Betterment and Wealthfront.\nFees for robo advisers can start at around 0.25%, and increase to 1% and above for traditional brokers. A survey of nearly 1,000 financial planners by Inside Information, a trade publication, found that the bigger the portfolio, the lower the percentage clients paid in fees.\nThe median annual charge hovered at around 1% for portfolios of $1 million or less, and 0.5% for portfolios worth $5 million to $10 million.\nRobo advisers like those on offer from Goldman Sachs and Betterment differ from robo platforms like Robinhood. The former suggest portfolios focused on exchange-traded funds, while Robinhood allows users to invest in individual ETFs, stocks, options and even cryptocurrencies.\nRobo investing as a self-driving car\nConsumers have turned to robo-investing at unprecedented levels during the pandemic.\nThe rate of new accounts opened jumped between 50% and 300% during the first quarter of 2020 compared to the fourth quarter of last year, according to a May report published by research and advisory firm Aite Group.\nSo what is rob-investing? Think of it like a self-driving car.\nYou put in your destination, buckle up in the backseat and your driver (robo adviser) will get there. You, the passenger, can’t easily slam the breaks if you fear your driver is leading you in the wrong direction. Nor can you put your foot on the gas pedal if you’re in a rush and want to get to your destination faster.\nRobo-investing platforms use advanced-trading algorithm software to design investment portfolios based on factors such as an individual’s appetite for risk-taking and desired short-term and long-term returns.\nThere are over 200 platforms that provide these services charging typically no more than a 0.5% annual advisory fee, compared to the 1% annual fee human investment advisors charge.\nAnd rather than investing entirely on your own, which can become a second job and lead to emotional investment decisions, robo advisers handle buying and selling assets.\nCynthia Loh, Schwab vice president of Digital Advice and Innovation, disagrees, and argues that robo investing doesn’t mean giving technology control of your money. Schwab, she said, has a team of investment experts who oversee investment strategy and keep watch during periods of market volatility, although some services have more input from humans than others.\nAs she recently wrote on MarketWatch: “One common misconception about automated investing is that choosing a robo adviser essentially means handing control of your money over to robots. The truth is that robo solutions have a combination of automated and human components running things behind the scenes.”\nRobos appeal to inexperienced investors\nRobo investing tends to appeal to inexperienced investors or ones who don’t have the time or energy to manage their own portfolios. These investors can take comfort in the “set it and forget it approach to investing and overtime let the markets do their thing,” Barse said.\nThat makes it much easier to stomach market volatility knowing that you don’t necessarily have to make spur-of-the-moment decisions to buy or sell assets, said Tiffany Lam-Balfour, an investing and retirement specialist at NerdWallet.\n“When you’re investing, you don’t want to keep looking at the market and going ‘Oh I need to get out of this,’” she said. “You want to leave it to the professionals to get you through it because they know what your time horizon is, and they’ll adjust your portfolio automatically for you.”\nThat said, “you can’t just expect your investments will only go up. Even if you had the world’s best human financial adviser you can’t expect that.”\nOthers disagree, and say robo advisers appeal to older investors. “Planning for and paying yourself in retirement is complex. There are many options out there to help investors through it, and robo investing is one of them,” Loh said.\n“Many thoughtful, long-term investors have discovered that they want a more modern, streamlined, and inexpensive way to invest, and robo investing fits the bill. They are happy to let technology handle the mundane activities that are harder and more time-consuming for investors to do themselves,” she added.\nThere is often no door to knock on\nYour robo adviser only knows what you tell it. The simplistic questionnaire you’re required to fill out will on most robo-investing platforms will collect information on your annual income, desired age to retire and the level of risk you’re willing to take on.\nIt won’t however know if you just had a child and would like to begin saving for their education down the road or if you recently lost your job.\n“The question then becomes to whom does that person go to for advice and does that platform offer that and if so, to what level of complexity?” said Barse.\nNot all platforms give individualized investment advice and the hybrid models that do offer advice from a human tend to charge higher annual fees.\nAdditionally, a robo adviser won’t necessarily “manage your money with tax efficiency at front of mind,” said Roger Ma, a certified financial planner at Lifelaidout, a New York City-based financial advisory group.\nFor instance, one common way investors offset the taxes they pay on long-term investments is by selling assets that have accrued losses. Traditional advisers often specialize in constructing portfolios that lead to the most tax-efficient outcomes, said Ma, who is the author of “Work Your Money, Not Your Life”.\nBut with robo investing, the trades that are made for you are the same ones that are being made for a slew of other investors who may fall under a different tax-bracket than you.\nOn top of that, while robo investing may feel like a simplistic way to get into investing, especially for beginners it can “overcomplicate investing,” Ma said.\n“If you are just looking to dip your toe in and you want to feel like you’re invested in a diversified portfolio, I wouldn’t say definitely don’t do a robo adviser,” he said.\nDon’t rule out investing through a target-date fund that selects a single fund to invest in and adjusts the position over time based on their investment goals, he added.\nBut not everyone can tell the difference between robo advice and advice from a human being. In 2015, MarketWatch asked four prominent robo advisers and four of the traditional, flesh-and-blood variety to construct portfolios for a hypothetical 35-year-old investor with $40,000 to invest.\nThe results were, perhaps, surprising for critics of robo advisers. The robots’ suggestions were “not massively different” from what the human advisers proposed, said Michael Kitces, Pinnacle Advisory Group’s research director, after reviewing the results.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2031,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":384502893,"gmtCreate":1613659613612,"gmtModify":1704883362433,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/384502893","repostId":"1102078157","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":846,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":382497125,"gmtCreate":1613473328267,"gmtModify":1704880848495,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/382497125","repostId":"1108705396","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1108705396","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1613469786,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1108705396?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-02-16 18:03","market":"us","language":"en","title":"With Biden going big, Wall Street economists are growing bullish on the US economy","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1108705396","media":"CNN Business","summary":"New York (CNN Business) The Covid-ravaged American economy was on the verge of slipping into a doubl","content":"<p><b>New York (CNN Business)&nbsp;</b>The Covid-ravaged American economy was on the verge of slipping into a double-dip recession at the end of 2020. The pandemic was intensifying,gridlock paralyzed Washington&nbsp;and millions of families were about to&nbsp;lose crucial benefits.</p>\n<p>Fast forward two months, and the&nbsp;economy is still struggling-- but confidence in the recovery is growing, rapidly.</p>\n<p>Economists are swiftly upgrading their GDP and unemployment forecasts and pulling forward the date when the Federal Reserve will be able to lift rock-bottom interest rates. Goldman Sachs is predicting the US economy will grow at the fastest clip in more than three decades.</p>\n<p>The renewed optimism is being driven by two major factors: the&nbsp;health crisis is easing&nbsp;and Uncle Sam is&nbsp;coming to the rescue with staggering amounts of aid-- hundreds of billions more than seemed to be in the cards just months ago.</p>\n<p>After supplying $4 trillion of relief last year, Washington is expected to pump in another $2 trillion of deficit-financed support in 2021, according to Moody's Analytics. That represents more than a quarter of annual US GDP.</p>\n<p>\"That is a lot of economic juice,\" Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, told CNN Business.</p>\n<p>The turning point happened last month&nbsp;when Democrats took narrow control of the US Senate by sweeping the runoff races in Georgia. That opened a path for&nbsp;President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which features $1,400 stimulus checks, enhanced unemployment benefits and a $350 billion lifeline to state and local governments.</p>\n<p><b>'Summer mini-boom'</b></p>\n<p>Before the Georgia elections, Zandi didn't think the US economy would return to full employment (a strong labor market with 4% unemployment) until the spring or summer of 2023. Now, he expects that achievement to happen next spring, echoing a&nbsp;forecast by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.</p>\n<p>\"Super-charged fiscal policy\" means the argument for the US economy growing faster than its peers \"seems to get stronger day-by-day,\" economists at Bank of America wrote in a recent report to clients.</p>\n<p>Oxford Economics chief US economist Gregory Daco is calling for a \"summer mini-boom\" in the United States and 5.9% GDP growth in 2021.</p>\n<p>Likewise, Jefferies economists say \"explosive income growth (courtesy of fiscal stimulus) is likely to propel US GDP 6.4% higher this year and nearly 5% next year.\"</p>\n<p>\"If anything, our forecast might be too conservative,\" Jefferies told clients in a recent note, pointing out that its view incorporates just $1 trillion of the Biden plan.</p>\n<p>Indeed, Goldman Sachs upgraded its 2021 GDP forecast to 6.8% earlier this week because the Wall Street bank now assumes additional fiscal relief of $1.5 trillion, up from $1.1 trillion previously. If Goldman's prediction comes true, it would be the fastest annual GDP growth for the United States since 1989,according to the St. Louis Fed.</p>\n<p>The rosy GDP forecasts are well above what the Federal Reserve is calling for. In December, the Fed expected 2021 GDP growth of just 4.2% and said unemployment wouldn't slip below 4% until 2023.</p>\n<p><b>Double-dip recession averted</b></p>\n<p>The Fed tends to be conservative with its economic forecasts. And, crucially, the Fed forecast was released at a time when political dysfunction in DC was casting a shadow over the US economy.</p>\n<p>For months, Republicans and Democrats tried and failed to reach a deal on extending crucial unemployment and eviction benefits scheduled to lapse and providing more forgivable loans to small businesses. And then when a deal was finally reached, former President Donald Trump threatened to blow it up.</p>\n<p>At the last minute, Trump signed the $900 billion relief package into law, averting economic disaster.</p>\n<p>\"Without that, we would be in a double dip recession,\" said Zandi, the Moody's economist.</p>\n<p>Slammed by the pandemic, the US economy limped to the end of 2020 and started this year slowly. In December, employers cut jobs in for the first time since the spring. And the United States&nbsp;added just 49,000 jobs in January.</p>\n<p>Jobless claims remain alarmingly high. Another 793,000 Americans filed for first time unemployment benefits last week alone. For context, that is above the worst levels of the Great Recession.</p>\n<p><b>Vaccines to the rescue</b></p>\n<p>But there are glimmers of hope on the pandemic. Although Covid deaths remain unthinkably high, hospitalizations and cases have retreated.</p>\n<p>Critically, the rollout of coronavirus vaccines is accelerating. Out of a total of 66 million vaccines distributed, about 70% have been administered, according to Morgan Stanley.</p>\n<p>And Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert,told NBC News Thursday&nbsp;that the United States may be able to vaccinate most Americans by the middle or end of summer.</p>\n<p>All of this has allowed states including California, New York and New Jersey to relax health restrictions crushing restaurants and other small businesses.</p>\n<p>That's not to say the pandemic is over. In fact,one risk is that new Covid-19 variants&nbsp;force US states and cities to once again tighten health restrictions.</p>\n<p><b>Low-wage workers are still hurting badly</b></p>\n<p>Against this backdrop, many economists are urging Washington to push ahead with plans for aggressive fiscal stimulus.</p>\n<p>\"Foot flat on the accelerator, please,\" Zandi, the Moody's economist said. \"Policymaking 101 says err on the side of doing too much, rather than too little.\"</p>\n<p>Doing too little risks worsening America's inequality problem. That's because this recession, more than prior ones, disproportionately hurt low-income workers in hard-hit sectors such as restaurants, childcare and hospitality.</p>\n<p>Employment levels of low-wage workers (those making less than $27,000 per year) is still down more than 20%, according to the Opportunity Insights Economic tracker. By contrast, employment levels of those making more than $60,000 per year are above pre-crisis levels.</p>\n<p>\"Biden's team is unlikely to break out the champagne over reaching full employment if it isn't evident across income and racial groups,\" economists at Bank of America wrote in a report to clients.</p>\n<p>However, Danielle DiMartino Booth, a former Fed official who is now CEO of Quill Intelligence, worries the focus on providing income, instead of investing in infrastructure and reskilling workers, will make the country addicted to stimulus.</p>\n<p>\"The economy is going to turn into this dependent patient, always waiting for the next injection,\" Booth said.</p>\n<p><b>'Bring it on'</b></p>\n<p>Some economists, including former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, have warned there is a risk that Washington&nbsp;overheats the economy by injecting too much support.</p>\n<p>\"You could have quite the inflation scare in the next few months that will test the bond market and the Fed,\" Booth said.</p>\n<p>And that in turn would spook the&nbsp;red-hot stock market.</p>\n<p>Fed watchers are moving up their timelines for when the central bank will be able to end its emergency policies.</p>\n<p>Citing \"signs of a firmer inflation outlook,\" Goldman Sachs now expects the Fed to start \"tapering\" its asset purchases in early 2022 and to raise interest rates in the first half of 2024.</p>\n<p>Zandi isn't losing sleep over inflation, mostly because the United States is far from full employment.</p>\n<p>\"It's a vastly overstated worry,\" he said. \"Bring it on. Our biggest problem for more than a decade has been low inflation. Higher inflation would be a high-class problem to have.\"</p>","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>With Biden going big, Wall Street economists are growing bullish on the US economy</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\">\nWith Biden going big, Wall Street economists are growing bullish on the US economy\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-16 18:03 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/11/economy/economy-jobs-biden-stimulus/index.html><strong>CNN Business</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>New York (CNN Business) The Covid-ravaged American economy was on the verge of slipping into a double-dip recession at the end of 2020. The pandemic was intensifying,gridlock paralyzed Washington and ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/11/economy/economy-jobs-biden-stimulus/index.html\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/11/economy/economy-jobs-biden-stimulus/index.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1108705396","content_text":"New York (CNN Business) The Covid-ravaged American economy was on the verge of slipping into a double-dip recession at the end of 2020. The pandemic was intensifying,gridlock paralyzed Washington and millions of families were about to lose crucial benefits.\nFast forward two months, and the economy is still struggling-- but confidence in the recovery is growing, rapidly.\nEconomists are swiftly upgrading their GDP and unemployment forecasts and pulling forward the date when the Federal Reserve will be able to lift rock-bottom interest rates. Goldman Sachs is predicting the US economy will grow at the fastest clip in more than three decades.\nThe renewed optimism is being driven by two major factors: the health crisis is easing and Uncle Sam is coming to the rescue with staggering amounts of aid-- hundreds of billions more than seemed to be in the cards just months ago.\nAfter supplying $4 trillion of relief last year, Washington is expected to pump in another $2 trillion of deficit-financed support in 2021, according to Moody's Analytics. That represents more than a quarter of annual US GDP.\n\"That is a lot of economic juice,\" Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, told CNN Business.\nThe turning point happened last month when Democrats took narrow control of the US Senate by sweeping the runoff races in Georgia. That opened a path for President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which features $1,400 stimulus checks, enhanced unemployment benefits and a $350 billion lifeline to state and local governments.\n'Summer mini-boom'\nBefore the Georgia elections, Zandi didn't think the US economy would return to full employment (a strong labor market with 4% unemployment) until the spring or summer of 2023. Now, he expects that achievement to happen next spring, echoing a forecast by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.\n\"Super-charged fiscal policy\" means the argument for the US economy growing faster than its peers \"seems to get stronger day-by-day,\" economists at Bank of America wrote in a recent report to clients.\nOxford Economics chief US economist Gregory Daco is calling for a \"summer mini-boom\" in the United States and 5.9% GDP growth in 2021.\nLikewise, Jefferies economists say \"explosive income growth (courtesy of fiscal stimulus) is likely to propel US GDP 6.4% higher this year and nearly 5% next year.\"\n\"If anything, our forecast might be too conservative,\" Jefferies told clients in a recent note, pointing out that its view incorporates just $1 trillion of the Biden plan.\nIndeed, Goldman Sachs upgraded its 2021 GDP forecast to 6.8% earlier this week because the Wall Street bank now assumes additional fiscal relief of $1.5 trillion, up from $1.1 trillion previously. If Goldman's prediction comes true, it would be the fastest annual GDP growth for the United States since 1989,according to the St. Louis Fed.\nThe rosy GDP forecasts are well above what the Federal Reserve is calling for. In December, the Fed expected 2021 GDP growth of just 4.2% and said unemployment wouldn't slip below 4% until 2023.\nDouble-dip recession averted\nThe Fed tends to be conservative with its economic forecasts. And, crucially, the Fed forecast was released at a time when political dysfunction in DC was casting a shadow over the US economy.\nFor months, Republicans and Democrats tried and failed to reach a deal on extending crucial unemployment and eviction benefits scheduled to lapse and providing more forgivable loans to small businesses. And then when a deal was finally reached, former President Donald Trump threatened to blow it up.\nAt the last minute, Trump signed the $900 billion relief package into law, averting economic disaster.\n\"Without that, we would be in a double dip recession,\" said Zandi, the Moody's economist.\nSlammed by the pandemic, the US economy limped to the end of 2020 and started this year slowly. In December, employers cut jobs in for the first time since the spring. And the United States added just 49,000 jobs in January.\nJobless claims remain alarmingly high. Another 793,000 Americans filed for first time unemployment benefits last week alone. For context, that is above the worst levels of the Great Recession.\nVaccines to the rescue\nBut there are glimmers of hope on the pandemic. Although Covid deaths remain unthinkably high, hospitalizations and cases have retreated.\nCritically, the rollout of coronavirus vaccines is accelerating. Out of a total of 66 million vaccines distributed, about 70% have been administered, according to Morgan Stanley.\nAnd Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert,told NBC News Thursday that the United States may be able to vaccinate most Americans by the middle or end of summer.\nAll of this has allowed states including California, New York and New Jersey to relax health restrictions crushing restaurants and other small businesses.\nThat's not to say the pandemic is over. In fact,one risk is that new Covid-19 variants force US states and cities to once again tighten health restrictions.\nLow-wage workers are still hurting badly\nAgainst this backdrop, many economists are urging Washington to push ahead with plans for aggressive fiscal stimulus.\n\"Foot flat on the accelerator, please,\" Zandi, the Moody's economist said. \"Policymaking 101 says err on the side of doing too much, rather than too little.\"\nDoing too little risks worsening America's inequality problem. That's because this recession, more than prior ones, disproportionately hurt low-income workers in hard-hit sectors such as restaurants, childcare and hospitality.\nEmployment levels of low-wage workers (those making less than $27,000 per year) is still down more than 20%, according to the Opportunity Insights Economic tracker. By contrast, employment levels of those making more than $60,000 per year are above pre-crisis levels.\n\"Biden's team is unlikely to break out the champagne over reaching full employment if it isn't evident across income and racial groups,\" economists at Bank of America wrote in a report to clients.\nHowever, Danielle DiMartino Booth, a former Fed official who is now CEO of Quill Intelligence, worries the focus on providing income, instead of investing in infrastructure and reskilling workers, will make the country addicted to stimulus.\n\"The economy is going to turn into this dependent patient, always waiting for the next injection,\" Booth said.\n'Bring it on'\nSome economists, including former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, have warned there is a risk that Washington overheats the economy by injecting too much support.\n\"You could have quite the inflation scare in the next few months that will test the bond market and the Fed,\" Booth said.\nAnd that in turn would spook the red-hot stock market.\nFed watchers are moving up their timelines for when the central bank will be able to end its emergency policies.\nCiting \"signs of a firmer inflation outlook,\" Goldman Sachs now expects the Fed to start \"tapering\" its asset purchases in early 2022 and to raise interest rates in the first half of 2024.\nZandi isn't losing sleep over inflation, mostly because the United States is far from full employment.\n\"It's a vastly overstated worry,\" he said. \"Bring it on. Our biggest problem for more than a decade has been low inflation. Higher inflation would be a high-class problem to have.\"","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":796,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":386416566,"gmtCreate":1613239801355,"gmtModify":1704879549966,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/386416566","repostId":"2110026963","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2110026963","kind":"highlight","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Dow Jones publishes the world’s most trusted business news and financial information in a variety of media.","home_visible":0,"media_name":"Dow Jones","id":"106","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/150f88aa4d182df19190059f4a365e99"},"pubTimestamp":1613109422,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2110026963?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-02-12 13:57","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here's the formula for spotting genuinely undervalued companies, claims this investment house","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2110026963","media":"Dow Jones","summary":"The growth stock vs. value stock dichotomy doesn't make sense, says ValuAnalysis. For most of 2020, investors poured money into names like online retailer Amazon $$, electric-car maker Tesla $$, and e-commerce platform Shopify -- \"growth\" stocks that kept indexes afloat in a turbulent year that hammered share prices across the board.But when news broke in early November 2020 that drug company Pfizer $$ and its partner BioNTech $$ had developed an effective vaccine against COVID-19, something pro","content":"<p>MW Here's the formula for spotting genuinely undervalued companies, claims this investment house</p>\n<p>The growth stock vs. value stock dichotomy doesn't make sense, says ValuAnalysis</p>\n<p>For most of 2020, investors poured money into names like online retailer Amazon <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AMZN\">$(AMZN)$</a>, electric-car maker Tesla <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TSLA\">$(TSLA)$</a>, and e-commerce platform Shopify (SHOP.T)-- \"growth\" stocks that kept indexes afloat in a turbulent year that hammered share prices across the board.</p>\n<p>But when news broke in early November 2020 that drug company Pfizer <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/PFE\">$(PFE)$</a> and its partner BioNTech <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/BNTX\">$(BNTX)$</a> had developed an effective vaccine against COVID-19, something profound happened in financial markets.</p>\n<p>Investors rotated out of these investments in favor of \"value\" stocks hammered by the COVID-19 pandemic, like airlines.</p>\n<p>This rotation was based on an essential concept in investing: There are some stocks that are clearly undervalued based on standard metrics.</p>\n<p>And it is completely flawed, according to research from ValuAnalysis, a London-based fund manager and equity investment boutique, which specializes in valuation.</p>\n<p>The apparent difference between growth stocks and value stocks is that the former is overvalued based on fundamental metrics while the latter is undervalued.</p>\n<p>\"Everyone knows that this thing doesn't make any sense because growth is not the opposite of value,\" Pascal Costantini, who led the research at ValuAnalysis, tells MarketWatch.</p>\n<p>\"It should be high-growth and low-growth, and I can imagine that, somewhere in an office, some guy said 'well this is not catchy enough, so how about growth and value?'\"</p>\n<p>Analysts and investors use metrics like the price-to-earnings ratio, or price multiple, to value stocks. ValuAnalysis uses price as a multiple of normalized net free cash flow as its benchmark, and identifies the imaginary dividing line between value and growth stocks at 35x, which is the market median.</p>\n<p>The value vs. growth divide would suggest that a company trading at a 17x earnings multiple is undervalued. In reality, ValuAnalysis says it is likely a company that won't grow.</p>\n<p>In reality, a stock's value is based on the company's ability to grow free cash flow in an environment where the cost of capital is 5% to 6%. So if a company isn't outpacing that by improving revenue and margins, the multiple won't increase and the stock price is unlikely to rise.</p>\n<p>Stocks that are actually undervalued will trade between 25x and 35x free cash flow, Costantini says, outpacing the cost of capital but not breaking past the market median.</p>\n<p>To have potential, a company's accumulation of assets or revenue growth must outpace increases in global gross domestic product, and ideally show signs of accelerating. There must also be an increase in operational leverage through revenue or margins. A decrease in the risk premium, such as through advances in controlling carbon emissions, helps.</p>","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>Here's the formula for spotting genuinely undervalued companies, claims this investment house</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\">\nHere's the formula for spotting genuinely undervalued companies, claims this investment house\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<div class=\"head\" \">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/150f88aa4d182df19190059f4a365e99);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Dow Jones </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2021-02-12 13:57</p>\n</div>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>MW Here's the formula for spotting genuinely undervalued companies, claims this investment house</p>\n<p>The growth stock vs. value stock dichotomy doesn't make sense, says ValuAnalysis</p>\n<p>For most of 2020, investors poured money into names like online retailer Amazon <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AMZN\">$(AMZN)$</a>, electric-car maker Tesla <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TSLA\">$(TSLA)$</a>, and e-commerce platform Shopify (SHOP.T)-- \"growth\" stocks that kept indexes afloat in a turbulent year that hammered share prices across the board.</p>\n<p>But when news broke in early November 2020 that drug company Pfizer <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/PFE\">$(PFE)$</a> and its partner BioNTech <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/BNTX\">$(BNTX)$</a> had developed an effective vaccine against COVID-19, something profound happened in financial markets.</p>\n<p>Investors rotated out of these investments in favor of \"value\" stocks hammered by the COVID-19 pandemic, like airlines.</p>\n<p>This rotation was based on an essential concept in investing: There are some stocks that are clearly undervalued based on standard metrics.</p>\n<p>And it is completely flawed, according to research from ValuAnalysis, a London-based fund manager and equity investment boutique, which specializes in valuation.</p>\n<p>The apparent difference between growth stocks and value stocks is that the former is overvalued based on fundamental metrics while the latter is undervalued.</p>\n<p>\"Everyone knows that this thing doesn't make any sense because growth is not the opposite of value,\" Pascal Costantini, who led the research at ValuAnalysis, tells MarketWatch.</p>\n<p>\"It should be high-growth and low-growth, and I can imagine that, somewhere in an office, some guy said 'well this is not catchy enough, so how about growth and value?'\"</p>\n<p>Analysts and investors use metrics like the price-to-earnings ratio, or price multiple, to value stocks. ValuAnalysis uses price as a multiple of normalized net free cash flow as its benchmark, and identifies the imaginary dividing line between value and growth stocks at 35x, which is the market median.</p>\n<p>The value vs. growth divide would suggest that a company trading at a 17x earnings multiple is undervalued. In reality, ValuAnalysis says it is likely a company that won't grow.</p>\n<p>In reality, a stock's value is based on the company's ability to grow free cash flow in an environment where the cost of capital is 5% to 6%. So if a company isn't outpacing that by improving revenue and margins, the multiple won't increase and the stock price is unlikely to rise.</p>\n<p>Stocks that are actually undervalued will trade between 25x and 35x free cash flow, Costantini says, outpacing the cost of capital but not breaking past the market median.</p>\n<p>To have potential, a company's accumulation of assets or revenue growth must outpace increases in global gross domestic product, and ideally show signs of accelerating. There must also be an increase in operational leverage through revenue or margins. A decrease in the risk premium, such as through advances in controlling carbon emissions, helps.</p>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/15e20574f8fb568333181d61bb200086","relate_stocks":{"PFE":"辉瑞","AMZN":"亚马逊","TSLA":"特斯拉"},"is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2110026963","content_text":"MW Here's the formula for spotting genuinely undervalued companies, claims this investment house\nThe growth stock vs. value stock dichotomy doesn't make sense, says ValuAnalysis\nFor most of 2020, investors poured money into names like online retailer Amazon $(AMZN)$, electric-car maker Tesla $(TSLA)$, and e-commerce platform Shopify (SHOP.T)-- \"growth\" stocks that kept indexes afloat in a turbulent year that hammered share prices across the board.\nBut when news broke in early November 2020 that drug company Pfizer $(PFE)$ and its partner BioNTech $(BNTX)$ had developed an effective vaccine against COVID-19, something profound happened in financial markets.\nInvestors rotated out of these investments in favor of \"value\" stocks hammered by the COVID-19 pandemic, like airlines.\nThis rotation was based on an essential concept in investing: There are some stocks that are clearly undervalued based on standard metrics.\nAnd it is completely flawed, according to research from ValuAnalysis, a London-based fund manager and equity investment boutique, which specializes in valuation.\nThe apparent difference between growth stocks and value stocks is that the former is overvalued based on fundamental metrics while the latter is undervalued.\n\"Everyone knows that this thing doesn't make any sense because growth is not the opposite of value,\" Pascal Costantini, who led the research at ValuAnalysis, tells MarketWatch.\n\"It should be high-growth and low-growth, and I can imagine that, somewhere in an office, some guy said 'well this is not catchy enough, so how about growth and value?'\"\nAnalysts and investors use metrics like the price-to-earnings ratio, or price multiple, to value stocks. ValuAnalysis uses price as a multiple of normalized net free cash flow as its benchmark, and identifies the imaginary dividing line between value and growth stocks at 35x, which is the market median.\nThe value vs. growth divide would suggest that a company trading at a 17x earnings multiple is undervalued. In reality, ValuAnalysis says it is likely a company that won't grow.\nIn reality, a stock's value is based on the company's ability to grow free cash flow in an environment where the cost of capital is 5% to 6%. So if a company isn't outpacing that by improving revenue and margins, the multiple won't increase and the stock price is unlikely to rise.\nStocks that are actually undervalued will trade between 25x and 35x free cash flow, Costantini says, outpacing the cost of capital but not breaking past the market median.\nTo have potential, a company's accumulation of assets or revenue growth must outpace increases in global gross domestic product, and ideally show signs of accelerating. There must also be an increase in operational leverage through revenue or margins. A decrease in the risk premium, such as through advances in controlling carbon emissions, helps.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AMZN":0.9,"TSLA":0.9,"PFE":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":655,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":386416231,"gmtCreate":1613239761523,"gmtModify":1704879549805,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/386416231","repostId":"2110044852","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":992,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":388676512,"gmtCreate":1613055805736,"gmtModify":1704877928703,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Cool","listText":"Cool","text":"Cool","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/388676512","repostId":"2110041062","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":919,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":388678544,"gmtCreate":1613055778688,"gmtModify":1704877927731,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/03086\">$BMO NASDAQ100(03086)$</a>Good","listText":"<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/03086\">$BMO NASDAQ100(03086)$</a>Good","text":"$BMO NASDAQ100(03086)$Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/388678544","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":582,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":388644371,"gmtCreate":1613055548593,"gmtModify":1704877918787,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"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/388644371","repostId":"2110044852","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":705,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":381467201,"gmtCreate":1612976384903,"gmtModify":1704876979175,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Omgg","listText":"Omgg","text":"Omgg","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/381467201","repostId":"1144142338","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":907,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":183278014,"gmtCreate":1623334250138,"gmtModify":1704201177563,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"[Happy]&nbsp;","listText":"[Happy]&nbsp;","text":"[Happy]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":5,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/183278014","repostId":"1128810191","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2260,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":116233606,"gmtCreate":1622801911505,"gmtModify":1704191461212,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":7,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/116233606","repostId":"1122373606","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1122373606","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1622793373,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1122373606?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-04 15:56","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Where Will Apple Stock Be In 10 Years? What To Consider","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1122373606","media":"seekingalpha","summary":"Summary\n\nApple has been a great investment over the last decade, but the next decade may look quite ","content":"<p><b>Summary</b></p>\n<ul>\n <li>Apple has been a great investment over the last decade, but the next decade may look quite different.</li>\n <li>Apple has seen its growth slow down over the last decade, and it will likely not be a growth monster in the coming years, either.</li>\n <li>Shares have ample long-term upside, but investors should consider the current valuation before jumping to decisions.</li>\n</ul>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9f2ea192ed76d9772c2c6a820098faf5\" tg-width=\"1536\" tg-height=\"1024\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><span>Photo by Paopano/iStock Editorial via Getty Images</span></p>\n<p><b>Article Thesis</b></p>\n<p>Apple (AAPL) has been one of the best investments one could have made over the last decade. Over the next decade, its growth may not be the same, however. Yet, thanks to massive shareholder return programs and a move towards services, Apple's stock will likely still be significantly higher a decade from now - even though the current valuation is rather high.</p>\n<p><b>Apple Stock Price</b></p>\n<p>Over the last decade, Apple Inc. has been a great investment:</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5d29aa34bdbc5bab7d0730a4095954e6\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"419\"><span>Data by YCharts</span></p>\n<p>Shares have returned 900% in those ten years, before dividends, for a compounded annual return of approximately 26%, easily trouncing the returns of the broad market during that time frame. Importantly, shares have risen a lot more than the company's market capitalization, which grew by only 550% over the last decade. The difference can be explained by the company's large share repurchase programs, which have lowered the share count drastically over the last decade. The last decade, of course, was a highly successful period for Apple on a business basis, as the company benefited from the rise of smartphones while also having success with new products such as its Watch and tablets, which Apple more or less introduced as a new product category. Right now, shares trade for $125, up 57% over the last twelve months, but down 6% in 2021 to date. Following strong gains during 2020, shares seem to be in a consolidation pattern for now, which is not too much of a surprise, as Apple's valuation had expanded a lot in the recent past, and it seems that the company's business growth has to catch up to the recent share price increases now. The current consensus price target is $156, which implies an upside potential of 25%. Since there are no signs of shares leaving their current trading range right now, I personally do not think that Apple will breach $150 in the near term.</p>\n<p><b>Where Will Apple Stock Be In 10 Years</b></p>\n<p>Apple's stock price in 2031 is, of course, nothing that can be forecasted with any precision. As history has shown, again and again, it is not even possible to forecast share prices precisely over a much shorter period of time. It is, however, possible to craft scenarios to see where share prices could be in the future under certain conditions, to get a feel for what might be a reasonable expectation for the future.</p>\n<p>To craft one such scenario, we have to consider Apple's business growth, Apple's shareholder return program, and the valuation multiple that shares might trade at in the future.</p>\n<p><b>Apple's business growth</b></p>\n<p>Apple Inc. has seen years of stronger growth and years of weaker growth in the past. This mostly can be explained by factors such as new product introductions, e.g. Watch or iPad, and by the strength of the respective current iPhone models, which see varying demand depending on the year. Other factors, such as economic growth or trade issues, play a role as well.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a5b8bd8ef6cdaa13850c1380e870554c\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"419\"><span>Data by YCharts</span></p>\n<p>Overall, revenues have grown by 154% over the last decade, but as we see in the above chart, revenue growth has been relatively uneven. During the early 2010s, Apple generated massive growth on the back of the iPhones \"road to victory\", whereas revenue growth declined to a much slower pace in the following years. There were even some years during which revenues declined on a year-over-year basis, such as 2016. The average annual revenue growth pace was 10% over the last decade, but when we factor in that this was lifted up by the very strong growth in 2011 and 2012, it may not be too reasonable to assume that Apple will grow by 10% a year in the future, too. Investors should also consider that maintaining a high growth rate becomes ever more difficult the larger a company gets. This does, however, not mean that Apple's revenue growth will slow down to zero.</p>\n<p>On the back of price increases for its products and the potential for market share gains in&nbsp;high-growth countries such as China, where more and more people will be able to buy Apple's higher-priced products, it seems reasonable to assume that Apple will generate at least some growth from its core businesses. Add in growth in the services segment - people use their phones more and more, which should lead to higher app spending - and consider the potential for new product launches (although I assume none will be as massive as the iPhone), and Apple should be able to grow its business at a solid pace. I personally assume that a 5%-7% revenue growth rate could be a realistic estimate for the coming years, although some readers will of course have different opinions.</p>\n<p><b>Apple's shareholder returns</b></p>\n<p>Apple has lowered its share count massively in the past, as shown above, and it is, I believe, reasonable to assume that the same will happen going forward. Over the last decade, Apple bought back 36% of its shares. If the same were to happen over the next decade, each remaining share's portion of the company's value would rise by 56%, or 4.6% annualized. Due to the fact that Apple's current valuation is significantly higher than its historic valuation, buybacks could be less impactful in the future, though. Apple has, for example, only reduced its share count by 2.6% over the last year.</p>\n<p>This is why I believe that the share count will not decline by another 36% over the coming decade. When we adjust that downward to 25%, this would result in a ~3% annual tailwind for Apple's growth when we look at per-share metrics, which are the deciding factor for Apple's share price growth. Combined with my 5%-7% business growth estimate, I thus assume that Apple will grow by 8%-10% on a per-share basis in the long term.</p>\n<p><b>Apple's future valuation</b></p>\n<p>AAPL has been valued in a very wide range in the past, seeing its shares trade for very low multiples at some points, whereas investors were willing to pay significantly more at other times:</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/be5cb8bbc04ff0e0a13ee64f6f2bd90a\" tg-width=\"635\" tg-height=\"470\"><span>Data by YCharts</span></p>\n<p>Shares could, five years ago, be bought for a very low 10x net earnings, which naturally was a great time to enter or expand positions. In late 2020, however, shares were trading for as much as 40x the company's net earnings, which seems like a quite high valuation. Right now, AAPL trades at 28x trailing earnings, and at around 24x forward profits. In the above chart, we also see the median earnings multiples over the last 3, 5, 7, and 10 years. It is pretty clear that Apple's valuation has expanded over the years, which is why the median values are higher for the shorter \"lookback\" periods. I do not believe that AAPL will trade at the 15.5x net earnings that it has traded at, on average, over the last decade, as this seems like a rather low valuation for a quality company like Apple with a strong brand, massive scale, great margins, and a fortress balance sheet. On the other hand, I also don't believe that Apple will trade at a 24-28x earnings multiple forever - for a company that generates solid but unspectacular business growth in the mid-single-digits, that seems quite expensive. This is especially true when we consider that interest rates will likely be higher a decade from now, which should pressure valuations for all equities, all else equal. I thus believe that a valuation of around 20x net earnings could be a reasonable estimate for 2031, which would be more or less in line with the 3-year median earnings multiple.</p>\n<p><b>Is AAPL A Buy Or Sell Now</b></p>\n<p>Starting our calculation with an EPS estimate of $5.15 for 2021 and assuming that this will grow by 7%-10% a year through 2031, we reach an EPS range of $10.10 to $13.40. Putting a 20x earnings multiple on that leads to a target price of around $200-$270/share. At the midpoint of around $235, shares would thus see gains of around 90% from the current level, or around 6.5% annualized. That surely is not a bad return, and when we add in the dividend, we would get to an annualized return of roughly 7%. This is, on the other hand, also not an outrageously great return, I believe.</p>\n<p>AAPL has, I believe, significant upside potential over the next decade, but that should not be a large surprise - many companies will see significant growth over a time span this long. I personally am not too excited about a 7% expected long-term return. When we consider that shares do have considerable downside risk in the next 1-3 years if Apple's valuation declines, e.g. due to rising interest rates, it may be a better choice to stay on the sidelines for now. Long-term investors will likely not do badly when they buy shares at current levels, but they will likely also not do great. For now, I'd rate Apple a hold, and a potential buy if its valuation comes closer to the longer-term average. Those that are more optimistic about new product launches may disagree and favor buying here, but it could turn out that waiting for a better opportunity is the best choice here.</p>\n<p>Summing it up, I'd say shares do have significant upside potential over the next decade, but the upside potential is not large enough to make me buy shares at current, elevated, valuations.</p>","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>Where Will Apple Stock Be In 10 Years? What To Consider</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\">\nWhere Will Apple Stock Be In 10 Years? What To Consider\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-04 15:56 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://seekingalpha.com/article/4432703-apple-stock-in-10-years><strong>seekingalpha</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Summary\n\nApple has been a great investment over the last decade, but the next decade may look quite different.\nApple has seen its growth slow down over the last decade, and it will likely not be a ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4432703-apple-stock-in-10-years\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AAPL":"苹果"},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4432703-apple-stock-in-10-years","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1122373606","content_text":"Summary\n\nApple has been a great investment over the last decade, but the next decade may look quite different.\nApple has seen its growth slow down over the last decade, and it will likely not be a growth monster in the coming years, either.\nShares have ample long-term upside, but investors should consider the current valuation before jumping to decisions.\n\nPhoto by Paopano/iStock Editorial via Getty Images\nArticle Thesis\nApple (AAPL) has been one of the best investments one could have made over the last decade. Over the next decade, its growth may not be the same, however. Yet, thanks to massive shareholder return programs and a move towards services, Apple's stock will likely still be significantly higher a decade from now - even though the current valuation is rather high.\nApple Stock Price\nOver the last decade, Apple Inc. has been a great investment:\nData by YCharts\nShares have returned 900% in those ten years, before dividends, for a compounded annual return of approximately 26%, easily trouncing the returns of the broad market during that time frame. Importantly, shares have risen a lot more than the company's market capitalization, which grew by only 550% over the last decade. The difference can be explained by the company's large share repurchase programs, which have lowered the share count drastically over the last decade. The last decade, of course, was a highly successful period for Apple on a business basis, as the company benefited from the rise of smartphones while also having success with new products such as its Watch and tablets, which Apple more or less introduced as a new product category. Right now, shares trade for $125, up 57% over the last twelve months, but down 6% in 2021 to date. Following strong gains during 2020, shares seem to be in a consolidation pattern for now, which is not too much of a surprise, as Apple's valuation had expanded a lot in the recent past, and it seems that the company's business growth has to catch up to the recent share price increases now. The current consensus price target is $156, which implies an upside potential of 25%. Since there are no signs of shares leaving their current trading range right now, I personally do not think that Apple will breach $150 in the near term.\nWhere Will Apple Stock Be In 10 Years\nApple's stock price in 2031 is, of course, nothing that can be forecasted with any precision. As history has shown, again and again, it is not even possible to forecast share prices precisely over a much shorter period of time. It is, however, possible to craft scenarios to see where share prices could be in the future under certain conditions, to get a feel for what might be a reasonable expectation for the future.\nTo craft one such scenario, we have to consider Apple's business growth, Apple's shareholder return program, and the valuation multiple that shares might trade at in the future.\nApple's business growth\nApple Inc. has seen years of stronger growth and years of weaker growth in the past. This mostly can be explained by factors such as new product introductions, e.g. Watch or iPad, and by the strength of the respective current iPhone models, which see varying demand depending on the year. Other factors, such as economic growth or trade issues, play a role as well.\nData by YCharts\nOverall, revenues have grown by 154% over the last decade, but as we see in the above chart, revenue growth has been relatively uneven. During the early 2010s, Apple generated massive growth on the back of the iPhones \"road to victory\", whereas revenue growth declined to a much slower pace in the following years. There were even some years during which revenues declined on a year-over-year basis, such as 2016. The average annual revenue growth pace was 10% over the last decade, but when we factor in that this was lifted up by the very strong growth in 2011 and 2012, it may not be too reasonable to assume that Apple will grow by 10% a year in the future, too. Investors should also consider that maintaining a high growth rate becomes ever more difficult the larger a company gets. This does, however, not mean that Apple's revenue growth will slow down to zero.\nOn the back of price increases for its products and the potential for market share gains in high-growth countries such as China, where more and more people will be able to buy Apple's higher-priced products, it seems reasonable to assume that Apple will generate at least some growth from its core businesses. Add in growth in the services segment - people use their phones more and more, which should lead to higher app spending - and consider the potential for new product launches (although I assume none will be as massive as the iPhone), and Apple should be able to grow its business at a solid pace. I personally assume that a 5%-7% revenue growth rate could be a realistic estimate for the coming years, although some readers will of course have different opinions.\nApple's shareholder returns\nApple has lowered its share count massively in the past, as shown above, and it is, I believe, reasonable to assume that the same will happen going forward. Over the last decade, Apple bought back 36% of its shares. If the same were to happen over the next decade, each remaining share's portion of the company's value would rise by 56%, or 4.6% annualized. Due to the fact that Apple's current valuation is significantly higher than its historic valuation, buybacks could be less impactful in the future, though. Apple has, for example, only reduced its share count by 2.6% over the last year.\nThis is why I believe that the share count will not decline by another 36% over the coming decade. When we adjust that downward to 25%, this would result in a ~3% annual tailwind for Apple's growth when we look at per-share metrics, which are the deciding factor for Apple's share price growth. Combined with my 5%-7% business growth estimate, I thus assume that Apple will grow by 8%-10% on a per-share basis in the long term.\nApple's future valuation\nAAPL has been valued in a very wide range in the past, seeing its shares trade for very low multiples at some points, whereas investors were willing to pay significantly more at other times:\nData by YCharts\nShares could, five years ago, be bought for a very low 10x net earnings, which naturally was a great time to enter or expand positions. In late 2020, however, shares were trading for as much as 40x the company's net earnings, which seems like a quite high valuation. Right now, AAPL trades at 28x trailing earnings, and at around 24x forward profits. In the above chart, we also see the median earnings multiples over the last 3, 5, 7, and 10 years. It is pretty clear that Apple's valuation has expanded over the years, which is why the median values are higher for the shorter \"lookback\" periods. I do not believe that AAPL will trade at the 15.5x net earnings that it has traded at, on average, over the last decade, as this seems like a rather low valuation for a quality company like Apple with a strong brand, massive scale, great margins, and a fortress balance sheet. On the other hand, I also don't believe that Apple will trade at a 24-28x earnings multiple forever - for a company that generates solid but unspectacular business growth in the mid-single-digits, that seems quite expensive. This is especially true when we consider that interest rates will likely be higher a decade from now, which should pressure valuations for all equities, all else equal. I thus believe that a valuation of around 20x net earnings could be a reasonable estimate for 2031, which would be more or less in line with the 3-year median earnings multiple.\nIs AAPL A Buy Or Sell Now\nStarting our calculation with an EPS estimate of $5.15 for 2021 and assuming that this will grow by 7%-10% a year through 2031, we reach an EPS range of $10.10 to $13.40. Putting a 20x earnings multiple on that leads to a target price of around $200-$270/share. At the midpoint of around $235, shares would thus see gains of around 90% from the current level, or around 6.5% annualized. That surely is not a bad return, and when we add in the dividend, we would get to an annualized return of roughly 7%. This is, on the other hand, also not an outrageously great return, I believe.\nAAPL has, I believe, significant upside potential over the next decade, but that should not be a large surprise - many companies will see significant growth over a time span this long. I personally am not too excited about a 7% expected long-term return. When we consider that shares do have considerable downside risk in the next 1-3 years if Apple's valuation declines, e.g. due to rising interest rates, it may be a better choice to stay on the sidelines for now. Long-term investors will likely not do badly when they buy shares at current levels, but they will likely also not do great. For now, I'd rate Apple a hold, and a potential buy if its valuation comes closer to the longer-term average. Those that are more optimistic about new product launches may disagree and favor buying here, but it could turn out that waiting for a better opportunity is the best choice here.\nSumming it up, I'd say shares do have significant upside potential over the next decade, but the upside potential is not large enough to make me buy shares at current, elevated, valuations.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AAPL":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1705,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":384502893,"gmtCreate":1613659613612,"gmtModify":1704883362433,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/384502893","repostId":"1102078157","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":846,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":386416231,"gmtCreate":1613239761523,"gmtModify":1704879549805,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/386416231","repostId":"2110044852","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":992,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":188254672,"gmtCreate":1623451678196,"gmtModify":1704203876650,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"&nbsp;G","listText":"&nbsp;G","text":"G","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/188254672","repostId":"2142202150","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2054,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":189186548,"gmtCreate":1623248043584,"gmtModify":1704199317974,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Win","listText":"Win","text":"Win","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/189186548","repostId":"1188697627","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1188697627","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623247497,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1188697627?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-09 22:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why This Millennial Is Rage-Buying AMC and Crypto","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1188697627","media":"Barron's","summary":"Karl Marx would have loved Reddit. If the German philosopher were alive today, he’d be posting that ","content":"<p>Karl Marx would have loved Reddit. If the German philosopher were alive today, he’d be posting that everyone should get in on trading meme stocks and cryptocurrency. Not to get rich—though that’s a nice side benefit—but to strike back at the investor class. “It’s worthwhile running some risk in order to relieve the enemy of his money,” Marxwrote. I’m right there with you, Karl.</p>\n<p>Working-class millennials have been denied the chance to build generational wealth over the course of our professional careers. Many of us are risking what little we have left as a way of raging against a machine we feel is rigged against us. And we’re following in Marx’s footsteps.</p>\n<p>After a friend died in 1864, Marx received £820 in a bequest, his biographerrecounts. That comes out to roughly $151,500 today after adjusting for inflation and applying current conversion rates. Marx used a portion of his inheritance to become a financial speculator, often engaging in the same sort of penny-stock bubble schemes that the notorious WallStreetBets sub-Reddit has been accused of engaging in this year. “[Stocks] are springing up like mushrooms this year,” Marx wrote in a letter to his uncle, bragging that he had already made £400 from speculation. He added that many of his investments were typically “forced up to quite an unreasonable level and then, for the most part, collapse.”</p>\n<p>Marx’s trading stories are difficult to substantiate, but millennials’ love of meme stocks is very real. I’ve already made more this year from trading meme stocks and cryptocurrency than I have as a professional writer. I’ve come to look at the meme stock boom as millennials’ chance to finally build wealth. But if not, we’re content with making the investors largely responsible for our financial woes feel a bit of the pain they’ve inflicted on us. Short-sellers are losing their shirts to the tune of$4.5 billionon meme stocks so far.</p>\n<p>As a 34-year-old American, almost every generational stereotype applies to me. HuffPost’s Michael Hobbessummed upmillennials’ financial situation best in 2017: “My rent consumes nearly half my income, I haven’t had a steady job since Pluto was a planet and my savings are dwindling faster than the ice caps the baby boomers melted.”</p>\n<p>Perhaps because we’re the only American generation to live through two major recessions and two wars in our coming-up years, we’re the first generation to be financially worse off than our parents, despite beingbetter educatedon average. We paid for it, too. A year of college that cost $10,000 for boomers set millennials back more than $15,000 on average in inflation-adjusted dollars, according toBloomberg. Millennials of color, particularly Black millennials, have it worse. They graduated witheven more student debtthan their white classmates, arefar less likelyto be hired in white-collar professions, and their households earnjust 60%of what their white coworkers make.</p>\n<p>Millennials’ high-priced educations haven’t bought us much job security. A 2018 Gallup studycalledmillennials the “job-hopping generation.” Maybe, but not by choice. A 2019University of Chicago studyfound millennials actually long for a stable career. It should come as little surprise, then, that a generation plagued with job insecurity and mounting debt is leading the“baby bust.”The birth rate is at its lowest inthree decades. There may not be enough working-age Americans to care for the nation’s swelling senior population. Boomers effectively climbed the class ladder, then took a saw and cut off the rungs below them. (And they still ask us when we’ll give them grandchildren!)</p>\n<p>If all that doesn’t make meme stocks and cryptocurrency more appealing, at least it might help explain why some of us just don’t care any more about playing it safe. I’ll be the first to admit that investing in meme stocks isn’t a sustainable way to build wealth. A lot more of us will get hurt than get rich. But I’m not primarily investing to make money: I want the investors who crashed the economy and got bailed out in my senior year of college—thustorpedoingmy career earning potential—to feel at least a little bit of the hardship they put my generation through. And given thepredominantly millennialcomposition of /r/WallStreetBets, I know I’m not the only rage-driven investor.</p>\n<p>There’s plenty to be mad about. Like we saw withGameStop,workers organizing to make the stock market pay out in our favor results in strict blowback. After Redditors speculated GameStop shares through the roof in late January, mobile trading app Robinhood not only restricted trading, but evenreportedlysold investors’ GameStop shares without their consent. (Robinhooddeniesforced-selling occurred.) When it came to light that Robinhood had afinancial relationshipwith firms that help route its customers’ orders, it made a lot of newbie investors like me even more jaded about the markets.</p>\n<p>In March, when New York City opened movie theaters, I decided to buy AMC shares on a lark for $7 apiece. As of early June, my investment has appreciated in value by more than 550%. That could evaporate, but I’m taking a lesson from GameStop. Its stock is still trading at more than $250 per share despite starting the year under $20. I plan on continuing to hold my AMC shares in hopes the value will increase even more. When it’s finally time, I’ll sell half and re-invest my profits in cryptocurrency.</p>\n<p>When that happens, I’ll be far from the only millennial betting big on crypto. According to Business Insider, my generation ischiefly responsiblefor the sudden rise of cryptocurrency in 2021, in which both blue-chip digital currencies like Ethereum, as well as joke cryptocurrencies like Dogecoin, are thriving. Ethereum’s price has gone from $730.97 per coin on Jan. 1 to a peak of over $4,000 in May. Dogecoin hasappreciatedby more than 21,000% since its inception as a meme in 2013. (I’m still kicking myself for selling my Dogecoin when it was trading for less than 10 cents, even though I still made thousands in profit). Millennials’ commitment to crypto is now forcing the giants to play along: In March,Morgan Stanleybecame thefirst bankto offer Bitcoin funds to its wealthy clients. And as if on cue, now that the workers have made a little money in the rigged casino, U.S. regulators are reportedly preparing a “crackdown” on cryptocurrency.</p>\n<p>Millennials went through childhood being told we had to work hard to have financial security. Then we were told we had to shackle ourselves with debt to get a college degree that would get us a good job. Then we were told that only a lucky few actually build wealth from their jobs and that to have true financial success, we should invest. And then when we invested, we were told we were doing it wrong. I get the message. Millennials aren’t meant to win. Financial security isn’t for us. So if we can make a few grand by speculating penny stocks to the moon and hurt a few smug hedge fund vultures in the process, we’ll settle for that.</p>\n<p><b>Corrections &amp; Amplifications</b>: Citadel Securities is a market-maker that provides services for Robinhood, not a hedge fund. An earlier version of this commentary incorrectly reported that a subsidiary of Citadel Securities held a short position in GameStop.</p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","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>Why This Millennial Is Rage-Buying AMC and Crypto</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\">\nWhy This Millennial Is Rage-Buying AMC and Crypto\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-09 22:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/why-im-still-rage-buying-meme-stocks-51623165336><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Karl Marx would have loved Reddit. If the German philosopher were alive today, he’d be posting that everyone should get in on trading meme stocks and cryptocurrency. Not to get rich—though that’s a ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/why-im-still-rage-buying-meme-stocks-51623165336\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"GBTC":"比特币ETF-Grayscale","AMC":"AMC院线","COIN":"Coinbase Global, Inc."},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/why-im-still-rage-buying-meme-stocks-51623165336","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1188697627","content_text":"Karl Marx would have loved Reddit. If the German philosopher were alive today, he’d be posting that everyone should get in on trading meme stocks and cryptocurrency. Not to get rich—though that’s a nice side benefit—but to strike back at the investor class. “It’s worthwhile running some risk in order to relieve the enemy of his money,” Marxwrote. I’m right there with you, Karl.\nWorking-class millennials have been denied the chance to build generational wealth over the course of our professional careers. Many of us are risking what little we have left as a way of raging against a machine we feel is rigged against us. And we’re following in Marx’s footsteps.\nAfter a friend died in 1864, Marx received £820 in a bequest, his biographerrecounts. That comes out to roughly $151,500 today after adjusting for inflation and applying current conversion rates. Marx used a portion of his inheritance to become a financial speculator, often engaging in the same sort of penny-stock bubble schemes that the notorious WallStreetBets sub-Reddit has been accused of engaging in this year. “[Stocks] are springing up like mushrooms this year,” Marx wrote in a letter to his uncle, bragging that he had already made £400 from speculation. He added that many of his investments were typically “forced up to quite an unreasonable level and then, for the most part, collapse.”\nMarx’s trading stories are difficult to substantiate, but millennials’ love of meme stocks is very real. I’ve already made more this year from trading meme stocks and cryptocurrency than I have as a professional writer. I’ve come to look at the meme stock boom as millennials’ chance to finally build wealth. But if not, we’re content with making the investors largely responsible for our financial woes feel a bit of the pain they’ve inflicted on us. Short-sellers are losing their shirts to the tune of$4.5 billionon meme stocks so far.\nAs a 34-year-old American, almost every generational stereotype applies to me. HuffPost’s Michael Hobbessummed upmillennials’ financial situation best in 2017: “My rent consumes nearly half my income, I haven’t had a steady job since Pluto was a planet and my savings are dwindling faster than the ice caps the baby boomers melted.”\nPerhaps because we’re the only American generation to live through two major recessions and two wars in our coming-up years, we’re the first generation to be financially worse off than our parents, despite beingbetter educatedon average. We paid for it, too. A year of college that cost $10,000 for boomers set millennials back more than $15,000 on average in inflation-adjusted dollars, according toBloomberg. Millennials of color, particularly Black millennials, have it worse. They graduated witheven more student debtthan their white classmates, arefar less likelyto be hired in white-collar professions, and their households earnjust 60%of what their white coworkers make.\nMillennials’ high-priced educations haven’t bought us much job security. A 2018 Gallup studycalledmillennials the “job-hopping generation.” Maybe, but not by choice. A 2019University of Chicago studyfound millennials actually long for a stable career. It should come as little surprise, then, that a generation plagued with job insecurity and mounting debt is leading the“baby bust.”The birth rate is at its lowest inthree decades. There may not be enough working-age Americans to care for the nation’s swelling senior population. Boomers effectively climbed the class ladder, then took a saw and cut off the rungs below them. (And they still ask us when we’ll give them grandchildren!)\nIf all that doesn’t make meme stocks and cryptocurrency more appealing, at least it might help explain why some of us just don’t care any more about playing it safe. I’ll be the first to admit that investing in meme stocks isn’t a sustainable way to build wealth. A lot more of us will get hurt than get rich. But I’m not primarily investing to make money: I want the investors who crashed the economy and got bailed out in my senior year of college—thustorpedoingmy career earning potential—to feel at least a little bit of the hardship they put my generation through. And given thepredominantly millennialcomposition of /r/WallStreetBets, I know I’m not the only rage-driven investor.\nThere’s plenty to be mad about. Like we saw withGameStop,workers organizing to make the stock market pay out in our favor results in strict blowback. After Redditors speculated GameStop shares through the roof in late January, mobile trading app Robinhood not only restricted trading, but evenreportedlysold investors’ GameStop shares without their consent. (Robinhooddeniesforced-selling occurred.) When it came to light that Robinhood had afinancial relationshipwith firms that help route its customers’ orders, it made a lot of newbie investors like me even more jaded about the markets.\nIn March, when New York City opened movie theaters, I decided to buy AMC shares on a lark for $7 apiece. As of early June, my investment has appreciated in value by more than 550%. That could evaporate, but I’m taking a lesson from GameStop. Its stock is still trading at more than $250 per share despite starting the year under $20. I plan on continuing to hold my AMC shares in hopes the value will increase even more. When it’s finally time, I’ll sell half and re-invest my profits in cryptocurrency.\nWhen that happens, I’ll be far from the only millennial betting big on crypto. According to Business Insider, my generation ischiefly responsiblefor the sudden rise of cryptocurrency in 2021, in which both blue-chip digital currencies like Ethereum, as well as joke cryptocurrencies like Dogecoin, are thriving. Ethereum’s price has gone from $730.97 per coin on Jan. 1 to a peak of over $4,000 in May. Dogecoin hasappreciatedby more than 21,000% since its inception as a meme in 2013. (I’m still kicking myself for selling my Dogecoin when it was trading for less than 10 cents, even though I still made thousands in profit). Millennials’ commitment to crypto is now forcing the giants to play along: In March,Morgan Stanleybecame thefirst bankto offer Bitcoin funds to its wealthy clients. And as if on cue, now that the workers have made a little money in the rigged casino, U.S. regulators are reportedly preparing a “crackdown” on cryptocurrency.\nMillennials went through childhood being told we had to work hard to have financial security. Then we were told we had to shackle ourselves with debt to get a college degree that would get us a good job. Then we were told that only a lucky few actually build wealth from their jobs and that to have true financial success, we should invest. And then when we invested, we were told we were doing it wrong. I get the message. Millennials aren’t meant to win. Financial security isn’t for us. So if we can make a few grand by speculating penny stocks to the moon and hurt a few smug hedge fund vultures in the process, we’ll settle for that.\nCorrections & Amplifications: Citadel Securities is a market-maker that provides services for Robinhood, not a hedge fund. An earlier version of this commentary incorrectly reported that a subsidiary of Citadel Securities held a short position in GameStop.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"GBTC":0.9,"COIN":0.9,"AMC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2101,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":114632827,"gmtCreate":1623071667069,"gmtModify":1704195420802,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good&nbsp;","listText":"Good&nbsp;","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/114632827","repostId":"1126396501","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1312,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":111168766,"gmtCreate":1622663911155,"gmtModify":1704188398688,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Fly to moon&nbsp;","listText":"Fly to moon&nbsp;","text":"Fly to moon","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/111168766","repostId":"1188552613","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1188552613","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1622627641,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1188552613?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-02 17:54","market":"us","language":"en","title":"AMC Stock Is Surging Again. How to Make Sense of the Move.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1188552613","media":"Barrons","summary":"AMC Entertainment‘s skyrocketing stock price would be easy to dismiss as just meme-trade madness, th","content":"<p>AMC Entertainment‘s skyrocketing stock price would be easy to dismiss as just meme-trade madness, that social media-fueled investor frenzy that has launched the likes of&nbsp;GameStop&nbsp;and&nbsp;BlackBerry&nbsp;into speculative territory.</p>\n<p>But it’s possible that traditional investors have missed a fundamental change in the movie theater business—and it wouldn’t be the first time.</p>\n<p>Shares of AMC (ticker: AMC) surged 23% on Tuesday, closing at $32.04—just off an all-time high of $36.72 set in late May. That puts the movie-theater chain’s market capitalization at roughly $16 billion, more than 15 times what it was in 2018, a record-breaking year at the box office.&nbsp;Shares were up another 34%, to $42.92, in premarket trading Wednesday.</p>\n<p>Even if investors missed an inflection point, though, the math doesn’t add up. The reason might be that market cap isn’t the right measure. Maybe it’s enterprise value, which is essentially market cap and debt. AMC’s enterprise value is about $26 billion, compared with $6.2 billion or so at the end of 2018.</p>\n<p>AMC added debt during the pandemic as theaters in the country’s biggest cities were dark for months. And the numbers make it easy to understand why: The U.S. box office in 2020 generated about $2.1 billion in ticket sales, down 81% from the 2018 record of $11.9 billion.</p>\n<p>So, it seems investors have been vexed by movie theater economics. But it wouldn’t be the first time. The industry essentially went belly up at the turn of the millennium. Regal Cinemas, for instance, declared bankruptcy in 2001.</p>\n<p>Back then, the industry had plenty of capacity because of a new theater design—stadium seating that gave a better view of the screen. That shift meant movie theater chains had to renovate or risk losing all their patrons to movie theaters that offered the better view. In the end, too many seats and not enough patrons meant the return on the stadium-seating investments never materialized.</p>\n<p>The upshot was consolidation. With fewer operators, the number of screens stabilized. Between 2002 and 2007, Regal Cinemas became a cash-generating machine because the stock was mispriced. The stock returned 21% a year on average. The S&amp;P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average both returned less than 9% a year on average over the same period.</p>\n<p>In those days, Regal Cinema’s enterprise value about $5 billion, or about 50% of total U.S. box office sales. That’s far short of AMC today. Something new has to be different for AMC to be worth it.</p>\n<p>Maybe the movie theater business is going to go through another period of consolidation, which can usher in another golden age of returns. AMC’s Tuesday gains, in fact, were catalyzed by new capital raised so the company could go on the offensive, acquiring defunct chains. Monopolies, after all, can be good for stock returns.</p>\n<p>If AMC can increase market share and the U.S. box office sales can return to 2018 levels in a few years, total sales at might be $9 billion—$6 billion from tickets and $3 billion from concessions. Sales in 2018 amounted to $5.5 billion.</p>\n<p>Then, with better gross profit margins derived from larger scale, AMC might be able to generate $600 million in free cash flow annually, which puts the stock at about a 4% free cash flow yield. The S&amp;P 500 trades for about a 3% free cash flow yield. The numbers can work—if they’re stretched.</p>\n<p>There are problems with this scenario, though. There are lots of ifs and mights—and AMC has never generated cash flow like that in the past. Arriving at $600 million in free cash flow is more about justifying current valuations than predicting what is likely.</p>\n<p>Also, with mergers and acquisitions, AMC market shares might rise, but there are still competitors. Regal Cinemas is still out there, owned by Cineworld Holdings (CINE. London). So is Cinemark (CNK). There’s not a true monopoly.</p>\n<p>AMC and its peers have to deal with streaming, too. Windows for exclusive theater showings are shrinking. The pandemic has accelerated that. And if AMC gets too large and demanding for movie makers, the talent can always go to streaming faster, hurting box office sales.</p>\n<p>There is also the problem of the peer stocks. They aren’t trading like this is a brave new world for theaters. Cineworld stock is up 484% from its 52-week low, but shares are still off 72% from all-time highs. Cinemark shares are up 222% from their 52-week low. They are down 47% from their all-time high.</p>\n<p>AMC stock, again, is up almost 1,600% from its 52-week low and is down just 13% from its May all-time high.</p>\n<p>Wall Street just doesn’t see the potential either. Nine analysts cover the stock. The average analyst price target is about $5. Before the pandemic, the average analyst price target was $15. But there were fewer shares back then. The old target enterprise value was roughly $7 billion. It’s tough to get from $7 billion to $26 billion predicting better margins.</p>\n<p>Analysts do have positive free cash flow modeled, though–$13 million in 2022 and $90 million in 2023. That’s a long way from $600 million.</p>\n<p>And that’s just another way of saying that AMC bulls are a long way from making the math work.</p>","source":"lsy1601382232898","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>AMC Stock Is Surging Again. How to Make Sense of the Move.</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\">\nAMC Stock Is Surging Again. How to Make Sense of the Move.\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-02 17:54 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/amc-rockets-higher-is-it-worth-it-maybe-51622594691?mod=hp_LEAD_1><strong>Barrons</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>AMC Entertainment‘s skyrocketing stock price would be easy to dismiss as just meme-trade madness, that social media-fueled investor frenzy that has launched the likes of GameStop and BlackBerry into ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/amc-rockets-higher-is-it-worth-it-maybe-51622594691?mod=hp_LEAD_1\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AMC":"AMC院线"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/amc-rockets-higher-is-it-worth-it-maybe-51622594691?mod=hp_LEAD_1","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1188552613","content_text":"AMC Entertainment‘s skyrocketing stock price would be easy to dismiss as just meme-trade madness, that social media-fueled investor frenzy that has launched the likes of GameStop and BlackBerry into speculative territory.\nBut it’s possible that traditional investors have missed a fundamental change in the movie theater business—and it wouldn’t be the first time.\nShares of AMC (ticker: AMC) surged 23% on Tuesday, closing at $32.04—just off an all-time high of $36.72 set in late May. That puts the movie-theater chain’s market capitalization at roughly $16 billion, more than 15 times what it was in 2018, a record-breaking year at the box office. Shares were up another 34%, to $42.92, in premarket trading Wednesday.\nEven if investors missed an inflection point, though, the math doesn’t add up. The reason might be that market cap isn’t the right measure. Maybe it’s enterprise value, which is essentially market cap and debt. AMC’s enterprise value is about $26 billion, compared with $6.2 billion or so at the end of 2018.\nAMC added debt during the pandemic as theaters in the country’s biggest cities were dark for months. And the numbers make it easy to understand why: The U.S. box office in 2020 generated about $2.1 billion in ticket sales, down 81% from the 2018 record of $11.9 billion.\nSo, it seems investors have been vexed by movie theater economics. But it wouldn’t be the first time. The industry essentially went belly up at the turn of the millennium. Regal Cinemas, for instance, declared bankruptcy in 2001.\nBack then, the industry had plenty of capacity because of a new theater design—stadium seating that gave a better view of the screen. That shift meant movie theater chains had to renovate or risk losing all their patrons to movie theaters that offered the better view. In the end, too many seats and not enough patrons meant the return on the stadium-seating investments never materialized.\nThe upshot was consolidation. With fewer operators, the number of screens stabilized. Between 2002 and 2007, Regal Cinemas became a cash-generating machine because the stock was mispriced. The stock returned 21% a year on average. The S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average both returned less than 9% a year on average over the same period.\nIn those days, Regal Cinema’s enterprise value about $5 billion, or about 50% of total U.S. box office sales. That’s far short of AMC today. Something new has to be different for AMC to be worth it.\nMaybe the movie theater business is going to go through another period of consolidation, which can usher in another golden age of returns. AMC’s Tuesday gains, in fact, were catalyzed by new capital raised so the company could go on the offensive, acquiring defunct chains. Monopolies, after all, can be good for stock returns.\nIf AMC can increase market share and the U.S. box office sales can return to 2018 levels in a few years, total sales at might be $9 billion—$6 billion from tickets and $3 billion from concessions. Sales in 2018 amounted to $5.5 billion.\nThen, with better gross profit margins derived from larger scale, AMC might be able to generate $600 million in free cash flow annually, which puts the stock at about a 4% free cash flow yield. The S&P 500 trades for about a 3% free cash flow yield. The numbers can work—if they’re stretched.\nThere are problems with this scenario, though. There are lots of ifs and mights—and AMC has never generated cash flow like that in the past. Arriving at $600 million in free cash flow is more about justifying current valuations than predicting what is likely.\nAlso, with mergers and acquisitions, AMC market shares might rise, but there are still competitors. Regal Cinemas is still out there, owned by Cineworld Holdings (CINE. London). So is Cinemark (CNK). There’s not a true monopoly.\nAMC and its peers have to deal with streaming, too. Windows for exclusive theater showings are shrinking. The pandemic has accelerated that. And if AMC gets too large and demanding for movie makers, the talent can always go to streaming faster, hurting box office sales.\nThere is also the problem of the peer stocks. They aren’t trading like this is a brave new world for theaters. Cineworld stock is up 484% from its 52-week low, but shares are still off 72% from all-time highs. Cinemark shares are up 222% from their 52-week low. They are down 47% from their all-time high.\nAMC stock, again, is up almost 1,600% from its 52-week low and is down just 13% from its May all-time high.\nWall Street just doesn’t see the potential either. Nine analysts cover the stock. The average analyst price target is about $5. Before the pandemic, the average analyst price target was $15. But there were fewer shares back then. The old target enterprise value was roughly $7 billion. It’s tough to get from $7 billion to $26 billion predicting better margins.\nAnalysts do have positive free cash flow modeled, though–$13 million in 2022 and $90 million in 2023. That’s a long way from $600 million.\nAnd that’s just another way of saying that AMC bulls are a long way from making the math work.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AMC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1558,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":386416566,"gmtCreate":1613239801355,"gmtModify":1704879549966,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/386416566","repostId":"2110026963","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2110026963","kind":"highlight","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Dow Jones publishes the world’s most trusted business news and financial information in a variety of media.","home_visible":0,"media_name":"Dow Jones","id":"106","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/150f88aa4d182df19190059f4a365e99"},"pubTimestamp":1613109422,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2110026963?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-02-12 13:57","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here's the formula for spotting genuinely undervalued companies, claims this investment house","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2110026963","media":"Dow Jones","summary":"The growth stock vs. value stock dichotomy doesn't make sense, says ValuAnalysis. For most of 2020, investors poured money into names like online retailer Amazon $$, electric-car maker Tesla $$, and e-commerce platform Shopify -- \"growth\" stocks that kept indexes afloat in a turbulent year that hammered share prices across the board.But when news broke in early November 2020 that drug company Pfizer $$ and its partner BioNTech $$ had developed an effective vaccine against COVID-19, something pro","content":"<p>MW Here's the formula for spotting genuinely undervalued companies, claims this investment house</p>\n<p>The growth stock vs. value stock dichotomy doesn't make sense, says ValuAnalysis</p>\n<p>For most of 2020, investors poured money into names like online retailer Amazon <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AMZN\">$(AMZN)$</a>, electric-car maker Tesla <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TSLA\">$(TSLA)$</a>, and e-commerce platform Shopify (SHOP.T)-- \"growth\" stocks that kept indexes afloat in a turbulent year that hammered share prices across the board.</p>\n<p>But when news broke in early November 2020 that drug company Pfizer <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/PFE\">$(PFE)$</a> and its partner BioNTech <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/BNTX\">$(BNTX)$</a> had developed an effective vaccine against COVID-19, something profound happened in financial markets.</p>\n<p>Investors rotated out of these investments in favor of \"value\" stocks hammered by the COVID-19 pandemic, like airlines.</p>\n<p>This rotation was based on an essential concept in investing: There are some stocks that are clearly undervalued based on standard metrics.</p>\n<p>And it is completely flawed, according to research from ValuAnalysis, a London-based fund manager and equity investment boutique, which specializes in valuation.</p>\n<p>The apparent difference between growth stocks and value stocks is that the former is overvalued based on fundamental metrics while the latter is undervalued.</p>\n<p>\"Everyone knows that this thing doesn't make any sense because growth is not the opposite of value,\" Pascal Costantini, who led the research at ValuAnalysis, tells MarketWatch.</p>\n<p>\"It should be high-growth and low-growth, and I can imagine that, somewhere in an office, some guy said 'well this is not catchy enough, so how about growth and value?'\"</p>\n<p>Analysts and investors use metrics like the price-to-earnings ratio, or price multiple, to value stocks. ValuAnalysis uses price as a multiple of normalized net free cash flow as its benchmark, and identifies the imaginary dividing line between value and growth stocks at 35x, which is the market median.</p>\n<p>The value vs. growth divide would suggest that a company trading at a 17x earnings multiple is undervalued. In reality, ValuAnalysis says it is likely a company that won't grow.</p>\n<p>In reality, a stock's value is based on the company's ability to grow free cash flow in an environment where the cost of capital is 5% to 6%. So if a company isn't outpacing that by improving revenue and margins, the multiple won't increase and the stock price is unlikely to rise.</p>\n<p>Stocks that are actually undervalued will trade between 25x and 35x free cash flow, Costantini says, outpacing the cost of capital but not breaking past the market median.</p>\n<p>To have potential, a company's accumulation of assets or revenue growth must outpace increases in global gross domestic product, and ideally show signs of accelerating. There must also be an increase in operational leverage through revenue or margins. A decrease in the risk premium, such as through advances in controlling carbon emissions, helps.</p>","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>Here's the formula for spotting genuinely undervalued companies, claims this investment house</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\">\nHere's the formula for spotting genuinely undervalued companies, claims this investment house\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<div class=\"head\" \">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/150f88aa4d182df19190059f4a365e99);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Dow Jones </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2021-02-12 13:57</p>\n</div>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>MW Here's the formula for spotting genuinely undervalued companies, claims this investment house</p>\n<p>The growth stock vs. value stock dichotomy doesn't make sense, says ValuAnalysis</p>\n<p>For most of 2020, investors poured money into names like online retailer Amazon <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AMZN\">$(AMZN)$</a>, electric-car maker Tesla <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TSLA\">$(TSLA)$</a>, and e-commerce platform Shopify (SHOP.T)-- \"growth\" stocks that kept indexes afloat in a turbulent year that hammered share prices across the board.</p>\n<p>But when news broke in early November 2020 that drug company Pfizer <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/PFE\">$(PFE)$</a> and its partner BioNTech <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/BNTX\">$(BNTX)$</a> had developed an effective vaccine against COVID-19, something profound happened in financial markets.</p>\n<p>Investors rotated out of these investments in favor of \"value\" stocks hammered by the COVID-19 pandemic, like airlines.</p>\n<p>This rotation was based on an essential concept in investing: There are some stocks that are clearly undervalued based on standard metrics.</p>\n<p>And it is completely flawed, according to research from ValuAnalysis, a London-based fund manager and equity investment boutique, which specializes in valuation.</p>\n<p>The apparent difference between growth stocks and value stocks is that the former is overvalued based on fundamental metrics while the latter is undervalued.</p>\n<p>\"Everyone knows that this thing doesn't make any sense because growth is not the opposite of value,\" Pascal Costantini, who led the research at ValuAnalysis, tells MarketWatch.</p>\n<p>\"It should be high-growth and low-growth, and I can imagine that, somewhere in an office, some guy said 'well this is not catchy enough, so how about growth and value?'\"</p>\n<p>Analysts and investors use metrics like the price-to-earnings ratio, or price multiple, to value stocks. ValuAnalysis uses price as a multiple of normalized net free cash flow as its benchmark, and identifies the imaginary dividing line between value and growth stocks at 35x, which is the market median.</p>\n<p>The value vs. growth divide would suggest that a company trading at a 17x earnings multiple is undervalued. In reality, ValuAnalysis says it is likely a company that won't grow.</p>\n<p>In reality, a stock's value is based on the company's ability to grow free cash flow in an environment where the cost of capital is 5% to 6%. So if a company isn't outpacing that by improving revenue and margins, the multiple won't increase and the stock price is unlikely to rise.</p>\n<p>Stocks that are actually undervalued will trade between 25x and 35x free cash flow, Costantini says, outpacing the cost of capital but not breaking past the market median.</p>\n<p>To have potential, a company's accumulation of assets or revenue growth must outpace increases in global gross domestic product, and ideally show signs of accelerating. There must also be an increase in operational leverage through revenue or margins. A decrease in the risk premium, such as through advances in controlling carbon emissions, helps.</p>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/15e20574f8fb568333181d61bb200086","relate_stocks":{"PFE":"辉瑞","AMZN":"亚马逊","TSLA":"特斯拉"},"is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2110026963","content_text":"MW Here's the formula for spotting genuinely undervalued companies, claims this investment house\nThe growth stock vs. value stock dichotomy doesn't make sense, says ValuAnalysis\nFor most of 2020, investors poured money into names like online retailer Amazon $(AMZN)$, electric-car maker Tesla $(TSLA)$, and e-commerce platform Shopify (SHOP.T)-- \"growth\" stocks that kept indexes afloat in a turbulent year that hammered share prices across the board.\nBut when news broke in early November 2020 that drug company Pfizer $(PFE)$ and its partner BioNTech $(BNTX)$ had developed an effective vaccine against COVID-19, something profound happened in financial markets.\nInvestors rotated out of these investments in favor of \"value\" stocks hammered by the COVID-19 pandemic, like airlines.\nThis rotation was based on an essential concept in investing: There are some stocks that are clearly undervalued based on standard metrics.\nAnd it is completely flawed, according to research from ValuAnalysis, a London-based fund manager and equity investment boutique, which specializes in valuation.\nThe apparent difference between growth stocks and value stocks is that the former is overvalued based on fundamental metrics while the latter is undervalued.\n\"Everyone knows that this thing doesn't make any sense because growth is not the opposite of value,\" Pascal Costantini, who led the research at ValuAnalysis, tells MarketWatch.\n\"It should be high-growth and low-growth, and I can imagine that, somewhere in an office, some guy said 'well this is not catchy enough, so how about growth and value?'\"\nAnalysts and investors use metrics like the price-to-earnings ratio, or price multiple, to value stocks. ValuAnalysis uses price as a multiple of normalized net free cash flow as its benchmark, and identifies the imaginary dividing line between value and growth stocks at 35x, which is the market median.\nThe value vs. growth divide would suggest that a company trading at a 17x earnings multiple is undervalued. In reality, ValuAnalysis says it is likely a company that won't grow.\nIn reality, a stock's value is based on the company's ability to grow free cash flow in an environment where the cost of capital is 5% to 6%. So if a company isn't outpacing that by improving revenue and margins, the multiple won't increase and the stock price is unlikely to rise.\nStocks that are actually undervalued will trade between 25x and 35x free cash flow, Costantini says, outpacing the cost of capital but not breaking past the market median.\nTo have potential, a company's accumulation of assets or revenue growth must outpace increases in global gross domestic product, and ideally show signs of accelerating. There must also be an increase in operational leverage through revenue or margins. A decrease in the risk premium, such as through advances in controlling carbon emissions, helps.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AMZN":0.9,"TSLA":0.9,"PFE":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":655,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":110579299,"gmtCreate":1622473438911,"gmtModify":1704184916264,"author":{"id":"3571554572709564","authorId":"3571554572709564","name":"weehwa45","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/65dcff678a6964c5f4e32816004fa93a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3571554572709564","idStr":"3571554572709564"},"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/110579299","repostId":"2139453630","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1589,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}