Starlightdaz personal page - To The Moon

Starlightdaz

No personal profile

436Follow

13Followers

0Topic

0Badge

2021-09-01

Like pls

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2021-06-11

Like and comment pls

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2021-08-24

like pls

Why Palo Alto Networks Stock Is Trading Higher Today

2021-07-18

Like pls

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2022-01-24

Like pls

Pre-Bell｜Kohl’s Soared 27.3%; Unilever Surged 6.6%

2021-09-07

Like pls

Strategists Say the Stock Market Could Struggle This Fall. What to Buy Now?

2021-08-23

Like pls

Fed's Jackson Hole Symposium, personal income and spending: What to know this week

2021-08-02

Like pls

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2021-08-14

Like pls

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2021-07-03

Like pls

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2022-05-08

Like pls

Tesla: Overvalued By 85.26% And Not A Technology Company

2022-02-17

like pls

Some Hot Chinese ADRs Gained in Morning Trading

2021-09-10

Like pls

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2021-08-03

Like lls

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2022-02-27

Like pls

Buffett Full Annual Letter：Apple is One of ‘Four Giants’ Driving the Conglomerate’s Value

2022-02-15

Like pls

WTI Crude Once Fell 5% to $90.67 a Barrel

2022-02-09

Like pls

Alibaba Shares Jumped over 3% in Morning Trading

2022-02-03

Like pls

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2021-08-31

Like pls

American Woodmark misses profit expectations, as sales growth lagged rise in cost of sales

2021-07-21

Like pls

Sorry, the original content has been removed

Go to Tiger App to see more news

Invest in Global Markets with Tiger Brokers!

Open App

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"3576288493534856","uuid":"3576288493534856","gmtCreate":1613194550892,"gmtModify":1613194550892,"name":"Starlightdaz","pinyin":"starlightdaz","introduction":"","introductionEn":null,"signature":"","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":13,"headSize":436,"tweetSize":174,"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":"2025.03.25","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},{"badgeId":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84-1","templateUuid":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84","name":"Real Trader","description":"Completed a transaction","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100}],"userBadgeCount":2,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":2,"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":9944375735,"gmtCreate":1681730154827,"gmtModify":1681730159052,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"I want Disney shares please","listText":"I want Disney shares please","text":"I want Disney shares please","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9944375735","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":721,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9945756556,"gmtCreate":1681606460275,"gmtModify":1681606464026,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"No Disney shares sad","listText":"No Disney shares sad","text":"No Disney shares sad","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9945756556","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":668,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9945293922,"gmtCreate":1681478593566,"gmtModify":1681478597571,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"No Disney shares why","listText":"No Disney shares why","text":"No Disney shares why","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9945293922","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":705,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9945055975,"gmtCreate":1681338205198,"gmtModify":1681338208636,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Wonder if the egg will give more Disney share","listText":"Wonder if the egg will give more Disney share","text":"Wonder if the egg will give more Disney share","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9945055975","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":621,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9942728156,"gmtCreate":1681309978875,"gmtModify":1681309982454,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Happy week ahead everyone","listText":"Happy week ahead everyone","text":"Happy week ahead everyone","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9942728156","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":676,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9942154213,"gmtCreate":1681169178433,"gmtModify":1681169182066,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Happy Tuesday! Everyone!","listText":"Happy Tuesday! Everyone!","text":"Happy Tuesday! Everyone!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9942154213","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1109,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9942386602,"gmtCreate":1681135800507,"gmtModify":1681135805383,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"hope every one have a great weekend","listText":"hope every one have a great weekend","text":"hope every one have a great weekend","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9942386602","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":829,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9942386159,"gmtCreate":1681135756172,"gmtModify":1681135781758,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Huat Huat everyone Let's go","listText":"Huat Huat everyone Let's go","text":"Huat Huat everyone Let's go","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9942386159","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":909,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9946581168,"gmtCreate":1681000483954,"gmtModify":1681000488407,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Happy Sunday funday!","listText":"Happy Sunday funday!","text":"Happy Sunday funday!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9946581168","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":621,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9946873929,"gmtCreate":1680924511561,"gmtModify":1680924515724,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Happy weekend everyone!","listText":"Happy weekend everyone!","text":"Happy weekend everyone!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9946873929","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":973,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9946375292,"gmtCreate":1680879307916,"gmtModify":1680879311771,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hope everyone having a great easter","listText":"Hope everyone having a great easter","text":"Hope everyone having a great easter","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9946375292","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":298,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9946375686,"gmtCreate":1680879278945,"gmtModify":1680879282783,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"HAppy easter everyone!!!!","listText":"HAppy easter everyone!!!!","text":"HAppy easter everyone!!!!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9946375686","repostId":"9943960936","repostType":1,"repost":{"id":9943960936,"gmtCreate":1679046534725,"gmtModify":1680580626622,"author":{"id":"3527667667103859","authorId":"3527667667103859","name":"TigerEvents","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/c266ef25181ace18bec1262357bbe1a8","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3527667667103859","authorIdStr":"3527667667103859"},"themes":[],"title":"【Game】Easter Egg Hunting with Tiger, Win Disney Shares and USD 120 Voucher","htmlText":"🐰🌷 Hop into the Easter spirit and join our \"Tiger's Egg Hunting\" game! 🎉Stand to win free Disney stocks and a USD 120 cash voucher!🎁🌟Our interactive Easter game is open to Tigers, and it's so easy to play! Simply jump and catch the egg, and you could be a lucky winner. 🐇That's not all. You can also invite your friends to join in the fun to earn more points. Plus, you can challenge your friends for a race up the leaderboard. Let's fly to the moon together!Don't miss out on this egg-citing opportunity to win BIG! Join the game now and hop on your way to victory. 🥳🐣<a href=\"https://www.tigerbrokers.com.sg/activity/market/2023/easter/?adcode=20230316162207#/\" target=\"_blank\">Join our Easter campaign now</a>","listText":"🐰🌷 Hop into the Easter spirit and join our \"Tiger's Egg Hunting\" game! 🎉Stand to win free Disney stocks and a USD 120 cash voucher!🎁🌟Our interactive Easter game is open to Tigers, and it's so easy to play! Simply jump and catch the egg, and you could be a lucky winner. 🐇That's not all. You can also invite your friends to join in the fun to earn more points. Plus, you can challenge your friends for a race up the leaderboard. Let's fly to the moon together!Don't miss out on this egg-citing opportunity to win BIG! Join the game now and hop on your way to victory. 🥳🐣<a href=\"https://www.tigerbrokers.com.sg/activity/market/2023/easter/?adcode=20230316162207#/\" target=\"_blank\">Join our Easter campaign now</a>","text":"🐰🌷 Hop into the Easter spirit and join our \"Tiger's Egg Hunting\" game! 🎉Stand to win free Disney stocks and a USD 120 cash voucher!🎁🌟Our interactive Easter game is open to Tigers, and it's so easy to play! Simply jump and catch the egg, and you could be a lucky winner. 🐇That's not all. You can also invite your friends to join in the fun to earn more points. Plus, you can challenge your friends for a race up the leaderboard. Let's fly to the moon together!Don't miss out on this egg-citing opportunity to win BIG! Join the game now and hop on your way to victory. 🥳🐣Join our Easter campaign now","images":[{"img":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/c90a7371a3bcd1e6c552d2aa23f72c33","width":"1200","height":"630"}],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":2,"paper":2,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9943960936","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":0,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":1,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":217,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9062356573,"gmtCreate":1652012352292,"gmtModify":1676535013291,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":8,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9062356573","repostId":"1131831539","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1131831539","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1651980653,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1131831539?lang=&edition=full_marsco","pubTime":"2022-05-08 11:30","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Tesla: Overvalued By 85.26% And Not A Technology Company","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1131831539","media":"Seeking Alpha","summary":"SummaryMake no mistake, Tesla is a phenomenal company that has accomplished the unthinkable as it broke through extreme barriers of entry to disrupt the auto industry.Just because Tesla is a successfu","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>Summary</p><ul><li>Make no mistake, Tesla is a phenomenal company that has accomplished the unthinkable as it broke through extreme barriers of entry to disrupt the auto industry.</li><li>Just because Tesla is a successful company that is causing automotive titans to change from combustible engines to EVs doesn&#39;t mean Tesla&#39;s stock is a good investment today.</li><li>100% of gross profit and net income is generated from the automotive sector as Tesla&#39;s other businesses lose money, making them an automobile manufacturing company, not a technology company.</li><li>I compared Tesla&#39;s metrics to the auto industry and big tech and the results are the same, Tesla&#39;s valuation is egregious.</li></ul><p>It&#39;s rare to find companies that have cult-like followings with loyalists willing to pay any price for its stock. The debate regarding Tesla, Inc.&#39;s (NASDAQ:TSLA) valuation continues to be a topic of conversation between the bulls and the bears. Oneside argues that TSLA&#39;s financial growth and future prospects, including FSD, insurance, and robotaxis, justify the current $902.12 billion valuations, while others argue that the current financials and cult-like following have led to a massive overvaluation in TSLA&#39;s stock.</p><p>I tip my hat to Elon Musk, as his accomplishments are second to none. When others called him crazy, Mr. Musk chose one of the hardest industries to compete in, started TSLA from the ground up, went to battle against the auto manufacturers, and succeeded. TSLA is one of the rare success stories that has truly shaped an industry, and the barriers of entry that were overcome are astonishing. TSLA didn&#39;t have the capital, manufacturing, credibility, or the infrastructure that its competitors did, yet they found a way to succeed. If the odds weren&#39;t enough which TSLA faced, they accomplished their goals without a combustible engine and pioneered an entirely new sector within the automotive industry.</p><p>Just because TSLA is a great company, it doesn&#39;t mean TSLA has a great stock, or it isn&#39;t overvalued. I am not bearish on TSLA the company because I believe they still have a long runway of growth ahead of them, but I am bearish on the valuation. Prior to leaving a comment on why I am wrong, please read the article and think about the metrics I am citing; then, I will happily discuss any viewpoints about the analysis.</p><p><b>Tesla Vs. The World In The Automotive Sector</b></p><p>It feels like TSLA vs. the world whenever TSLA is discussed. Discussing who makes a better automobile is a matter of opinion, and everyone is correct because it&#39;s their opinion. If person A thinks TSLA makes the best car and person B thinks Mercedes Benz makes the best car, they are both correct. Debating over this is pointless, so let&#39;s look at the raw numbers.</p><p>TSLA has a larger market cap than the combination ofToyota(TM),Volkswagen(OTCPK:VWAGY),Daimler(OTCPK:DDAIF),BMW(OTCPK:BMWYY),General Motors(GM),Ford(F),Honda(HMC),Ferrari(RACE),Nissan(OTCPK:NSANY),Subaru(OTCPK:FUJHY),Volvo(OTCPK:VOLAF), andMazda(OTCPK:MZDAY). TSLA&#39;s market cap is currently $986.92 billion, while the combination of these 12 companies is $777.41 billion.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ff930d2442bf282c1bd880cca408eb94\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"327\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Steven Fiorillo</p><p>The P/S ratio is often cited to justify the valuation. The combination of TM, VWAGY, DDAIF, BMWYY, GM, F, HMC, RACE, NSANY, FUJHY, VOLAF, and MZDAY has generated $1.38 trillion in revenue over the TTM, putting their P/S at 0.56, while TSLA has generated $62.19 billion in revenue and has a 15.87 P/S.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c9b9661fde232925a758c38fd2e93f36\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"330\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Steven Fiorillo, Seeking Alpha</p><p>As a combined entity, these 12 companies have generated $118.29 billion in net income, while TSLA has produced $8.4 billion.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d25806eb839eb9ca2b4ef3c24218048c\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"330\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Steven Fiorillo, Seeking Alpha</p><p>TSLA is a great company, but its current valuation has become overly inflated. TSLA&#39;s market cap is $209.52 billion larger than these 12 auto manufacturers, yet the combination of the 12 auto manufacturers generates $1.32 trillion more in revenue and $109.89 billion more in net income.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a1b686de4009ca733ff9651ce0d9fcaf\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"348\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Steven Fiorillo, Seeking Alpha</p><p>Looking at the market caps, one would assume that TSLA has a dominant majority over its competitors in auto sales within the U.S. According to the2021 data, TSLA sold 2.02% of all vehicles in the U.S. TSLA&#39;s market cap reflects a level of dominance that is non-existent.</p><p>Realistically, TSLA will have a hard time disrupting the sector further due to the price point of their vehicles. The reality is that, unless TSLA can sell a car that rivals a Honda or Toyota, doubling its market share is going to be a daunting task. It&#39;s just math. TSLA doesn&#39;t have a product for the masses, and while it may continue to grow in the luxury segment, the amount of growth that can be achieved is limited due to the pricing power of the consumer.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/442ffe151dd83bc524785857925f9797\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"227\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>www.goodcarbadcar.net</p><p><b>Tesla Isn&#39;t A Technology Company And Shouldn&#39;t Be Valued As One</b></p><p>The valuation rebuttal has always been that TSLA isn&#39;t an automobile company, rather, it&#39;s a technology company.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bbc9ccb2cb8a0e7d40804db24e183214\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"341\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Tesla</p><p>Page 23 ofTSLA&#39;s Q1 2022 slide deck from their earnings call is their statement of operations. Once again, 100% of TSLA&#39;s gross profit and net income are derived from automobiles. Energy generation and storage lose money as it generates $616 million in revenue while the cost of this revenue is $688 million. The same goes for Services and others, as this segment generates $1.279 billion in revenue while the cost of this revenue is $1.286 billion. This doesn&#39;t even factor in operating expenses.</p><p>TSLA manufacturers state of the art automobiles, but this doesn&#39;t classify them as a technology company, nor should they be classified as one. Since this is always the rebuttal and technology companies trade at larger earnings multiples, I will compare TSLA to Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Amazon (AMZN), Alphabet (GOOG) (GOOGL), and Meta Platforms (FB) and illustrate why TSLA is still drastically overvalued if the market was still to provide it with a tech multiple.</p><p>Prior to the comparisons, I want to frame the analysis by providing each company&#39;s market cap:</p><ul><li>AAPL $2.69 Trillion</li><li>MSFT $2.17 Trillion</li><li>GOOGL $1.62 Trillion</li><li>AMZN $1.28 Trillion</li><li>TSLA $986.92 Billion</li><li>FB $604.62 Billion</li></ul><p>I am going to start with growth because this is always the key metric bulls point out. Since the close of 2018, which is 3.25 fiscal years, TSLA has grown its revenue from $21.46 billion to $62.19 billion.</p><p>This is absolutely remarkable, but it doesn&#39;t place TSLA in the upper epsilon of technology companies. Over the same period, FB grew its revenue by $63.83 billion, which is more than what TSLA produced in the TTM. FB grew its revenue by more than what TSLA produces and generates just about double the revenue ($119.67 billion), yet TSLA has a larger market cap. For everyone who has used growth as their investment premise, FB having a market cap that&#39;s $382.30 less than TSLA nullifies that aspect of the bull thesis. AMZN&#39;s market cap is only $294.33 billion larger than TSLA, yet they generated $477.75 billion in revenue and grew their revenue by $341.76 billion in this period. Using revenue growth for TSLA doesn&#39;t support the valuation.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3c0fbd4eb93f026c4575ee8f77f53e4b\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"396\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Steven Fiorillo, Seeking Alpha</p><p>Next, I will turn to profits because, at the end of the day, businesses are in the business of making money. Once again, TSLA has done a fantastic job of monetizing its business and, in 3.25 short years, has gone from losing -$976 million to make $8.4 billion in the TTM for an increase of $9.38 billion. FB has produced $37.34 billion in profit in the TTM, and its net income grew by $15.23 billion over this period. Using growth doesn&#39;t support the valuation when FB has a market cap that&#39;s $382.30 less than TSLA and grew its profits in this period by almost double what TSLA has generated in the TTM.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c9716477607711ee0b6d4f77eb24c890\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"382\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Steven Fiorillo, Seeking Alpha</p><p>The new metric bulls are using in their thesis is TSLA&#39;s free cash flow (FCF). Once again, TSLA has done an excellent job, going from -$221 million of FCF in 2018 to $6.93 billion of FCF in the TTM. Many companies would love to grow their annual FCF by $7.15 billion over a 3.25-year period, and this should be applauded.</p><p>Let&#39;s look at FB once again, since TSLA&#39;s valuation isn&#39;t based on its core segment as an automobile manufacturer. FB has grown its FCF over the previous 3.25 years by $23.45 billion, more than 3x TSLA&#39;s growth, and has generated $39.81 billion of FCF in the TTM. FB generated roughly 5.75x more FCF than TSLA and grew its FCF by more than 3x what TSLA produces, yet FB has a market cap that&#39;s almost $400 billion less than TSLA. Growth within the financials does not support TSLA&#39;s valuation, which is a breath away from $1 trillion.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/902a7074eda9e8f2f2765e0833423d2c\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"373\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Steven Fiorillo, Seeking Alpha</p><p>Today you&#39;re paying a 113.81 P/E for TSLA. Paying a larger multiple for a company that&#39;s growing its earnings quickly is normal, but TSLA isn&#39;t growing by larger amounts than FB, and FB trades at a 16.66 P/E. I have seen TSLA bulls justify the P/E because of TSLA&#39;s growth factor, but this doesn&#39;t hold up when FB has grown by larger amounts from larger starting positions and has a P/E that&#39;s a fraction of TSLA. Look at AAPL, which is the largest company in the world. AAPL has grown its net income by $56.25 billion and its FCF by $52.3 billion over the past 3.25 years, and its P/E is 26.78. People are blindly paying any multiple the market places on TSLA.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/75168f6e39ced721cf0c53d78481a983\" tg-width=\"614\" tg-height=\"335\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>TSLA is trading at a 15.38 P/S. The justification for this multiple is difficult to defend while AMZN trades at a P/S of 11.31. AMZN&#39;s revenue grew by $341.76 billion over the past 3.25 years while TSLA grew their revenue by $40.73 billion. Instead of an absolute basis, looking at this from a percentage aspect, TSLA grew its revenue by 189.78%, while AMZN&#39;s grew by 251.32%. The P/S ratio is not a supporting valuation metric as TSLA is trading at a larger multiple than AMZN yet produced $301.03 billion less in revenue growth compared to AMZN. At the very least, TSLA should trade at a lower P/S multiple than AMZN considering their revenue growth was a fraction of AMZN&#39;s.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/aad00a6c490808962705a1a2dae45cfe\" tg-width=\"608\" tg-height=\"338\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>TSLA has done an excellent job monetizing its revenue, delivering exceptional margins, and generating FCF. Now that TSLA is generating billions in FCF, it&#39;s been inserted into the bull thesis. FCF is a measure of profitability that excludes the non-cash expenses of the income statement and includes spending on equipment and assets as well as changes in working capital from the balance sheet. FCF could be the most underrated and most important financial metric to look at, as this is the pool of capital that companies can utilize to repay debt, pay dividends, buy back shares, make acquisitions, or reinvest in the business.</p><p>Every investment is the present value of all future cash flow. This is why investors look at the price to FCF valuation. Investors want to pay the cheapest multiple for a company&#39;s FCF. Today, you&#39;re paying 142.52x TSLA&#39;s FCF. Going back to the FCF section, TSLA grew its FCF by $7.15 billion over the past 3.25 years. FB generated $23.45 billion of FCF in this period, which is 3x the amount TSLA grew, yet FB is trading at a 15.19x multiple on price to FCF.</p><p>Why on earth would you want to pay 142.52x for TSLA&#39;s FCF when you could pay 15.19x for FB, which is growing their FCF by more than 3x the amount that TSLA is growing by? How about AAPL? AAPL grew its FCF by $52.3 billion and trades at a 25.4x price to FCF. If I exclude FB for a moment, should TSLA trade at a larger FCF multiple than GOOGL, which has grown its FCF by $46.15 billion over the past 3.25 years? My answer is no because there is no guarantee that TSLA will ever generate $46.15 billion in annual FCF, let alone the $68.99 billion in FCF that GOOGL generates.</p><p>So what is a fair price to FCF multiple for TSLA? I don&#39;t believe TSLA has earned the right to trade at the same multiples as the rest of big tech considering the levels of FCF they produce. If I stick with the methodology that FB is egregiously undervalued, then TSLA should trade above 15.19x its FCF but lower than the 23.42x multiple GOOGL trades at.</p><p>I don&#39;t want to be overly bearish, so I will place a 21x multiple on TSLA&#39;s FCF, which is more than fair considering big tech metrics. A 21x multiple on TSLA&#39;s FCF puts its market cap at $145.43 billion, which is -85.26% from its current market cap of $986.92 billion. It&#39;s just math, and if TSLA is going to be valued as a technology company, it needs to be compared to the technology companies with similar market caps.</p><p>At the very least, there isn&#39;t a single reason why TSLA&#39;s market cap is larger than FB&#39;s. There isn&#39;t a single metric that TSLA beats FB in. Based on FB&#39;s valuation, if TSLA traded at the same FCF multiple, it would have a market cap of $105.19 billion.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b81a61d60d9ec098276569cc4a501da0\" tg-width=\"627\" tg-height=\"341\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>TSLA has a gross profit margin of 27.1% ($16.85b / $62.19b) and a profit margin of 13.51% ($8.4b / $62.19b). FB has a gross profit margin of 80.34% ($96.14b / $119.67b) and a profit margin of 31.2% ($37.34b / $119.67b). FB has much wider margins and is growing its revenue by larger amounts. This reinforces my methodology as to why TSLA is grossly overvalued. GOOGL has a gross profit margin of 56.93% ($153.9b / $270.33b) and a profit margin of 27.57% ($74.54b / $270.33b).</p><p>The chances are incredibly slim that TSLA can double its profit margin to be within striking distance of GOOGL&#39;s. TSLA should not trade at a larger FCF, P/E, or P/S multiple than FB or GOOGL. While the market would indicate that I am wrong today, eventually, the hype will wear off, and TSLA will trade at a realistic valuation.</p><p><b>TSLA&#39;s Future Catalysts Have A Long Way To Go Before Impacting Its Bottom Line</b></p><p>There are three main catalysts people discuss, which include insurance, robotaxis, and FSD.TSLA offers insurance using real-time driving behavior. This is currently available to all Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y owners. The catch is that it&#39;s only available in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia as of now.</p><p>TSLA uses a safety rating score to determine the monthly premium for its vehicles. At the largest premium of $130/mo, this would be $1,560 per year. If TSLA converted 100% of their U.S sales in 2021 as an insurance customer, which I think could be possible if TSLA insurance was available in every state, it would have generated $471.12 million in revenue.</p><p>We have no idea what the margins would have been, but if the margin was 50%, it would have been an additional $235.56 million in net income in 2021. While this is nothing to sneeze at, an additional $235.56 million in net income hardly moves the needle. This could be a $1 billion top-line revenue segment in the future, but with availability in only 7 states, insurance&#39;s $1 billion revenue mark is a long way away.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e86de6232b9abf7cee46a9607eb09741\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"326\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Tesla</p><p>Next,FSD, for which TSLA has created two subscription models, a $99/mo price point and a $199/mo price point. The problem with FSD is that it doesn&#39;t make the vehicle fully autonomous, and you still need a driver to be attentive and alert. While I am not arguing that TSLA&#39;s FSD isn&#39;t leaps and bounds ahead of the competition, the problem is that it&#39;s not exactly a self-driving car.</p><p>The questions around legality and where you can use it pop into my head, and how many of TSLA&#39;s drivers opt for this upgrade. Until there is clear legislation and the technology advances to where vehicles can fully drive a person from point A to B while that person takes a nap or reads, I have a hard time believing enough TSLA owners will spend the extra $199/mo on FSD. If there is somewhere where TSLA produces the numbers about how many owners opt for this package, please let me know, and I will crunch the numbers.</p><p>Which Features Come With My Subscription?</p><blockquote>The FSD capability features you receive are based on your configuration and location. Not all features are available in all markets, and features are subject to change.Learn more about Autopilot and Full Self-Driving capability features.</blockquote><blockquote><i>Note: These features are designed to become more capable over time; however the currently enabled features do not make the vehicle autonomous. The currently enabled features require a fully attentive driver, who has their hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment.</i></blockquote><p>The last catalyst is Robotaxis which many have commented on in my articles before. We&#39;re so far off on Robotaxis that this can&#39;t be considered in TSLA&#39;s upcoming revenue. I would think major legislation would be needed for Robotaxis to exist, and there is no telling how many years away we are from this.</p><p>Also, what is the percentage of TSLA owners that would actually allow their vehicle to be used as a Robotaxi? Depending on what the profitability is, I can see people buying TSLAs to enroll them in this program, but, once again, we need to see the economics behind it. I know I am just one opinion, but I would never enroll one of my cars into a robotaxi program because I don&#39;t want other people that I don&#39;t know in my car. I would think there are many others that have similar viewpoints.</p><p>The real upcoming catalysts are future revenue growth and entering the Chinese market. In 2021 TSLA grew its YoY revenue by 70.67%, and their off to a great start after Q1 2022. Only time will tell what type of growth rate TSLA can maintain, but too many people are assuming that TSLA will obliterate the competition. Over the next several years, we could see TSLA&#39;s growth rate become significantly reduced as more luxury operators put EVs on the road.</p><p>At TSLA&#39;s current margins, they would need to increase their revenue by 444.55% to $276.47 billion to produce the same amount of net income ($37.34b) that FB produces today at their current 13.51% profit margin. Maybe TSLA can get there in the future, but why should TSLA be valued at almost $1 trillion today, considering not a single metric of theirs is similar to FB or GOOGL, and TSLA&#39;s growth across any of the sectors isn&#39;t larger than FB or GOOGL?</p><p><b>Tesla Continues To Dilute Shareholders, And Almost No Shareholders Care</b></p><p>Dilution kills shareholder value. Look, I am a shareholder of TSLA, and I hate that my shares continue to be diluted. These numbers are split-adjusted that I am using. Over the past decade,TSLA has diluted its shares by 80.93%. This is horrible compared to big tech, yet investors can&#39;t buy enough TSLA shares. TSLA finished 2012 with 572.6 million shares and, as of its last filing, had increased its outstanding shares to 1.036 billion shares.</p><p>This is the equivalent of me taking a pizza, and instead of giving you a slice, cutting another 6.5 slices, then giving you one. The pizza represents TSLA, the company, and they basically turned an 8-slice pie into a 14.5-slice pie, reducing shareholder&#39;s ownership and the amount of equity, revenue, and EPS our shares represent.</p><p>If you want to see what a true shepherd of shareholder value looks like, turn to AAPL. In 2012 AAPL had 26.3 billion shares outstanding. Over the past decade, AAPL has repurchased 10.09 billion shares, reducing its outstanding shares by 38.37%. Every quarter, AAPL is buying back shares and increasing the ownership its shares represent. TSLA, on the other hand, continues to dilute shareholders by increasing shares YOY.</p><p><b>I Could Be Completely Wrong, And Tesla Could Continue Growing At These Rates</b></p><p>TSLA&#39;s vehicle deliveries continue to outpace its growing production. YoY TSLA&#39;s deliveries increased by 68% in Q1, adding 125,171 delivered vehicles to its customers. TSLA just began Model Y deliveries from the Austin facility, and production at the Gigafactory in Berlin started in March of 2022. TSLA&#39;s Shanghai facility had strong production rates prior to the spike in COVID that resulted in temporary shutdowns. TSLA isn&#39;t just focusing on the U.S, they have Europe and China in their sights.</p><p>EVs accounted for 488,000 sales in the U.S for 2021, and the previous projection was that EVs would account for 670,000 units sold in 2022. Oil has hovered around $100 per barrel and could render the previous projections of 37% increased EV sales domestically for 2022 conservative. TSLA is in a prime position to capitalize on this trend. In 2021 TSLA vehicles accounted for 61.89% of EVs sold in the U.S (301,998 / 488,000).</p><p>Hypothetically, if the previous projection of 670,000 EV sales for 2022 is accurate and TSLA maintains its current margin, they would sell 414,628 vehicles throughout the U.S in 2022. If gas prices do alter the decision-making process when deciding between a combustible engine or an EV, then TSLA could continue surprising the market with QoQ earnings beats.</p><p>The U.S has a national goal of reaching 50% of domestic auto sales coming from EVs. In 2021, EVs accounted for 3.26% of total sales in the U.S auto market. Based on U.S auto sales in 2021, annual EV sales would need to grow by 6,989,403 to reach a 50% EV to combustible engine ratio. Hypothetically if U.S auto sales stayed flat but EVs reached 50% of the market in 2030 they would sell 7,477,403 vehicles. If TSLA&#39;s dominance in the EV sector was to drop from 61.89% to 15% due to increased competition, they would generate 1,121,610 in sales compared to 301,998 in 2021. When you add in Europe and China, TSLA certainly has the ability to become a top auto manufacturer by sales next decade.</p><p>Bulls aren&#39;t incorrect to be excited about TSLA. The world is moving toward EVs, and TSLA is the crème de la crème. As I said in the beginning, I am bullish about TSLA&#39;s future prospects, but I think the valuation today is overinflated. Nobody can predict the future, but I have no doubt that TSLA will continue to grow its sales YoY.</p><p>The question becomes, how much growth will they be able to achieve YoY? In 2021, TM generated $226.48 billion of revenue and, based on the future of EVs, TSLA certainly could achieve this level of revenue in the future. Based on TSLA&#39;s current 13.51% profit margin, if they achieved TM&#39;s level of revenue, they would generate $30.59 billion of net income, which would definitely make today&#39;s valuation look more realistic.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/93c9176fa9bebc2c940e038cafd23229\" tg-width=\"603\" tg-height=\"631\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Tesla</p><p><b>Conclusion</b></p><p>You&#39;re probably wondering how I can be a shareholder and be a bear on TSLA&#39;s valuation at the same time. It&#39;s simple; my wife bought shares of TSLA, which makes me a shareholder. My stance has always been bullish on the company and bearish on the valuation. What Elon Musk and the team at TSLA has accomplished is astonishing, and they deserve nothing but respect.</p><p>Keep in mind a company and a company&#39;s stock are two separate things. TSLA continues to dilute shareholders, and they and the market are valuing TSLA as if it&#39;s FB or GOOGL. TSLA is not a technology company; it&#39;s an automobile company, as the automotive segments drive 100% of its gross revenue and net income.</p><p>TSLA is trading at a P/E of 113.81, a P/S of 15.38, and a 142.52x multiple on its FCF. The numbers are drastically inflated as TSLA has no business trading at a larger P/S multiple than AMZN, which trades at 11.31 P/S when it has grown its revenue by $341.76 billion over the previous 3.25 years compared to TSLA&#39;s $40.73 billion of revenue growth. TSLA has generated $6.93 billion in FCF over the TTM, while Mr. Market has placed a 142.52x multiple on TSLA due to $7.15 billion FCF growth over the past 3.25 years. FB trades at a 15.19x FCF multiple while growing FCF by $23.45 billion over this period which is more than 3x what TSLA has generated in the TTM.</p><p>With FB trading at 15.19x FCF, GOOGL at 23.42x FCF, and AAPL at 25.4x FCF, it&#39;s hard to justify any number above 20x for TSLA. I think a 21x FCF multiple is generous and that places TSLA at a market cap of $145.43 billion, which is -85.26% from its current market cap of $986.92 billion.</p></body></html>","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: Overvalued By 85.26% And Not A Technology Company</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: Overvalued By 85.26% And Not A Technology Company\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-05-08 11:30 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://seekingalpha.com/article/4507535-tesla-overvalued-by-85-26-percent-and-not-a-technology-company><strong>Seeking Alpha</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>SummaryMake no mistake, Tesla is a phenomenal company that has accomplished the unthinkable as it broke through extreme barriers of entry to disrupt the auto industry.Just because Tesla is a ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4507535-tesla-overvalued-by-85-26-percent-and-not-a-technology-company\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TSLA":"特斯拉"},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4507535-tesla-overvalued-by-85-26-percent-and-not-a-technology-company","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1131831539","content_text":"SummaryMake no mistake, Tesla is a phenomenal company that has accomplished the unthinkable as it broke through extreme barriers of entry to disrupt the auto industry.Just because Tesla is a successful company that is causing automotive titans to change from combustible engines to EVs doesn't mean Tesla's stock is a good investment today.100% of gross profit and net income is generated from the automotive sector as Tesla's other businesses lose money, making them an automobile manufacturing company, not a technology company.I compared Tesla's metrics to the auto industry and big tech and the results are the same, Tesla's valuation is egregious.It's rare to find companies that have cult-like followings with loyalists willing to pay any price for its stock. The debate regarding Tesla, Inc.'s (NASDAQ:TSLA) valuation continues to be a topic of conversation between the bulls and the bears. Oneside argues that TSLA's financial growth and future prospects, including FSD, insurance, and robotaxis, justify the current $902.12 billion valuations, while others argue that the current financials and cult-like following have led to a massive overvaluation in TSLA's stock.I tip my hat to Elon Musk, as his accomplishments are second to none. When others called him crazy, Mr. Musk chose one of the hardest industries to compete in, started TSLA from the ground up, went to battle against the auto manufacturers, and succeeded. TSLA is one of the rare success stories that has truly shaped an industry, and the barriers of entry that were overcome are astonishing. TSLA didn't have the capital, manufacturing, credibility, or the infrastructure that its competitors did, yet they found a way to succeed. If the odds weren't enough which TSLA faced, they accomplished their goals without a combustible engine and pioneered an entirely new sector within the automotive industry.Just because TSLA is a great company, it doesn't mean TSLA has a great stock, or it isn't overvalued. I am not bearish on TSLA the company because I believe they still have a long runway of growth ahead of them, but I am bearish on the valuation. Prior to leaving a comment on why I am wrong, please read the article and think about the metrics I am citing; then, I will happily discuss any viewpoints about the analysis.Tesla Vs. The World In The Automotive SectorIt feels like TSLA vs. the world whenever TSLA is discussed. Discussing who makes a better automobile is a matter of opinion, and everyone is correct because it's their opinion. If person A thinks TSLA makes the best car and person B thinks Mercedes Benz makes the best car, they are both correct. Debating over this is pointless, so let's look at the raw numbers.TSLA has a larger market cap than the combination ofToyota(TM),Volkswagen(OTCPK:VWAGY),Daimler(OTCPK:DDAIF),BMW(OTCPK:BMWYY),General Motors(GM),Ford(F),Honda(HMC),Ferrari(RACE),Nissan(OTCPK:NSANY),Subaru(OTCPK:FUJHY),Volvo(OTCPK:VOLAF), andMazda(OTCPK:MZDAY). TSLA's market cap is currently $986.92 billion, while the combination of these 12 companies is $777.41 billion.Steven FiorilloThe P/S ratio is often cited to justify the valuation. The combination of TM, VWAGY, DDAIF, BMWYY, GM, F, HMC, RACE, NSANY, FUJHY, VOLAF, and MZDAY has generated $1.38 trillion in revenue over the TTM, putting their P/S at 0.56, while TSLA has generated $62.19 billion in revenue and has a 15.87 P/S.Steven Fiorillo, Seeking AlphaAs a combined entity, these 12 companies have generated $118.29 billion in net income, while TSLA has produced $8.4 billion.Steven Fiorillo, Seeking AlphaTSLA is a great company, but its current valuation has become overly inflated. TSLA's market cap is $209.52 billion larger than these 12 auto manufacturers, yet the combination of the 12 auto manufacturers generates $1.32 trillion more in revenue and $109.89 billion more in net income.Steven Fiorillo, Seeking AlphaLooking at the market caps, one would assume that TSLA has a dominant majority over its competitors in auto sales within the U.S. According to the2021 data, TSLA sold 2.02% of all vehicles in the U.S. TSLA's market cap reflects a level of dominance that is non-existent.Realistically, TSLA will have a hard time disrupting the sector further due to the price point of their vehicles. The reality is that, unless TSLA can sell a car that rivals a Honda or Toyota, doubling its market share is going to be a daunting task. It's just math. TSLA doesn't have a product for the masses, and while it may continue to grow in the luxury segment, the amount of growth that can be achieved is limited due to the pricing power of the consumer.www.goodcarbadcar.netTesla Isn't A Technology Company And Shouldn't Be Valued As OneThe valuation rebuttal has always been that TSLA isn't an automobile company, rather, it's a technology company.TeslaPage 23 ofTSLA's Q1 2022 slide deck from their earnings call is their statement of operations. Once again, 100% of TSLA's gross profit and net income are derived from automobiles. Energy generation and storage lose money as it generates $616 million in revenue while the cost of this revenue is $688 million. The same goes for Services and others, as this segment generates $1.279 billion in revenue while the cost of this revenue is $1.286 billion. This doesn't even factor in operating expenses.TSLA manufacturers state of the art automobiles, but this doesn't classify them as a technology company, nor should they be classified as one. Since this is always the rebuttal and technology companies trade at larger earnings multiples, I will compare TSLA to Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Amazon (AMZN), Alphabet (GOOG) (GOOGL), and Meta Platforms (FB) and illustrate why TSLA is still drastically overvalued if the market was still to provide it with a tech multiple.Prior to the comparisons, I want to frame the analysis by providing each company's market cap:AAPL $2.69 TrillionMSFT $2.17 TrillionGOOGL $1.62 TrillionAMZN $1.28 TrillionTSLA $986.92 BillionFB $604.62 BillionI am going to start with growth because this is always the key metric bulls point out. Since the close of 2018, which is 3.25 fiscal years, TSLA has grown its revenue from $21.46 billion to $62.19 billion.This is absolutely remarkable, but it doesn't place TSLA in the upper epsilon of technology companies. Over the same period, FB grew its revenue by $63.83 billion, which is more than what TSLA produced in the TTM. FB grew its revenue by more than what TSLA produces and generates just about double the revenue ($119.67 billion), yet TSLA has a larger market cap. For everyone who has used growth as their investment premise, FB having a market cap that's $382.30 less than TSLA nullifies that aspect of the bull thesis. AMZN's market cap is only $294.33 billion larger than TSLA, yet they generated $477.75 billion in revenue and grew their revenue by $341.76 billion in this period. Using revenue growth for TSLA doesn't support the valuation.Steven Fiorillo, Seeking AlphaNext, I will turn to profits because, at the end of the day, businesses are in the business of making money. Once again, TSLA has done a fantastic job of monetizing its business and, in 3.25 short years, has gone from losing -$976 million to make $8.4 billion in the TTM for an increase of $9.38 billion. FB has produced $37.34 billion in profit in the TTM, and its net income grew by $15.23 billion over this period. Using growth doesn't support the valuation when FB has a market cap that's $382.30 less than TSLA and grew its profits in this period by almost double what TSLA has generated in the TTM.Steven Fiorillo, Seeking AlphaThe new metric bulls are using in their thesis is TSLA's free cash flow (FCF). Once again, TSLA has done an excellent job, going from -$221 million of FCF in 2018 to $6.93 billion of FCF in the TTM. Many companies would love to grow their annual FCF by $7.15 billion over a 3.25-year period, and this should be applauded.Let's look at FB once again, since TSLA's valuation isn't based on its core segment as an automobile manufacturer. FB has grown its FCF over the previous 3.25 years by $23.45 billion, more than 3x TSLA's growth, and has generated $39.81 billion of FCF in the TTM. FB generated roughly 5.75x more FCF than TSLA and grew its FCF by more than 3x what TSLA produces, yet FB has a market cap that's almost $400 billion less than TSLA. Growth within the financials does not support TSLA's valuation, which is a breath away from $1 trillion.Steven Fiorillo, Seeking AlphaToday you're paying a 113.81 P/E for TSLA. Paying a larger multiple for a company that's growing its earnings quickly is normal, but TSLA isn't growing by larger amounts than FB, and FB trades at a 16.66 P/E. I have seen TSLA bulls justify the P/E because of TSLA's growth factor, but this doesn't hold up when FB has grown by larger amounts from larger starting positions and has a P/E that's a fraction of TSLA. Look at AAPL, which is the largest company in the world. AAPL has grown its net income by $56.25 billion and its FCF by $52.3 billion over the past 3.25 years, and its P/E is 26.78. People are blindly paying any multiple the market places on TSLA.TSLA is trading at a 15.38 P/S. The justification for this multiple is difficult to defend while AMZN trades at a P/S of 11.31. AMZN's revenue grew by $341.76 billion over the past 3.25 years while TSLA grew their revenue by $40.73 billion. Instead of an absolute basis, looking at this from a percentage aspect, TSLA grew its revenue by 189.78%, while AMZN's grew by 251.32%. The P/S ratio is not a supporting valuation metric as TSLA is trading at a larger multiple than AMZN yet produced $301.03 billion less in revenue growth compared to AMZN. At the very least, TSLA should trade at a lower P/S multiple than AMZN considering their revenue growth was a fraction of AMZN's.TSLA has done an excellent job monetizing its revenue, delivering exceptional margins, and generating FCF. Now that TSLA is generating billions in FCF, it's been inserted into the bull thesis. FCF is a measure of profitability that excludes the non-cash expenses of the income statement and includes spending on equipment and assets as well as changes in working capital from the balance sheet. FCF could be the most underrated and most important financial metric to look at, as this is the pool of capital that companies can utilize to repay debt, pay dividends, buy back shares, make acquisitions, or reinvest in the business.Every investment is the present value of all future cash flow. This is why investors look at the price to FCF valuation. Investors want to pay the cheapest multiple for a company's FCF. Today, you're paying 142.52x TSLA's FCF. Going back to the FCF section, TSLA grew its FCF by $7.15 billion over the past 3.25 years. FB generated $23.45 billion of FCF in this period, which is 3x the amount TSLA grew, yet FB is trading at a 15.19x multiple on price to FCF.Why on earth would you want to pay 142.52x for TSLA's FCF when you could pay 15.19x for FB, which is growing their FCF by more than 3x the amount that TSLA is growing by? How about AAPL? AAPL grew its FCF by $52.3 billion and trades at a 25.4x price to FCF. If I exclude FB for a moment, should TSLA trade at a larger FCF multiple than GOOGL, which has grown its FCF by $46.15 billion over the past 3.25 years? My answer is no because there is no guarantee that TSLA will ever generate $46.15 billion in annual FCF, let alone the $68.99 billion in FCF that GOOGL generates.So what is a fair price to FCF multiple for TSLA? I don't believe TSLA has earned the right to trade at the same multiples as the rest of big tech considering the levels of FCF they produce. If I stick with the methodology that FB is egregiously undervalued, then TSLA should trade above 15.19x its FCF but lower than the 23.42x multiple GOOGL trades at.I don't want to be overly bearish, so I will place a 21x multiple on TSLA's FCF, which is more than fair considering big tech metrics. A 21x multiple on TSLA's FCF puts its market cap at $145.43 billion, which is -85.26% from its current market cap of $986.92 billion. It's just math, and if TSLA is going to be valued as a technology company, it needs to be compared to the technology companies with similar market caps.At the very least, there isn't a single reason why TSLA's market cap is larger than FB's. There isn't a single metric that TSLA beats FB in. Based on FB's valuation, if TSLA traded at the same FCF multiple, it would have a market cap of $105.19 billion.TSLA has a gross profit margin of 27.1% ($16.85b / $62.19b) and a profit margin of 13.51% ($8.4b / $62.19b). FB has a gross profit margin of 80.34% ($96.14b / $119.67b) and a profit margin of 31.2% ($37.34b / $119.67b). FB has much wider margins and is growing its revenue by larger amounts. This reinforces my methodology as to why TSLA is grossly overvalued. GOOGL has a gross profit margin of 56.93% ($153.9b / $270.33b) and a profit margin of 27.57% ($74.54b / $270.33b).The chances are incredibly slim that TSLA can double its profit margin to be within striking distance of GOOGL's. TSLA should not trade at a larger FCF, P/E, or P/S multiple than FB or GOOGL. While the market would indicate that I am wrong today, eventually, the hype will wear off, and TSLA will trade at a realistic valuation.TSLA's Future Catalysts Have A Long Way To Go Before Impacting Its Bottom LineThere are three main catalysts people discuss, which include insurance, robotaxis, and FSD.TSLA offers insurance using real-time driving behavior. This is currently available to all Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y owners. The catch is that it's only available in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia as of now.TSLA uses a safety rating score to determine the monthly premium for its vehicles. At the largest premium of $130/mo, this would be $1,560 per year. If TSLA converted 100% of their U.S sales in 2021 as an insurance customer, which I think could be possible if TSLA insurance was available in every state, it would have generated $471.12 million in revenue.We have no idea what the margins would have been, but if the margin was 50%, it would have been an additional $235.56 million in net income in 2021. While this is nothing to sneeze at, an additional $235.56 million in net income hardly moves the needle. This could be a $1 billion top-line revenue segment in the future, but with availability in only 7 states, insurance's $1 billion revenue mark is a long way away.TeslaNext,FSD, for which TSLA has created two subscription models, a $99/mo price point and a $199/mo price point. The problem with FSD is that it doesn't make the vehicle fully autonomous, and you still need a driver to be attentive and alert. While I am not arguing that TSLA's FSD isn't leaps and bounds ahead of the competition, the problem is that it's not exactly a self-driving car.The questions around legality and where you can use it pop into my head, and how many of TSLA's drivers opt for this upgrade. Until there is clear legislation and the technology advances to where vehicles can fully drive a person from point A to B while that person takes a nap or reads, I have a hard time believing enough TSLA owners will spend the extra $199/mo on FSD. If there is somewhere where TSLA produces the numbers about how many owners opt for this package, please let me know, and I will crunch the numbers.Which Features Come With My Subscription?The FSD capability features you receive are based on your configuration and location. Not all features are available in all markets, and features are subject to change.Learn more about Autopilot and Full Self-Driving capability features.Note: These features are designed to become more capable over time; however the currently enabled features do not make the vehicle autonomous. The currently enabled features require a fully attentive driver, who has their hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment.The last catalyst is Robotaxis which many have commented on in my articles before. We're so far off on Robotaxis that this can't be considered in TSLA's upcoming revenue. I would think major legislation would be needed for Robotaxis to exist, and there is no telling how many years away we are from this.Also, what is the percentage of TSLA owners that would actually allow their vehicle to be used as a Robotaxi? Depending on what the profitability is, I can see people buying TSLAs to enroll them in this program, but, once again, we need to see the economics behind it. I know I am just one opinion, but I would never enroll one of my cars into a robotaxi program because I don't want other people that I don't know in my car. I would think there are many others that have similar viewpoints.The real upcoming catalysts are future revenue growth and entering the Chinese market. In 2021 TSLA grew its YoY revenue by 70.67%, and their off to a great start after Q1 2022. Only time will tell what type of growth rate TSLA can maintain, but too many people are assuming that TSLA will obliterate the competition. Over the next several years, we could see TSLA's growth rate become significantly reduced as more luxury operators put EVs on the road.At TSLA's current margins, they would need to increase their revenue by 444.55% to $276.47 billion to produce the same amount of net income ($37.34b) that FB produces today at their current 13.51% profit margin. Maybe TSLA can get there in the future, but why should TSLA be valued at almost $1 trillion today, considering not a single metric of theirs is similar to FB or GOOGL, and TSLA's growth across any of the sectors isn't larger than FB or GOOGL?Tesla Continues To Dilute Shareholders, And Almost No Shareholders CareDilution kills shareholder value. Look, I am a shareholder of TSLA, and I hate that my shares continue to be diluted. These numbers are split-adjusted that I am using. Over the past decade,TSLA has diluted its shares by 80.93%. This is horrible compared to big tech, yet investors can't buy enough TSLA shares. TSLA finished 2012 with 572.6 million shares and, as of its last filing, had increased its outstanding shares to 1.036 billion shares.This is the equivalent of me taking a pizza, and instead of giving you a slice, cutting another 6.5 slices, then giving you one. The pizza represents TSLA, the company, and they basically turned an 8-slice pie into a 14.5-slice pie, reducing shareholder's ownership and the amount of equity, revenue, and EPS our shares represent.If you want to see what a true shepherd of shareholder value looks like, turn to AAPL. In 2012 AAPL had 26.3 billion shares outstanding. Over the past decade, AAPL has repurchased 10.09 billion shares, reducing its outstanding shares by 38.37%. Every quarter, AAPL is buying back shares and increasing the ownership its shares represent. TSLA, on the other hand, continues to dilute shareholders by increasing shares YOY.I Could Be Completely Wrong, And Tesla Could Continue Growing At These RatesTSLA's vehicle deliveries continue to outpace its growing production. YoY TSLA's deliveries increased by 68% in Q1, adding 125,171 delivered vehicles to its customers. TSLA just began Model Y deliveries from the Austin facility, and production at the Gigafactory in Berlin started in March of 2022. TSLA's Shanghai facility had strong production rates prior to the spike in COVID that resulted in temporary shutdowns. TSLA isn't just focusing on the U.S, they have Europe and China in their sights.EVs accounted for 488,000 sales in the U.S for 2021, and the previous projection was that EVs would account for 670,000 units sold in 2022. Oil has hovered around $100 per barrel and could render the previous projections of 37% increased EV sales domestically for 2022 conservative. TSLA is in a prime position to capitalize on this trend. In 2021 TSLA vehicles accounted for 61.89% of EVs sold in the U.S (301,998 / 488,000).Hypothetically, if the previous projection of 670,000 EV sales for 2022 is accurate and TSLA maintains its current margin, they would sell 414,628 vehicles throughout the U.S in 2022. If gas prices do alter the decision-making process when deciding between a combustible engine or an EV, then TSLA could continue surprising the market with QoQ earnings beats.The U.S has a national goal of reaching 50% of domestic auto sales coming from EVs. In 2021, EVs accounted for 3.26% of total sales in the U.S auto market. Based on U.S auto sales in 2021, annual EV sales would need to grow by 6,989,403 to reach a 50% EV to combustible engine ratio. Hypothetically if U.S auto sales stayed flat but EVs reached 50% of the market in 2030 they would sell 7,477,403 vehicles. If TSLA's dominance in the EV sector was to drop from 61.89% to 15% due to increased competition, they would generate 1,121,610 in sales compared to 301,998 in 2021. When you add in Europe and China, TSLA certainly has the ability to become a top auto manufacturer by sales next decade.Bulls aren't incorrect to be excited about TSLA. The world is moving toward EVs, and TSLA is the crème de la crème. As I said in the beginning, I am bullish about TSLA's future prospects, but I think the valuation today is overinflated. Nobody can predict the future, but I have no doubt that TSLA will continue to grow its sales YoY.The question becomes, how much growth will they be able to achieve YoY? In 2021, TM generated $226.48 billion of revenue and, based on the future of EVs, TSLA certainly could achieve this level of revenue in the future. Based on TSLA's current 13.51% profit margin, if they achieved TM's level of revenue, they would generate $30.59 billion of net income, which would definitely make today's valuation look more realistic.TeslaConclusionYou're probably wondering how I can be a shareholder and be a bear on TSLA's valuation at the same time. It's simple; my wife bought shares of TSLA, which makes me a shareholder. My stance has always been bullish on the company and bearish on the valuation. What Elon Musk and the team at TSLA has accomplished is astonishing, and they deserve nothing but respect.Keep in mind a company and a company's stock are two separate things. TSLA continues to dilute shareholders, and they and the market are valuing TSLA as if it's FB or GOOGL. TSLA is not a technology company; it's an automobile company, as the automotive segments drive 100% of its gross revenue and net income.TSLA is trading at a P/E of 113.81, a P/S of 15.38, and a 142.52x multiple on its FCF. The numbers are drastically inflated as TSLA has no business trading at a larger P/S multiple than AMZN, which trades at 11.31 P/S when it has grown its revenue by $341.76 billion over the previous 3.25 years compared to TSLA's $40.73 billion of revenue growth. TSLA has generated $6.93 billion in FCF over the TTM, while Mr. Market has placed a 142.52x multiple on TSLA due to $7.15 billion FCF growth over the past 3.25 years. FB trades at a 15.19x FCF multiple while growing FCF by $23.45 billion over this period which is more than 3x what TSLA has generated in the TTM.With FB trading at 15.19x FCF, GOOGL at 23.42x FCF, and AAPL at 25.4x FCF, it's hard to justify any number above 20x for TSLA. I think a 21x FCF multiple is generous and that places TSLA at a market cap of $145.43 billion, which is -85.26% from its current market cap of $986.92 billion.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":236,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9032397130,"gmtCreate":1647273342259,"gmtModify":1676534210935,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9032397130","repostId":"1133740908","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1133740908","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1647271806,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1133740908?lang=&edition=full_marsco","pubTime":"2022-03-14 23:30","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Palantir Stock: Wall Street Says Federal Cyber Can Be Short-Term Catalyst","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1133740908","media":"TheStreet","summary":"A tremendously popular stock among retail investors, Palantir - a data-analytics software company - ","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>A tremendously popular stock among retail investors, Palantir - a data-analytics software company - has been in freefall since the beginning of the year. But experts see upside ahead.</p><p>Palantir shares have taken an absolute beating since November of last year. Like many other growth-heavy tech stocks, Palantir has been hard hit by unfavorable macroeconomic conditions, which have caused investors to draw away from riskier positions.</p><p>The software company first caught the broader market&#39;s attention after soaring 230% in the months following its IPO in October of 2020. But now Palantir shares sit only 26% above their IPO price.</p><p>But despite the bearishness surrounding Palantir (which was only strengthened after the company reported Q4 earnings below market expectations), Wall Street still sees upside in the company. Several analysts see the possibility of elevated federal cyber attacks being a short-term catalyst.</p><p><b>Wall Street Is Still Cautious On PLTR, But Some See Upside Ahead</b></p><p>On Monday, March 7th, Palantir stock received a rating upgrade from Morgan Stanley analyst Keith Weiss. Weiss boosted his rating on the stock to “equal weight” up from “underweight.” He assigned PLTR a $16 price target, which suggests a 37% upside based on the current share price of $11.65.</p><p>Weiss points out that Palantir&#39;s valuation has reached its lowest level since the company went public in 2020, and he sees an opportunity to buy the dip. He also stated that the potential slowdown of its commercial business and its unsustainable operating margin both seem to be priced into the current value of its shares, meaning further downside could be limited.</p><p>Investors cheered the upgrade, and PTRL shares rose about 6% during their Monday trading session.</p><p>More good news quickly followed. On March 8, Piper Sandler analyst Weston Twigginitiatedhis coverage of Palantir, assigning the company an “overweight” rating and a $15 price target - that implies an upside of 28% based on the current share price. Twigg says that the Russian invasion of Ukraine may accelerate the adoption of Palantir cyber products, which is of course bullish news for the stock.</p><p>Furthermore, Twigg believes that the company should beat its annual revenue growth guidance of 30% by 2025 - he says the company’s ecosystem offers powerful IT solutions and sees strong demand from large institutions ahead.</p><p>Palantir shares rose more than 9% following Piper Sandler&#39;s “buy” recommendation.</p><p>Wedbush analyst Dan Ives also sees Palantir as a near-term beneficiary of federal cyber security sector tailwinds, which have been spurred by Russia’s invasion and the accompanying threat of increased cyber attacks.</p><p><b>Valuation Has Been A Key Sticking Point</b></p><p>During its Q4 earnings, Palantir reported mixed results that did not please investors, but the results were far from terrible. The company demonstrated that it continues to be a strong revenue generator and is making strategic investments aimed at making its business profitable in the near future. Still, plenty of skepticism is hanging in the air.</p><p>One of the biggest factors behind Palantir&#39;s shares’ plummeting is undoubtedly the company’s stretched valuation. The company currently trades at a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 83x - that’s considerably higher than its industry average of 19x. With the market already pricing in expected annual revenue growth of 30% by 2025, many investors see PLTR shares’ multiples as too rich.</p><p>But in the long term, we believe Palantir can justify its high multiples. The company has been focusing on expanding its commercial business and its Foundry platform, both of which will help Palantir not only maintain but <i>accelerate</i> its expected growth.</p><p>In the short term, high volatility will probably continue to haunt Palantir. But with shares trading at a 60% discount from their historic peak in January 2021, the very worst may already be over.</p></body></html>","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>Palantir Stock: Wall Street Says Federal Cyber Can Be Short-Term Catalyst</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\">\nPalantir Stock: Wall Street Says Federal Cyber Can Be Short-Term Catalyst\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-03-14 23:30 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.thestreet.com/memestocks/other-memes/palantir-stock-wall-street-says-federal-cyber-can-be-short-term-catalyst><strong>TheStreet</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>A tremendously popular stock among retail investors, Palantir - a data-analytics software company - has been in freefall since the beginning of the year. But experts see upside ahead.Palantir shares ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.thestreet.com/memestocks/other-memes/palantir-stock-wall-street-says-federal-cyber-can-be-short-term-catalyst\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"PLTR":"Palantir Technologies Inc."},"source_url":"https://www.thestreet.com/memestocks/other-memes/palantir-stock-wall-street-says-federal-cyber-can-be-short-term-catalyst","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1133740908","content_text":"A tremendously popular stock among retail investors, Palantir - a data-analytics software company - has been in freefall since the beginning of the year. But experts see upside ahead.Palantir shares have taken an absolute beating since November of last year. Like many other growth-heavy tech stocks, Palantir has been hard hit by unfavorable macroeconomic conditions, which have caused investors to draw away from riskier positions.The software company first caught the broader market's attention after soaring 230% in the months following its IPO in October of 2020. But now Palantir shares sit only 26% above their IPO price.But despite the bearishness surrounding Palantir (which was only strengthened after the company reported Q4 earnings below market expectations), Wall Street still sees upside in the company. Several analysts see the possibility of elevated federal cyber attacks being a short-term catalyst.Wall Street Is Still Cautious On PLTR, But Some See Upside AheadOn Monday, March 7th, Palantir stock received a rating upgrade from Morgan Stanley analyst Keith Weiss. Weiss boosted his rating on the stock to “equal weight” up from “underweight.” He assigned PLTR a $16 price target, which suggests a 37% upside based on the current share price of $11.65.Weiss points out that Palantir's valuation has reached its lowest level since the company went public in 2020, and he sees an opportunity to buy the dip. He also stated that the potential slowdown of its commercial business and its unsustainable operating margin both seem to be priced into the current value of its shares, meaning further downside could be limited.Investors cheered the upgrade, and PTRL shares rose about 6% during their Monday trading session.More good news quickly followed. On March 8, Piper Sandler analyst Weston Twigginitiatedhis coverage of Palantir, assigning the company an “overweight” rating and a $15 price target - that implies an upside of 28% based on the current share price. Twigg says that the Russian invasion of Ukraine may accelerate the adoption of Palantir cyber products, which is of course bullish news for the stock.Furthermore, Twigg believes that the company should beat its annual revenue growth guidance of 30% by 2025 - he says the company’s ecosystem offers powerful IT solutions and sees strong demand from large institutions ahead.Palantir shares rose more than 9% following Piper Sandler's “buy” recommendation.Wedbush analyst Dan Ives also sees Palantir as a near-term beneficiary of federal cyber security sector tailwinds, which have been spurred by Russia’s invasion and the accompanying threat of increased cyber attacks.Valuation Has Been A Key Sticking PointDuring its Q4 earnings, Palantir reported mixed results that did not please investors, but the results were far from terrible. The company demonstrated that it continues to be a strong revenue generator and is making strategic investments aimed at making its business profitable in the near future. Still, plenty of skepticism is hanging in the air.One of the biggest factors behind Palantir's shares’ plummeting is undoubtedly the company’s stretched valuation. The company currently trades at a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 83x - that’s considerably higher than its industry average of 19x. With the market already pricing in expected annual revenue growth of 30% by 2025, many investors see PLTR shares’ multiples as too rich.But in the long term, we believe Palantir can justify its high multiples. The company has been focusing on expanding its commercial business and its Foundry platform, both of which will help Palantir not only maintain but accelerate its expected growth.In the short term, high volatility will probably continue to haunt Palantir. But with shares trading at a 60% discount from their historic peak in January 2021, the very worst may already be over.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":588,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9036233166,"gmtCreate":1647099541792,"gmtModify":1676534194929,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9036233166","repostId":"2218944245","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":571,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9038107229,"gmtCreate":1646754795441,"gmtModify":1676534158866,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"like pls","listText":"like pls","text":"like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":6,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9038107229","repostId":"2217100884","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2217100884","kind":"highlight","pubTimestamp":1646752884,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2217100884?lang=&edition=full_marsco","pubTime":"2022-03-08 23:21","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Is Sea Limited Stock a Buy Now?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2217100884","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"The company's key business segment could be losing steam.","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>Digital conglomerate <b>Sea Limited</b> (NYSE:SE) was one of the hottest stocks of 2020 and 2021, soaring from less than $40 per share before the pandemic to more than $350 at its peak in late 2021. It&#39;s collapsed more than 70% from its highs to under $100 per share in just a few months, showing how the market can both giveth, and taketh away.</p><p>However, the market&#39;s cold reception toward Sea Limited may not be without merit. There was a significant area of concern with the company&#39;s fourth-quarter 2021 earnings results. I&#39;ll break down what could have the market spooked about Sea Limited and why the recent dip could be an excellent opportunity for long-term investors.</p><p>Sea Limited offers digital products and services in gaming, e-commerce, and fintech. According to App Annie, its gaming segment Garena created <i>Free Fire</i>, the world&#39;s most downloaded mobile game from 2019 to 2021. Shopee is Sea Limited&#39;s e-commerce marketplace, and Sea Money, its digital payments platform, integrates across the business.</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/78610350c01555d7fe292e0139b441f3\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"393\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Image Source: Getty Images.</span></p><h2>A dark spot in an otherwise bright quarter</h2><p>Gaming, e-commerce, and fintech are all fast-growing industries, which has enabled Sea Limited to thrive. The company grew its revenue 106% year over year in Q4 2021 and 128% for the entire year. Sea Limited has averaged 119% annual revenue growth over the past three years, so it&#39;s continued its rapid growth.</p><p>However, management guided Garena for $2.9 billion to $3.1 billion in bookings for 2022. Bookings are essentially funds that have been purchased but not spent on the game platform, so they indicate the momentum of the gaming business. Garena&#39;s total 2021 bookings were $4.6 billion, so this is a massive decline that suggests the gaming business could be about to slow down dramatically.</p><p>Garena is Sea&#39;s &#34;money maker.&#34; It contributes all of its profits. Its total 2021 non-GAAP EBITDA from Garena was $2.77 billion, while the rest of the company posted losses, bringing companywide 2021 EBITDA to minus $593 million. Garena&#39;s profits enable the company to invest in growth, like expanding into new markets. It&#39;s reasonable that a weakness in the gaming business could threaten Sea&#39;s path to bottom-line profitability (positive net income), as well as its ability to fund growth.</p><h2>The stock has become attractive</h2><p>It&#39;s not that investors should dismiss these risks; they need to be monitored by shareholders over the coming quarters. However, some context could be important.</p><p>Management attributes the anticipated slowdown to be caused by reopening, where gamers don&#39;t have as much time to spend playing Freefire now that work, school, and social gatherings are slowly going back to normal. Freefire is also currently banned in India due to <b>Tencent</b>&#39;s stake in Sea Limited. It makes sense that these things might impact Garena, and active users still grew 7% year-over-year in Q4. It&#39;s something to watch for sure, but I&#39;m not sure it&#39;s an automatic reason to avoid the stock.</p><p>Meanwhile, Sea&#39;s stock is about as cheap from a price-to-sales ratio standpoint as at any point in its history as a public company. You can see below how the P/S ratio threatens to go below pre-COVID levels.</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8c4f53e10ddf322d0a2f2864ddec46ee\" tg-width=\"720\" tg-height=\"433\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>SE PS Ratio data by YCharts</span></p><p>Is the company dealing with some bumps in the road? Of course, however, I would argue that the valuation compensates investors for it, versus when the stock traded at a P/S ratio of more than 24 just a few months ago.</p><h2>Flexibility and growth to drive long-term returns</h2><p>If you look beyond Garena&#39;s potential slowdown, the company is still performing at a high level. Sea&#39;s fintech business guided 155% revenue growth in 2022, while Shopee expects 75% growth.</p><p>Southeast Asia is a hotbed for digital growth; <b>Alphabet</b> estimated that the digital economy in the region could double in value to $335 billion by 2025 and potentially reach $1 trillion by the end of the decade.</p><p>Sea&#39;s growth outlook for Shopee and Sea Money shows how rapidly the business is growing; management recently launched new divisions such as Sea AI Lab for artificial intelligence applications and Sea Capital, a segment for strategic investments.</p><p>The company seems to have the ingredients to continue growing for years to come, even if the short-term include some hiccups along the way. Investors may need to have some patience, but the stock&#39;s increasingly attractive valuation could make it worth the wait.</p></body></html>","source":"fool_stock","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>Is Sea Limited Stock a Buy Now?</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\">\nIs Sea Limited Stock a Buy Now?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-03-08 23:21 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/03/07/is-sea-limited-stock-a-buy-now/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Digital conglomerate Sea Limited (NYSE:SE) was one of the hottest stocks of 2020 and 2021, soaring from less than $40 per share before the pandemic to more than $350 at its peak in late 2021. It's ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/03/07/is-sea-limited-stock-a-buy-now/\">Web 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.fool.com/investing/2022/03/07/is-sea-limited-stock-a-buy-now/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2217100884","content_text":"Digital conglomerate Sea Limited (NYSE:SE) was one of the hottest stocks of 2020 and 2021, soaring from less than $40 per share before the pandemic to more than $350 at its peak in late 2021. It's collapsed more than 70% from its highs to under $100 per share in just a few months, showing how the market can both giveth, and taketh away.However, the market's cold reception toward Sea Limited may not be without merit. There was a significant area of concern with the company's fourth-quarter 2021 earnings results. I'll break down what could have the market spooked about Sea Limited and why the recent dip could be an excellent opportunity for long-term investors.Sea Limited offers digital products and services in gaming, e-commerce, and fintech. According to App Annie, its gaming segment Garena created Free Fire, the world's most downloaded mobile game from 2019 to 2021. Shopee is Sea Limited's e-commerce marketplace, and Sea Money, its digital payments platform, integrates across the business.Image Source: Getty Images.A dark spot in an otherwise bright quarterGaming, e-commerce, and fintech are all fast-growing industries, which has enabled Sea Limited to thrive. The company grew its revenue 106% year over year in Q4 2021 and 128% for the entire year. Sea Limited has averaged 119% annual revenue growth over the past three years, so it's continued its rapid growth.However, management guided Garena for $2.9 billion to $3.1 billion in bookings for 2022. Bookings are essentially funds that have been purchased but not spent on the game platform, so they indicate the momentum of the gaming business. Garena's total 2021 bookings were $4.6 billion, so this is a massive decline that suggests the gaming business could be about to slow down dramatically.Garena is Sea's \"money maker.\" It contributes all of its profits. Its total 2021 non-GAAP EBITDA from Garena was $2.77 billion, while the rest of the company posted losses, bringing companywide 2021 EBITDA to minus $593 million. Garena's profits enable the company to invest in growth, like expanding into new markets. It's reasonable that a weakness in the gaming business could threaten Sea's path to bottom-line profitability (positive net income), as well as its ability to fund growth.The stock has become attractiveIt's not that investors should dismiss these risks; they need to be monitored by shareholders over the coming quarters. However, some context could be important.Management attributes the anticipated slowdown to be caused by reopening, where gamers don't have as much time to spend playing Freefire now that work, school, and social gatherings are slowly going back to normal. Freefire is also currently banned in India due to Tencent's stake in Sea Limited. It makes sense that these things might impact Garena, and active users still grew 7% year-over-year in Q4. It's something to watch for sure, but I'm not sure it's an automatic reason to avoid the stock.Meanwhile, Sea's stock is about as cheap from a price-to-sales ratio standpoint as at any point in its history as a public company. You can see below how the P/S ratio threatens to go below pre-COVID levels.SE PS Ratio data by YChartsIs the company dealing with some bumps in the road? Of course, however, I would argue that the valuation compensates investors for it, versus when the stock traded at a P/S ratio of more than 24 just a few months ago.Flexibility and growth to drive long-term returnsIf you look beyond Garena's potential slowdown, the company is still performing at a high level. Sea's fintech business guided 155% revenue growth in 2022, while Shopee expects 75% growth.Southeast Asia is a hotbed for digital growth; Alphabet estimated that the digital economy in the region could double in value to $335 billion by 2025 and potentially reach $1 trillion by the end of the decade.Sea's growth outlook for Shopee and Sea Money shows how rapidly the business is growing; management recently launched new divisions such as Sea AI Lab for artificial intelligence applications and Sea Capital, a segment for strategic investments.The company seems to have the ingredients to continue growing for years to come, even if the short-term include some hiccups along the way. Investors may need to have some patience, but the stock's increasingly attractive valuation could make it worth the wait.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":357,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9031913244,"gmtCreate":1646408255645,"gmtModify":1676534126934,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9031913244","repostId":"1113249024","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1113249024","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1646407823,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1113249024?lang=&edition=full_marsco","pubTime":"2022-03-04 23:30","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Palantir Stock: Cathie Wood Sells, What Next?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1113249024","media":"TipRanks","summary":"Shares of secretive data analytics software company Palantir (PLTR) have been sinking steadily lower","content":"<div>\n<p>Shares of secretive data analytics software company Palantir (PLTR) have been sinking steadily lower over the past few months. Following the release of some underwhelming earnings results, many ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.tipranks.com/news/article/palantir-stock-cathie-wood-sells-what-next/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"lsy1606183248679","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>Palantir Stock: Cathie Wood Sells, What Next?</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\">\nPalantir Stock: Cathie Wood Sells, What Next?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-03-04 23:30 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.tipranks.com/news/article/palantir-stock-cathie-wood-sells-what-next/><strong>TipRanks</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Shares of secretive data analytics software company Palantir (PLTR) have been sinking steadily lower over the past few months. Following the release of some underwhelming earnings results, many ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.tipranks.com/news/article/palantir-stock-cathie-wood-sells-what-next/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"PLTR":"Palantir Technologies Inc."},"source_url":"https://www.tipranks.com/news/article/palantir-stock-cathie-wood-sells-what-next/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1113249024","content_text":"Shares of secretive data analytics software company Palantir (PLTR) have been sinking steadily lower over the past few months. Following the release of some underwhelming earnings results, many investors are probably wondering what they should do with shares of the former WallStreetBets darling.A lot of high-multiple tech companies that have clocked in marvellous results have still seen their shares crumble in recent quarters. Undoubtedly, a quarterly flop alongside a broader souring of the tech trade is not where investors want to find themselves these days.Not when so many high-tech firms are continuing to impress in an attempt to offset the longer-term headwind of rising rates. I’m neutral on the stock.Palantir Stock Under PressureHigher rates eat out of the value of unprofitable, high-multiple growth stocks. The higher rates rise, the worse off many of the “story” stocks will be once the U.S. Federal Reserve gets to it.Indeed, Fed chair Jerome Powell has retired his “transitory” viewpoint of inflation. He recognizes the dangers of high and persistent inflation and his tone seemed to give off the impression that the Ukraine-Russia crisis will not prevent him from raising rates this year.The trajectory of rates is enough of a headwind to avoid high-multiple tech stocks like Palantir. Recent quarterly weakness, I believe, is just another reason why it may be better to follow ARK Invest’s Cathie Wood by selling some PLTR stock before the weakness has chance to worsen.Wood isn’t one to sell plunging stocks at a loss if she still believes in its innovative growth story.She’s all about doubling down on innovative companies on the way down. Undoubtedly, such a dip-buying strategy has been questionable thus far. In any case, Wood’s recent ditching of around $123 million worth of Palantir stock should ring some alarm bells.Changes Regarding Palantir’s Growth Narrative?Given Wood’s propensity to buy more shares of companies she believes in on the way down, I do view her selling activity as a cause for concern.For now, I am neutral on the stock given the high multiple (PLTR stock trades at a hefty 14.3 times sales) and modest quarterly miss, which may or may not have been overblown by fearful investors. On the plus side, I don’t think the fourth quarter was as abysmal as some investors believe.Growth and margins could still be poised to ascend from here. Though the earnings miss was underwhelming, I think PLTR stock is on the right track and do not view the narrative as being changed at a fundamental level.The valuation, though, remains suspect and could still leave the stock at risk of substantial downside as investors expect more than just robust top-line growth.While the Palantir quarter was technically a miss, it wasn’t nearly as bad as recent selling pressure would suggest. The 34% pop in year-over-year sales growth was decent, with the Commercial segment doing more than its share of heavy lifting.Looking farther out, the company is still pointing to 30% top-line growth at a minimum through 2025.While margins aren’t where investors want them to be with rates to rise soon, management is still focused on various margin-enhancing initiatives. For long-term investors, that has to be soothing.Wall Street’s TakeAccording to TipRanks’ analyst rating consensus, PLTR stock comes in as a Moderate Sell. Out of eight analyst ratings, there is one Buy recommendation, three Hold recommendations and four Sell recommendations.The average Palantir price target is $13.17, implying an upside of 16.1%. Analyst price targets range from a low of $9 per share to a high of $21 per share.Bottom Line on Palantir StockRising rates, a lack of profits and a hazy growth narrative are not where investors want to be at a time like this. Personally, I think the narrative has not changed nearly as much as the price has.While popular innovation investor Cathie Wood may be wrong to sell shares of PLTR on weakness, I do think there are easier places to make money these days.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":625,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9033548640,"gmtCreate":1646321621509,"gmtModify":1676534117308,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9033548640","repostId":"1191803969","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":798,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9033080600,"gmtCreate":1646149895625,"gmtModify":1676534096423,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9033080600","repostId":"1166187128","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1166187128","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1646148355,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1166187128?lang=&edition=full_marsco","pubTime":"2022-03-01 23:25","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Powell Seeks to Reassure Lawmakers Fed Will Curb Hot Inflation","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1166187128","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Russia’s invasion clouds price outlook with threat to oilChair is likely to stress flexibility in fa","content":"<html><head></head><body><ul><li>Russia’s invasion clouds price outlook with threat to oil</li><li>Chair is likely to stress flexibility in face of uncertainties</li></ul><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/988909b2d1a85fa4bc8013c55c47f251\" tg-width=\"2000\" tg-height=\"1334\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Jerome Powell after testifying before a Senate Banking hearing in Washington. Photographer: Samuel Corum/Bloomberg</span></p><p>Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell will try to reassure lawmakers this week that the central bank will act to curb the hottest inflation in four decades while remaining flexible in the face of uncertainty posed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.</p><p>Powell, in semiannual monetary-policy testimony to House and Senate panels starting Wednesday, is likely to signal the U.S. central bank will go ahead with plans for raising interest rates in March, with traders parsing his comments for hints of a potential half percentage-point move.</p><p>At the same time, he may acknowledge the risks created by the conflict, which has triggered one of the worst security crises in Europe since World War II and caused oil prices to jump -- are complicating the Fed’s job.</p><p>Officials have to contend with potentially stagflationary fallout from the invasion. Higher oil prices -- which have surged since the attack -- could dim demand by denting spending power if that leads to higher prices at the gas pump, but will also push headline inflation higher.</p><p>Adding to the uncertainty is Powell’s own position: He’s currently serving as chair “pro tempore” while awaiting Senate confirmation to a second term. His and other Fed nominations remain stalled over Republican opposition to President Joe Biden’s pick of Sarah Bloom Raskin for Fed vice chair of supervision.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cf2df843ab88356891a4fc6ca89c88d5\" tg-width=\"1200\" tg-height=\"675\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>“Powell will be teeing up liftoff, but also he is going to convey a high sense of uncertainty,” said Ethan Harris, head of global economics research at Bank of America Corp., who’s predicting a quarter-point move in March. “He needs to give a balanced talk that expresses concern about inflation and recognizes the strength in economic growth but says we don’t need to rush and there are uncertainties out there.”</p><p>Fed officials in the wake of the Russian invasion have signaled their readiness to raise interest rates when they meet March 15-16 to confront inflation, while keeping their options open on how far or how fast they move following liftoff.</p><p>What Bloomberg Economics Says...</p><blockquote>“Bloomberg Economics expects Powell to sound vigilant on inflation, but ultimately favor the gradualist approach to rate hikes due to elevated market uncertainty from the Russia-Ukraine crisis. He will not provide an explicit endorsement of a 50-basis-point hike for the March meeting, in our view. Bloomberg Economics expects the Fed to deliver a 25 basis-point hike in March.”</blockquote><blockquote>--Anna Wong, Yelena Shulyatyeva, Andrew Husby and Eliza Winger (Bloomberg economists)</blockquote><p>“This is the Fed’s nightmare scenario, as we are pouring fuel onto an already well-kindled fire of inflation,” said Diane Swonk, chief economist for consultancy Grant Thornton. “The situation has eerie similarities to the 1970s, with external oil shock threatening a more entrenched and vicious inflation cycle.”</p><p>Traders and economists alike still see the Fed kicking off rate hikes in March and a quarter-point increase is fully priced in. But bets of a bigger half-point move have been scaled back drastically as investors assess the likely impact of the Russian aggression on growth and Fed policy in the months ahead.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1805d674815e6e00637b695f54c9aa5c\" tg-width=\"1200\" tg-height=\"675\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic on Mondaysaidthat he is still in favor of raising rates by 25 basis points in March and was open to discussing a 50 basis-point increase if inflation data between now and the meeting comes in too hot.</p><p>Officials left rates near zero in January but said they were ready to raise them “soon.” Powell’s post-meeting press conference was viewed as as hawkish at the time, leading some investors to anticipate a half-point move, but he was expected to strike a more careful tone during his testimony.</p><p>“He will be more cautious given the financial market nervousness created by the Russian military assault and this will likely cement expectations for a 25 basis point rate increase,” said James Knightley, chief international economist at ING.</p><p>Data on Friday showed the Fed’s preferred gauge of price pressures rising 6.1% in the 12 months through January -- three times the 2% target and the most since 1982. Another measure, the consumer price index, has shown a larger 7.5% gain, and the February CPI report will be released March 10. Officials get another important piece of evidence Friday with the February employment report.</p><p>While inflation will be a focus, lawmakers could also ask Powell about the role of the Fed in implementing sanctions on Russians through the central bank’s payment system, said John Silvia, founder of Dynamic Economic Strategy and former chief economist at the Senate banking panel.</p></body></html>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Powell Seeks to Reassure Lawmakers Fed Will Curb Hot Inflation</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\">\nPowell Seeks to Reassure Lawmakers Fed Will Curb Hot Inflation\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-03-01 23:25 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-01/powell-seeks-to-reassure-lawmakers-fed-will-curb-hot-inflation?srnd=premium><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Russia’s invasion clouds price outlook with threat to oilChair is likely to stress flexibility in face of uncertaintiesJerome Powell after testifying before a Senate Banking hearing in Washington. ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-01/powell-seeks-to-reassure-lawmakers-fed-will-curb-hot-inflation?srnd=premium\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-01/powell-seeks-to-reassure-lawmakers-fed-will-curb-hot-inflation?srnd=premium","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1166187128","content_text":"Russia’s invasion clouds price outlook with threat to oilChair is likely to stress flexibility in face of uncertaintiesJerome Powell after testifying before a Senate Banking hearing in Washington. Photographer: Samuel Corum/BloombergFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell will try to reassure lawmakers this week that the central bank will act to curb the hottest inflation in four decades while remaining flexible in the face of uncertainty posed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.Powell, in semiannual monetary-policy testimony to House and Senate panels starting Wednesday, is likely to signal the U.S. central bank will go ahead with plans for raising interest rates in March, with traders parsing his comments for hints of a potential half percentage-point move.At the same time, he may acknowledge the risks created by the conflict, which has triggered one of the worst security crises in Europe since World War II and caused oil prices to jump -- are complicating the Fed’s job.Officials have to contend with potentially stagflationary fallout from the invasion. Higher oil prices -- which have surged since the attack -- could dim demand by denting spending power if that leads to higher prices at the gas pump, but will also push headline inflation higher.Adding to the uncertainty is Powell’s own position: He’s currently serving as chair “pro tempore” while awaiting Senate confirmation to a second term. His and other Fed nominations remain stalled over Republican opposition to President Joe Biden’s pick of Sarah Bloom Raskin for Fed vice chair of supervision.“Powell will be teeing up liftoff, but also he is going to convey a high sense of uncertainty,” said Ethan Harris, head of global economics research at Bank of America Corp., who’s predicting a quarter-point move in March. “He needs to give a balanced talk that expresses concern about inflation and recognizes the strength in economic growth but says we don’t need to rush and there are uncertainties out there.”Fed officials in the wake of the Russian invasion have signaled their readiness to raise interest rates when they meet March 15-16 to confront inflation, while keeping their options open on how far or how fast they move following liftoff.What Bloomberg Economics Says...“Bloomberg Economics expects Powell to sound vigilant on inflation, but ultimately favor the gradualist approach to rate hikes due to elevated market uncertainty from the Russia-Ukraine crisis. He will not provide an explicit endorsement of a 50-basis-point hike for the March meeting, in our view. Bloomberg Economics expects the Fed to deliver a 25 basis-point hike in March.”--Anna Wong, Yelena Shulyatyeva, Andrew Husby and Eliza Winger (Bloomberg economists)“This is the Fed’s nightmare scenario, as we are pouring fuel onto an already well-kindled fire of inflation,” said Diane Swonk, chief economist for consultancy Grant Thornton. “The situation has eerie similarities to the 1970s, with external oil shock threatening a more entrenched and vicious inflation cycle.”Traders and economists alike still see the Fed kicking off rate hikes in March and a quarter-point increase is fully priced in. But bets of a bigger half-point move have been scaled back drastically as investors assess the likely impact of the Russian aggression on growth and Fed policy in the months ahead.Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic on Mondaysaidthat he is still in favor of raising rates by 25 basis points in March and was open to discussing a 50 basis-point increase if inflation data between now and the meeting comes in too hot.Officials left rates near zero in January but said they were ready to raise them “soon.” Powell’s post-meeting press conference was viewed as as hawkish at the time, leading some investors to anticipate a half-point move, but he was expected to strike a more careful tone during his testimony.“He will be more cautious given the financial market nervousness created by the Russian military assault and this will likely cement expectations for a 25 basis point rate increase,” said James Knightley, chief international economist at ING.Data on Friday showed the Fed’s preferred gauge of price pressures rising 6.1% in the 12 months through January -- three times the 2% target and the most since 1982. Another measure, the consumer price index, has shown a larger 7.5% gain, and the February CPI report will be released March 10. Officials get another important piece of evidence Friday with the February employment report.While inflation will be a focus, lawmakers could also ask Powell about the role of the Fed in implementing sanctions on Russians through the central bank’s payment system, said John Silvia, founder of Dynamic Economic Strategy and former chief economist at the Senate banking panel.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":653,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9039124940,"gmtCreate":1645969627107,"gmtModify":1676534078341,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":7,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9039124940","repostId":"1125580913","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1125580913","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Providing stock market headlines, business news, financials and earnings ","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Tiger Newspress","id":"1079075236","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1645926503,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1125580913?lang=&edition=full_marsco","pubTime":"2022-02-27 09:48","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Buffett Full Annual Letter：Apple is One of ‘Four Giants’ Driving the Conglomerate’s Value","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1125580913","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"Warren Buffett released his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders on Saturday. The 91-yea","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>Warren Buffett released his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders on Saturday. The 91-year-old investing legend has been publishing the letter for over six decades and it has become required reading for investors around the world.</p><p>Warren Buffett said he now considers tech giant Apple as one of the four pillars driving Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate of mostly old-economy businesses he’s assembled over the last five decades.</p><p>In his annual letter to shareholders released on Saturday, the 91-year-old investing legend listed Apple under the heading “Our Four Giants” and even called the company the second-most important after Berkshire’s cluster of insurers, thanks to its chief executive.</p><p>“Tim Cook, Apple’s brilliant CEO, quite properly regards users of Apple products as his first love, but all of his other constituencies benefit from Tim’s managerial touch as well,” the letter stated.</p><p>Buffett made clear he is a fan of Cook’s stock repurchase strategy, and how it gives the conglomerate increased ownership of each dollar of the iPhone maker’s earnings without the investor having to lift a finger.</p><p>“Apple – our runner-up Giant as measured by its yearend market value – is a different sort of holding. Here, our ownership is a mere 5.55%, up from 5.39% a year earlier,” Buffett said in the letter. “That increase sounds like small potatoes. But consider that each 0.1% of Apple’s 2021 earnings amounted to $100 million. We spent no Berkshire funds to gain our accretion. Apple’s repurchases did the job.”</p><p>Berkshire began buying Apple stock in 2016 under the influence of Buffett’s investing deputies Todd Combs and Ted Weschler. By mid-2018, the conglomerate accumulated 5% ownership of the iPhone maker, a stake that cost $36 billion. Today, the Apple investment is now worth more than $160 billion, taking up 40% of Berkshire’s equity portfolio.</p><p>“It’s important to understand that only dividends from Apple are counted in the GAAP earnings Berkshire reports – and last year, Apple paid us $785 million of those. Yet our ‘share’ of Apple’s earnings amounted to a staggering $5.6 billion. Much of what the company retained was used to repurchase Apple shares, an act we applaud,” Buffett said.</p><p>Berkshire is Apple’s largest shareholder, outside of index and exchange-traded fund providers.</p><p>Buffett also credited his railroad business BNSF and energy segment BHE as two other giants of the conglomerate, which both registered record earnings in 2021.</p><p>“BNSF, our third Giant, continues to be the number one artery of American commerce, which makes it an indispensable asset for America as well as for Berkshire,” Buffett said. “BHE has become a utility powerhouse and a leading force in wind, solar and transmission throughout much of the United States.”</p><p><b>Read the full letter here：</b></p><p>To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.:</p><p>Charlie Munger, my long-time partner, and I have the job of managing a portion of your savings. We are honored by your trust.</p><p>Our position carries with it the responsibility to report to you what we would like to know if we were the absentee owner and you were the manager. We enjoy communicating directly with you through this annual letter, and through the annual meeting as well.</p><p>Our policy is to treat all shareholders equally. Therefore, we do not hold discussions with analysts nor large institutions. Whenever possible, also, we release important communications on Saturday mornings in order to maximize the time for shareholders and the media to absorb the news before markets open on Monday.</p><p>A wealth of Berkshire facts and figures are set forth in the annual 10-K that the company regularly files with the S.E.C. and that we reproduce on pages K-1 – K-119. Some shareholders will find this detail engrossing; others will simply prefer to learn what Charlie and I believe is new or interesting at Berkshire.</p><p>Alas, there was little action of that sort in 2021. We did, though, make reasonable progress in increasing the intrinsic value of your shares. That task has been my primary duty for 57 years. And it will continue to be.</p><p><b>What You Own</b></p><p>Berkshire owns a wide variety of businesses, some in their entirety, some only in part. The second group largely consists of marketable common stocks of major American companies. Additionally, we own a few non-U.S. equities and participate in several joint ventures or other collaborative activities.</p><p>Whatever our form of ownership, our goal is to have meaningful investments in businesses with both durable economic advantages and a first-class CEO. Please note particularly that we own stocks based upon our expectations about their long-term business performance and not because we view them as vehicles for timely market moves. That point is crucial: Charlie and I are not stock-pickers; we are business-pickers.</p><p>I make many mistakes. Consequently, our extensive collection of businesses includes some enterprises that have truly extraordinary economics, many others that enjoy good economic characteristics, and a few that are marginal. One advantage of our common-stock segment is that – on occasion – it becomes easy to buy pieces of wonderful businesses at wonderful prices. That shooting-fish-in-a-barrel experience is very rare in negotiated transactions and never occurs en masse. It is also far easier to exit from a mistake when it has been made in the marketable arena.</p><h2><b>Surprise, Surprise</b></h2><p>Here are a few items about your company that often surprise even seasoned investors:</p><p>• Many people perceive Berkshire as a large and somewhat strange collection of financial assets. In truth, Berkshire owns and operates more U.S.-based “infrastructure” assets – classified on our balance sheet as property, plant and equipment – than are owned and operated by any other American corporation. That supremacy has never been our goal. It has, however, become a fact.</p><p>At yearend, those domestic infrastructure assets were carried on Berkshire’s balance sheet at $158 billion. That number increased last year and will continue to increase. Berkshire always will be building.</p><p>• Every year, your company makes substantial federal income tax payments. In 2021, for example, we paid</p><p>$3.3 billion while the U.S. Treasury reported total corporate income-tax receipts of $402 billion. Additionally, Berkshire pays substantial state and foreign taxes. “I gave at the office” is an unassailable assertion when made by Berkshire shareholders.</p><p>Berkshire’s history vividly illustrates the invisible and often unrecognized financial partnership between  government and American businesses. Our tale begins early in 1955, when Berkshire Fine Spinning and Hathaway Manufacturing agreed to merge their businesses. In their requests for shareholder approval, these venerable New England textile companies expressed high hopes for the combination.</p><p></p><p>The Hathaway solicitation, for example, assured its shareholders that “The combination of the resources and managements will result in one of the strongest and most efficient organizations in the textile industry.” That upbeat view was endorsed by the company’s advisor, Lehman Brothers (yes, that Lehman Brothers).</p><p>I’m sure it was a joyous day in both Fall River (Berkshire) and New Bedford (Hathaway) when the union was consummated. After the bands stopped playing and the bankers went home, however, the shareholders reaped a disaster.</p><p>In the nine years following the merger, Berkshire’s owners watched the company’s net worth crater from</p><p>$51.4 million to $22.1 million. In part, this decline was caused by stock repurchases, ill-advised dividends and plant shutdowns. But nine years of effort by many thousands of employees delivered an operating loss as well. Berkshire’s struggles were not unusual: The New England textile industry had silently entered an extended and non-reversible death march.</p><p>During the nine post-merger years, the U.S. Treasury suffered as well from Berkshire’s troubles. All told, the company paid the government only $337,359 in income tax during that period – a pathetic $100 per day.</p><p>Early in 1965, things changed. Berkshire installed new management that redeployed available cash and steered essentially all earnings into a variety of good businesses, most of which remained good through the years. Coupling reinvestment of earnings with the power of compounding worked its magic, and shareholders prospered.</p><p>Berkshire’s owners, it should be noted, were not the only beneficiary of that course correction. Their “silent partner,” the U.S. Treasury, proceeded to collect many tens of billions of dollars from the company in income tax payments. Remember the $100 daily? Now, Berkshire pays roughly $9 million daily to the Treasury.</p><p>In fairness to our governmental partner, our shareholders should acknowledge – indeed trumpet – the fact that Berkshire’s prosperity has been fostered mightily because the company has operated in America. Our country would have done splendidly in the years since 1965 without Berkshire. Absent our American home, however, Berkshire would never have come close to becoming what it is today. When you see the flag, say thanks.</p><p>• From an $8.6 million purchase of National Indemnity in 1967, Berkshire has become the world leader in insurance “float” – money we hold and can invest but that does not belong to us. Including a relatively small sum derived from life insurance, Berkshire’s total float has grown from $19 million when we entered the insurance business to $147 billion.</p><p>So far, this float has cost us less than nothing. Though we have experienced a number of years when insurance losses combined with operating expenses exceeded premiums, overall we have earned a modest 55-year profit from the underwriting activities that generated our float.</p><p>Of equal importance, float is very sticky. Funds attributable to our insurance operations come and go daily, but their aggregate total is immune from precipitous decline. When it comes to investing float, we can therefore think long-term.</p><p>If you are not already familiar with the concept of float, I refer you to a long explanation on page A-5. To my surprise, our float increased $9 billion last year, a buildup of value that is important to Berkshire owners though is not reflected in our GAAP (“generally-accepted accounting principles”) presentation of earnings and net worth.</p><p>Much of our huge value creation in insurance is attributable to Berkshire’s good luck in my 1986 hiring of Ajit Jain. We first met on a Saturday morning, and I quickly asked Ajit what his insurance experience had been. He replied, “None.”</p><p>I said, “Nobody’s perfect,” and hired him. That was my lucky day: Ajit actually was as perfect a choice as could have been made. Better yet, he continues to be – 35 years later.</p><p>One final thought about insurance: I believe that it is likely – but far from assured – that Berkshire’s float can be maintained without our incurring a long-term underwriting loss. I am certain, however, that there will be some years when we experience such losses, perhaps involving very large sums.</p><p>Berkshire is constructed to handle catastrophic events as no other insurer – and that priority will remain long after Charlie and I are gone.</p><h2>Our Four Giants</h2><p>Through Berkshire, our shareholders own many dozens of businesses. Some of these, in turn, have a collection of subsidiaries of their own. For example, Marmon has more than 100 individual business operations, ranging from the leasing of railroad cars to the manufacture of medical devices.</p><p>• Nevertheless, operations of our “Big Four” companies account for a very large chunk of Berkshire’s value. Leading this list is our cluster of insurers. Berkshire effectively owns 100% of this group, whose massive float value we earlier described. The invested assets of these insurers are further enlarged by the extraordinary amount of capital we invest to back up their promises.</p><p>The insurance business is made to order for Berkshire. The product will never be obsolete, and sales volume will generally increase along with both economic growth and inflation. Also, integrity and capital will forever be important. Our company can and will behave well.</p><p>There are, of course, other insurers with excellent business models and prospects. Replication of Berkshire’s operation, however, would be almost impossible.</p><p>• Apple – our runner-up Giant as measured by its yearend market value – is a different sort of holding. Here, our ownership is a mere 5.55%, up from 5.39% a year earlier. That increase sounds like small potatoes. But consider that each 0.1% of Apple’s 2021 earnings amounted to $100 million. We spent no Berkshire funds to gain our accretion. Apple’s repurchases did the job.</p><p>It’s important to understand that only dividends from Apple are counted in the GAAP earnings Berkshire reports – and last year, Apple paid us $785 million of those. Yet our “share” of Apple’s earnings amounted to a staggering $5.6 billion. Much of what the company retained was used to repurchase Apple shares, an act we applaud. Tim Cook, Apple’s brilliant CEO, quite properly regards users of Apple products as his first love, but all of his other constituencies benefit from Tim’s managerial touch as well.</p><p>• BNSF, our third Giant, continues to be the number one artery of American commerce, which makes it an indispensable asset for America as well as for Berkshire. If the many essential products BNSF carries were instead hauled by truck, America’s carbon emissions would soar.</p><p>Your railroad had record earnings of $6 billion in 2021. Here, it should be noted, we are talking about the old-fashioned sort of earnings that we favor: a figure calculated after interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization and all forms of compensation. (Our definition suggests a warning: Deceptive “adjustments” to earnings – to use a polite description – have become both more frequent and more fanciful as stocks have risen. Speaking less politely, I would say that bull markets breed bloviated bull )</p><p>BNSF trains traveled 143 million miles last year and carried 535 million tons of cargo. Both accomplishments far exceed those of any other American carrier. You can be proud of your railroad.</p><p>• BHE, our final Giant, earned a record $4 billion in 2021. That’s up more than 30-fold from the $122 million earned in 2000, the year that Berkshire first purchased a BHE stake. Now, Berkshire owns 91.1% of the company.</p><p>BHE’s record of societal accomplishment is as remarkable as its financial performance. The company had no wind or solar generation in 2000. It was then regarded simply as a relatively new and minor participant in the huge electric utility industry. Subsequently, under David Sokol’s and Greg Abel’s leadership, BHE has become a utility powerhouse (no groaning, please) and a leading force in wind, solar and transmission throughout much of the United States.</p><p>Greg’s report on these accomplishments appears on pages A-3 and A-4. The profile you will find there is not in any way one of those currently-fashionable “green-washing” stories. BHE has been faithfully detailing its plans and performance in renewables and transmissions every year since 2007.</p><p>To further review this information, visit BHE’s website at brkenergy.com. There, you will see that the company has long been making climate-conscious moves that soak up all of its earnings. More opportunities lie ahead. BHE has the management, the experience, the capital and the appetite for the huge power projects that our country needs.</p><h2>Investments</h2><p>Now let’s talk about companies we don’t control, a list that again references Apple. Below we list our fifteen largest equity holdings, several of which are selections of Berkshire’s two long-time investment managers, Todd Combs and Ted Weschler. At yearend, this valued pair had total authority in respect to $34 billion of investments, many of which do not meet the threshold value we use in the table. Also, a significant portion of the dollars that Todd and Ted manage are lodged in various pension plans of Berkshire-owned businesses, with the assets of these plans not included in this table.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d43587e9f59c0ff76e6c04c6bf9af324\" tg-width=\"1047\" tg-height=\"530\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>* This is our actual purchase price and also our tax basis.</p><p>** Held by BHE; consequently, Berkshire shareholders have only a 91.1% interest in this position.</p><p>*** Includes a $10 billion investment in Occidental Petroleum, consisting of preferred stock and warrants to buy common stock, a combination now being valued at $10.7 billion.</p><p>In addition to the footnoted Occidental holding and our various common-stock positions, Berkshire also owns a 26.6% interest in Kraft Heinz (accounted for on the “equity” method, not market value, and carried at $13.1 billion) and 38.6% of Pilot Corp., a leader in travel centers that had revenues last year of $45 billion.</p><p>Since we purchased our Pilot stake in 2017, this holding has warranted “equity” accounting treatment. Early in 2023, Berkshire will purchase an additional interest in Pilot that will raise our ownership to 80% and lead to our fully consolidating Pilot’s earnings, assets and liabilities in our financial statements.</p><h2>U.S. Treasury Bills</h2><p>Berkshire’s balance sheet includes $144 billion of cash and cash equivalents (excluding the holdings of BNSF and BHE). Of this sum, $120 billion is held in U.S. Treasury bills, all maturing in less than a year. That stake leaves Berkshire financing about 12 of 1% of the publicly-held national debt.</p><p>Charlie and I have pledged that Berkshire (along with our subsidiaries other than BNSF and BHE) will always hold more than $30 billion of cash and equivalents. We want your company to be financially impregnable and never dependent on the kindness of strangers (or even that of friends). Both of us like to sleep soundly, and we want our creditors, insurance claimants and you to do so as well.</p><h2>But $144 billion?</h2><p>That imposing sum, I assure you, is not some deranged expression of patriotism. Nor have Charlie and I lost our overwhelming preference for business ownership. Indeed, I first manifested my enthusiasm for that 80 years ago, on March 11, 1942, when I purchased three shares of Cities Services preferred stock. Their cost was $114.75 and required all of my savings. (The Dow Jones Industrial Average that day closed at 99, a fact that should scream to you: Never bet against America.)</p><p>After my initial plunge, I always kept at least 80% of my net worth in equities. My favored status throughout that period was 100% – and still is. Berkshire’s current 80%-or-so position in businesses is a consequence of my failure to find entire companies or small portions thereof (that is, marketable stocks) which meet our criteria for long- term holding.</p><p>Charlie and I have endured similar cash-heavy positions from time to time in the past. These periods are never pleasant; they are also never permanent. And, fortunately, we have had a mildly attractive alternative during 2020 and 2021 for deploying capital. Read on.</p><h2>Share Repurchases</h2><p>There are three ways that we can increase the value of your investment. The first is always front and center in our minds: Increase the long-term earning power of Berkshire’s controlled businesses through internal growth or by making acquisitions. Today, internal opportunities deliver far better returns than acquisitions. The size of those opportunities, however, is small compared to Berkshire’s resources.</p><p>Our second choice is to buy non-controlling part-interests in the many good or great businesses that are publicly traded. From time to time, such possibilities are both numerous and blatantly attractive. Today, though, we find little that excites us.</p><p>That’s largely because of a truism: Long-term interest rates that are low push the prices of all productive investments upward, whether these are stocks, apartments, farms, oil wells, whatever. Other factors influence valuations as well, but interest rates will always be important.</p><p>Our final path to value creation is to repurchase Berkshire shares. Through that simple act, we increase your share of the many controlled and non-controlled businesses Berkshire owns. When the price/value equation is right, this path is the easiest and most certain way for us to increase your wealth. (Alongside the accretion of value to continuing shareholders, a couple of other parties gain: Repurchases are modestly beneficial to the seller of the repurchased shares and to society as well.)</p><p>Periodically, as alternative paths become unattractive, repurchases make good sense for Berkshire’s owners. During the past two years, we therefore repurchased 9% of the shares that were outstanding at yearend 2019 for a total cost of $51.7 billion. That expenditure left our continuing shareholders owning about 10% more of all Berkshire businesses, whether these are wholly-owned (such as BNSF and GEICO) or partly-owned (such as Coca-Cola and Moody’s).</p><p>I want to underscore that for Berkshire repurchases to make sense, our shares must offer appropriate value. We don’t want to overpay for the shares of other companies, and it would be value-destroying if we were to overpay when we are buying Berkshire. As of February 23, 2022, since yearend we repurchased additional shares at a cost of $1.2 billion. Our appetite remains large but will always remain price-dependent.</p><p>It should be noted that Berkshire’s buyback opportunities are limited because of its high-class investor base. If our shares were heavily held by short-term speculators, both price volatility and transaction volumes would materially increase. That kind of reshaping would offer us far greater opportunities for creating value by making repurchases. Nevertheless, Charlie and I far prefer the owners we have, even though their admirable buy-and-keep attitudes limit the extent to which long-term shareholders can profit from opportunistic repurchases.</p><p>Finally, one easily-overlooked value calculation specific to Berkshire: As we’ve discussed, insurance “float” of the right sort is of great value to us. As it happens, repurchases automatically increase the amount of “float” per share. That figure has increased during the past two years by 25% – going from $79,387 per “A” share to $99,497, a meaningful gain that, as noted, owes some thanks to repurchases.</p><h2>A Wonderful Man and a Wonderful Business</h2><p>Last year, Paul Andrews died. Paul was the founder and CEO of TTI, a Fort Worth-based subsidiary of Berkshire. Throughout his life – in both his business and his personal pursuits – Paul quietly displayed all the qualities that Charlie and I admire. His story should be told.</p><p>In 1971, Paul was working as a purchasing agent for General Dynamics when the roof fell in. After losing a huge defense contract, the company fired thousands of employees, including Paul.</p><p>With his first child due soon, Paul decided to bet on himself, using $500 of his savings to found Tex-Tronics (later renamed TTI). The company set itself up to distribute small electronic components, and first-year sales totaled $112,000. Today, TTI markets more than one million different items with annual volume of $7.7 billion.</p><p>But back to 2006: Paul, at 63, then found himself happy with his family, his job, and his associates. But he had one nagging worry, heightened because he had recently witnessed a friend’s early death and the disastrous results that followed for that man’s family and business. What, Paul asked himself in 2006, would happen to the many people depending on him if he should unexpectedly die?</p><p>For a year, Paul wrestled with his options. Sell to a competitor? From a strictly economic viewpoint, that course made the most sense. After all, competitors could envision lucrative “synergies” – savings that would be achieved as the acquiror slashed duplicated functions at TTI.</p><p>But . . . Such a purchaser would most certainly also retain its CFO, its legal counsel, its HR unit. Their TTI counterparts would therefore be sent packing. And ugh! If a new distribution center were to be needed, the acquirer’s home city would certainly be favored over Fort Worth.</p><p>Whatever the financial benefits, Paul quickly concluded that selling to a competitor was not for him. He next considered seeking a financial buyer, a species once labeled – aptly so – a leveraged buyout firm. Paul knew, however, that such a purchaser would be focused on an “exit strategy.” And who could know what that would be? Brooding over it all, Paul found himself having no interest in handing his 35-year-old creation over to a reseller.</p><p>When Paul met me, he explained why he had eliminated these two alternatives as buyers. He then summed up his dilemma by saying – in far more tactful phrasing than this – “After a year of pondering the alternatives, I want to sell to Berkshire because you are the only guy left.” So, I made an offer and Paul said “Yes.” One meeting; one lunch; one deal.</p><p>To say we both lived happily ever after is an understatement. When Berkshire purchased TTI, the company employed 2,387. Now the number is 8,043. A large percentage of that growth took place in Fort Worth and environs. Earnings have increased 673%.</p><p>Annually, I would call Paul and tell him his salary should be substantially increased. Annually, he would tell me, “We can talk about that next year, Warren; I’m too busy now.”</p><p>When Greg Abel and I attended Paul’s memorial service, we met children, grandchildren, long-time associates (including TTI’s first employee) and John Roach, the former CEO of a Fort Worth company Berkshire had purchased in 2000. John had steered his friend Paul to Omaha, instinctively knowing we would be a match.</p><p>At the service, Greg and I heard about the multitudes of people and organizations that Paul had silently supported. The breadth of his generosity was extraordinary – geared always to improving the lives of others, particularly those in Fort Worth.</p><p>In all ways, Paul was a class act.</p><p>* * * * * * * * * * * *</p><p>Good luck – occasionally extraordinary luck – has played its part at Berkshire. If Paul and I had not enjoyed a mutual friend – John Roach – TTI would not have found its home with us. But that ample serving of luck was only the beginning. TTI was soon to lead Berkshire to its most important acquisition.</p><p>Every fall, Berkshire directors gather for a presentation by a few of our executives. We sometimes choose the site based upon the location of a recent acquisition, by that means allowing directors to meet the new subsidiary’s CEO and learn more about the acquiree’s activities.</p><p>In the fall of 2009, we consequently selected Fort Worth so that we could visit TTI. At that time, BNSF, which also had Fort Worth as its hometown, was the third-largest holding among our marketable equities. Despite that large stake, I had never visited the railroad’s headquarters.</p><p>Deb Bosanek, my assistant, scheduled our board’s opening dinner for October 22. Meanwhile, I arranged to arrive earlier that day to meet with Matt Rose, CEO of BNSF, whose accomplishments I had long admired. When I made the date, I had no idea that our get-together would coincide with BNSF’s third-quarter earnings report, which was released late on the 22nd.</p><p>The market reacted badly to the railroad’s results. The Great Recession was in full force in the third quarter, and BNSF’s earnings reflected that slump. The economic outlook was also bleak, and Wall Street wasn’t feeling friendly to railroads – or much else.</p><p>On the following day, I again got together with Matt and suggested that Berkshire would offer the railroad a better long-term home than it could expect as a public company. I also told him the maximum price that Berkshire would pay.</p><p>Matt relayed the offer to his directors and advisors. Eleven busy days later, Berkshire and BNSF announced a firm deal. And here I’ll venture a rare prediction: BNSF will be a key asset for Berkshire and our country a century from now.</p><p>The BNSF acquisition would never have happened if Paul Andrews hadn’t sized up Berkshire as the right home for TTI.</p><h2>Thanks</h2><p>I taught my first investing class 70 years ago. Since then, I have enjoyed working almost every year with students of all ages, finally “retiring” from that pursuit in 2018.</p><p>Along the way, my toughest audience was my grandson’s fifth-grade class. The 11-year-olds were squirming in their seats and giving me blank stares until I mentioned Coca-Cola and its famous secret formula. Instantly, every hand went up, and I learned that “secrets” are catnip to kids.</p><p>Teaching, like writing, has helped me develop and clarify my own thoughts. Charlie calls this phenomenon the orangutan effect: If you sit down with an orangutan and carefully explain to it one of your cherished ideas, you may leave behind a puzzled primate, but will yourself exit thinking more clearly.</p><p>Talking to university students is far superior. I have urged that they seek employment in (1) the field and (2) with the kind of people they would select, if they had no need for money. Economic realities, I acknowledge, may interfere with that kind of search. Even so, I urge the students never to give up the quest, for when they find that sort of job, they will no longer be “working.”</p><p>Charlie and I, ourselves, followed that liberating course after a few early stumbles. We both started as part- timers at my grandfather’s grocery store, Charlie in 1940 and I in 1942. We were each assigned boring tasks and paid little, definitely not what we had in mind. Charlie later took up law, and I tried selling securities. Job satisfaction continued to elude us.</p><p>Finally, at Berkshire, we found what we love to do. With very few exceptions, we have now “worked” for many decades with people whom we like and trust. It’s a joy in life to join with managers such as Paul Andrews or the Berkshire families I told you about last year. In our home office, we employ decent and talented people – no jerks. Turnover averages, perhaps, one person per year.</p><p>I would like, however, to emphasize a further item that turns our jobs into fun and satisfaction working</p><p>for you. There is nothing more rewarding to Charlie and me than enjoying the trust of individual long-term shareholders who, for many decades, have joined us with the expectation that we would be a reliable custodian of their funds.</p><p>Obviously, we can’t select our owners, as we could do if our form of operation were a partnership. Anyone can buy shares of Berkshire today with the intention of soon reselling them. For sure, we get a few of that type of shareholder, just as we get index funds that own huge amounts of Berkshire simply because they are required to do so.</p><p>To a truly unusual degree, however, Berkshire has as owners a very large corps of individuals and families that have elected to join us with an intent approaching “til death do us part.” Often, they have trusted us with a large – some might say excessive – portion of their savings.</p><p>Berkshire, these shareholders would sometimes acknowledge, might be far from the best selection they could have made. But they would add that Berkshire would rank high among those with which they would be most comfortable. And people who are comfortable with their investments will, on average, achieve better results than those who are motivated by ever-changing headlines, chatter and promises.</p><p>Long-term individual owners are both the “partners” Charlie and I have always sought and the ones we constantly have in mind as we make decisions at Berkshire. To them we say, “It feels good to ‘work’ for you, and you have our thanks for your trust.”</p><h2>The Annual Meeting</h2><p>Clear your calendar! Berkshire will have its annual gathering of capitalists in Omaha on Friday, April 29th through Sunday, May 1st. The details regarding the weekend are laid out on pages A-1 and A-2. Omaha eagerly awaits you, as do I.</p><p>I will end this letter with a sales pitch. “Cousin” Jimmy Buffett has designed a pontoon “party” boat that is now being manufactured by Forest River, a Berkshire subsidiary. The boat will be introduced on April 29 at our Berkshire Bazaar of Bargains. And, for two days only, shareholders will be able to purchase Jimmy’s masterpiece at a 10% discount. Your bargain-hunting chairman will be buying a boat for his family’s use. Join me.</p><p>February 26, 2022</p><p>Warren E. Buffett Chairman of the Board</p></body></html>","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>Buffett Full Annual Letter：Apple is One of ‘Four Giants’ Driving the Conglomerate’s Value</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\">\nBuffett Full Annual Letter：Apple is One of ‘Four Giants’ Driving the Conglomerate’s Value\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1079075236\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Tiger Newspress </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2022-02-27 09:48</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p>Warren Buffett released his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders on Saturday. The 91-year-old investing legend has been publishing the letter for over six decades and it has become required reading for investors around the world.</p><p>Warren Buffett said he now considers tech giant Apple as one of the four pillars driving Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate of mostly old-economy businesses he’s assembled over the last five decades.</p><p>In his annual letter to shareholders released on Saturday, the 91-year-old investing legend listed Apple under the heading “Our Four Giants” and even called the company the second-most important after Berkshire’s cluster of insurers, thanks to its chief executive.</p><p>“Tim Cook, Apple’s brilliant CEO, quite properly regards users of Apple products as his first love, but all of his other constituencies benefit from Tim’s managerial touch as well,” the letter stated.</p><p>Buffett made clear he is a fan of Cook’s stock repurchase strategy, and how it gives the conglomerate increased ownership of each dollar of the iPhone maker’s earnings without the investor having to lift a finger.</p><p>“Apple – our runner-up Giant as measured by its yearend market value – is a different sort of holding. Here, our ownership is a mere 5.55%, up from 5.39% a year earlier,” Buffett said in the letter. “That increase sounds like small potatoes. But consider that each 0.1% of Apple’s 2021 earnings amounted to $100 million. We spent no Berkshire funds to gain our accretion. Apple’s repurchases did the job.”</p><p>Berkshire began buying Apple stock in 2016 under the influence of Buffett’s investing deputies Todd Combs and Ted Weschler. By mid-2018, the conglomerate accumulated 5% ownership of the iPhone maker, a stake that cost $36 billion. Today, the Apple investment is now worth more than $160 billion, taking up 40% of Berkshire’s equity portfolio.</p><p>“It’s important to understand that only dividends from Apple are counted in the GAAP earnings Berkshire reports – and last year, Apple paid us $785 million of those. Yet our ‘share’ of Apple’s earnings amounted to a staggering $5.6 billion. Much of what the company retained was used to repurchase Apple shares, an act we applaud,” Buffett said.</p><p>Berkshire is Apple’s largest shareholder, outside of index and exchange-traded fund providers.</p><p>Buffett also credited his railroad business BNSF and energy segment BHE as two other giants of the conglomerate, which both registered record earnings in 2021.</p><p>“BNSF, our third Giant, continues to be the number one artery of American commerce, which makes it an indispensable asset for America as well as for Berkshire,” Buffett said. “BHE has become a utility powerhouse and a leading force in wind, solar and transmission throughout much of the United States.”</p><p><b>Read the full letter here：</b></p><p>To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.:</p><p>Charlie Munger, my long-time partner, and I have the job of managing a portion of your savings. We are honored by your trust.</p><p>Our position carries with it the responsibility to report to you what we would like to know if we were the absentee owner and you were the manager. We enjoy communicating directly with you through this annual letter, and through the annual meeting as well.</p><p>Our policy is to treat all shareholders equally. Therefore, we do not hold discussions with analysts nor large institutions. Whenever possible, also, we release important communications on Saturday mornings in order to maximize the time for shareholders and the media to absorb the news before markets open on Monday.</p><p>A wealth of Berkshire facts and figures are set forth in the annual 10-K that the company regularly files with the S.E.C. and that we reproduce on pages K-1 – K-119. Some shareholders will find this detail engrossing; others will simply prefer to learn what Charlie and I believe is new or interesting at Berkshire.</p><p>Alas, there was little action of that sort in 2021. We did, though, make reasonable progress in increasing the intrinsic value of your shares. That task has been my primary duty for 57 years. And it will continue to be.</p><p><b>What You Own</b></p><p>Berkshire owns a wide variety of businesses, some in their entirety, some only in part. The second group largely consists of marketable common stocks of major American companies. Additionally, we own a few non-U.S. equities and participate in several joint ventures or other collaborative activities.</p><p>Whatever our form of ownership, our goal is to have meaningful investments in businesses with both durable economic advantages and a first-class CEO. Please note particularly that we own stocks based upon our expectations about their long-term business performance and not because we view them as vehicles for timely market moves. That point is crucial: Charlie and I are not stock-pickers; we are business-pickers.</p><p>I make many mistakes. Consequently, our extensive collection of businesses includes some enterprises that have truly extraordinary economics, many others that enjoy good economic characteristics, and a few that are marginal. One advantage of our common-stock segment is that – on occasion – it becomes easy to buy pieces of wonderful businesses at wonderful prices. That shooting-fish-in-a-barrel experience is very rare in negotiated transactions and never occurs en masse. It is also far easier to exit from a mistake when it has been made in the marketable arena.</p><h2><b>Surprise, Surprise</b></h2><p>Here are a few items about your company that often surprise even seasoned investors:</p><p>• Many people perceive Berkshire as a large and somewhat strange collection of financial assets. In truth, Berkshire owns and operates more U.S.-based “infrastructure” assets – classified on our balance sheet as property, plant and equipment – than are owned and operated by any other American corporation. That supremacy has never been our goal. It has, however, become a fact.</p><p>At yearend, those domestic infrastructure assets were carried on Berkshire’s balance sheet at $158 billion. That number increased last year and will continue to increase. Berkshire always will be building.</p><p>• Every year, your company makes substantial federal income tax payments. In 2021, for example, we paid</p><p>$3.3 billion while the U.S. Treasury reported total corporate income-tax receipts of $402 billion. Additionally, Berkshire pays substantial state and foreign taxes. “I gave at the office” is an unassailable assertion when made by Berkshire shareholders.</p><p>Berkshire’s history vividly illustrates the invisible and often unrecognized financial partnership between  government and American businesses. Our tale begins early in 1955, when Berkshire Fine Spinning and Hathaway Manufacturing agreed to merge their businesses. In their requests for shareholder approval, these venerable New England textile companies expressed high hopes for the combination.</p><p></p><p>The Hathaway solicitation, for example, assured its shareholders that “The combination of the resources and managements will result in one of the strongest and most efficient organizations in the textile industry.” That upbeat view was endorsed by the company’s advisor, Lehman Brothers (yes, that Lehman Brothers).</p><p>I’m sure it was a joyous day in both Fall River (Berkshire) and New Bedford (Hathaway) when the union was consummated. After the bands stopped playing and the bankers went home, however, the shareholders reaped a disaster.</p><p>In the nine years following the merger, Berkshire’s owners watched the company’s net worth crater from</p><p>$51.4 million to $22.1 million. In part, this decline was caused by stock repurchases, ill-advised dividends and plant shutdowns. But nine years of effort by many thousands of employees delivered an operating loss as well. Berkshire’s struggles were not unusual: The New England textile industry had silently entered an extended and non-reversible death march.</p><p>During the nine post-merger years, the U.S. Treasury suffered as well from Berkshire’s troubles. All told, the company paid the government only $337,359 in income tax during that period – a pathetic $100 per day.</p><p>Early in 1965, things changed. Berkshire installed new management that redeployed available cash and steered essentially all earnings into a variety of good businesses, most of which remained good through the years. Coupling reinvestment of earnings with the power of compounding worked its magic, and shareholders prospered.</p><p>Berkshire’s owners, it should be noted, were not the only beneficiary of that course correction. Their “silent partner,” the U.S. Treasury, proceeded to collect many tens of billions of dollars from the company in income tax payments. Remember the $100 daily? Now, Berkshire pays roughly $9 million daily to the Treasury.</p><p>In fairness to our governmental partner, our shareholders should acknowledge – indeed trumpet – the fact that Berkshire’s prosperity has been fostered mightily because the company has operated in America. Our country would have done splendidly in the years since 1965 without Berkshire. Absent our American home, however, Berkshire would never have come close to becoming what it is today. When you see the flag, say thanks.</p><p>• From an $8.6 million purchase of National Indemnity in 1967, Berkshire has become the world leader in insurance “float” – money we hold and can invest but that does not belong to us. Including a relatively small sum derived from life insurance, Berkshire’s total float has grown from $19 million when we entered the insurance business to $147 billion.</p><p>So far, this float has cost us less than nothing. Though we have experienced a number of years when insurance losses combined with operating expenses exceeded premiums, overall we have earned a modest 55-year profit from the underwriting activities that generated our float.</p><p>Of equal importance, float is very sticky. Funds attributable to our insurance operations come and go daily, but their aggregate total is immune from precipitous decline. When it comes to investing float, we can therefore think long-term.</p><p>If you are not already familiar with the concept of float, I refer you to a long explanation on page A-5. To my surprise, our float increased $9 billion last year, a buildup of value that is important to Berkshire owners though is not reflected in our GAAP (“generally-accepted accounting principles”) presentation of earnings and net worth.</p><p>Much of our huge value creation in insurance is attributable to Berkshire’s good luck in my 1986 hiring of Ajit Jain. We first met on a Saturday morning, and I quickly asked Ajit what his insurance experience had been. He replied, “None.”</p><p>I said, “Nobody’s perfect,” and hired him. That was my lucky day: Ajit actually was as perfect a choice as could have been made. Better yet, he continues to be – 35 years later.</p><p>One final thought about insurance: I believe that it is likely – but far from assured – that Berkshire’s float can be maintained without our incurring a long-term underwriting loss. I am certain, however, that there will be some years when we experience such losses, perhaps involving very large sums.</p><p>Berkshire is constructed to handle catastrophic events as no other insurer – and that priority will remain long after Charlie and I are gone.</p><h2>Our Four Giants</h2><p>Through Berkshire, our shareholders own many dozens of businesses. Some of these, in turn, have a collection of subsidiaries of their own. For example, Marmon has more than 100 individual business operations, ranging from the leasing of railroad cars to the manufacture of medical devices.</p><p>• Nevertheless, operations of our “Big Four” companies account for a very large chunk of Berkshire’s value. Leading this list is our cluster of insurers. Berkshire effectively owns 100% of this group, whose massive float value we earlier described. The invested assets of these insurers are further enlarged by the extraordinary amount of capital we invest to back up their promises.</p><p>The insurance business is made to order for Berkshire. The product will never be obsolete, and sales volume will generally increase along with both economic growth and inflation. Also, integrity and capital will forever be important. Our company can and will behave well.</p><p>There are, of course, other insurers with excellent business models and prospects. Replication of Berkshire’s operation, however, would be almost impossible.</p><p>• Apple – our runner-up Giant as measured by its yearend market value – is a different sort of holding. Here, our ownership is a mere 5.55%, up from 5.39% a year earlier. That increase sounds like small potatoes. But consider that each 0.1% of Apple’s 2021 earnings amounted to $100 million. We spent no Berkshire funds to gain our accretion. Apple’s repurchases did the job.</p><p>It’s important to understand that only dividends from Apple are counted in the GAAP earnings Berkshire reports – and last year, Apple paid us $785 million of those. Yet our “share” of Apple’s earnings amounted to a staggering $5.6 billion. Much of what the company retained was used to repurchase Apple shares, an act we applaud. Tim Cook, Apple’s brilliant CEO, quite properly regards users of Apple products as his first love, but all of his other constituencies benefit from Tim’s managerial touch as well.</p><p>• BNSF, our third Giant, continues to be the number one artery of American commerce, which makes it an indispensable asset for America as well as for Berkshire. If the many essential products BNSF carries were instead hauled by truck, America’s carbon emissions would soar.</p><p>Your railroad had record earnings of $6 billion in 2021. Here, it should be noted, we are talking about the old-fashioned sort of earnings that we favor: a figure calculated after interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization and all forms of compensation. (Our definition suggests a warning: Deceptive “adjustments” to earnings – to use a polite description – have become both more frequent and more fanciful as stocks have risen. Speaking less politely, I would say that bull markets breed bloviated bull )</p><p>BNSF trains traveled 143 million miles last year and carried 535 million tons of cargo. Both accomplishments far exceed those of any other American carrier. You can be proud of your railroad.</p><p>• BHE, our final Giant, earned a record $4 billion in 2021. That’s up more than 30-fold from the $122 million earned in 2000, the year that Berkshire first purchased a BHE stake. Now, Berkshire owns 91.1% of the company.</p><p>BHE’s record of societal accomplishment is as remarkable as its financial performance. The company had no wind or solar generation in 2000. It was then regarded simply as a relatively new and minor participant in the huge electric utility industry. Subsequently, under David Sokol’s and Greg Abel’s leadership, BHE has become a utility powerhouse (no groaning, please) and a leading force in wind, solar and transmission throughout much of the United States.</p><p>Greg’s report on these accomplishments appears on pages A-3 and A-4. The profile you will find there is not in any way one of those currently-fashionable “green-washing” stories. BHE has been faithfully detailing its plans and performance in renewables and transmissions every year since 2007.</p><p>To further review this information, visit BHE’s website at brkenergy.com. There, you will see that the company has long been making climate-conscious moves that soak up all of its earnings. More opportunities lie ahead. BHE has the management, the experience, the capital and the appetite for the huge power projects that our country needs.</p><h2>Investments</h2><p>Now let’s talk about companies we don’t control, a list that again references Apple. Below we list our fifteen largest equity holdings, several of which are selections of Berkshire’s two long-time investment managers, Todd Combs and Ted Weschler. At yearend, this valued pair had total authority in respect to $34 billion of investments, many of which do not meet the threshold value we use in the table. Also, a significant portion of the dollars that Todd and Ted manage are lodged in various pension plans of Berkshire-owned businesses, with the assets of these plans not included in this table.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d43587e9f59c0ff76e6c04c6bf9af324\" tg-width=\"1047\" tg-height=\"530\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>* This is our actual purchase price and also our tax basis.</p><p>** Held by BHE; consequently, Berkshire shareholders have only a 91.1% interest in this position.</p><p>*** Includes a $10 billion investment in Occidental Petroleum, consisting of preferred stock and warrants to buy common stock, a combination now being valued at $10.7 billion.</p><p>In addition to the footnoted Occidental holding and our various common-stock positions, Berkshire also owns a 26.6% interest in Kraft Heinz (accounted for on the “equity” method, not market value, and carried at $13.1 billion) and 38.6% of Pilot Corp., a leader in travel centers that had revenues last year of $45 billion.</p><p>Since we purchased our Pilot stake in 2017, this holding has warranted “equity” accounting treatment. Early in 2023, Berkshire will purchase an additional interest in Pilot that will raise our ownership to 80% and lead to our fully consolidating Pilot’s earnings, assets and liabilities in our financial statements.</p><h2>U.S. Treasury Bills</h2><p>Berkshire’s balance sheet includes $144 billion of cash and cash equivalents (excluding the holdings of BNSF and BHE). Of this sum, $120 billion is held in U.S. Treasury bills, all maturing in less than a year. That stake leaves Berkshire financing about 12 of 1% of the publicly-held national debt.</p><p>Charlie and I have pledged that Berkshire (along with our subsidiaries other than BNSF and BHE) will always hold more than $30 billion of cash and equivalents. We want your company to be financially impregnable and never dependent on the kindness of strangers (or even that of friends). Both of us like to sleep soundly, and we want our creditors, insurance claimants and you to do so as well.</p><h2>But $144 billion?</h2><p>That imposing sum, I assure you, is not some deranged expression of patriotism. Nor have Charlie and I lost our overwhelming preference for business ownership. Indeed, I first manifested my enthusiasm for that 80 years ago, on March 11, 1942, when I purchased three shares of Cities Services preferred stock. Their cost was $114.75 and required all of my savings. (The Dow Jones Industrial Average that day closed at 99, a fact that should scream to you: Never bet against America.)</p><p>After my initial plunge, I always kept at least 80% of my net worth in equities. My favored status throughout that period was 100% – and still is. Berkshire’s current 80%-or-so position in businesses is a consequence of my failure to find entire companies or small portions thereof (that is, marketable stocks) which meet our criteria for long- term holding.</p><p>Charlie and I have endured similar cash-heavy positions from time to time in the past. These periods are never pleasant; they are also never permanent. And, fortunately, we have had a mildly attractive alternative during 2020 and 2021 for deploying capital. Read on.</p><h2>Share Repurchases</h2><p>There are three ways that we can increase the value of your investment. The first is always front and center in our minds: Increase the long-term earning power of Berkshire’s controlled businesses through internal growth or by making acquisitions. Today, internal opportunities deliver far better returns than acquisitions. The size of those opportunities, however, is small compared to Berkshire’s resources.</p><p>Our second choice is to buy non-controlling part-interests in the many good or great businesses that are publicly traded. From time to time, such possibilities are both numerous and blatantly attractive. Today, though, we find little that excites us.</p><p>That’s largely because of a truism: Long-term interest rates that are low push the prices of all productive investments upward, whether these are stocks, apartments, farms, oil wells, whatever. Other factors influence valuations as well, but interest rates will always be important.</p><p>Our final path to value creation is to repurchase Berkshire shares. Through that simple act, we increase your share of the many controlled and non-controlled businesses Berkshire owns. When the price/value equation is right, this path is the easiest and most certain way for us to increase your wealth. (Alongside the accretion of value to continuing shareholders, a couple of other parties gain: Repurchases are modestly beneficial to the seller of the repurchased shares and to society as well.)</p><p>Periodically, as alternative paths become unattractive, repurchases make good sense for Berkshire’s owners. During the past two years, we therefore repurchased 9% of the shares that were outstanding at yearend 2019 for a total cost of $51.7 billion. That expenditure left our continuing shareholders owning about 10% more of all Berkshire businesses, whether these are wholly-owned (such as BNSF and GEICO) or partly-owned (such as Coca-Cola and Moody’s).</p><p>I want to underscore that for Berkshire repurchases to make sense, our shares must offer appropriate value. We don’t want to overpay for the shares of other companies, and it would be value-destroying if we were to overpay when we are buying Berkshire. As of February 23, 2022, since yearend we repurchased additional shares at a cost of $1.2 billion. Our appetite remains large but will always remain price-dependent.</p><p>It should be noted that Berkshire’s buyback opportunities are limited because of its high-class investor base. If our shares were heavily held by short-term speculators, both price volatility and transaction volumes would materially increase. That kind of reshaping would offer us far greater opportunities for creating value by making repurchases. Nevertheless, Charlie and I far prefer the owners we have, even though their admirable buy-and-keep attitudes limit the extent to which long-term shareholders can profit from opportunistic repurchases.</p><p>Finally, one easily-overlooked value calculation specific to Berkshire: As we’ve discussed, insurance “float” of the right sort is of great value to us. As it happens, repurchases automatically increase the amount of “float” per share. That figure has increased during the past two years by 25% – going from $79,387 per “A” share to $99,497, a meaningful gain that, as noted, owes some thanks to repurchases.</p><h2>A Wonderful Man and a Wonderful Business</h2><p>Last year, Paul Andrews died. Paul was the founder and CEO of TTI, a Fort Worth-based subsidiary of Berkshire. Throughout his life – in both his business and his personal pursuits – Paul quietly displayed all the qualities that Charlie and I admire. His story should be told.</p><p>In 1971, Paul was working as a purchasing agent for General Dynamics when the roof fell in. After losing a huge defense contract, the company fired thousands of employees, including Paul.</p><p>With his first child due soon, Paul decided to bet on himself, using $500 of his savings to found Tex-Tronics (later renamed TTI). The company set itself up to distribute small electronic components, and first-year sales totaled $112,000. Today, TTI markets more than one million different items with annual volume of $7.7 billion.</p><p>But back to 2006: Paul, at 63, then found himself happy with his family, his job, and his associates. But he had one nagging worry, heightened because he had recently witnessed a friend’s early death and the disastrous results that followed for that man’s family and business. What, Paul asked himself in 2006, would happen to the many people depending on him if he should unexpectedly die?</p><p>For a year, Paul wrestled with his options. Sell to a competitor? From a strictly economic viewpoint, that course made the most sense. After all, competitors could envision lucrative “synergies” – savings that would be achieved as the acquiror slashed duplicated functions at TTI.</p><p>But . . . Such a purchaser would most certainly also retain its CFO, its legal counsel, its HR unit. Their TTI counterparts would therefore be sent packing. And ugh! If a new distribution center were to be needed, the acquirer’s home city would certainly be favored over Fort Worth.</p><p>Whatever the financial benefits, Paul quickly concluded that selling to a competitor was not for him. He next considered seeking a financial buyer, a species once labeled – aptly so – a leveraged buyout firm. Paul knew, however, that such a purchaser would be focused on an “exit strategy.” And who could know what that would be? Brooding over it all, Paul found himself having no interest in handing his 35-year-old creation over to a reseller.</p><p>When Paul met me, he explained why he had eliminated these two alternatives as buyers. He then summed up his dilemma by saying – in far more tactful phrasing than this – “After a year of pondering the alternatives, I want to sell to Berkshire because you are the only guy left.” So, I made an offer and Paul said “Yes.” One meeting; one lunch; one deal.</p><p>To say we both lived happily ever after is an understatement. When Berkshire purchased TTI, the company employed 2,387. Now the number is 8,043. A large percentage of that growth took place in Fort Worth and environs. Earnings have increased 673%.</p><p>Annually, I would call Paul and tell him his salary should be substantially increased. Annually, he would tell me, “We can talk about that next year, Warren; I’m too busy now.”</p><p>When Greg Abel and I attended Paul’s memorial service, we met children, grandchildren, long-time associates (including TTI’s first employee) and John Roach, the former CEO of a Fort Worth company Berkshire had purchased in 2000. John had steered his friend Paul to Omaha, instinctively knowing we would be a match.</p><p>At the service, Greg and I heard about the multitudes of people and organizations that Paul had silently supported. The breadth of his generosity was extraordinary – geared always to improving the lives of others, particularly those in Fort Worth.</p><p>In all ways, Paul was a class act.</p><p>* * * * * * * * * * * *</p><p>Good luck – occasionally extraordinary luck – has played its part at Berkshire. If Paul and I had not enjoyed a mutual friend – John Roach – TTI would not have found its home with us. But that ample serving of luck was only the beginning. TTI was soon to lead Berkshire to its most important acquisition.</p><p>Every fall, Berkshire directors gather for a presentation by a few of our executives. We sometimes choose the site based upon the location of a recent acquisition, by that means allowing directors to meet the new subsidiary’s CEO and learn more about the acquiree’s activities.</p><p>In the fall of 2009, we consequently selected Fort Worth so that we could visit TTI. At that time, BNSF, which also had Fort Worth as its hometown, was the third-largest holding among our marketable equities. Despite that large stake, I had never visited the railroad’s headquarters.</p><p>Deb Bosanek, my assistant, scheduled our board’s opening dinner for October 22. Meanwhile, I arranged to arrive earlier that day to meet with Matt Rose, CEO of BNSF, whose accomplishments I had long admired. When I made the date, I had no idea that our get-together would coincide with BNSF’s third-quarter earnings report, which was released late on the 22nd.</p><p>The market reacted badly to the railroad’s results. The Great Recession was in full force in the third quarter, and BNSF’s earnings reflected that slump. The economic outlook was also bleak, and Wall Street wasn’t feeling friendly to railroads – or much else.</p><p>On the following day, I again got together with Matt and suggested that Berkshire would offer the railroad a better long-term home than it could expect as a public company. I also told him the maximum price that Berkshire would pay.</p><p>Matt relayed the offer to his directors and advisors. Eleven busy days later, Berkshire and BNSF announced a firm deal. And here I’ll venture a rare prediction: BNSF will be a key asset for Berkshire and our country a century from now.</p><p>The BNSF acquisition would never have happened if Paul Andrews hadn’t sized up Berkshire as the right home for TTI.</p><h2>Thanks</h2><p>I taught my first investing class 70 years ago. Since then, I have enjoyed working almost every year with students of all ages, finally “retiring” from that pursuit in 2018.</p><p>Along the way, my toughest audience was my grandson’s fifth-grade class. The 11-year-olds were squirming in their seats and giving me blank stares until I mentioned Coca-Cola and its famous secret formula. Instantly, every hand went up, and I learned that “secrets” are catnip to kids.</p><p>Teaching, like writing, has helped me develop and clarify my own thoughts. Charlie calls this phenomenon the orangutan effect: If you sit down with an orangutan and carefully explain to it one of your cherished ideas, you may leave behind a puzzled primate, but will yourself exit thinking more clearly.</p><p>Talking to university students is far superior. I have urged that they seek employment in (1) the field and (2) with the kind of people they would select, if they had no need for money. Economic realities, I acknowledge, may interfere with that kind of search. Even so, I urge the students never to give up the quest, for when they find that sort of job, they will no longer be “working.”</p><p>Charlie and I, ourselves, followed that liberating course after a few early stumbles. We both started as part- timers at my grandfather’s grocery store, Charlie in 1940 and I in 1942. We were each assigned boring tasks and paid little, definitely not what we had in mind. Charlie later took up law, and I tried selling securities. Job satisfaction continued to elude us.</p><p>Finally, at Berkshire, we found what we love to do. With very few exceptions, we have now “worked” for many decades with people whom we like and trust. It’s a joy in life to join with managers such as Paul Andrews or the Berkshire families I told you about last year. In our home office, we employ decent and talented people – no jerks. Turnover averages, perhaps, one person per year.</p><p>I would like, however, to emphasize a further item that turns our jobs into fun and satisfaction working</p><p>for you. There is nothing more rewarding to Charlie and me than enjoying the trust of individual long-term shareholders who, for many decades, have joined us with the expectation that we would be a reliable custodian of their funds.</p><p>Obviously, we can’t select our owners, as we could do if our form of operation were a partnership. Anyone can buy shares of Berkshire today with the intention of soon reselling them. For sure, we get a few of that type of shareholder, just as we get index funds that own huge amounts of Berkshire simply because they are required to do so.</p><p>To a truly unusual degree, however, Berkshire has as owners a very large corps of individuals and families that have elected to join us with an intent approaching “til death do us part.” Often, they have trusted us with a large – some might say excessive – portion of their savings.</p><p>Berkshire, these shareholders would sometimes acknowledge, might be far from the best selection they could have made. But they would add that Berkshire would rank high among those with which they would be most comfortable. And people who are comfortable with their investments will, on average, achieve better results than those who are motivated by ever-changing headlines, chatter and promises.</p><p>Long-term individual owners are both the “partners” Charlie and I have always sought and the ones we constantly have in mind as we make decisions at Berkshire. To them we say, “It feels good to ‘work’ for you, and you have our thanks for your trust.”</p><h2>The Annual Meeting</h2><p>Clear your calendar! Berkshire will have its annual gathering of capitalists in Omaha on Friday, April 29th through Sunday, May 1st. The details regarding the weekend are laid out on pages A-1 and A-2. Omaha eagerly awaits you, as do I.</p><p>I will end this letter with a sales pitch. “Cousin” Jimmy Buffett has designed a pontoon “party” boat that is now being manufactured by Forest River, a Berkshire subsidiary. The boat will be introduced on April 29 at our Berkshire Bazaar of Bargains. And, for two days only, shareholders will be able to purchase Jimmy’s masterpiece at a 10% discount. Your bargain-hunting chairman will be buying a boat for his family’s use. Join me.</p><p>February 26, 2022</p><p>Warren E. Buffett Chairman of the Board</p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1125580913","content_text":"Warren Buffett released his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders on Saturday. The 91-year-old investing legend has been publishing the letter for over six decades and it has become required reading for investors around the world.Warren Buffett said he now considers tech giant Apple as one of the four pillars driving Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate of mostly old-economy businesses he’s assembled over the last five decades.In his annual letter to shareholders released on Saturday, the 91-year-old investing legend listed Apple under the heading “Our Four Giants” and even called the company the second-most important after Berkshire’s cluster of insurers, thanks to its chief executive.“Tim Cook, Apple’s brilliant CEO, quite properly regards users of Apple products as his first love, but all of his other constituencies benefit from Tim’s managerial touch as well,” the letter stated.Buffett made clear he is a fan of Cook’s stock repurchase strategy, and how it gives the conglomerate increased ownership of each dollar of the iPhone maker’s earnings without the investor having to lift a finger.“Apple – our runner-up Giant as measured by its yearend market value – is a different sort of holding. Here, our ownership is a mere 5.55%, up from 5.39% a year earlier,” Buffett said in the letter. “That increase sounds like small potatoes. But consider that each 0.1% of Apple’s 2021 earnings amounted to $100 million. We spent no Berkshire funds to gain our accretion. Apple’s repurchases did the job.”Berkshire began buying Apple stock in 2016 under the influence of Buffett’s investing deputies Todd Combs and Ted Weschler. By mid-2018, the conglomerate accumulated 5% ownership of the iPhone maker, a stake that cost $36 billion. Today, the Apple investment is now worth more than $160 billion, taking up 40% of Berkshire’s equity portfolio.“It’s important to understand that only dividends from Apple are counted in the GAAP earnings Berkshire reports – and last year, Apple paid us $785 million of those. Yet our ‘share’ of Apple’s earnings amounted to a staggering $5.6 billion. Much of what the company retained was used to repurchase Apple shares, an act we applaud,” Buffett said.Berkshire is Apple’s largest shareholder, outside of index and exchange-traded fund providers.Buffett also credited his railroad business BNSF and energy segment BHE as two other giants of the conglomerate, which both registered record earnings in 2021.“BNSF, our third Giant, continues to be the number one artery of American commerce, which makes it an indispensable asset for America as well as for Berkshire,” Buffett said. “BHE has become a utility powerhouse and a leading force in wind, solar and transmission throughout much of the United States.”Read the full letter here：To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.:Charlie Munger, my long-time partner, and I have the job of managing a portion of your savings. We are honored by your trust.Our position carries with it the responsibility to report to you what we would like to know if we were the absentee owner and you were the manager. We enjoy communicating directly with you through this annual letter, and through the annual meeting as well.Our policy is to treat all shareholders equally. Therefore, we do not hold discussions with analysts nor large institutions. Whenever possible, also, we release important communications on Saturday mornings in order to maximize the time for shareholders and the media to absorb the news before markets open on Monday.A wealth of Berkshire facts and figures are set forth in the annual 10-K that the company regularly files with the S.E.C. and that we reproduce on pages K-1 – K-119. Some shareholders will find this detail engrossing; others will simply prefer to learn what Charlie and I believe is new or interesting at Berkshire.Alas, there was little action of that sort in 2021. We did, though, make reasonable progress in increasing the intrinsic value of your shares. That task has been my primary duty for 57 years. And it will continue to be.What You OwnBerkshire owns a wide variety of businesses, some in their entirety, some only in part. The second group largely consists of marketable common stocks of major American companies. Additionally, we own a few non-U.S. equities and participate in several joint ventures or other collaborative activities.Whatever our form of ownership, our goal is to have meaningful investments in businesses with both durable economic advantages and a first-class CEO. Please note particularly that we own stocks based upon our expectations about their long-term business performance and not because we view them as vehicles for timely market moves. That point is crucial: Charlie and I are not stock-pickers; we are business-pickers.I make many mistakes. Consequently, our extensive collection of businesses includes some enterprises that have truly extraordinary economics, many others that enjoy good economic characteristics, and a few that are marginal. One advantage of our common-stock segment is that – on occasion – it becomes easy to buy pieces of wonderful businesses at wonderful prices. That shooting-fish-in-a-barrel experience is very rare in negotiated transactions and never occurs en masse. It is also far easier to exit from a mistake when it has been made in the marketable arena.Surprise, SurpriseHere are a few items about your company that often surprise even seasoned investors:• Many people perceive Berkshire as a large and somewhat strange collection of financial assets. In truth, Berkshire owns and operates more U.S.-based “infrastructure” assets – classified on our balance sheet as property, plant and equipment – than are owned and operated by any other American corporation. That supremacy has never been our goal. It has, however, become a fact.At yearend, those domestic infrastructure assets were carried on Berkshire’s balance sheet at $158 billion. That number increased last year and will continue to increase. Berkshire always will be building.• Every year, your company makes substantial federal income tax payments. In 2021, for example, we paid$3.3 billion while the U.S. Treasury reported total corporate income-tax receipts of $402 billion. Additionally, Berkshire pays substantial state and foreign taxes. “I gave at the office” is an unassailable assertion when made by Berkshire shareholders.Berkshire’s history vividly illustrates the invisible and often unrecognized financial partnership between  government and American businesses. Our tale begins early in 1955, when Berkshire Fine Spinning and Hathaway Manufacturing agreed to merge their businesses. In their requests for shareholder approval, these venerable New England textile companies expressed high hopes for the combination.The Hathaway solicitation, for example, assured its shareholders that “The combination of the resources and managements will result in one of the strongest and most efficient organizations in the textile industry.” That upbeat view was endorsed by the company’s advisor, Lehman Brothers (yes, that Lehman Brothers).I’m sure it was a joyous day in both Fall River (Berkshire) and New Bedford (Hathaway) when the union was consummated. After the bands stopped playing and the bankers went home, however, the shareholders reaped a disaster.In the nine years following the merger, Berkshire’s owners watched the company’s net worth crater from$51.4 million to $22.1 million. In part, this decline was caused by stock repurchases, ill-advised dividends and plant shutdowns. But nine years of effort by many thousands of employees delivered an operating loss as well. Berkshire’s struggles were not unusual: The New England textile industry had silently entered an extended and non-reversible death march.During the nine post-merger years, the U.S. Treasury suffered as well from Berkshire’s troubles. All told, the company paid the government only $337,359 in income tax during that period – a pathetic $100 per day.Early in 1965, things changed. Berkshire installed new management that redeployed available cash and steered essentially all earnings into a variety of good businesses, most of which remained good through the years. Coupling reinvestment of earnings with the power of compounding worked its magic, and shareholders prospered.Berkshire’s owners, it should be noted, were not the only beneficiary of that course correction. Their “silent partner,” the U.S. Treasury, proceeded to collect many tens of billions of dollars from the company in income tax payments. Remember the $100 daily? Now, Berkshire pays roughly $9 million daily to the Treasury.In fairness to our governmental partner, our shareholders should acknowledge – indeed trumpet – the fact that Berkshire’s prosperity has been fostered mightily because the company has operated in America. Our country would have done splendidly in the years since 1965 without Berkshire. Absent our American home, however, Berkshire would never have come close to becoming what it is today. When you see the flag, say thanks.• From an $8.6 million purchase of National Indemnity in 1967, Berkshire has become the world leader in insurance “float” – money we hold and can invest but that does not belong to us. Including a relatively small sum derived from life insurance, Berkshire’s total float has grown from $19 million when we entered the insurance business to $147 billion.So far, this float has cost us less than nothing. Though we have experienced a number of years when insurance losses combined with operating expenses exceeded premiums, overall we have earned a modest 55-year profit from the underwriting activities that generated our float.Of equal importance, float is very sticky. Funds attributable to our insurance operations come and go daily, but their aggregate total is immune from precipitous decline. When it comes to investing float, we can therefore think long-term.If you are not already familiar with the concept of float, I refer you to a long explanation on page A-5. To my surprise, our float increased $9 billion last year, a buildup of value that is important to Berkshire owners though is not reflected in our GAAP (“generally-accepted accounting principles”) presentation of earnings and net worth.Much of our huge value creation in insurance is attributable to Berkshire’s good luck in my 1986 hiring of Ajit Jain. We first met on a Saturday morning, and I quickly asked Ajit what his insurance experience had been. He replied, “None.”I said, “Nobody’s perfect,” and hired him. That was my lucky day: Ajit actually was as perfect a choice as could have been made. Better yet, he continues to be – 35 years later.One final thought about insurance: I believe that it is likely – but far from assured – that Berkshire’s float can be maintained without our incurring a long-term underwriting loss. I am certain, however, that there will be some years when we experience such losses, perhaps involving very large sums.Berkshire is constructed to handle catastrophic events as no other insurer – and that priority will remain long after Charlie and I are gone.Our Four GiantsThrough Berkshire, our shareholders own many dozens of businesses. Some of these, in turn, have a collection of subsidiaries of their own. For example, Marmon has more than 100 individual business operations, ranging from the leasing of railroad cars to the manufacture of medical devices.• Nevertheless, operations of our “Big Four” companies account for a very large chunk of Berkshire’s value. Leading this list is our cluster of insurers. Berkshire effectively owns 100% of this group, whose massive float value we earlier described. The invested assets of these insurers are further enlarged by the extraordinary amount of capital we invest to back up their promises.The insurance business is made to order for Berkshire. The product will never be obsolete, and sales volume will generally increase along with both economic growth and inflation. Also, integrity and capital will forever be important. Our company can and will behave well.There are, of course, other insurers with excellent business models and prospects. Replication of Berkshire’s operation, however, would be almost impossible.• Apple – our runner-up Giant as measured by its yearend market value – is a different sort of holding. Here, our ownership is a mere 5.55%, up from 5.39% a year earlier. That increase sounds like small potatoes. But consider that each 0.1% of Apple’s 2021 earnings amounted to $100 million. We spent no Berkshire funds to gain our accretion. Apple’s repurchases did the job.It’s important to understand that only dividends from Apple are counted in the GAAP earnings Berkshire reports – and last year, Apple paid us $785 million of those. Yet our “share” of Apple’s earnings amounted to a staggering $5.6 billion. Much of what the company retained was used to repurchase Apple shares, an act we applaud. Tim Cook, Apple’s brilliant CEO, quite properly regards users of Apple products as his first love, but all of his other constituencies benefit from Tim’s managerial touch as well.• BNSF, our third Giant, continues to be the number one artery of American commerce, which makes it an indispensable asset for America as well as for Berkshire. If the many essential products BNSF carries were instead hauled by truck, America’s carbon emissions would soar.Your railroad had record earnings of $6 billion in 2021. Here, it should be noted, we are talking about the old-fashioned sort of earnings that we favor: a figure calculated after interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization and all forms of compensation. (Our definition suggests a warning: Deceptive “adjustments” to earnings – to use a polite description – have become both more frequent and more fanciful as stocks have risen. Speaking less politely, I would say that bull markets breed bloviated bull )BNSF trains traveled 143 million miles last year and carried 535 million tons of cargo. Both accomplishments far exceed those of any other American carrier. You can be proud of your railroad.• BHE, our final Giant, earned a record $4 billion in 2021. That’s up more than 30-fold from the $122 million earned in 2000, the year that Berkshire first purchased a BHE stake. Now, Berkshire owns 91.1% of the company.BHE’s record of societal accomplishment is as remarkable as its financial performance. The company had no wind or solar generation in 2000. It was then regarded simply as a relatively new and minor participant in the huge electric utility industry. Subsequently, under David Sokol’s and Greg Abel’s leadership, BHE has become a utility powerhouse (no groaning, please) and a leading force in wind, solar and transmission throughout much of the United States.Greg’s report on these accomplishments appears on pages A-3 and A-4. The profile you will find there is not in any way one of those currently-fashionable “green-washing” stories. BHE has been faithfully detailing its plans and performance in renewables and transmissions every year since 2007.To further review this information, visit BHE’s website at brkenergy.com. There, you will see that the company has long been making climate-conscious moves that soak up all of its earnings. More opportunities lie ahead. BHE has the management, the experience, the capital and the appetite for the huge power projects that our country needs.InvestmentsNow let’s talk about companies we don’t control, a list that again references Apple. Below we list our fifteen largest equity holdings, several of which are selections of Berkshire’s two long-time investment managers, Todd Combs and Ted Weschler. At yearend, this valued pair had total authority in respect to $34 billion of investments, many of which do not meet the threshold value we use in the table. Also, a significant portion of the dollars that Todd and Ted manage are lodged in various pension plans of Berkshire-owned businesses, with the assets of these plans not included in this table.* This is our actual purchase price and also our tax basis.** Held by BHE; consequently, Berkshire shareholders have only a 91.1% interest in this position.*** Includes a $10 billion investment in Occidental Petroleum, consisting of preferred stock and warrants to buy common stock, a combination now being valued at $10.7 billion.In addition to the footnoted Occidental holding and our various common-stock positions, Berkshire also owns a 26.6% interest in Kraft Heinz (accounted for on the “equity” method, not market value, and carried at $13.1 billion) and 38.6% of Pilot Corp., a leader in travel centers that had revenues last year of $45 billion.Since we purchased our Pilot stake in 2017, this holding has warranted “equity” accounting treatment. Early in 2023, Berkshire will purchase an additional interest in Pilot that will raise our ownership to 80% and lead to our fully consolidating Pilot’s earnings, assets and liabilities in our financial statements.U.S. Treasury BillsBerkshire’s balance sheet includes $144 billion of cash and cash equivalents (excluding the holdings of BNSF and BHE). Of this sum, $120 billion is held in U.S. Treasury bills, all maturing in less than a year. That stake leaves Berkshire financing about 12 of 1% of the publicly-held national debt.Charlie and I have pledged that Berkshire (along with our subsidiaries other than BNSF and BHE) will always hold more than $30 billion of cash and equivalents. We want your company to be financially impregnable and never dependent on the kindness of strangers (or even that of friends). Both of us like to sleep soundly, and we want our creditors, insurance claimants and you to do so as well.But $144 billion?That imposing sum, I assure you, is not some deranged expression of patriotism. Nor have Charlie and I lost our overwhelming preference for business ownership. Indeed, I first manifested my enthusiasm for that 80 years ago, on March 11, 1942, when I purchased three shares of Cities Services preferred stock. Their cost was $114.75 and required all of my savings. (The Dow Jones Industrial Average that day closed at 99, a fact that should scream to you: Never bet against America.)After my initial plunge, I always kept at least 80% of my net worth in equities. My favored status throughout that period was 100% – and still is. Berkshire’s current 80%-or-so position in businesses is a consequence of my failure to find entire companies or small portions thereof (that is, marketable stocks) which meet our criteria for long- term holding.Charlie and I have endured similar cash-heavy positions from time to time in the past. These periods are never pleasant; they are also never permanent. And, fortunately, we have had a mildly attractive alternative during 2020 and 2021 for deploying capital. Read on.Share RepurchasesThere are three ways that we can increase the value of your investment. The first is always front and center in our minds: Increase the long-term earning power of Berkshire’s controlled businesses through internal growth or by making acquisitions. Today, internal opportunities deliver far better returns than acquisitions. The size of those opportunities, however, is small compared to Berkshire’s resources.Our second choice is to buy non-controlling part-interests in the many good or great businesses that are publicly traded. From time to time, such possibilities are both numerous and blatantly attractive. Today, though, we find little that excites us.That’s largely because of a truism: Long-term interest rates that are low push the prices of all productive investments upward, whether these are stocks, apartments, farms, oil wells, whatever. Other factors influence valuations as well, but interest rates will always be important.Our final path to value creation is to repurchase Berkshire shares. Through that simple act, we increase your share of the many controlled and non-controlled businesses Berkshire owns. When the price/value equation is right, this path is the easiest and most certain way for us to increase your wealth. (Alongside the accretion of value to continuing shareholders, a couple of other parties gain: Repurchases are modestly beneficial to the seller of the repurchased shares and to society as well.)Periodically, as alternative paths become unattractive, repurchases make good sense for Berkshire’s owners. During the past two years, we therefore repurchased 9% of the shares that were outstanding at yearend 2019 for a total cost of $51.7 billion. That expenditure left our continuing shareholders owning about 10% more of all Berkshire businesses, whether these are wholly-owned (such as BNSF and GEICO) or partly-owned (such as Coca-Cola and Moody’s).I want to underscore that for Berkshire repurchases to make sense, our shares must offer appropriate value. We don’t want to overpay for the shares of other companies, and it would be value-destroying if we were to overpay when we are buying Berkshire. As of February 23, 2022, since yearend we repurchased additional shares at a cost of $1.2 billion. Our appetite remains large but will always remain price-dependent.It should be noted that Berkshire’s buyback opportunities are limited because of its high-class investor base. If our shares were heavily held by short-term speculators, both price volatility and transaction volumes would materially increase. That kind of reshaping would offer us far greater opportunities for creating value by making repurchases. Nevertheless, Charlie and I far prefer the owners we have, even though their admirable buy-and-keep attitudes limit the extent to which long-term shareholders can profit from opportunistic repurchases.Finally, one easily-overlooked value calculation specific to Berkshire: As we’ve discussed, insurance “float” of the right sort is of great value to us. As it happens, repurchases automatically increase the amount of “float” per share. That figure has increased during the past two years by 25% – going from $79,387 per “A” share to $99,497, a meaningful gain that, as noted, owes some thanks to repurchases.A Wonderful Man and a Wonderful BusinessLast year, Paul Andrews died. Paul was the founder and CEO of TTI, a Fort Worth-based subsidiary of Berkshire. Throughout his life – in both his business and his personal pursuits – Paul quietly displayed all the qualities that Charlie and I admire. His story should be told.In 1971, Paul was working as a purchasing agent for General Dynamics when the roof fell in. After losing a huge defense contract, the company fired thousands of employees, including Paul.With his first child due soon, Paul decided to bet on himself, using $500 of his savings to found Tex-Tronics (later renamed TTI). The company set itself up to distribute small electronic components, and first-year sales totaled $112,000. Today, TTI markets more than one million different items with annual volume of $7.7 billion.But back to 2006: Paul, at 63, then found himself happy with his family, his job, and his associates. But he had one nagging worry, heightened because he had recently witnessed a friend’s early death and the disastrous results that followed for that man’s family and business. What, Paul asked himself in 2006, would happen to the many people depending on him if he should unexpectedly die?For a year, Paul wrestled with his options. Sell to a competitor? From a strictly economic viewpoint, that course made the most sense. After all, competitors could envision lucrative “synergies” – savings that would be achieved as the acquiror slashed duplicated functions at TTI.But . . . Such a purchaser would most certainly also retain its CFO, its legal counsel, its HR unit. Their TTI counterparts would therefore be sent packing. And ugh! If a new distribution center were to be needed, the acquirer’s home city would certainly be favored over Fort Worth.Whatever the financial benefits, Paul quickly concluded that selling to a competitor was not for him. He next considered seeking a financial buyer, a species once labeled – aptly so – a leveraged buyout firm. Paul knew, however, that such a purchaser would be focused on an “exit strategy.” And who could know what that would be? Brooding over it all, Paul found himself having no interest in handing his 35-year-old creation over to a reseller.When Paul met me, he explained why he had eliminated these two alternatives as buyers. He then summed up his dilemma by saying – in far more tactful phrasing than this – “After a year of pondering the alternatives, I want to sell to Berkshire because you are the only guy left.” So, I made an offer and Paul said “Yes.” One meeting; one lunch; one deal.To say we both lived happily ever after is an understatement. When Berkshire purchased TTI, the company employed 2,387. Now the number is 8,043. A large percentage of that growth took place in Fort Worth and environs. Earnings have increased 673%.Annually, I would call Paul and tell him his salary should be substantially increased. Annually, he would tell me, “We can talk about that next year, Warren; I’m too busy now.”When Greg Abel and I attended Paul’s memorial service, we met children, grandchildren, long-time associates (including TTI’s first employee) and John Roach, the former CEO of a Fort Worth company Berkshire had purchased in 2000. John had steered his friend Paul to Omaha, instinctively knowing we would be a match.At the service, Greg and I heard about the multitudes of people and organizations that Paul had silently supported. The breadth of his generosity was extraordinary – geared always to improving the lives of others, particularly those in Fort Worth.In all ways, Paul was a class act.* * * * * * * * * * * *Good luck – occasionally extraordinary luck – has played its part at Berkshire. If Paul and I had not enjoyed a mutual friend – John Roach – TTI would not have found its home with us. But that ample serving of luck was only the beginning. TTI was soon to lead Berkshire to its most important acquisition.Every fall, Berkshire directors gather for a presentation by a few of our executives. We sometimes choose the site based upon the location of a recent acquisition, by that means allowing directors to meet the new subsidiary’s CEO and learn more about the acquiree’s activities.In the fall of 2009, we consequently selected Fort Worth so that we could visit TTI. At that time, BNSF, which also had Fort Worth as its hometown, was the third-largest holding among our marketable equities. Despite that large stake, I had never visited the railroad’s headquarters.Deb Bosanek, my assistant, scheduled our board’s opening dinner for October 22. Meanwhile, I arranged to arrive earlier that day to meet with Matt Rose, CEO of BNSF, whose accomplishments I had long admired. When I made the date, I had no idea that our get-together would coincide with BNSF’s third-quarter earnings report, which was released late on the 22nd.The market reacted badly to the railroad’s results. The Great Recession was in full force in the third quarter, and BNSF’s earnings reflected that slump. The economic outlook was also bleak, and Wall Street wasn’t feeling friendly to railroads – or much else.On the following day, I again got together with Matt and suggested that Berkshire would offer the railroad a better long-term home than it could expect as a public company. I also told him the maximum price that Berkshire would pay.Matt relayed the offer to his directors and advisors. Eleven busy days later, Berkshire and BNSF announced a firm deal. And here I’ll venture a rare prediction: BNSF will be a key asset for Berkshire and our country a century from now.The BNSF acquisition would never have happened if Paul Andrews hadn’t sized up Berkshire as the right home for TTI.ThanksI taught my first investing class 70 years ago. Since then, I have enjoyed working almost every year with students of all ages, finally “retiring” from that pursuit in 2018.Along the way, my toughest audience was my grandson’s fifth-grade class. The 11-year-olds were squirming in their seats and giving me blank stares until I mentioned Coca-Cola and its famous secret formula. Instantly, every hand went up, and I learned that “secrets” are catnip to kids.Teaching, like writing, has helped me develop and clarify my own thoughts. Charlie calls this phenomenon the orangutan effect: If you sit down with an orangutan and carefully explain to it one of your cherished ideas, you may leave behind a puzzled primate, but will yourself exit thinking more clearly.Talking to university students is far superior. I have urged that they seek employment in (1) the field and (2) with the kind of people they would select, if they had no need for money. Economic realities, I acknowledge, may interfere with that kind of search. Even so, I urge the students never to give up the quest, for when they find that sort of job, they will no longer be “working.”Charlie and I, ourselves, followed that liberating course after a few early stumbles. We both started as part- timers at my grandfather’s grocery store, Charlie in 1940 and I in 1942. We were each assigned boring tasks and paid little, definitely not what we had in mind. Charlie later took up law, and I tried selling securities. Job satisfaction continued to elude us.Finally, at Berkshire, we found what we love to do. With very few exceptions, we have now “worked” for many decades with people whom we like and trust. It’s a joy in life to join with managers such as Paul Andrews or the Berkshire families I told you about last year. In our home office, we employ decent and talented people – no jerks. Turnover averages, perhaps, one person per year.I would like, however, to emphasize a further item that turns our jobs into fun and satisfaction workingfor you. There is nothing more rewarding to Charlie and me than enjoying the trust of individual long-term shareholders who, for many decades, have joined us with the expectation that we would be a reliable custodian of their funds.Obviously, we can’t select our owners, as we could do if our form of operation were a partnership. Anyone can buy shares of Berkshire today with the intention of soon reselling them. For sure, we get a few of that type of shareholder, just as we get index funds that own huge amounts of Berkshire simply because they are required to do so.To a truly unusual degree, however, Berkshire has as owners a very large corps of individuals and families that have elected to join us with an intent approaching “til death do us part.” Often, they have trusted us with a large – some might say excessive – portion of their savings.Berkshire, these shareholders would sometimes acknowledge, might be far from the best selection they could have made. But they would add that Berkshire would rank high among those with which they would be most comfortable. And people who are comfortable with their investments will, on average, achieve better results than those who are motivated by ever-changing headlines, chatter and promises.Long-term individual owners are both the “partners” Charlie and I have always sought and the ones we constantly have in mind as we make decisions at Berkshire. To them we say, “It feels good to ‘work’ for you, and you have our thanks for your trust.”The Annual MeetingClear your calendar! Berkshire will have its annual gathering of capitalists in Omaha on Friday, April 29th through Sunday, May 1st. The details regarding the weekend are laid out on pages A-1 and A-2. Omaha eagerly awaits you, as do I.I will end this letter with a sales pitch. “Cousin” Jimmy Buffett has designed a pontoon “party” boat that is now being manufactured by Forest River, a Berkshire subsidiary. The boat will be introduced on April 29 at our Berkshire Bazaar of Bargains. And, for two days only, shareholders will be able to purchase Jimmy’s masterpiece at a 10% discount. Your bargain-hunting chairman will be buying a boat for his family’s use. Join me.February 26, 2022Warren E. Buffett Chairman of the Board","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":506,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":816597591,"gmtCreate":1630506530413,"gmtModify":1676530324520,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":9,"commentSize":4,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/816597591","repostId":"2164897643","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":257,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":188692266,"gmtCreate":1623430888755,"gmtModify":1704203660126,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like and comment pls","listText":"Like and comment pls","text":"Like and comment pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":6,"commentSize":5,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/188692266","repostId":"2142572209","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":219,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":834435205,"gmtCreate":1629817847407,"gmtModify":1676530141912,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"like pls","listText":"like pls","text":"like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":9,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/834435205","repostId":"2161033081","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2161033081","kind":"highlight","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Stock Market Quotes, Business News, Financial News, Trading Ideas, and Stock Research by Professionals","home_visible":0,"media_name":"Benzinga","id":"1052270027","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d08bf7808052c0ca9deb4e944cae32aa"},"pubTimestamp":1629817718,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2161033081?lang=&edition=full_marsco","pubTime":"2021-08-24 23:08","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why Palo Alto Networks Stock Is Trading Higher Today","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2161033081","media":"Benzinga","summary":"Palo Alto Networks Inc (NYSE: PANW) is trading higher Tuesday after the company announced better-than-expected financial results and issued guidance above estimates. ","content":"<p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/PANW\">Palo Alto Networks</a> Inc</b> (NYSE:PANW) is trading higher Tuesday after the company announced better-than-expected financial results and issued guidance above estimates.</p>\n<p>Palo Alto Networks reported fiscal fourth quarter 2021 adjusted earnings of $1.60 per share, which beat the estimate of $1.44 per share. The company reported quarterly revenue of $1.2 billion, which beat the estimate of $1.17 billion.</p>\n<p>Palo Alto Networks expects fiscal first quarter 2022 revenue to be in a range of&nbsp;$1.19 billion to $1.21 billion versus the estimate of $1.15 billion.</p>\n<p>The company authorized an additional&nbsp;$676.1 million&nbsp;for share repurchase, increasing the remaining authorization for future share repurchases to&nbsp;$1&nbsp;billion.</p>\n<p>\"Our strong fourth quarter&nbsp;performance was the culmination of executing on our strategy throughout the year, including product innovation, platform integration, business model transformation and investments in our go-to-market organization,\" said&nbsp;<b>Nikesh Arora</b>, chairman and CEO of Palo Alto Networks.</p>\n<p>Multiple analyst firms raised price targets on the stock,&nbsp;ranging from $450 to $550, following the company's financial results.</p>\n<p><b>Price Action:</b> Palo Alto Networks is making a new 52-week high in trading today.</p>\n<p>At last check Tuesday, the stock was up 18.50% at $441.63.</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>Why Palo Alto Networks Stock Is Trading Higher Today</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 Palo Alto Networks Stock Is Trading Higher Today\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/d08bf7808052c0ca9deb4e944cae32aa);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Benzinga </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2021-08-24 23:08</p>\n</div>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/PANW\">Palo Alto Networks</a> Inc</b> (NYSE:PANW) is trading higher Tuesday after the company announced better-than-expected financial results and issued guidance above estimates.</p>\n<p>Palo Alto Networks reported fiscal fourth quarter 2021 adjusted earnings of $1.60 per share, which beat the estimate of $1.44 per share. The company reported quarterly revenue of $1.2 billion, which beat the estimate of $1.17 billion.</p>\n<p>Palo Alto Networks expects fiscal first quarter 2022 revenue to be in a range of&nbsp;$1.19 billion to $1.21 billion versus the estimate of $1.15 billion.</p>\n<p>The company authorized an additional&nbsp;$676.1 million&nbsp;for share repurchase, increasing the remaining authorization for future share repurchases to&nbsp;$1&nbsp;billion.</p>\n<p>\"Our strong fourth quarter&nbsp;performance was the culmination of executing on our strategy throughout the year, including product innovation, platform integration, business model transformation and investments in our go-to-market organization,\" said&nbsp;<b>Nikesh Arora</b>, chairman and CEO of Palo Alto Networks.</p>\n<p>Multiple analyst firms raised price targets on the stock,&nbsp;ranging from $450 to $550, following the company's financial results.</p>\n<p><b>Price Action:</b> Palo Alto Networks is making a new 52-week high in trading today.</p>\n<p>At last check Tuesday, the stock was up 18.50% at $441.63.</p>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"PANW":"Palo Alto Networks"},"is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2161033081","content_text":"Palo Alto Networks Inc (NYSE:PANW) is trading higher Tuesday after the company announced better-than-expected financial results and issued guidance above estimates.\nPalo Alto Networks reported fiscal fourth quarter 2021 adjusted earnings of $1.60 per share, which beat the estimate of $1.44 per share. The company reported quarterly revenue of $1.2 billion, which beat the estimate of $1.17 billion.\nPalo Alto Networks expects fiscal first quarter 2022 revenue to be in a range of $1.19 billion to $1.21 billion versus the estimate of $1.15 billion.\nThe company authorized an additional $676.1 million for share repurchase, increasing the remaining authorization for future share repurchases to $1 billion.\n\"Our strong fourth quarter performance was the culmination of executing on our strategy throughout the year, including product innovation, platform integration, business model transformation and investments in our go-to-market organization,\" said Nikesh Arora, chairman and CEO of Palo Alto Networks.\nMultiple analyst firms raised price targets on the stock, ranging from $450 to $550, following the company's financial results.\nPrice Action: Palo Alto Networks is making a new 52-week high in trading today.\nAt last check Tuesday, the stock was up 18.50% at $441.63.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":340,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":179427176,"gmtCreate":1626573175195,"gmtModify":1703761840932,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":7,"commentSize":4,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/179427176","repostId":"1183956332","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":357,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9090039850,"gmtCreate":1643032539403,"gmtModify":1676533766566,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":8,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9090039850","repostId":"1120647228","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1120647228","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Providing stock market headlines, business news, financials and earnings ","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Tiger Newspress","id":"1079075236","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1643028586,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1120647228?lang=&edition=full_marsco","pubTime":"2022-01-24 20:49","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Pre-Bell｜Kohl’s Soared 27.3%; Unilever Surged 6.6%","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1120647228","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"U.S. stock index futures slid on Monday after a bruising selloff last week, as geopolitical tensions","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>U.S. stock index futures slid on Monday after a bruising selloff last week, as geopolitical tensions in Ukraine roiled risk appetite ahead of a Federal Reserve policy meeting later this week.</p><p><b>Market Snapshot</b></p><p>At 08:31 a.m. ET, Dow e-minis were down 228 points, or 0.67%, S&amp;P 500 e-minis were down 46.75 points, or 1.06%, and Nasdaq 100 e-minis were down 218.75 points, or 1.52%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ab508374f513e29226f0cd25657a2e0c\" tg-width=\"372\" tg-height=\"158\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>Pre-Market Movers</b></p><p>Kohl’s (KSS) – Kohl’s soared 27.3% in premarket trading as takeover interest in the retailer ramps up. Starboard-backed Acacia Research is offering $64 per share for Kohl’s, compared to Friday’s close of $46.84 a share. People familiar with the matter say private-equity firm Sycamore Partners has reached out with a potential offer of at least $65 per share.</p><p>Snap (SNAP) – Snap shares slid 5.3% in the premarket after it was downgraded to “neutral” from “outperform” at Wedbush, which sees various headwinds impacting the social media network operator’s revenue growth.</p><p>Philips (PHG) – Philips slid 4.2% in premarket action after the Dutch health technology company reported falling profit due in part to supply chain issues that are expected to persist in coming months. Philips did predict a strong recovery in sales for the second half of the year.</p><p>Peloton (PTON) – Activist investor Blackwells Capital is calling on Peloton to fire its CEO and seek a sale of the company. The fitness equipment maker’s stock is down more than 80% from its all-time high, as it struggles to deal with rapidly changing supply-and-demand dynamics. Peloton fell 2% in premarket trading.</p><p>Halliburton (HAL) – Halliburton rose 1.5% in the premarket after the oilfield services company beat top and bottom line estimates for the fourth quarter. Halliburton earned 36 cents per share, 2 cents a share above estimates. Demand for the company’s services jumped as oil prices rose. Halliburton also raised its quarterly dividend to 12 cents per share from 4.5 cents a share.</p><p>Unilever (UL) – Unilever surged 6.6% in the premarket following reports that Nelson Peltz’s Trian Partners has built up a stake in the consumer products giant. The size of the stake could not be determined, and Trian said it did not comment on market rumors when contacted by CNBC.</p><p>Fox Corp. (FOXA) – Fox added 1.6% in premarket trading after UBS upgraded the stock to “buy” from “neutral.” UBS said among traditional media companies, Fox is among the best poised to benefit from an acceleration in sports betting, and also pointed to Fox’s strong position among pay-TV providers.</p><p>Discover Financial (DFS) – Discover Financial was upgraded to “overweight” from “neutral” at Piper Sandler, which cites several factors including the financial services company’s valuation. Discover gained 1.1% in premarket trading.</p><p>Coinbase (COIN) – The cryptocurrency exchange operator’s shares tumbled 7.8% in the premarket, reflecting the downward move in crypto over the weekend and this morning, with Bitcoin touching its lowest level since July. Microstrategy (MSTR) – the business analytics company that holds several billion dollars in bitcoin – plunged 12.2%.</p><p>Comcast (CMCSA) – The NBCUniversal and CNBC parent was upgraded to “outperform” from “sector perform” at RBC Capital, which thinks that subscriber growth concerns have been overblown. Comcast added 1.1% in the premarket.</p><p><b>Market News</b></p><p>Blackwells Capital to push stationary-bike maker to explore a sale, sources say. An activist investor wants Peloton Interactive Inc. to fire its chief executive and explore a sale after the stationary-bike maker’s stock plummeted more than 80% from its high, as growth slowed.</p><p>American banking giant JPMorgan has merged most of its European Union businesses into a single entity in Germany, it said on Monday, seeking to make its business in the bloc more competitive after Britain&#39;s departure.</p><p>U.S. department store Kohl&#39;s Corp may soon receive a second takeover offer as private equity firm. Sycamore Partners has reached out to Kohl&#39;s about a potential offer that would value the company around $9 billion, one source said. The firm is willing to pay at least $65 a share in cash for the company, the source said.</p><p>Accell Group, the maker of bicycle brands such as Sparta and Batavus, has agreed to an all-cash takeover by a consortium led by KKR that values the company at 1.56 billion euros ($1.77 billion), it said in a statement on Monday.</p><p>Wynn Resorts is looking to unload its online sports-betting business at a steep discount as the fledgling niche faces painful losses from stiff taxes and costly promotions needed to lure customers.</p><p>A stake that Nelson Peltz’s activist hedge fund has built in Unilever Plc is adding to pressure on the Dove soap maker’s chief executive officer, Alan Jope, after Jope’s failed bid to buy a consumer-health unit from GlaxoSmithKline Plc.</p></body></html>","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>Pre-Bell｜Kohl’s Soared 27.3%; Unilever Surged 6.6%</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\">\nPre-Bell｜Kohl’s Soared 27.3%; Unilever Surged 6.6%\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1079075236\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Tiger Newspress </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2022-01-24 20:49</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p>U.S. stock index futures slid on Monday after a bruising selloff last week, as geopolitical tensions in Ukraine roiled risk appetite ahead of a Federal Reserve policy meeting later this week.</p><p><b>Market Snapshot</b></p><p>At 08:31 a.m. ET, Dow e-minis were down 228 points, or 0.67%, S&amp;P 500 e-minis were down 46.75 points, or 1.06%, and Nasdaq 100 e-minis were down 218.75 points, or 1.52%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ab508374f513e29226f0cd25657a2e0c\" tg-width=\"372\" tg-height=\"158\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p><b>Pre-Market Movers</b></p><p>Kohl’s (KSS) – Kohl’s soared 27.3% in premarket trading as takeover interest in the retailer ramps up. Starboard-backed Acacia Research is offering $64 per share for Kohl’s, compared to Friday’s close of $46.84 a share. People familiar with the matter say private-equity firm Sycamore Partners has reached out with a potential offer of at least $65 per share.</p><p>Snap (SNAP) – Snap shares slid 5.3% in the premarket after it was downgraded to “neutral” from “outperform” at Wedbush, which sees various headwinds impacting the social media network operator’s revenue growth.</p><p>Philips (PHG) – Philips slid 4.2% in premarket action after the Dutch health technology company reported falling profit due in part to supply chain issues that are expected to persist in coming months. Philips did predict a strong recovery in sales for the second half of the year.</p><p>Peloton (PTON) – Activist investor Blackwells Capital is calling on Peloton to fire its CEO and seek a sale of the company. The fitness equipment maker’s stock is down more than 80% from its all-time high, as it struggles to deal with rapidly changing supply-and-demand dynamics. Peloton fell 2% in premarket trading.</p><p>Halliburton (HAL) – Halliburton rose 1.5% in the premarket after the oilfield services company beat top and bottom line estimates for the fourth quarter. Halliburton earned 36 cents per share, 2 cents a share above estimates. Demand for the company’s services jumped as oil prices rose. Halliburton also raised its quarterly dividend to 12 cents per share from 4.5 cents a share.</p><p>Unilever (UL) – Unilever surged 6.6% in the premarket following reports that Nelson Peltz’s Trian Partners has built up a stake in the consumer products giant. The size of the stake could not be determined, and Trian said it did not comment on market rumors when contacted by CNBC.</p><p>Fox Corp. (FOXA) – Fox added 1.6% in premarket trading after UBS upgraded the stock to “buy” from “neutral.” UBS said among traditional media companies, Fox is among the best poised to benefit from an acceleration in sports betting, and also pointed to Fox’s strong position among pay-TV providers.</p><p>Discover Financial (DFS) – Discover Financial was upgraded to “overweight” from “neutral” at Piper Sandler, which cites several factors including the financial services company’s valuation. Discover gained 1.1% in premarket trading.</p><p>Coinbase (COIN) – The cryptocurrency exchange operator’s shares tumbled 7.8% in the premarket, reflecting the downward move in crypto over the weekend and this morning, with Bitcoin touching its lowest level since July. Microstrategy (MSTR) – the business analytics company that holds several billion dollars in bitcoin – plunged 12.2%.</p><p>Comcast (CMCSA) – The NBCUniversal and CNBC parent was upgraded to “outperform” from “sector perform” at RBC Capital, which thinks that subscriber growth concerns have been overblown. Comcast added 1.1% in the premarket.</p><p><b>Market News</b></p><p>Blackwells Capital to push stationary-bike maker to explore a sale, sources say. An activist investor wants Peloton Interactive Inc. to fire its chief executive and explore a sale after the stationary-bike maker’s stock plummeted more than 80% from its high, as growth slowed.</p><p>American banking giant JPMorgan has merged most of its European Union businesses into a single entity in Germany, it said on Monday, seeking to make its business in the bloc more competitive after Britain&#39;s departure.</p><p>U.S. department store Kohl&#39;s Corp may soon receive a second takeover offer as private equity firm. Sycamore Partners has reached out to Kohl&#39;s about a potential offer that would value the company around $9 billion, one source said. The firm is willing to pay at least $65 a share in cash for the company, the source said.</p><p>Accell Group, the maker of bicycle brands such as Sparta and Batavus, has agreed to an all-cash takeover by a consortium led by KKR that values the company at 1.56 billion euros ($1.77 billion), it said in a statement on Monday.</p><p>Wynn Resorts is looking to unload its online sports-betting business at a steep discount as the fledgling niche faces painful losses from stiff taxes and costly promotions needed to lure customers.</p><p>A stake that Nelson Peltz’s activist hedge fund has built in Unilever Plc is adding to pressure on the Dove soap maker’s chief executive officer, Alan Jope, after Jope’s failed bid to buy a consumer-health unit from GlaxoSmithKline Plc.</p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1120647228","content_text":"U.S. stock index futures slid on Monday after a bruising selloff last week, as geopolitical tensions in Ukraine roiled risk appetite ahead of a Federal Reserve policy meeting later this week.Market SnapshotAt 08:31 a.m. ET, Dow e-minis were down 228 points, or 0.67%, S&P 500 e-minis were down 46.75 points, or 1.06%, and Nasdaq 100 e-minis were down 218.75 points, or 1.52%.Pre-Market MoversKohl’s (KSS) – Kohl’s soared 27.3% in premarket trading as takeover interest in the retailer ramps up. Starboard-backed Acacia Research is offering $64 per share for Kohl’s, compared to Friday’s close of $46.84 a share. People familiar with the matter say private-equity firm Sycamore Partners has reached out with a potential offer of at least $65 per share.Snap (SNAP) – Snap shares slid 5.3% in the premarket after it was downgraded to “neutral” from “outperform” at Wedbush, which sees various headwinds impacting the social media network operator’s revenue growth.Philips (PHG) – Philips slid 4.2% in premarket action after the Dutch health technology company reported falling profit due in part to supply chain issues that are expected to persist in coming months. Philips did predict a strong recovery in sales for the second half of the year.Peloton (PTON) – Activist investor Blackwells Capital is calling on Peloton to fire its CEO and seek a sale of the company. The fitness equipment maker’s stock is down more than 80% from its all-time high, as it struggles to deal with rapidly changing supply-and-demand dynamics. Peloton fell 2% in premarket trading.Halliburton (HAL) – Halliburton rose 1.5% in the premarket after the oilfield services company beat top and bottom line estimates for the fourth quarter. Halliburton earned 36 cents per share, 2 cents a share above estimates. Demand for the company’s services jumped as oil prices rose. Halliburton also raised its quarterly dividend to 12 cents per share from 4.5 cents a share.Unilever (UL) – Unilever surged 6.6% in the premarket following reports that Nelson Peltz’s Trian Partners has built up a stake in the consumer products giant. The size of the stake could not be determined, and Trian said it did not comment on market rumors when contacted by CNBC.Fox Corp. (FOXA) – Fox added 1.6% in premarket trading after UBS upgraded the stock to “buy” from “neutral.” UBS said among traditional media companies, Fox is among the best poised to benefit from an acceleration in sports betting, and also pointed to Fox’s strong position among pay-TV providers.Discover Financial (DFS) – Discover Financial was upgraded to “overweight” from “neutral” at Piper Sandler, which cites several factors including the financial services company’s valuation. Discover gained 1.1% in premarket trading.Coinbase (COIN) – The cryptocurrency exchange operator’s shares tumbled 7.8% in the premarket, reflecting the downward move in crypto over the weekend and this morning, with Bitcoin touching its lowest level since July. Microstrategy (MSTR) – the business analytics company that holds several billion dollars in bitcoin – plunged 12.2%.Comcast (CMCSA) – The NBCUniversal and CNBC parent was upgraded to “outperform” from “sector perform” at RBC Capital, which thinks that subscriber growth concerns have been overblown. Comcast added 1.1% in the premarket.Market NewsBlackwells Capital to push stationary-bike maker to explore a sale, sources say. An activist investor wants Peloton Interactive Inc. to fire its chief executive and explore a sale after the stationary-bike maker’s stock plummeted more than 80% from its high, as growth slowed.American banking giant JPMorgan has merged most of its European Union businesses into a single entity in Germany, it said on Monday, seeking to make its business in the bloc more competitive after Britain's departure.U.S. department store Kohl's Corp may soon receive a second takeover offer as private equity firm. Sycamore Partners has reached out to Kohl's about a potential offer that would value the company around $9 billion, one source said. The firm is willing to pay at least $65 a share in cash for the company, the source said.Accell Group, the maker of bicycle brands such as Sparta and Batavus, has agreed to an all-cash takeover by a consortium led by KKR that values the company at 1.56 billion euros ($1.77 billion), it said in a statement on Monday.Wynn Resorts is looking to unload its online sports-betting business at a steep discount as the fledgling niche faces painful losses from stiff taxes and costly promotions needed to lure customers.A stake that Nelson Peltz’s activist hedge fund has built in Unilever Plc is adding to pressure on the Dove soap maker’s chief executive officer, Alan Jope, after Jope’s failed bid to buy a consumer-health unit from GlaxoSmithKline Plc.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":315,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":880140816,"gmtCreate":1631027043635,"gmtModify":1676530447527,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":8,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/880140816","repostId":"1130130857","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1130130857","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1631007146,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1130130857?lang=&edition=full_marsco","pubTime":"2021-09-07 17:32","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Strategists Say the Stock Market Could Struggle This Fall. What to Buy Now?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1130130857","media":"Barron's","summary":"What a year this has been for the markets!Fueled by a torrent of monetary and fiscal stimulus, economic and earnings growth, and  a mostly receding pandemic, theS&P 500stock index has rallied 20%, notching seven straight months of gains and more than 50 highs along the way. And that’s on top of last year’s 68% rebound from the market’s March 2020 lows.Tailwinds remain in place, but headwinds now loom that could slow stocks’ advance. Stimulus spending has peaked, and economic and corporate-earnin","content":"<p>What a year this has been for the markets! Fueled by a torrent of monetary and fiscal stimulus, economic and earnings growth, and (until recently) a mostly receding pandemic, theS&amp;P 500stock index has rallied 20%, notching seven straight months of gains and more than 50 highs along the way. And that’s on top of last year’s 68% rebound from the market’s March 2020 lows.</p>\n<p>Tailwinds remain in place, but headwinds now loom that could slow stocks’ advance. Stimulus spending has peaked, and economic and corporate-earnings growth are likely to decelerate through the end of the year. What’s more, theFederal Reserve has all but promised to start tapering its bond buyingin coming months, and the Biden administration has proposed hiking corporate and personal tax rates. None of this is apt to sit well with holders of increasingly pricey shares.</p>\n<p>In other words,brace for a volatile fallin which conflicting forces buffet stocks, bonds, and investors. “The everything rally is behind us,” says Saira Malik, chief investment officer of global equities at Nuveen. “It’s not going to be a sharply rising economic tide that lifts all boats from here.”</p>\n<p>That’s the general consensus among the six market strategists and chief investment officers whom<i>Barron’s</i>recently consulted. All see the S&amp;P 500 ending the year near Thursday’s close of 4536. Their average target: 4585.</p>\n<p>Next year’s gains look muted, as well, relative to recent trends. The group expects the S&amp;P 500 to tack on another 6% in 2022, rising to about 4800.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/eb61c7b74b9b0f18a019afb4ac44ad59\" tg-width=\"300\" tg-height=\"645\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">With stocks trading for about 21 times the coming year’s expected earnings,bonds yielding little, and cash yielding less than nothing after accounting for inflation, investors face tough asset-allocation decisions. In place of the “everything rally,” which lifted fast-growing tech stocks, no-growth meme stocks, and the Dogecoins of the digital world, our market watchers recommend focusing on “quality” investments. In equities, that means shares of businesses with solid balance sheets, expanding profit margins, and ample and recurring free cash flow. Even if the averages do little in coming months, these stocks are likely to shine.</p>\n<p>The stock market’s massive rally in the past year was a gift of sorts from the Federal Reserve, which flooded the financial system with money to stave off theeconomic damage wrought by the Covid pandemic. Since March 2020, the U.S. central bank has been buying a combined $120 billion a month of U.S. Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities, while keeping its benchmark federal-funds rate target at 0% to 0.25%. These moves have depressed bond yields and pushed investors into riskier assets, including stocks.</p>\n<p>Fed Chairman Jerome <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/POWL\">Powell</a> has said that the central bank might begin to wind down, or taper, its emergency asset purchases sometime in the coming quarters, a move that could roil risk assets of all sorts. “For us, it’s very simple: Tapering is tightening,” says Mike Wilson, chief investment officer and chief U.S. equity strategist atMorgan Stanley.“It’s the first step away from maximum accommodation [by the Fed]. They’re being very calculated about it this time, but the bottom line is that it should have a negative effect on equity valuations.”</p>\n<p>The government’s stimulus spending, too, has peaked, the strategists note. Supplemental federal unemployment benefits of $300 a week expire as of Sept. 6. Although Congress seems likely to pass a bipartisan infrastructure bill this fall, the near-term economic impact will pale in comparison to the multiple rounds of stimulus introduced since March 2020.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c2cb76c498c1c4c980139e3d0514c261\" tg-width=\"300\" tg-height=\"645\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The bill includes about $550 billion in new spending—a fraction of the trillions authorized by previous laws—and it will be spread out over many years. The short-term boost that infrastructure stimulus will give to consumer spending, which accounts for almost 70% of U.S. growth domestic product, won’t come close to what the economy saw after millions of Americans received checks from the government this past year.</p>\n<p>A budget bill approved by Democrats only should follow the infrastructure bill, and include spending to support Medicare expansion, child-care funding, free community-college tuition, public housing, and climate-related measures, among other party priorities. Congress could vote to lift taxes on corporations and high-earning individuals to offset that spending—another near-term risk to the market.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6693da658db16059fc99e08a7531675f\" tg-width=\"300\" tg-height=\"645\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Other politically charged issues likewise could derail equities this fall. Congress needs to pass a debt-ceiling increase to fund the government, and a stop-gap spending bill later this month to avoid a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/WASH\">Washington</a> shutdown in October.</p>\n<p>For now, our market experts are relatively sanguine about the economic impact of the Delta variant of Covid-19. As long as vaccines remain effective in minimizing severe infections that lead to hospitalizations and deaths, the negative effects of the current Covid wave will be limited largely to the travel industry and movie theaters, they say. Wall Street’s base case for the market doesn’t include a renewed wave of lockdowns that would undermine economic growth.</p>\n<p>Inflation has been a hot topic at the Fed and among investors, partly because it has been running so hot of late. The U.S. consumer price index rose at an annualized 5.4% in both June and July—a spike the Fed calls transitory, although others aren’t so sure. The strategists are taking Powell’s side of the argument; they expect inflation to fall significantly next year. Their forecasts fall between 2.5% and 3.5%, which they consider manageable for consumers and companies, and an acceptable side effect of rapid economic growth. An inflation rate above 2.5%, however, combined with Fed tapering, would mean that now ultralow bond yields should rise.</p>\n<p>“We think inflation will continue to run hotter than it has since the financial crisis, but it’s hard for us to see inflation much over 2.5% once many of the reopening-related pressures start to dissipate,” says Michael Fredericks, head of income investing for theBlackRockMulti-Asset Strategies Group. “So bond yields do need to move up, but that will happen gradually.”</p>\n<p>The strategists see the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note climbing to around 1.65% by year end. That’s about 35 basis points—or hundredths of a percentage point—above current levels, but below the 1.75% that the yield reached at its March 2021 highs. By next year, the 10-year Treasury could yield 2%, the group says. Those aren’t big moves in absolute terms, but they’re meaningful for&nbsp;the bond market—and could be even more so for stocks.</p>\n<p>Rising yields tend to weigh on stock valuations for two reasons. Higher-yielding bonds offer competition to stocks, and companies’ future earnings are worthless in the present when discounting them at a higher rate. Still, a 10-year yield around 2% won’t be enough to knock stock valuations down to pre-Covid levels. Even if yields climb, market strategists see the price/earnings multiple of the S&amp;P 500 holding well above its 30-year average of 16 times forward earnings. The index’s forward P/E topped 23 last fall.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e08d24cb421d7cc13debd76a9c6fea01\" tg-width=\"660\" tg-height=\"434\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>As long as 10-year Treasury yields stay in the 2% range, the S&amp;P 500 should be able to command a forward P/E in the high teens, strategists say. A return to the 16-times long-term average isn’t in the cards until there is more pressure from much higher yields—or something else that causes stocks to fall.</p>\n<p>If yields surge past 2% or 2.25%, investors could start to question equity valuations more seriously, says&nbsp;<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/STT\">State</a> Street’schief portfolio strategist, Gaurav Mallik: “We haven’t seen [the 10-year yield] above 2% for some time now, so that’s an important sentiment level for investors.”</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/93ff6490069ab5dc1b4057f1ff7966f3\" tg-width=\"664\" tg-height=\"441\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>Wilson is more concerned, noting that the stock market’s valuation risk is asymmetric: “It’s very unlikely that multiples are going to go up, and there’s a good chance that they go down more than 10% given the deceleration in growth and where we are in the cycle,” he says</p>\n<p>If 16 to 23 times forward earnings is the range, he adds, “you’re already at the very high end of that. There’s more potential risk than reward.”</p>\n<p>Some P/E-multiple compression is baked into all six strategists’ forecasts, heaping greater importance on the path of profit growth. On average, the strategists expect S&amp;P 500 earnings to jump 46% this year, to about $204, after last year’s earnings depression. That could be followed by a more normalized gain of 9% in 2022, to about $222.50.</p>\n<p>A potential headwind would be a higher federal corporate-tax rate in 2022. The details of Democrats’ spending and taxation plans will be worked out in the coming weeks, and investors can expect to hear a lot more about potential tax increases. Several strategists see a 25% federal rate on corporate profits as a likely compromise figure, above the 21% in place since 2018, but below the 28% sought by the Biden administration.</p>\n<p>An increase of that magnitude would shave about 5% off S&amp;P 500 earnings next year. The index could drop by a similar amount as the passage of the Democrats’ reconciliation bill nears this fall, but the impact should be limited to that initial correction. As with the tax cuts in December 2017, the change should be a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a>-time event for the market, some strategists predict.</p>\n<p>These concerns aside, investors shouldn’t miss the bigger picture: The U.S. economy is in good shape and growing robustly. The strategists expect gross domestic product to rise 6.3% this year and about 4% in 2022. “The cyclical uplift and above-trend growth will continue at least through 2022, and we want to be biased toward assets that have that exposure,” says Mallik.</p>\n<blockquote>\n “We’re going to have a hot economy this year and next. When GDP growth is above average, value beats growth and cyclicals beat defensives.”— Lori Calvasina, RBC Capital Markets\n</blockquote>\n<p>The State Street strategist recommends overweighting materials, financials, and technology in investment portfolios. That approach includes both economically sensitive companies, such as banks and miners, and steady growers in the tech sector.</p>\n<p>RBC Capital Markets’ head of U.S. equity strategy, Lori Calvasina, likewise takes a barbell approach, with both cyclical and growth exposure. Her preferred sectors are energy, financials, and technology.</p>\n<p>“Valuations are still a lot more attractive in financials and energy than growth [sectors such as technology or consumer discretionary,]” Calvasina says. “The catalyst in the near term is getting out of the current Covid wave... We’re going to have a hot economy this year and next, and traditionally when GDP growth is above average, value beats growth and cyclicals beat defensives.”</p>\n<p>But the focus on quality will be pivotal, especially moving into the second half of 2022. That’s when the Fed is likely to hike interest rates for the first time in this cycle. By 2023, the economy could return to pre-Covid growth on the order of 2%.</p>\n<p>“The historical playbook is that coming out of a recession, you tend to see low-quality outperformance that lasts about a year, then leadership flips back to high quality,” Calvasina says. “But that transition from low quality back to high quality tends to be very bumpy.”</p>\n<p><b>A Shopping List for Fall</b></p>\n<p>Most strategists favor a combination of economically sensitive stocks and steady growers, including tech shares. Financials should do well, particularly if bond yields rise.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a54c4bd114c1a5f7f700d1fc14d30d8e\" tg-width=\"970\" tg-height=\"230\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>Although stocks with quality attributes have outperformed the market this summer, according to a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/BLK\">BlackRock</a> analysis, the quality factor has lagged since positive vaccine news was first reported last November.</p>\n<p>“We’re moving into a mid-cycle environment, when underlying economic growth remains strong but momentum begins to decelerate,” BlackRock’s Fredericks says. “Our research shows that quality stocks perform particularly well in such a period.”</p>\n<p>He recommends overweighting profitable technology companies; financials, including banks, and consumer staples and industrials with those quality characteristics.</p>\n<p>For <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/WFC\">Wells Fargo</a>’s head of equity strategy, Christopher Harvey, a mix of post-pandemic beneficiaries and defensive exposure is the way to go. He constructed a basket of stocks with lower-than-average volatility—which should outperform during periods of market uncertainty or stress this fall—and high “Covid beta,” or sensitivity to good or bad news about the pandemic. One requirement; The stocks had to be rated the equivalent of Buy by Wells Fargo’s equity analysts.</p>\n<p>“There’s near-term economic uncertainty, interest-rate uncertainty, and Covid risk, and generally we’re in a seasonally weaker part of the year around September,” says Harvey. “If we can balance low vol and high Covid beta, we can mitigate a lot of the upcoming uncertainty and volatility around timing of several of those catalysts. Longer-term, though, we still want to have that [reopening exposure.]”</p>\n<p>Harvey’s list of low-volatility stocks with high Covid beta includesApple(AAPL),<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/BAC\">Bank of America</a>(BAC),<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/NTRSP\">Northern</a> Trust(NTRS),Lowe’s(LOW),<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/IQV\">IQVIA</a> Holdings(IQV), andMasco(MAS).</p>\n<p>Overall, banks are the most frequently recommended group for the months ahead. TheInvesco KBW Bankexchange-traded fund (KBWB) provides broad exposure to the sector in the U.S.</p>\n<p>“We like the valuations [and] credit quality; they are now allowed to buy back shares and increase dividends, and there’s higher Covid beta,” says Harvey.</p>\n<p>Cheaper valuations mean less potential downside in a market correction. And, contrary to much of the rest of the stock market, higher interest rates would be a tailwind for the banks, which could then charge more for loans.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/HCSG\">Healthcare</a> stocks also have some fans. “<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/HR\">Healthcare</a> has both defensive and growth attributes to it,” Wilson says. “You’re paying a lot less per unit of growth in healthcare today than you are in other sectors. So we think it provides good balance in this market when we’re worried about valuation.” Health insurerHumana(HUM) makes Wilson’s “Fresh Money Buy List” of stocks Buy-rated by <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/MS\">Morgan Stanley</a> analysts and fitting his macro views.</p>\n<p>Nuveen’s Malik is also looking toward health care for relatively underpriced growth exposure, namely in the pharmaceuticals and biotechnology groups. She points toSeagen(SGEN), which is focused on oncology drugs and could be an attractive acquisition target for a pharma giant.</p>\n<p>Malik also likesAbbVie(ABBV) which trades at an undemanding eight times forward earnings and sports a 4.7% dividend yield. The coming expiration of patents on its blockbuster anti-inflammatory drug Humira has kept some investors away, but Malik is confident that management can limit the damage and sees promising drugs in development at the $200 billion company.</p>\n<p>Both stocks have had a tough time in recent days. Seagen fell more than 8% last week, to around $152, on news that its co-founder and CEO sold a large number of shares recently. AndAbbVietanked 7% Wednesday, to $112.27, after the Food and Drug Administration required new warning labels for JAK inhibitors, a type of anti-rheumatoid drug that includes one of <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/ABBV\">AbbVie</a>’s most promising post-Humira products.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/PFE\">Pfizer</a>(PFE),<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AXP\">American Express</a>(AXP),Johnson &amp; Johnson(JNJ), andCisco Systems(CSCO) are other S&amp;P 500 members that pass a<i>Barron’s</i>screen for quality attributes.</p>\n<p>After a year of steady gains, investors might be reminded this fall that stocks can also decline, as growth momentum and policy support begin to fade. But underlying economic strength supports buying the dip, should the market drop from its highs. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/JE\">Just</a> be more selective. And go with quality.</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>Strategists Say the Stock Market Could Struggle This Fall. What to Buy Now?</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\">\nStrategists Say the Stock Market Could Struggle This Fall. What to Buy Now?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-09-07 17:32 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.barrons.com/articles/stocks-could-struggle-this-fall-market-strategists-say-stick-with-quality-companies-51630699840?siteid=yhoof2><strong>Barron's</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>What a year this has been for the markets! Fueled by a torrent of monetary and fiscal stimulus, economic and earnings growth, and (until recently) a mostly receding pandemic, theS&P 500stock index has...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/stocks-could-struggle-this-fall-market-strategists-say-stick-with-quality-companies-51630699840?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯","SPY":"标普500ETF"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/stocks-could-struggle-this-fall-market-strategists-say-stick-with-quality-companies-51630699840?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1130130857","content_text":"What a year this has been for the markets! Fueled by a torrent of monetary and fiscal stimulus, economic and earnings growth, and (until recently) a mostly receding pandemic, theS&P 500stock index has rallied 20%, notching seven straight months of gains and more than 50 highs along the way. And that’s on top of last year’s 68% rebound from the market’s March 2020 lows.\nTailwinds remain in place, but headwinds now loom that could slow stocks’ advance. Stimulus spending has peaked, and economic and corporate-earnings growth are likely to decelerate through the end of the year. What’s more, theFederal Reserve has all but promised to start tapering its bond buyingin coming months, and the Biden administration has proposed hiking corporate and personal tax rates. None of this is apt to sit well with holders of increasingly pricey shares.\nIn other words,brace for a volatile fallin which conflicting forces buffet stocks, bonds, and investors. “The everything rally is behind us,” says Saira Malik, chief investment officer of global equities at Nuveen. “It’s not going to be a sharply rising economic tide that lifts all boats from here.”\nThat’s the general consensus among the six market strategists and chief investment officers whomBarron’srecently consulted. All see the S&P 500 ending the year near Thursday’s close of 4536. Their average target: 4585.\nNext year’s gains look muted, as well, relative to recent trends. The group expects the S&P 500 to tack on another 6% in 2022, rising to about 4800.\nWith stocks trading for about 21 times the coming year’s expected earnings,bonds yielding little, and cash yielding less than nothing after accounting for inflation, investors face tough asset-allocation decisions. In place of the “everything rally,” which lifted fast-growing tech stocks, no-growth meme stocks, and the Dogecoins of the digital world, our market watchers recommend focusing on “quality” investments. In equities, that means shares of businesses with solid balance sheets, expanding profit margins, and ample and recurring free cash flow. Even if the averages do little in coming months, these stocks are likely to shine.\nThe stock market’s massive rally in the past year was a gift of sorts from the Federal Reserve, which flooded the financial system with money to stave off theeconomic damage wrought by the Covid pandemic. Since March 2020, the U.S. central bank has been buying a combined $120 billion a month of U.S. Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities, while keeping its benchmark federal-funds rate target at 0% to 0.25%. These moves have depressed bond yields and pushed investors into riskier assets, including stocks.\nFed Chairman Jerome Powell has said that the central bank might begin to wind down, or taper, its emergency asset purchases sometime in the coming quarters, a move that could roil risk assets of all sorts. “For us, it’s very simple: Tapering is tightening,” says Mike Wilson, chief investment officer and chief U.S. equity strategist atMorgan Stanley.“It’s the first step away from maximum accommodation [by the Fed]. They’re being very calculated about it this time, but the bottom line is that it should have a negative effect on equity valuations.”\nThe government’s stimulus spending, too, has peaked, the strategists note. Supplemental federal unemployment benefits of $300 a week expire as of Sept. 6. Although Congress seems likely to pass a bipartisan infrastructure bill this fall, the near-term economic impact will pale in comparison to the multiple rounds of stimulus introduced since March 2020.\nThe bill includes about $550 billion in new spending—a fraction of the trillions authorized by previous laws—and it will be spread out over many years. The short-term boost that infrastructure stimulus will give to consumer spending, which accounts for almost 70% of U.S. growth domestic product, won’t come close to what the economy saw after millions of Americans received checks from the government this past year.\nA budget bill approved by Democrats only should follow the infrastructure bill, and include spending to support Medicare expansion, child-care funding, free community-college tuition, public housing, and climate-related measures, among other party priorities. Congress could vote to lift taxes on corporations and high-earning individuals to offset that spending—another near-term risk to the market.\nOther politically charged issues likewise could derail equities this fall. Congress needs to pass a debt-ceiling increase to fund the government, and a stop-gap spending bill later this month to avoid a Washington shutdown in October.\nFor now, our market experts are relatively sanguine about the economic impact of the Delta variant of Covid-19. As long as vaccines remain effective in minimizing severe infections that lead to hospitalizations and deaths, the negative effects of the current Covid wave will be limited largely to the travel industry and movie theaters, they say. Wall Street’s base case for the market doesn’t include a renewed wave of lockdowns that would undermine economic growth.\nInflation has been a hot topic at the Fed and among investors, partly because it has been running so hot of late. The U.S. consumer price index rose at an annualized 5.4% in both June and July—a spike the Fed calls transitory, although others aren’t so sure. The strategists are taking Powell’s side of the argument; they expect inflation to fall significantly next year. Their forecasts fall between 2.5% and 3.5%, which they consider manageable for consumers and companies, and an acceptable side effect of rapid economic growth. An inflation rate above 2.5%, however, combined with Fed tapering, would mean that now ultralow bond yields should rise.\n“We think inflation will continue to run hotter than it has since the financial crisis, but it’s hard for us to see inflation much over 2.5% once many of the reopening-related pressures start to dissipate,” says Michael Fredericks, head of income investing for theBlackRockMulti-Asset Strategies Group. “So bond yields do need to move up, but that will happen gradually.”\nThe strategists see the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note climbing to around 1.65% by year end. That’s about 35 basis points—or hundredths of a percentage point—above current levels, but below the 1.75% that the yield reached at its March 2021 highs. By next year, the 10-year Treasury could yield 2%, the group says. Those aren’t big moves in absolute terms, but they’re meaningful for the bond market—and could be even more so for stocks.\nRising yields tend to weigh on stock valuations for two reasons. Higher-yielding bonds offer competition to stocks, and companies’ future earnings are worthless in the present when discounting them at a higher rate. Still, a 10-year yield around 2% won’t be enough to knock stock valuations down to pre-Covid levels. Even if yields climb, market strategists see the price/earnings multiple of the S&P 500 holding well above its 30-year average of 16 times forward earnings. The index’s forward P/E topped 23 last fall.\n\nAs long as 10-year Treasury yields stay in the 2% range, the S&P 500 should be able to command a forward P/E in the high teens, strategists say. A return to the 16-times long-term average isn’t in the cards until there is more pressure from much higher yields—or something else that causes stocks to fall.\nIf yields surge past 2% or 2.25%, investors could start to question equity valuations more seriously, says State Street’schief portfolio strategist, Gaurav Mallik: “We haven’t seen [the 10-year yield] above 2% for some time now, so that’s an important sentiment level for investors.”\n\nWilson is more concerned, noting that the stock market’s valuation risk is asymmetric: “It’s very unlikely that multiples are going to go up, and there’s a good chance that they go down more than 10% given the deceleration in growth and where we are in the cycle,” he says\nIf 16 to 23 times forward earnings is the range, he adds, “you’re already at the very high end of that. There’s more potential risk than reward.”\nSome P/E-multiple compression is baked into all six strategists’ forecasts, heaping greater importance on the path of profit growth. On average, the strategists expect S&P 500 earnings to jump 46% this year, to about $204, after last year’s earnings depression. That could be followed by a more normalized gain of 9% in 2022, to about $222.50.\nA potential headwind would be a higher federal corporate-tax rate in 2022. The details of Democrats’ spending and taxation plans will be worked out in the coming weeks, and investors can expect to hear a lot more about potential tax increases. Several strategists see a 25% federal rate on corporate profits as a likely compromise figure, above the 21% in place since 2018, but below the 28% sought by the Biden administration.\nAn increase of that magnitude would shave about 5% off S&P 500 earnings next year. The index could drop by a similar amount as the passage of the Democrats’ reconciliation bill nears this fall, but the impact should be limited to that initial correction. As with the tax cuts in December 2017, the change should be a one-time event for the market, some strategists predict.\nThese concerns aside, investors shouldn’t miss the bigger picture: The U.S. economy is in good shape and growing robustly. The strategists expect gross domestic product to rise 6.3% this year and about 4% in 2022. “The cyclical uplift and above-trend growth will continue at least through 2022, and we want to be biased toward assets that have that exposure,” says Mallik.\n\n “We’re going to have a hot economy this year and next. When GDP growth is above average, value beats growth and cyclicals beat defensives.”— Lori Calvasina, RBC Capital Markets\n\nThe State Street strategist recommends overweighting materials, financials, and technology in investment portfolios. That approach includes both economically sensitive companies, such as banks and miners, and steady growers in the tech sector.\nRBC Capital Markets’ head of U.S. equity strategy, Lori Calvasina, likewise takes a barbell approach, with both cyclical and growth exposure. Her preferred sectors are energy, financials, and technology.\n“Valuations are still a lot more attractive in financials and energy than growth [sectors such as technology or consumer discretionary,]” Calvasina says. “The catalyst in the near term is getting out of the current Covid wave... We’re going to have a hot economy this year and next, and traditionally when GDP growth is above average, value beats growth and cyclicals beat defensives.”\nBut the focus on quality will be pivotal, especially moving into the second half of 2022. That’s when the Fed is likely to hike interest rates for the first time in this cycle. By 2023, the economy could return to pre-Covid growth on the order of 2%.\n“The historical playbook is that coming out of a recession, you tend to see low-quality outperformance that lasts about a year, then leadership flips back to high quality,” Calvasina says. “But that transition from low quality back to high quality tends to be very bumpy.”\nA Shopping List for Fall\nMost strategists favor a combination of economically sensitive stocks and steady growers, including tech shares. Financials should do well, particularly if bond yields rise.\n\nAlthough stocks with quality attributes have outperformed the market this summer, according to a BlackRock analysis, the quality factor has lagged since positive vaccine news was first reported last November.\n“We’re moving into a mid-cycle environment, when underlying economic growth remains strong but momentum begins to decelerate,” BlackRock’s Fredericks says. “Our research shows that quality stocks perform particularly well in such a period.”\nHe recommends overweighting profitable technology companies; financials, including banks, and consumer staples and industrials with those quality characteristics.\nFor Wells Fargo’s head of equity strategy, Christopher Harvey, a mix of post-pandemic beneficiaries and defensive exposure is the way to go. He constructed a basket of stocks with lower-than-average volatility—which should outperform during periods of market uncertainty or stress this fall—and high “Covid beta,” or sensitivity to good or bad news about the pandemic. One requirement; The stocks had to be rated the equivalent of Buy by Wells Fargo’s equity analysts.\n“There’s near-term economic uncertainty, interest-rate uncertainty, and Covid risk, and generally we’re in a seasonally weaker part of the year around September,” says Harvey. “If we can balance low vol and high Covid beta, we can mitigate a lot of the upcoming uncertainty and volatility around timing of several of those catalysts. Longer-term, though, we still want to have that [reopening exposure.]”\nHarvey’s list of low-volatility stocks with high Covid beta includesApple(AAPL),Bank of America(BAC),Northern Trust(NTRS),Lowe’s(LOW),IQVIA Holdings(IQV), andMasco(MAS).\nOverall, banks are the most frequently recommended group for the months ahead. TheInvesco KBW Bankexchange-traded fund (KBWB) provides broad exposure to the sector in the U.S.\n“We like the valuations [and] credit quality; they are now allowed to buy back shares and increase dividends, and there’s higher Covid beta,” says Harvey.\nCheaper valuations mean less potential downside in a market correction. And, contrary to much of the rest of the stock market, higher interest rates would be a tailwind for the banks, which could then charge more for loans.\nHealthcare stocks also have some fans. “Healthcare has both defensive and growth attributes to it,” Wilson says. “You’re paying a lot less per unit of growth in healthcare today than you are in other sectors. So we think it provides good balance in this market when we’re worried about valuation.” Health insurerHumana(HUM) makes Wilson’s “Fresh Money Buy List” of stocks Buy-rated by Morgan Stanley analysts and fitting his macro views.\nNuveen’s Malik is also looking toward health care for relatively underpriced growth exposure, namely in the pharmaceuticals and biotechnology groups. She points toSeagen(SGEN), which is focused on oncology drugs and could be an attractive acquisition target for a pharma giant.\nMalik also likesAbbVie(ABBV) which trades at an undemanding eight times forward earnings and sports a 4.7% dividend yield. The coming expiration of patents on its blockbuster anti-inflammatory drug Humira has kept some investors away, but Malik is confident that management can limit the damage and sees promising drugs in development at the $200 billion company.\nBoth stocks have had a tough time in recent days. Seagen fell more than 8% last week, to around $152, on news that its co-founder and CEO sold a large number of shares recently. AndAbbVietanked 7% Wednesday, to $112.27, after the Food and Drug Administration required new warning labels for JAK inhibitors, a type of anti-rheumatoid drug that includes one of AbbVie’s most promising post-Humira products.\nPfizer(PFE),American Express(AXP),Johnson & Johnson(JNJ), andCisco Systems(CSCO) are other S&P 500 members that pass aBarron’sscreen for quality attributes.\nAfter a year of steady gains, investors might be reminded this fall that stocks can also decline, as growth momentum and policy support begin to fade. But underlying economic strength supports buying the dip, should the market drop from its highs. Just be more selective. And go with quality.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":71,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":835485670,"gmtCreate":1629732075490,"gmtModify":1676530116117,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":8,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/835485670","repostId":"2161747692","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2161747692","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1629673828,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2161747692?lang=&edition=full_marsco","pubTime":"2021-08-23 07:10","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Fed's Jackson Hole Symposium, personal income and spending: What to know this week","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2161747692","media":"Yahoo Finance","summary":"Traders this week are poised to focus closely on Federal Reserve policymakers' virtual appearance at","content":"<p>Traders this week are poised to focus closely on Federal Reserve policymakers' virtual appearance at the bank's annual Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium.</p>\n<p>The event, which takes place from Thursday to Saturday this week, is set to serve as a forum for more discussions around Fed policymakers' plans to announce and implement a shift in the central bank's monetary policy stance. Namely, investors have been closely watching for months to hear when officials will begin tapering their purchases of Treasury and mortgage securities, which have been taking place at a pace of $120 billion per month for more than a year during the pandemic.</p>\n<p>This asset purchase program had been a major policy underpinning U.S. equity markets this year, providing liquidity throughout the economic crisis induced by the virus. But as the economy makes headway in recovering, Fed officials' talk around pulling in the reins on this program has started to increase.</p>\n<p>Last week, Federal Reserve officials signaled the announcement of the start of tapering was edging closer. According to the meeting minutes from the Federal Reserve's July meeting, most monetary policymakers believed the economy will have made enough progress toward recovering to warrant tapering.</p>\n<p>\"Most participants noted that, provided that the economy were to evolve broadly as they anticipated, they judged that it could be appropriate to start reducing the pace of asset purchases this year because they saw the Committee’s 'substantial further progress' criterion as satisfied with respect to the price-stability goal and as close to being satisfied with respect to the maximum employment goal,\" according to the FOMC minutes.</p>\n<p>But as many pundits have noted, the central bank still has a host of meetings left in 2021 to serve as a platform for further discussing or announcing tapering. As a result, Jackson Hole this week may cause few ripples, with policymakers like Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell sticking to their previously telegraphed language about waiting to see further improvements in the labor market before escalating talk of tapering further.</p>\n<p>\"Jackson Hole next week is certainly a target for when we might hear some actual firm language around taper. I'm not really expecting much out of Jackson Hole,\" Garrett Melson, Natixis Investment Managers Solutions portfolio strategist, told Yahoo Finance last week. \"We're more in the camp that we probably start to hear something around the November meeting. Perhaps they're as quick as December to start actually implementing the taper. But I'm still more in the camp that January is probably when we begin to see a slow taper, probably in the ballpark of $15 billion per month.\"</p>\n<p>\"They're still very, very dovish. They're slightly less dovish,\" he added. \"But that's a little semantics at this point. Taper is very well documented and well known. We know it's coming. It's just a matter of timing and really shouldn't surprise many investors out there.\"</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ffd135dd0d8cdc399e0982d54e39f5bd\" tg-width=\"6000\" tg-height=\"4000\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><span>Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome Powell testifies before Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs hearing to examine the Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress, July 15, 2021, on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, file)ASSOCIATED PRESS</span></p>\n<p>As for the ultimate market impact of tapering, if the outcome is anything like the response from the last announcement of tapering in 2023, investors might brace for a momentary bout of volatility and some sector rotation beneath the surface.</p>\n<p>\"In 2013, Fed Chair Bernanke's comments about tapering catalyzed a five-day, 40 bp backup in 10-year yields and a 5% drop in the S&amp;P 500,\" said David Kostin, Goldman Sachs' chief U.S. equity strategist, in a note last week. \"The initial signal from the taper tantrum ultimately proved fleeting during a year with extremely strong returns for equities.\"</p>\n<p>\"The S&amp;P 500 rebounded 5% in the roughly two months following the tantrum, led higher by the materials, consumer discretionary, and health care sectors,\" he added. \"By December, the S&amp;P 500 had posted a full-year return of 32%. As the Fed reiterated its commitment to accommodative policy, growth outperformed value and cyclical stocks outperformed defensives.\"</p>\n<h2>Personal spending, income</h2>\n<p>New economic data on consumer spending and income will also be in focus later this week, with reports on both metrics due for release on Friday.</p>\n<p>Consensus economists expect to see personal spending slow to just a 0.4% monthly clip in July, decelerating from June's 1.0% increase.</p>\n<p>Just last week, the Commerce Department's data showed retail sales fell more than expected in July, dipping by 1.1%. The print pointed to more moderation in spending as the impact of stimulus checks earlier this year waned further, and lowered the bar for the Bureau of Economic Analysis' monthly personal spending data.</p>\n<p>Other data has also underscored the slowdown in consumer spending, especially given the recent spread of the Delta variant starting in the middle of summer.</p>\n<p>\"Although services spending started strong in July boosted by the holiday, our aggregated BAC credit and debit card data suggest services spending, particularly for travel and leisure, slowed down noticeably in the second half of the month, potentially due to rising Delta concerns,\" Bank of America economist Michelle Meyer wrote in a note Friday.</p>\n<p>Friday's consumer spending report will also come with data on personal income, which is also expected to have ticked up only slightly on a monthly basis. Economists look for a 0.1% increase in July, which would match the pace from the prior month.</p>\n<p>Even with the deceleration in income, however, the personal savings rate may have increased as an early round of child tax credit payments helped offset a slowing pace of income growth, some economists noted.</p>\n<p>\"The advance child tax credit payments delivered this month translated into a lower tax burden and therefore a 1% month-over-month boost to disposable income, consequently leading to a rise in the savings rate to 10.0% from 9.4% in June,\" Meyer predicted.</p>\n<h2>Economic calendar</h2>\n<ul>\n <li><p><b>Monday: </b>Chicago Fed National Activity Index, July (0.09 in June); <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/MRKT\">Markit</a> U.S. Manufacturing PMI, August preliminary (62.8 expected, 63.4 in July); Markit U.S. Services PMI, August preliminary (59.0 expected, 59.9 in July); Markit U.S. Composite PMI, August preliminary (59.9 in July); Existing home sales, month-on-month, July (-0.3% expected, 1.4% in June)</p></li>\n <li><p><b>Tuesday: </b>Richmond Fed Manufacturing Index, August (25 expected, 27 in July); New home sales, month-on-month, July (3.6% expected, -6.6% in June)</p></li>\n <li><p><b>Wednesday: </b>MBA Mortgage Applications, week ended August 20 (-3.9% during prior week); Durable goods orders, July preliminary (-0.2% expected, 0.9% in June); Non-defense capital goods orders excluding aircraft, July preliminary (0.5% expected, 0.7% in June); Non-defense capital goods shipments excluding aircraft, July preliminary (0.6% in June)</p></li>\n <li><p><b>Thursday: </b>Initial jobless claims, week ended August 21 (352,000 expected, 348,000 during prior week); Continuing claims, week ended August 14 (2.780 million expected, 2.820 million during prior week); GDP annualized quarter-over-quarter, Q2 second estimate (6.6% expected, 6.5% in prior print); Personal consumption, Q2 second estimate (12.3% expected, 11.8% in prior print); Core PCE quarter-over-quarter Q2 second estimate (6.1% expected, 6.1% in prior print); Kansas City Fed Manufacturing Activity Index, August (30 in prior print)</p></li>\n <li><p><b>Friday: </b>Advanced goods trade balance, July (-$90.9 billion expected, -$91.2 billion in June); Wholesale inventories, month-over-month, July preliminary (1.0% expected, 1.1% in June); Personal income, July (0.2% expected, 0.1% in June); Personal spending, July (0.4% expected, 1.0% in June); PCE core deflator, month-on-month, July (0.3% expected, 0.4% in June); PCE core deflator, year-on-year, July (3.6% expected, 3.5% in June); University of Michigan Sentiment, August final (71.0 expected, 70.2 in prior print)</p></li>\n</ul>\n<h2>Earnings calendar</h2>\n<ul>\n <li><p><b>Monday: </b><i>No notable reports scheduled for release</i></p></li>\n <li><p><b>Tuesday: </b>Advance Auto Parts (AAP) before market open; Intuit (INTU) after market close</p></li>\n <li><p><b>Wednesday: </b>Best Buy (BBY) before market open; <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/CRM\">Salesforce</a> (CRM), Autodesk (ADSK), Ulta Beauty (ULTA) after market close</p></li>\n <li><p><b>Thursday: </b>The JM Smucker Co. (SJM), Dollar General (DG), Dollar Tree (DLTR) before market open; The Gap (GPS), HP Inc. (HPQ) after market close</p></li>\n <li><p><b>Friday: </b><i>No notable reports scheduled for release </i></p></li>\n</ul>","source":"yahoofinance","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>Fed's Jackson Hole Symposium, personal income and spending: What to know this week</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\">\nFed's Jackson Hole Symposium, personal income and spending: What to know this week\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-08-23 07:10 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-heads-to-jackson-hole-personal-income-and-spending-what-to-know-this-week-150228513.html><strong>Yahoo Finance</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Traders this week are poised to focus closely on Federal Reserve policymakers' virtual appearance at the bank's annual Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium.\nThe event, which takes place from ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-heads-to-jackson-hole-personal-income-and-spending-what-to-know-this-week-150228513.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"WMT":"沃尔玛",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","BBY":"百思买","XRT":"零售指数ETF-SPDR标普",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","TGT":"塔吉特","SPY.AU":"SPDR® S&P 500® ETF Trust"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-heads-to-jackson-hole-personal-income-and-spending-what-to-know-this-week-150228513.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2161747692","content_text":"Traders this week are poised to focus closely on Federal Reserve policymakers' virtual appearance at the bank's annual Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium.\nThe event, which takes place from Thursday to Saturday this week, is set to serve as a forum for more discussions around Fed policymakers' plans to announce and implement a shift in the central bank's monetary policy stance. Namely, investors have been closely watching for months to hear when officials will begin tapering their purchases of Treasury and mortgage securities, which have been taking place at a pace of $120 billion per month for more than a year during the pandemic.\nThis asset purchase program had been a major policy underpinning U.S. equity markets this year, providing liquidity throughout the economic crisis induced by the virus. But as the economy makes headway in recovering, Fed officials' talk around pulling in the reins on this program has started to increase.\nLast week, Federal Reserve officials signaled the announcement of the start of tapering was edging closer. According to the meeting minutes from the Federal Reserve's July meeting, most monetary policymakers believed the economy will have made enough progress toward recovering to warrant tapering.\n\"Most participants noted that, provided that the economy were to evolve broadly as they anticipated, they judged that it could be appropriate to start reducing the pace of asset purchases this year because they saw the Committee’s 'substantial further progress' criterion as satisfied with respect to the price-stability goal and as close to being satisfied with respect to the maximum employment goal,\" according to the FOMC minutes.\nBut as many pundits have noted, the central bank still has a host of meetings left in 2021 to serve as a platform for further discussing or announcing tapering. As a result, Jackson Hole this week may cause few ripples, with policymakers like Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell sticking to their previously telegraphed language about waiting to see further improvements in the labor market before escalating talk of tapering further.\n\"Jackson Hole next week is certainly a target for when we might hear some actual firm language around taper. I'm not really expecting much out of Jackson Hole,\" Garrett Melson, Natixis Investment Managers Solutions portfolio strategist, told Yahoo Finance last week. \"We're more in the camp that we probably start to hear something around the November meeting. Perhaps they're as quick as December to start actually implementing the taper. But I'm still more in the camp that January is probably when we begin to see a slow taper, probably in the ballpark of $15 billion per month.\"\n\"They're still very, very dovish. They're slightly less dovish,\" he added. \"But that's a little semantics at this point. Taper is very well documented and well known. We know it's coming. It's just a matter of timing and really shouldn't surprise many investors out there.\"\nFederal Reserve Board Chair Jerome Powell testifies before Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs hearing to examine the Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress, July 15, 2021, on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, file)ASSOCIATED PRESS\nAs for the ultimate market impact of tapering, if the outcome is anything like the response from the last announcement of tapering in 2023, investors might brace for a momentary bout of volatility and some sector rotation beneath the surface.\n\"In 2013, Fed Chair Bernanke's comments about tapering catalyzed a five-day, 40 bp backup in 10-year yields and a 5% drop in the S&P 500,\" said David Kostin, Goldman Sachs' chief U.S. equity strategist, in a note last week. \"The initial signal from the taper tantrum ultimately proved fleeting during a year with extremely strong returns for equities.\"\n\"The S&P 500 rebounded 5% in the roughly two months following the tantrum, led higher by the materials, consumer discretionary, and health care sectors,\" he added. \"By December, the S&P 500 had posted a full-year return of 32%. As the Fed reiterated its commitment to accommodative policy, growth outperformed value and cyclical stocks outperformed defensives.\"\nPersonal spending, income\nNew economic data on consumer spending and income will also be in focus later this week, with reports on both metrics due for release on Friday.\nConsensus economists expect to see personal spending slow to just a 0.4% monthly clip in July, decelerating from June's 1.0% increase.\nJust last week, the Commerce Department's data showed retail sales fell more than expected in July, dipping by 1.1%. The print pointed to more moderation in spending as the impact of stimulus checks earlier this year waned further, and lowered the bar for the Bureau of Economic Analysis' monthly personal spending data.\nOther data has also underscored the slowdown in consumer spending, especially given the recent spread of the Delta variant starting in the middle of summer.\n\"Although services spending started strong in July boosted by the holiday, our aggregated BAC credit and debit card data suggest services spending, particularly for travel and leisure, slowed down noticeably in the second half of the month, potentially due to rising Delta concerns,\" Bank of America economist Michelle Meyer wrote in a note Friday.\nFriday's consumer spending report will also come with data on personal income, which is also expected to have ticked up only slightly on a monthly basis. Economists look for a 0.1% increase in July, which would match the pace from the prior month.\nEven with the deceleration in income, however, the personal savings rate may have increased as an early round of child tax credit payments helped offset a slowing pace of income growth, some economists noted.\n\"The advance child tax credit payments delivered this month translated into a lower tax burden and therefore a 1% month-over-month boost to disposable income, consequently leading to a rise in the savings rate to 10.0% from 9.4% in June,\" Meyer predicted.\nEconomic calendar\n\nMonday: Chicago Fed National Activity Index, July (0.09 in June); Markit U.S. Manufacturing PMI, August preliminary (62.8 expected, 63.4 in July); Markit U.S. Services PMI, August preliminary (59.0 expected, 59.9 in July); Markit U.S. Composite PMI, August preliminary (59.9 in July); Existing home sales, month-on-month, July (-0.3% expected, 1.4% in June)\nTuesday: Richmond Fed Manufacturing Index, August (25 expected, 27 in July); New home sales, month-on-month, July (3.6% expected, -6.6% in June)\nWednesday: MBA Mortgage Applications, week ended August 20 (-3.9% during prior week); Durable goods orders, July preliminary (-0.2% expected, 0.9% in June); Non-defense capital goods orders excluding aircraft, July preliminary (0.5% expected, 0.7% in June); Non-defense capital goods shipments excluding aircraft, July preliminary (0.6% in June)\nThursday: Initial jobless claims, week ended August 21 (352,000 expected, 348,000 during prior week); Continuing claims, week ended August 14 (2.780 million expected, 2.820 million during prior week); GDP annualized quarter-over-quarter, Q2 second estimate (6.6% expected, 6.5% in prior print); Personal consumption, Q2 second estimate (12.3% expected, 11.8% in prior print); Core PCE quarter-over-quarter Q2 second estimate (6.1% expected, 6.1% in prior print); Kansas City Fed Manufacturing Activity Index, August (30 in prior print)\nFriday: Advanced goods trade balance, July (-$90.9 billion expected, -$91.2 billion in June); Wholesale inventories, month-over-month, July preliminary (1.0% expected, 1.1% in June); Personal income, July (0.2% expected, 0.1% in June); Personal spending, July (0.4% expected, 1.0% in June); PCE core deflator, month-on-month, July (0.3% expected, 0.4% in June); PCE core deflator, year-on-year, July (3.6% expected, 3.5% in June); University of Michigan Sentiment, August final (71.0 expected, 70.2 in prior print)\n\nEarnings calendar\n\nMonday: No notable reports scheduled for release\nTuesday: Advance Auto Parts (AAP) before market open; Intuit (INTU) after market close\nWednesday: Best Buy (BBY) before market open; Salesforce (CRM), Autodesk (ADSK), Ulta Beauty (ULTA) after market close\nThursday: The JM Smucker Co. (SJM), Dollar General (DG), Dollar Tree (DLTR) before market open; The Gap (GPS), HP Inc. (HPQ) after market close\nFriday: No notable reports scheduled for release","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":132,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":805791909,"gmtCreate":1627904785701,"gmtModify":1703497549198,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":8,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/805791909","repostId":"1148493066","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":210,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":897555497,"gmtCreate":1628948538419,"gmtModify":1676529898353,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":7,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/897555497","repostId":"2159321505","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":222,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":152232711,"gmtCreate":1625294932733,"gmtModify":1703740156703,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":9,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/152232711","repostId":"1188153141","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":285,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9062356573,"gmtCreate":1652012352292,"gmtModify":1676535013291,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":8,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9062356573","repostId":"1131831539","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1131831539","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1651980653,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1131831539?lang=&edition=full_marsco","pubTime":"2022-05-08 11:30","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Tesla: Overvalued By 85.26% And Not A Technology Company","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1131831539","media":"Seeking Alpha","summary":"SummaryMake no mistake, Tesla is a phenomenal company that has accomplished the unthinkable as it broke through extreme barriers of entry to disrupt the auto industry.Just because Tesla is a successfu","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>Summary</p><ul><li>Make no mistake, Tesla is a phenomenal company that has accomplished the unthinkable as it broke through extreme barriers of entry to disrupt the auto industry.</li><li>Just because Tesla is a successful company that is causing automotive titans to change from combustible engines to EVs doesn&#39;t mean Tesla&#39;s stock is a good investment today.</li><li>100% of gross profit and net income is generated from the automotive sector as Tesla&#39;s other businesses lose money, making them an automobile manufacturing company, not a technology company.</li><li>I compared Tesla&#39;s metrics to the auto industry and big tech and the results are the same, Tesla&#39;s valuation is egregious.</li></ul><p>It&#39;s rare to find companies that have cult-like followings with loyalists willing to pay any price for its stock. The debate regarding Tesla, Inc.&#39;s (NASDAQ:TSLA) valuation continues to be a topic of conversation between the bulls and the bears. Oneside argues that TSLA&#39;s financial growth and future prospects, including FSD, insurance, and robotaxis, justify the current $902.12 billion valuations, while others argue that the current financials and cult-like following have led to a massive overvaluation in TSLA&#39;s stock.</p><p>I tip my hat to Elon Musk, as his accomplishments are second to none. When others called him crazy, Mr. Musk chose one of the hardest industries to compete in, started TSLA from the ground up, went to battle against the auto manufacturers, and succeeded. TSLA is one of the rare success stories that has truly shaped an industry, and the barriers of entry that were overcome are astonishing. TSLA didn&#39;t have the capital, manufacturing, credibility, or the infrastructure that its competitors did, yet they found a way to succeed. If the odds weren&#39;t enough which TSLA faced, they accomplished their goals without a combustible engine and pioneered an entirely new sector within the automotive industry.</p><p>Just because TSLA is a great company, it doesn&#39;t mean TSLA has a great stock, or it isn&#39;t overvalued. I am not bearish on TSLA the company because I believe they still have a long runway of growth ahead of them, but I am bearish on the valuation. Prior to leaving a comment on why I am wrong, please read the article and think about the metrics I am citing; then, I will happily discuss any viewpoints about the analysis.</p><p><b>Tesla Vs. The World In The Automotive Sector</b></p><p>It feels like TSLA vs. the world whenever TSLA is discussed. Discussing who makes a better automobile is a matter of opinion, and everyone is correct because it&#39;s their opinion. If person A thinks TSLA makes the best car and person B thinks Mercedes Benz makes the best car, they are both correct. Debating over this is pointless, so let&#39;s look at the raw numbers.</p><p>TSLA has a larger market cap than the combination ofToyota(TM),Volkswagen(OTCPK:VWAGY),Daimler(OTCPK:DDAIF),BMW(OTCPK:BMWYY),General Motors(GM),Ford(F),Honda(HMC),Ferrari(RACE),Nissan(OTCPK:NSANY),Subaru(OTCPK:FUJHY),Volvo(OTCPK:VOLAF), andMazda(OTCPK:MZDAY). TSLA&#39;s market cap is currently $986.92 billion, while the combination of these 12 companies is $777.41 billion.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ff930d2442bf282c1bd880cca408eb94\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"327\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Steven Fiorillo</p><p>The P/S ratio is often cited to justify the valuation. The combination of TM, VWAGY, DDAIF, BMWYY, GM, F, HMC, RACE, NSANY, FUJHY, VOLAF, and MZDAY has generated $1.38 trillion in revenue over the TTM, putting their P/S at 0.56, while TSLA has generated $62.19 billion in revenue and has a 15.87 P/S.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c9b9661fde232925a758c38fd2e93f36\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"330\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Steven Fiorillo, Seeking Alpha</p><p>As a combined entity, these 12 companies have generated $118.29 billion in net income, while TSLA has produced $8.4 billion.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d25806eb839eb9ca2b4ef3c24218048c\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"330\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Steven Fiorillo, Seeking Alpha</p><p>TSLA is a great company, but its current valuation has become overly inflated. TSLA&#39;s market cap is $209.52 billion larger than these 12 auto manufacturers, yet the combination of the 12 auto manufacturers generates $1.32 trillion more in revenue and $109.89 billion more in net income.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a1b686de4009ca733ff9651ce0d9fcaf\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"348\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Steven Fiorillo, Seeking Alpha</p><p>Looking at the market caps, one would assume that TSLA has a dominant majority over its competitors in auto sales within the U.S. According to the2021 data, TSLA sold 2.02% of all vehicles in the U.S. TSLA&#39;s market cap reflects a level of dominance that is non-existent.</p><p>Realistically, TSLA will have a hard time disrupting the sector further due to the price point of their vehicles. The reality is that, unless TSLA can sell a car that rivals a Honda or Toyota, doubling its market share is going to be a daunting task. It&#39;s just math. TSLA doesn&#39;t have a product for the masses, and while it may continue to grow in the luxury segment, the amount of growth that can be achieved is limited due to the pricing power of the consumer.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/442ffe151dd83bc524785857925f9797\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"227\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>www.goodcarbadcar.net</p><p><b>Tesla Isn&#39;t A Technology Company And Shouldn&#39;t Be Valued As One</b></p><p>The valuation rebuttal has always been that TSLA isn&#39;t an automobile company, rather, it&#39;s a technology company.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bbc9ccb2cb8a0e7d40804db24e183214\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"341\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Tesla</p><p>Page 23 ofTSLA&#39;s Q1 2022 slide deck from their earnings call is their statement of operations. Once again, 100% of TSLA&#39;s gross profit and net income are derived from automobiles. Energy generation and storage lose money as it generates $616 million in revenue while the cost of this revenue is $688 million. The same goes for Services and others, as this segment generates $1.279 billion in revenue while the cost of this revenue is $1.286 billion. This doesn&#39;t even factor in operating expenses.</p><p>TSLA manufacturers state of the art automobiles, but this doesn&#39;t classify them as a technology company, nor should they be classified as one. Since this is always the rebuttal and technology companies trade at larger earnings multiples, I will compare TSLA to Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Amazon (AMZN), Alphabet (GOOG) (GOOGL), and Meta Platforms (FB) and illustrate why TSLA is still drastically overvalued if the market was still to provide it with a tech multiple.</p><p>Prior to the comparisons, I want to frame the analysis by providing each company&#39;s market cap:</p><ul><li>AAPL $2.69 Trillion</li><li>MSFT $2.17 Trillion</li><li>GOOGL $1.62 Trillion</li><li>AMZN $1.28 Trillion</li><li>TSLA $986.92 Billion</li><li>FB $604.62 Billion</li></ul><p>I am going to start with growth because this is always the key metric bulls point out. Since the close of 2018, which is 3.25 fiscal years, TSLA has grown its revenue from $21.46 billion to $62.19 billion.</p><p>This is absolutely remarkable, but it doesn&#39;t place TSLA in the upper epsilon of technology companies. Over the same period, FB grew its revenue by $63.83 billion, which is more than what TSLA produced in the TTM. FB grew its revenue by more than what TSLA produces and generates just about double the revenue ($119.67 billion), yet TSLA has a larger market cap. For everyone who has used growth as their investment premise, FB having a market cap that&#39;s $382.30 less than TSLA nullifies that aspect of the bull thesis. AMZN&#39;s market cap is only $294.33 billion larger than TSLA, yet they generated $477.75 billion in revenue and grew their revenue by $341.76 billion in this period. Using revenue growth for TSLA doesn&#39;t support the valuation.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3c0fbd4eb93f026c4575ee8f77f53e4b\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"396\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Steven Fiorillo, Seeking Alpha</p><p>Next, I will turn to profits because, at the end of the day, businesses are in the business of making money. Once again, TSLA has done a fantastic job of monetizing its business and, in 3.25 short years, has gone from losing -$976 million to make $8.4 billion in the TTM for an increase of $9.38 billion. FB has produced $37.34 billion in profit in the TTM, and its net income grew by $15.23 billion over this period. Using growth doesn&#39;t support the valuation when FB has a market cap that&#39;s $382.30 less than TSLA and grew its profits in this period by almost double what TSLA has generated in the TTM.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c9716477607711ee0b6d4f77eb24c890\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"382\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Steven Fiorillo, Seeking Alpha</p><p>The new metric bulls are using in their thesis is TSLA&#39;s free cash flow (FCF). Once again, TSLA has done an excellent job, going from -$221 million of FCF in 2018 to $6.93 billion of FCF in the TTM. Many companies would love to grow their annual FCF by $7.15 billion over a 3.25-year period, and this should be applauded.</p><p>Let&#39;s look at FB once again, since TSLA&#39;s valuation isn&#39;t based on its core segment as an automobile manufacturer. FB has grown its FCF over the previous 3.25 years by $23.45 billion, more than 3x TSLA&#39;s growth, and has generated $39.81 billion of FCF in the TTM. FB generated roughly 5.75x more FCF than TSLA and grew its FCF by more than 3x what TSLA produces, yet FB has a market cap that&#39;s almost $400 billion less than TSLA. Growth within the financials does not support TSLA&#39;s valuation, which is a breath away from $1 trillion.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/902a7074eda9e8f2f2765e0833423d2c\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"373\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Steven Fiorillo, Seeking Alpha</p><p>Today you&#39;re paying a 113.81 P/E for TSLA. Paying a larger multiple for a company that&#39;s growing its earnings quickly is normal, but TSLA isn&#39;t growing by larger amounts than FB, and FB trades at a 16.66 P/E. I have seen TSLA bulls justify the P/E because of TSLA&#39;s growth factor, but this doesn&#39;t hold up when FB has grown by larger amounts from larger starting positions and has a P/E that&#39;s a fraction of TSLA. Look at AAPL, which is the largest company in the world. AAPL has grown its net income by $56.25 billion and its FCF by $52.3 billion over the past 3.25 years, and its P/E is 26.78. People are blindly paying any multiple the market places on TSLA.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/75168f6e39ced721cf0c53d78481a983\" tg-width=\"614\" tg-height=\"335\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>TSLA is trading at a 15.38 P/S. The justification for this multiple is difficult to defend while AMZN trades at a P/S of 11.31. AMZN&#39;s revenue grew by $341.76 billion over the past 3.25 years while TSLA grew their revenue by $40.73 billion. Instead of an absolute basis, looking at this from a percentage aspect, TSLA grew its revenue by 189.78%, while AMZN&#39;s grew by 251.32%. The P/S ratio is not a supporting valuation metric as TSLA is trading at a larger multiple than AMZN yet produced $301.03 billion less in revenue growth compared to AMZN. At the very least, TSLA should trade at a lower P/S multiple than AMZN considering their revenue growth was a fraction of AMZN&#39;s.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/aad00a6c490808962705a1a2dae45cfe\" tg-width=\"608\" tg-height=\"338\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>TSLA has done an excellent job monetizing its revenue, delivering exceptional margins, and generating FCF. Now that TSLA is generating billions in FCF, it&#39;s been inserted into the bull thesis. FCF is a measure of profitability that excludes the non-cash expenses of the income statement and includes spending on equipment and assets as well as changes in working capital from the balance sheet. FCF could be the most underrated and most important financial metric to look at, as this is the pool of capital that companies can utilize to repay debt, pay dividends, buy back shares, make acquisitions, or reinvest in the business.</p><p>Every investment is the present value of all future cash flow. This is why investors look at the price to FCF valuation. Investors want to pay the cheapest multiple for a company&#39;s FCF. Today, you&#39;re paying 142.52x TSLA&#39;s FCF. Going back to the FCF section, TSLA grew its FCF by $7.15 billion over the past 3.25 years. FB generated $23.45 billion of FCF in this period, which is 3x the amount TSLA grew, yet FB is trading at a 15.19x multiple on price to FCF.</p><p>Why on earth would you want to pay 142.52x for TSLA&#39;s FCF when you could pay 15.19x for FB, which is growing their FCF by more than 3x the amount that TSLA is growing by? How about AAPL? AAPL grew its FCF by $52.3 billion and trades at a 25.4x price to FCF. If I exclude FB for a moment, should TSLA trade at a larger FCF multiple than GOOGL, which has grown its FCF by $46.15 billion over the past 3.25 years? My answer is no because there is no guarantee that TSLA will ever generate $46.15 billion in annual FCF, let alone the $68.99 billion in FCF that GOOGL generates.</p><p>So what is a fair price to FCF multiple for TSLA? I don&#39;t believe TSLA has earned the right to trade at the same multiples as the rest of big tech considering the levels of FCF they produce. If I stick with the methodology that FB is egregiously undervalued, then TSLA should trade above 15.19x its FCF but lower than the 23.42x multiple GOOGL trades at.</p><p>I don&#39;t want to be overly bearish, so I will place a 21x multiple on TSLA&#39;s FCF, which is more than fair considering big tech metrics. A 21x multiple on TSLA&#39;s FCF puts its market cap at $145.43 billion, which is -85.26% from its current market cap of $986.92 billion. It&#39;s just math, and if TSLA is going to be valued as a technology company, it needs to be compared to the technology companies with similar market caps.</p><p>At the very least, there isn&#39;t a single reason why TSLA&#39;s market cap is larger than FB&#39;s. There isn&#39;t a single metric that TSLA beats FB in. Based on FB&#39;s valuation, if TSLA traded at the same FCF multiple, it would have a market cap of $105.19 billion.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b81a61d60d9ec098276569cc4a501da0\" tg-width=\"627\" tg-height=\"341\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>TSLA has a gross profit margin of 27.1% ($16.85b / $62.19b) and a profit margin of 13.51% ($8.4b / $62.19b). FB has a gross profit margin of 80.34% ($96.14b / $119.67b) and a profit margin of 31.2% ($37.34b / $119.67b). FB has much wider margins and is growing its revenue by larger amounts. This reinforces my methodology as to why TSLA is grossly overvalued. GOOGL has a gross profit margin of 56.93% ($153.9b / $270.33b) and a profit margin of 27.57% ($74.54b / $270.33b).</p><p>The chances are incredibly slim that TSLA can double its profit margin to be within striking distance of GOOGL&#39;s. TSLA should not trade at a larger FCF, P/E, or P/S multiple than FB or GOOGL. While the market would indicate that I am wrong today, eventually, the hype will wear off, and TSLA will trade at a realistic valuation.</p><p><b>TSLA&#39;s Future Catalysts Have A Long Way To Go Before Impacting Its Bottom Line</b></p><p>There are three main catalysts people discuss, which include insurance, robotaxis, and FSD.TSLA offers insurance using real-time driving behavior. This is currently available to all Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y owners. The catch is that it&#39;s only available in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia as of now.</p><p>TSLA uses a safety rating score to determine the monthly premium for its vehicles. At the largest premium of $130/mo, this would be $1,560 per year. If TSLA converted 100% of their U.S sales in 2021 as an insurance customer, which I think could be possible if TSLA insurance was available in every state, it would have generated $471.12 million in revenue.</p><p>We have no idea what the margins would have been, but if the margin was 50%, it would have been an additional $235.56 million in net income in 2021. While this is nothing to sneeze at, an additional $235.56 million in net income hardly moves the needle. This could be a $1 billion top-line revenue segment in the future, but with availability in only 7 states, insurance&#39;s $1 billion revenue mark is a long way away.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e86de6232b9abf7cee46a9607eb09741\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"326\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Tesla</p><p>Next,FSD, for which TSLA has created two subscription models, a $99/mo price point and a $199/mo price point. The problem with FSD is that it doesn&#39;t make the vehicle fully autonomous, and you still need a driver to be attentive and alert. While I am not arguing that TSLA&#39;s FSD isn&#39;t leaps and bounds ahead of the competition, the problem is that it&#39;s not exactly a self-driving car.</p><p>The questions around legality and where you can use it pop into my head, and how many of TSLA&#39;s drivers opt for this upgrade. Until there is clear legislation and the technology advances to where vehicles can fully drive a person from point A to B while that person takes a nap or reads, I have a hard time believing enough TSLA owners will spend the extra $199/mo on FSD. If there is somewhere where TSLA produces the numbers about how many owners opt for this package, please let me know, and I will crunch the numbers.</p><p>Which Features Come With My Subscription?</p><blockquote>The FSD capability features you receive are based on your configuration and location. Not all features are available in all markets, and features are subject to change.Learn more about Autopilot and Full Self-Driving capability features.</blockquote><blockquote><i>Note: These features are designed to become more capable over time; however the currently enabled features do not make the vehicle autonomous. The currently enabled features require a fully attentive driver, who has their hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment.</i></blockquote><p>The last catalyst is Robotaxis which many have commented on in my articles before. We&#39;re so far off on Robotaxis that this can&#39;t be considered in TSLA&#39;s upcoming revenue. I would think major legislation would be needed for Robotaxis to exist, and there is no telling how many years away we are from this.</p><p>Also, what is the percentage of TSLA owners that would actually allow their vehicle to be used as a Robotaxi? Depending on what the profitability is, I can see people buying TSLAs to enroll them in this program, but, once again, we need to see the economics behind it. I know I am just one opinion, but I would never enroll one of my cars into a robotaxi program because I don&#39;t want other people that I don&#39;t know in my car. I would think there are many others that have similar viewpoints.</p><p>The real upcoming catalysts are future revenue growth and entering the Chinese market. In 2021 TSLA grew its YoY revenue by 70.67%, and their off to a great start after Q1 2022. Only time will tell what type of growth rate TSLA can maintain, but too many people are assuming that TSLA will obliterate the competition. Over the next several years, we could see TSLA&#39;s growth rate become significantly reduced as more luxury operators put EVs on the road.</p><p>At TSLA&#39;s current margins, they would need to increase their revenue by 444.55% to $276.47 billion to produce the same amount of net income ($37.34b) that FB produces today at their current 13.51% profit margin. Maybe TSLA can get there in the future, but why should TSLA be valued at almost $1 trillion today, considering not a single metric of theirs is similar to FB or GOOGL, and TSLA&#39;s growth across any of the sectors isn&#39;t larger than FB or GOOGL?</p><p><b>Tesla Continues To Dilute Shareholders, And Almost No Shareholders Care</b></p><p>Dilution kills shareholder value. Look, I am a shareholder of TSLA, and I hate that my shares continue to be diluted. These numbers are split-adjusted that I am using. Over the past decade,TSLA has diluted its shares by 80.93%. This is horrible compared to big tech, yet investors can&#39;t buy enough TSLA shares. TSLA finished 2012 with 572.6 million shares and, as of its last filing, had increased its outstanding shares to 1.036 billion shares.</p><p>This is the equivalent of me taking a pizza, and instead of giving you a slice, cutting another 6.5 slices, then giving you one. The pizza represents TSLA, the company, and they basically turned an 8-slice pie into a 14.5-slice pie, reducing shareholder&#39;s ownership and the amount of equity, revenue, and EPS our shares represent.</p><p>If you want to see what a true shepherd of shareholder value looks like, turn to AAPL. In 2012 AAPL had 26.3 billion shares outstanding. Over the past decade, AAPL has repurchased 10.09 billion shares, reducing its outstanding shares by 38.37%. Every quarter, AAPL is buying back shares and increasing the ownership its shares represent. TSLA, on the other hand, continues to dilute shareholders by increasing shares YOY.</p><p><b>I Could Be Completely Wrong, And Tesla Could Continue Growing At These Rates</b></p><p>TSLA&#39;s vehicle deliveries continue to outpace its growing production. YoY TSLA&#39;s deliveries increased by 68% in Q1, adding 125,171 delivered vehicles to its customers. TSLA just began Model Y deliveries from the Austin facility, and production at the Gigafactory in Berlin started in March of 2022. TSLA&#39;s Shanghai facility had strong production rates prior to the spike in COVID that resulted in temporary shutdowns. TSLA isn&#39;t just focusing on the U.S, they have Europe and China in their sights.</p><p>EVs accounted for 488,000 sales in the U.S for 2021, and the previous projection was that EVs would account for 670,000 units sold in 2022. Oil has hovered around $100 per barrel and could render the previous projections of 37% increased EV sales domestically for 2022 conservative. TSLA is in a prime position to capitalize on this trend. In 2021 TSLA vehicles accounted for 61.89% of EVs sold in the U.S (301,998 / 488,000).</p><p>Hypothetically, if the previous projection of 670,000 EV sales for 2022 is accurate and TSLA maintains its current margin, they would sell 414,628 vehicles throughout the U.S in 2022. If gas prices do alter the decision-making process when deciding between a combustible engine or an EV, then TSLA could continue surprising the market with QoQ earnings beats.</p><p>The U.S has a national goal of reaching 50% of domestic auto sales coming from EVs. In 2021, EVs accounted for 3.26% of total sales in the U.S auto market. Based on U.S auto sales in 2021, annual EV sales would need to grow by 6,989,403 to reach a 50% EV to combustible engine ratio. Hypothetically if U.S auto sales stayed flat but EVs reached 50% of the market in 2030 they would sell 7,477,403 vehicles. If TSLA&#39;s dominance in the EV sector was to drop from 61.89% to 15% due to increased competition, they would generate 1,121,610 in sales compared to 301,998 in 2021. When you add in Europe and China, TSLA certainly has the ability to become a top auto manufacturer by sales next decade.</p><p>Bulls aren&#39;t incorrect to be excited about TSLA. The world is moving toward EVs, and TSLA is the crème de la crème. As I said in the beginning, I am bullish about TSLA&#39;s future prospects, but I think the valuation today is overinflated. Nobody can predict the future, but I have no doubt that TSLA will continue to grow its sales YoY.</p><p>The question becomes, how much growth will they be able to achieve YoY? In 2021, TM generated $226.48 billion of revenue and, based on the future of EVs, TSLA certainly could achieve this level of revenue in the future. Based on TSLA&#39;s current 13.51% profit margin, if they achieved TM&#39;s level of revenue, they would generate $30.59 billion of net income, which would definitely make today&#39;s valuation look more realistic.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/93c9176fa9bebc2c940e038cafd23229\" tg-width=\"603\" tg-height=\"631\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Tesla</p><p><b>Conclusion</b></p><p>You&#39;re probably wondering how I can be a shareholder and be a bear on TSLA&#39;s valuation at the same time. It&#39;s simple; my wife bought shares of TSLA, which makes me a shareholder. My stance has always been bullish on the company and bearish on the valuation. What Elon Musk and the team at TSLA has accomplished is astonishing, and they deserve nothing but respect.</p><p>Keep in mind a company and a company&#39;s stock are two separate things. TSLA continues to dilute shareholders, and they and the market are valuing TSLA as if it&#39;s FB or GOOGL. TSLA is not a technology company; it&#39;s an automobile company, as the automotive segments drive 100% of its gross revenue and net income.</p><p>TSLA is trading at a P/E of 113.81, a P/S of 15.38, and a 142.52x multiple on its FCF. The numbers are drastically inflated as TSLA has no business trading at a larger P/S multiple than AMZN, which trades at 11.31 P/S when it has grown its revenue by $341.76 billion over the previous 3.25 years compared to TSLA&#39;s $40.73 billion of revenue growth. TSLA has generated $6.93 billion in FCF over the TTM, while Mr. Market has placed a 142.52x multiple on TSLA due to $7.15 billion FCF growth over the past 3.25 years. FB trades at a 15.19x FCF multiple while growing FCF by $23.45 billion over this period which is more than 3x what TSLA has generated in the TTM.</p><p>With FB trading at 15.19x FCF, GOOGL at 23.42x FCF, and AAPL at 25.4x FCF, it&#39;s hard to justify any number above 20x for TSLA. I think a 21x FCF multiple is generous and that places TSLA at a market cap of $145.43 billion, which is -85.26% from its current market cap of $986.92 billion.</p></body></html>","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: Overvalued By 85.26% And Not A Technology Company</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: Overvalued By 85.26% And Not A Technology Company\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-05-08 11:30 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://seekingalpha.com/article/4507535-tesla-overvalued-by-85-26-percent-and-not-a-technology-company><strong>Seeking Alpha</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>SummaryMake no mistake, Tesla is a phenomenal company that has accomplished the unthinkable as it broke through extreme barriers of entry to disrupt the auto industry.Just because Tesla is a ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4507535-tesla-overvalued-by-85-26-percent-and-not-a-technology-company\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TSLA":"特斯拉"},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4507535-tesla-overvalued-by-85-26-percent-and-not-a-technology-company","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1131831539","content_text":"SummaryMake no mistake, Tesla is a phenomenal company that has accomplished the unthinkable as it broke through extreme barriers of entry to disrupt the auto industry.Just because Tesla is a successful company that is causing automotive titans to change from combustible engines to EVs doesn't mean Tesla's stock is a good investment today.100% of gross profit and net income is generated from the automotive sector as Tesla's other businesses lose money, making them an automobile manufacturing company, not a technology company.I compared Tesla's metrics to the auto industry and big tech and the results are the same, Tesla's valuation is egregious.It's rare to find companies that have cult-like followings with loyalists willing to pay any price for its stock. The debate regarding Tesla, Inc.'s (NASDAQ:TSLA) valuation continues to be a topic of conversation between the bulls and the bears. Oneside argues that TSLA's financial growth and future prospects, including FSD, insurance, and robotaxis, justify the current $902.12 billion valuations, while others argue that the current financials and cult-like following have led to a massive overvaluation in TSLA's stock.I tip my hat to Elon Musk, as his accomplishments are second to none. When others called him crazy, Mr. Musk chose one of the hardest industries to compete in, started TSLA from the ground up, went to battle against the auto manufacturers, and succeeded. TSLA is one of the rare success stories that has truly shaped an industry, and the barriers of entry that were overcome are astonishing. TSLA didn't have the capital, manufacturing, credibility, or the infrastructure that its competitors did, yet they found a way to succeed. If the odds weren't enough which TSLA faced, they accomplished their goals without a combustible engine and pioneered an entirely new sector within the automotive industry.Just because TSLA is a great company, it doesn't mean TSLA has a great stock, or it isn't overvalued. I am not bearish on TSLA the company because I believe they still have a long runway of growth ahead of them, but I am bearish on the valuation. Prior to leaving a comment on why I am wrong, please read the article and think about the metrics I am citing; then, I will happily discuss any viewpoints about the analysis.Tesla Vs. The World In The Automotive SectorIt feels like TSLA vs. the world whenever TSLA is discussed. Discussing who makes a better automobile is a matter of opinion, and everyone is correct because it's their opinion. If person A thinks TSLA makes the best car and person B thinks Mercedes Benz makes the best car, they are both correct. Debating over this is pointless, so let's look at the raw numbers.TSLA has a larger market cap than the combination ofToyota(TM),Volkswagen(OTCPK:VWAGY),Daimler(OTCPK:DDAIF),BMW(OTCPK:BMWYY),General Motors(GM),Ford(F),Honda(HMC),Ferrari(RACE),Nissan(OTCPK:NSANY),Subaru(OTCPK:FUJHY),Volvo(OTCPK:VOLAF), andMazda(OTCPK:MZDAY). TSLA's market cap is currently $986.92 billion, while the combination of these 12 companies is $777.41 billion.Steven FiorilloThe P/S ratio is often cited to justify the valuation. The combination of TM, VWAGY, DDAIF, BMWYY, GM, F, HMC, RACE, NSANY, FUJHY, VOLAF, and MZDAY has generated $1.38 trillion in revenue over the TTM, putting their P/S at 0.56, while TSLA has generated $62.19 billion in revenue and has a 15.87 P/S.Steven Fiorillo, Seeking AlphaAs a combined entity, these 12 companies have generated $118.29 billion in net income, while TSLA has produced $8.4 billion.Steven Fiorillo, Seeking AlphaTSLA is a great company, but its current valuation has become overly inflated. TSLA's market cap is $209.52 billion larger than these 12 auto manufacturers, yet the combination of the 12 auto manufacturers generates $1.32 trillion more in revenue and $109.89 billion more in net income.Steven Fiorillo, Seeking AlphaLooking at the market caps, one would assume that TSLA has a dominant majority over its competitors in auto sales within the U.S. According to the2021 data, TSLA sold 2.02% of all vehicles in the U.S. TSLA's market cap reflects a level of dominance that is non-existent.Realistically, TSLA will have a hard time disrupting the sector further due to the price point of their vehicles. The reality is that, unless TSLA can sell a car that rivals a Honda or Toyota, doubling its market share is going to be a daunting task. It's just math. TSLA doesn't have a product for the masses, and while it may continue to grow in the luxury segment, the amount of growth that can be achieved is limited due to the pricing power of the consumer.www.goodcarbadcar.netTesla Isn't A Technology Company And Shouldn't Be Valued As OneThe valuation rebuttal has always been that TSLA isn't an automobile company, rather, it's a technology company.TeslaPage 23 ofTSLA's Q1 2022 slide deck from their earnings call is their statement of operations. Once again, 100% of TSLA's gross profit and net income are derived from automobiles. Energy generation and storage lose money as it generates $616 million in revenue while the cost of this revenue is $688 million. The same goes for Services and others, as this segment generates $1.279 billion in revenue while the cost of this revenue is $1.286 billion. This doesn't even factor in operating expenses.TSLA manufacturers state of the art automobiles, but this doesn't classify them as a technology company, nor should they be classified as one. Since this is always the rebuttal and technology companies trade at larger earnings multiples, I will compare TSLA to Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Amazon (AMZN), Alphabet (GOOG) (GOOGL), and Meta Platforms (FB) and illustrate why TSLA is still drastically overvalued if the market was still to provide it with a tech multiple.Prior to the comparisons, I want to frame the analysis by providing each company's market cap:AAPL $2.69 TrillionMSFT $2.17 TrillionGOOGL $1.62 TrillionAMZN $1.28 TrillionTSLA $986.92 BillionFB $604.62 BillionI am going to start with growth because this is always the key metric bulls point out. Since the close of 2018, which is 3.25 fiscal years, TSLA has grown its revenue from $21.46 billion to $62.19 billion.This is absolutely remarkable, but it doesn't place TSLA in the upper epsilon of technology companies. Over the same period, FB grew its revenue by $63.83 billion, which is more than what TSLA produced in the TTM. FB grew its revenue by more than what TSLA produces and generates just about double the revenue ($119.67 billion), yet TSLA has a larger market cap. For everyone who has used growth as their investment premise, FB having a market cap that's $382.30 less than TSLA nullifies that aspect of the bull thesis. AMZN's market cap is only $294.33 billion larger than TSLA, yet they generated $477.75 billion in revenue and grew their revenue by $341.76 billion in this period. Using revenue growth for TSLA doesn't support the valuation.Steven Fiorillo, Seeking AlphaNext, I will turn to profits because, at the end of the day, businesses are in the business of making money. Once again, TSLA has done a fantastic job of monetizing its business and, in 3.25 short years, has gone from losing -$976 million to make $8.4 billion in the TTM for an increase of $9.38 billion. FB has produced $37.34 billion in profit in the TTM, and its net income grew by $15.23 billion over this period. Using growth doesn't support the valuation when FB has a market cap that's $382.30 less than TSLA and grew its profits in this period by almost double what TSLA has generated in the TTM.Steven Fiorillo, Seeking AlphaThe new metric bulls are using in their thesis is TSLA's free cash flow (FCF). Once again, TSLA has done an excellent job, going from -$221 million of FCF in 2018 to $6.93 billion of FCF in the TTM. Many companies would love to grow their annual FCF by $7.15 billion over a 3.25-year period, and this should be applauded.Let's look at FB once again, since TSLA's valuation isn't based on its core segment as an automobile manufacturer. FB has grown its FCF over the previous 3.25 years by $23.45 billion, more than 3x TSLA's growth, and has generated $39.81 billion of FCF in the TTM. FB generated roughly 5.75x more FCF than TSLA and grew its FCF by more than 3x what TSLA produces, yet FB has a market cap that's almost $400 billion less than TSLA. Growth within the financials does not support TSLA's valuation, which is a breath away from $1 trillion.Steven Fiorillo, Seeking AlphaToday you're paying a 113.81 P/E for TSLA. Paying a larger multiple for a company that's growing its earnings quickly is normal, but TSLA isn't growing by larger amounts than FB, and FB trades at a 16.66 P/E. I have seen TSLA bulls justify the P/E because of TSLA's growth factor, but this doesn't hold up when FB has grown by larger amounts from larger starting positions and has a P/E that's a fraction of TSLA. Look at AAPL, which is the largest company in the world. AAPL has grown its net income by $56.25 billion and its FCF by $52.3 billion over the past 3.25 years, and its P/E is 26.78. People are blindly paying any multiple the market places on TSLA.TSLA is trading at a 15.38 P/S. The justification for this multiple is difficult to defend while AMZN trades at a P/S of 11.31. AMZN's revenue grew by $341.76 billion over the past 3.25 years while TSLA grew their revenue by $40.73 billion. Instead of an absolute basis, looking at this from a percentage aspect, TSLA grew its revenue by 189.78%, while AMZN's grew by 251.32%. The P/S ratio is not a supporting valuation metric as TSLA is trading at a larger multiple than AMZN yet produced $301.03 billion less in revenue growth compared to AMZN. At the very least, TSLA should trade at a lower P/S multiple than AMZN considering their revenue growth was a fraction of AMZN's.TSLA has done an excellent job monetizing its revenue, delivering exceptional margins, and generating FCF. Now that TSLA is generating billions in FCF, it's been inserted into the bull thesis. FCF is a measure of profitability that excludes the non-cash expenses of the income statement and includes spending on equipment and assets as well as changes in working capital from the balance sheet. FCF could be the most underrated and most important financial metric to look at, as this is the pool of capital that companies can utilize to repay debt, pay dividends, buy back shares, make acquisitions, or reinvest in the business.Every investment is the present value of all future cash flow. This is why investors look at the price to FCF valuation. Investors want to pay the cheapest multiple for a company's FCF. Today, you're paying 142.52x TSLA's FCF. Going back to the FCF section, TSLA grew its FCF by $7.15 billion over the past 3.25 years. FB generated $23.45 billion of FCF in this period, which is 3x the amount TSLA grew, yet FB is trading at a 15.19x multiple on price to FCF.Why on earth would you want to pay 142.52x for TSLA's FCF when you could pay 15.19x for FB, which is growing their FCF by more than 3x the amount that TSLA is growing by? How about AAPL? AAPL grew its FCF by $52.3 billion and trades at a 25.4x price to FCF. If I exclude FB for a moment, should TSLA trade at a larger FCF multiple than GOOGL, which has grown its FCF by $46.15 billion over the past 3.25 years? My answer is no because there is no guarantee that TSLA will ever generate $46.15 billion in annual FCF, let alone the $68.99 billion in FCF that GOOGL generates.So what is a fair price to FCF multiple for TSLA? I don't believe TSLA has earned the right to trade at the same multiples as the rest of big tech considering the levels of FCF they produce. If I stick with the methodology that FB is egregiously undervalued, then TSLA should trade above 15.19x its FCF but lower than the 23.42x multiple GOOGL trades at.I don't want to be overly bearish, so I will place a 21x multiple on TSLA's FCF, which is more than fair considering big tech metrics. A 21x multiple on TSLA's FCF puts its market cap at $145.43 billion, which is -85.26% from its current market cap of $986.92 billion. It's just math, and if TSLA is going to be valued as a technology company, it needs to be compared to the technology companies with similar market caps.At the very least, there isn't a single reason why TSLA's market cap is larger than FB's. There isn't a single metric that TSLA beats FB in. Based on FB's valuation, if TSLA traded at the same FCF multiple, it would have a market cap of $105.19 billion.TSLA has a gross profit margin of 27.1% ($16.85b / $62.19b) and a profit margin of 13.51% ($8.4b / $62.19b). FB has a gross profit margin of 80.34% ($96.14b / $119.67b) and a profit margin of 31.2% ($37.34b / $119.67b). FB has much wider margins and is growing its revenue by larger amounts. This reinforces my methodology as to why TSLA is grossly overvalued. GOOGL has a gross profit margin of 56.93% ($153.9b / $270.33b) and a profit margin of 27.57% ($74.54b / $270.33b).The chances are incredibly slim that TSLA can double its profit margin to be within striking distance of GOOGL's. TSLA should not trade at a larger FCF, P/E, or P/S multiple than FB or GOOGL. While the market would indicate that I am wrong today, eventually, the hype will wear off, and TSLA will trade at a realistic valuation.TSLA's Future Catalysts Have A Long Way To Go Before Impacting Its Bottom LineThere are three main catalysts people discuss, which include insurance, robotaxis, and FSD.TSLA offers insurance using real-time driving behavior. This is currently available to all Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y owners. The catch is that it's only available in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia as of now.TSLA uses a safety rating score to determine the monthly premium for its vehicles. At the largest premium of $130/mo, this would be $1,560 per year. If TSLA converted 100% of their U.S sales in 2021 as an insurance customer, which I think could be possible if TSLA insurance was available in every state, it would have generated $471.12 million in revenue.We have no idea what the margins would have been, but if the margin was 50%, it would have been an additional $235.56 million in net income in 2021. While this is nothing to sneeze at, an additional $235.56 million in net income hardly moves the needle. This could be a $1 billion top-line revenue segment in the future, but with availability in only 7 states, insurance's $1 billion revenue mark is a long way away.TeslaNext,FSD, for which TSLA has created two subscription models, a $99/mo price point and a $199/mo price point. The problem with FSD is that it doesn't make the vehicle fully autonomous, and you still need a driver to be attentive and alert. While I am not arguing that TSLA's FSD isn't leaps and bounds ahead of the competition, the problem is that it's not exactly a self-driving car.The questions around legality and where you can use it pop into my head, and how many of TSLA's drivers opt for this upgrade. Until there is clear legislation and the technology advances to where vehicles can fully drive a person from point A to B while that person takes a nap or reads, I have a hard time believing enough TSLA owners will spend the extra $199/mo on FSD. If there is somewhere where TSLA produces the numbers about how many owners opt for this package, please let me know, and I will crunch the numbers.Which Features Come With My Subscription?The FSD capability features you receive are based on your configuration and location. Not all features are available in all markets, and features are subject to change.Learn more about Autopilot and Full Self-Driving capability features.Note: These features are designed to become more capable over time; however the currently enabled features do not make the vehicle autonomous. The currently enabled features require a fully attentive driver, who has their hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment.The last catalyst is Robotaxis which many have commented on in my articles before. We're so far off on Robotaxis that this can't be considered in TSLA's upcoming revenue. I would think major legislation would be needed for Robotaxis to exist, and there is no telling how many years away we are from this.Also, what is the percentage of TSLA owners that would actually allow their vehicle to be used as a Robotaxi? Depending on what the profitability is, I can see people buying TSLAs to enroll them in this program, but, once again, we need to see the economics behind it. I know I am just one opinion, but I would never enroll one of my cars into a robotaxi program because I don't want other people that I don't know in my car. I would think there are many others that have similar viewpoints.The real upcoming catalysts are future revenue growth and entering the Chinese market. In 2021 TSLA grew its YoY revenue by 70.67%, and their off to a great start after Q1 2022. Only time will tell what type of growth rate TSLA can maintain, but too many people are assuming that TSLA will obliterate the competition. Over the next several years, we could see TSLA's growth rate become significantly reduced as more luxury operators put EVs on the road.At TSLA's current margins, they would need to increase their revenue by 444.55% to $276.47 billion to produce the same amount of net income ($37.34b) that FB produces today at their current 13.51% profit margin. Maybe TSLA can get there in the future, but why should TSLA be valued at almost $1 trillion today, considering not a single metric of theirs is similar to FB or GOOGL, and TSLA's growth across any of the sectors isn't larger than FB or GOOGL?Tesla Continues To Dilute Shareholders, And Almost No Shareholders CareDilution kills shareholder value. Look, I am a shareholder of TSLA, and I hate that my shares continue to be diluted. These numbers are split-adjusted that I am using. Over the past decade,TSLA has diluted its shares by 80.93%. This is horrible compared to big tech, yet investors can't buy enough TSLA shares. TSLA finished 2012 with 572.6 million shares and, as of its last filing, had increased its outstanding shares to 1.036 billion shares.This is the equivalent of me taking a pizza, and instead of giving you a slice, cutting another 6.5 slices, then giving you one. The pizza represents TSLA, the company, and they basically turned an 8-slice pie into a 14.5-slice pie, reducing shareholder's ownership and the amount of equity, revenue, and EPS our shares represent.If you want to see what a true shepherd of shareholder value looks like, turn to AAPL. In 2012 AAPL had 26.3 billion shares outstanding. Over the past decade, AAPL has repurchased 10.09 billion shares, reducing its outstanding shares by 38.37%. Every quarter, AAPL is buying back shares and increasing the ownership its shares represent. TSLA, on the other hand, continues to dilute shareholders by increasing shares YOY.I Could Be Completely Wrong, And Tesla Could Continue Growing At These RatesTSLA's vehicle deliveries continue to outpace its growing production. YoY TSLA's deliveries increased by 68% in Q1, adding 125,171 delivered vehicles to its customers. TSLA just began Model Y deliveries from the Austin facility, and production at the Gigafactory in Berlin started in March of 2022. TSLA's Shanghai facility had strong production rates prior to the spike in COVID that resulted in temporary shutdowns. TSLA isn't just focusing on the U.S, they have Europe and China in their sights.EVs accounted for 488,000 sales in the U.S for 2021, and the previous projection was that EVs would account for 670,000 units sold in 2022. Oil has hovered around $100 per barrel and could render the previous projections of 37% increased EV sales domestically for 2022 conservative. TSLA is in a prime position to capitalize on this trend. In 2021 TSLA vehicles accounted for 61.89% of EVs sold in the U.S (301,998 / 488,000).Hypothetically, if the previous projection of 670,000 EV sales for 2022 is accurate and TSLA maintains its current margin, they would sell 414,628 vehicles throughout the U.S in 2022. If gas prices do alter the decision-making process when deciding between a combustible engine or an EV, then TSLA could continue surprising the market with QoQ earnings beats.The U.S has a national goal of reaching 50% of domestic auto sales coming from EVs. In 2021, EVs accounted for 3.26% of total sales in the U.S auto market. Based on U.S auto sales in 2021, annual EV sales would need to grow by 6,989,403 to reach a 50% EV to combustible engine ratio. Hypothetically if U.S auto sales stayed flat but EVs reached 50% of the market in 2030 they would sell 7,477,403 vehicles. If TSLA's dominance in the EV sector was to drop from 61.89% to 15% due to increased competition, they would generate 1,121,610 in sales compared to 301,998 in 2021. When you add in Europe and China, TSLA certainly has the ability to become a top auto manufacturer by sales next decade.Bulls aren't incorrect to be excited about TSLA. The world is moving toward EVs, and TSLA is the crème de la crème. As I said in the beginning, I am bullish about TSLA's future prospects, but I think the valuation today is overinflated. Nobody can predict the future, but I have no doubt that TSLA will continue to grow its sales YoY.The question becomes, how much growth will they be able to achieve YoY? In 2021, TM generated $226.48 billion of revenue and, based on the future of EVs, TSLA certainly could achieve this level of revenue in the future. Based on TSLA's current 13.51% profit margin, if they achieved TM's level of revenue, they would generate $30.59 billion of net income, which would definitely make today's valuation look more realistic.TeslaConclusionYou're probably wondering how I can be a shareholder and be a bear on TSLA's valuation at the same time. It's simple; my wife bought shares of TSLA, which makes me a shareholder. My stance has always been bullish on the company and bearish on the valuation. What Elon Musk and the team at TSLA has accomplished is astonishing, and they deserve nothing but respect.Keep in mind a company and a company's stock are two separate things. TSLA continues to dilute shareholders, and they and the market are valuing TSLA as if it's FB or GOOGL. TSLA is not a technology company; it's an automobile company, as the automotive segments drive 100% of its gross revenue and net income.TSLA is trading at a P/E of 113.81, a P/S of 15.38, and a 142.52x multiple on its FCF. The numbers are drastically inflated as TSLA has no business trading at a larger P/S multiple than AMZN, which trades at 11.31 P/S when it has grown its revenue by $341.76 billion over the previous 3.25 years compared to TSLA's $40.73 billion of revenue growth. TSLA has generated $6.93 billion in FCF over the TTM, while Mr. Market has placed a 142.52x multiple on TSLA due to $7.15 billion FCF growth over the past 3.25 years. FB trades at a 15.19x FCF multiple while growing FCF by $23.45 billion over this period which is more than 3x what TSLA has generated in the TTM.With FB trading at 15.19x FCF, GOOGL at 23.42x FCF, and AAPL at 25.4x FCF, it's hard to justify any number above 20x for TSLA. I think a 21x FCF multiple is generous and that places TSLA at a market cap of $145.43 billion, which is -85.26% from its current market cap of $986.92 billion.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":236,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9094862946,"gmtCreate":1645110840034,"gmtModify":1676533998544,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"like pls","listText":"like pls","text":"like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":8,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9094862946","repostId":"1160305279","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1160305279","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Providing stock market headlines, business news, financials and earnings ","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Tiger Newspress","id":"1079075236","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1645110453,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1160305279?lang=&edition=full_marsco","pubTime":"2022-02-17 23:07","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Some Hot Chinese ADRs Gained in Morning Trading","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1160305279","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"iQiyi, Alibaba, Pinduoduo, Bilibili, Nio, XPeng, and NetEase rose between 2% and 8%.","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>iQiyi, Alibaba, Pinduoduo, Bilibili, Nio, XPeng, and NetEase rose between 2% and 8%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ec09f8448f7a073aa5b2efd88f0778d7\" tg-width=\"713\" tg-height=\"613\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/></p></body></html>","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>Some Hot Chinese ADRs Gained in Morning Trading</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\">\nSome Hot Chinese ADRs Gained in Morning Trading\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1079075236\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Tiger Newspress </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2022-02-17 23:07</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p>iQiyi, Alibaba, Pinduoduo, Bilibili, Nio, XPeng, and NetEase rose between 2% and 8%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ec09f8448f7a073aa5b2efd88f0778d7\" tg-width=\"713\" tg-height=\"613\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/></p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"NIO":"蔚来","NTES":"网易","PDD":"拼多多","IQ":"爱奇艺","BABA":"阿里巴巴"},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1160305279","content_text":"iQiyi, Alibaba, Pinduoduo, Bilibili, Nio, XPeng, and NetEase rose between 2% and 8%.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":195,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":881096825,"gmtCreate":1631280072867,"gmtModify":1676530517264,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":8,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/881096825","repostId":"1160544799","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":135,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":807322184,"gmtCreate":1628001572148,"gmtModify":1703499478390,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like lls","listText":"Like lls","text":"Like lls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":6,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/807322184","repostId":"2156473129","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":346,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9039124940,"gmtCreate":1645969627107,"gmtModify":1676534078341,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":7,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9039124940","repostId":"1125580913","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1125580913","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Providing stock market headlines, business news, financials and earnings ","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Tiger Newspress","id":"1079075236","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1645926503,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1125580913?lang=&edition=full_marsco","pubTime":"2022-02-27 09:48","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Buffett Full Annual Letter：Apple is One of ‘Four Giants’ Driving the Conglomerate’s Value","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1125580913","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"Warren Buffett released his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders on Saturday. The 91-yea","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>Warren Buffett released his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders on Saturday. The 91-year-old investing legend has been publishing the letter for over six decades and it has become required reading for investors around the world.</p><p>Warren Buffett said he now considers tech giant Apple as one of the four pillars driving Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate of mostly old-economy businesses he’s assembled over the last five decades.</p><p>In his annual letter to shareholders released on Saturday, the 91-year-old investing legend listed Apple under the heading “Our Four Giants” and even called the company the second-most important after Berkshire’s cluster of insurers, thanks to its chief executive.</p><p>“Tim Cook, Apple’s brilliant CEO, quite properly regards users of Apple products as his first love, but all of his other constituencies benefit from Tim’s managerial touch as well,” the letter stated.</p><p>Buffett made clear he is a fan of Cook’s stock repurchase strategy, and how it gives the conglomerate increased ownership of each dollar of the iPhone maker’s earnings without the investor having to lift a finger.</p><p>“Apple – our runner-up Giant as measured by its yearend market value – is a different sort of holding. Here, our ownership is a mere 5.55%, up from 5.39% a year earlier,” Buffett said in the letter. “That increase sounds like small potatoes. But consider that each 0.1% of Apple’s 2021 earnings amounted to $100 million. We spent no Berkshire funds to gain our accretion. Apple’s repurchases did the job.”</p><p>Berkshire began buying Apple stock in 2016 under the influence of Buffett’s investing deputies Todd Combs and Ted Weschler. By mid-2018, the conglomerate accumulated 5% ownership of the iPhone maker, a stake that cost $36 billion. Today, the Apple investment is now worth more than $160 billion, taking up 40% of Berkshire’s equity portfolio.</p><p>“It’s important to understand that only dividends from Apple are counted in the GAAP earnings Berkshire reports – and last year, Apple paid us $785 million of those. Yet our ‘share’ of Apple’s earnings amounted to a staggering $5.6 billion. Much of what the company retained was used to repurchase Apple shares, an act we applaud,” Buffett said.</p><p>Berkshire is Apple’s largest shareholder, outside of index and exchange-traded fund providers.</p><p>Buffett also credited his railroad business BNSF and energy segment BHE as two other giants of the conglomerate, which both registered record earnings in 2021.</p><p>“BNSF, our third Giant, continues to be the number one artery of American commerce, which makes it an indispensable asset for America as well as for Berkshire,” Buffett said. “BHE has become a utility powerhouse and a leading force in wind, solar and transmission throughout much of the United States.”</p><p><b>Read the full letter here：</b></p><p>To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.:</p><p>Charlie Munger, my long-time partner, and I have the job of managing a portion of your savings. We are honored by your trust.</p><p>Our position carries with it the responsibility to report to you what we would like to know if we were the absentee owner and you were the manager. We enjoy communicating directly with you through this annual letter, and through the annual meeting as well.</p><p>Our policy is to treat all shareholders equally. Therefore, we do not hold discussions with analysts nor large institutions. Whenever possible, also, we release important communications on Saturday mornings in order to maximize the time for shareholders and the media to absorb the news before markets open on Monday.</p><p>A wealth of Berkshire facts and figures are set forth in the annual 10-K that the company regularly files with the S.E.C. and that we reproduce on pages K-1 – K-119. Some shareholders will find this detail engrossing; others will simply prefer to learn what Charlie and I believe is new or interesting at Berkshire.</p><p>Alas, there was little action of that sort in 2021. We did, though, make reasonable progress in increasing the intrinsic value of your shares. That task has been my primary duty for 57 years. And it will continue to be.</p><p><b>What You Own</b></p><p>Berkshire owns a wide variety of businesses, some in their entirety, some only in part. The second group largely consists of marketable common stocks of major American companies. Additionally, we own a few non-U.S. equities and participate in several joint ventures or other collaborative activities.</p><p>Whatever our form of ownership, our goal is to have meaningful investments in businesses with both durable economic advantages and a first-class CEO. Please note particularly that we own stocks based upon our expectations about their long-term business performance and not because we view them as vehicles for timely market moves. That point is crucial: Charlie and I are not stock-pickers; we are business-pickers.</p><p>I make many mistakes. Consequently, our extensive collection of businesses includes some enterprises that have truly extraordinary economics, many others that enjoy good economic characteristics, and a few that are marginal. One advantage of our common-stock segment is that – on occasion – it becomes easy to buy pieces of wonderful businesses at wonderful prices. That shooting-fish-in-a-barrel experience is very rare in negotiated transactions and never occurs en masse. It is also far easier to exit from a mistake when it has been made in the marketable arena.</p><h2><b>Surprise, Surprise</b></h2><p>Here are a few items about your company that often surprise even seasoned investors:</p><p>• Many people perceive Berkshire as a large and somewhat strange collection of financial assets. In truth, Berkshire owns and operates more U.S.-based “infrastructure” assets – classified on our balance sheet as property, plant and equipment – than are owned and operated by any other American corporation. That supremacy has never been our goal. It has, however, become a fact.</p><p>At yearend, those domestic infrastructure assets were carried on Berkshire’s balance sheet at $158 billion. That number increased last year and will continue to increase. Berkshire always will be building.</p><p>• Every year, your company makes substantial federal income tax payments. In 2021, for example, we paid</p><p>$3.3 billion while the U.S. Treasury reported total corporate income-tax receipts of $402 billion. Additionally, Berkshire pays substantial state and foreign taxes. “I gave at the office” is an unassailable assertion when made by Berkshire shareholders.</p><p>Berkshire’s history vividly illustrates the invisible and often unrecognized financial partnership between  government and American businesses. Our tale begins early in 1955, when Berkshire Fine Spinning and Hathaway Manufacturing agreed to merge their businesses. In their requests for shareholder approval, these venerable New England textile companies expressed high hopes for the combination.</p><p></p><p>The Hathaway solicitation, for example, assured its shareholders that “The combination of the resources and managements will result in one of the strongest and most efficient organizations in the textile industry.” That upbeat view was endorsed by the company’s advisor, Lehman Brothers (yes, that Lehman Brothers).</p><p>I’m sure it was a joyous day in both Fall River (Berkshire) and New Bedford (Hathaway) when the union was consummated. After the bands stopped playing and the bankers went home, however, the shareholders reaped a disaster.</p><p>In the nine years following the merger, Berkshire’s owners watched the company’s net worth crater from</p><p>$51.4 million to $22.1 million. In part, this decline was caused by stock repurchases, ill-advised dividends and plant shutdowns. But nine years of effort by many thousands of employees delivered an operating loss as well. Berkshire’s struggles were not unusual: The New England textile industry had silently entered an extended and non-reversible death march.</p><p>During the nine post-merger years, the U.S. Treasury suffered as well from Berkshire’s troubles. All told, the company paid the government only $337,359 in income tax during that period – a pathetic $100 per day.</p><p>Early in 1965, things changed. Berkshire installed new management that redeployed available cash and steered essentially all earnings into a variety of good businesses, most of which remained good through the years. Coupling reinvestment of earnings with the power of compounding worked its magic, and shareholders prospered.</p><p>Berkshire’s owners, it should be noted, were not the only beneficiary of that course correction. Their “silent partner,” the U.S. Treasury, proceeded to collect many tens of billions of dollars from the company in income tax payments. Remember the $100 daily? Now, Berkshire pays roughly $9 million daily to the Treasury.</p><p>In fairness to our governmental partner, our shareholders should acknowledge – indeed trumpet – the fact that Berkshire’s prosperity has been fostered mightily because the company has operated in America. Our country would have done splendidly in the years since 1965 without Berkshire. Absent our American home, however, Berkshire would never have come close to becoming what it is today. When you see the flag, say thanks.</p><p>• From an $8.6 million purchase of National Indemnity in 1967, Berkshire has become the world leader in insurance “float” – money we hold and can invest but that does not belong to us. Including a relatively small sum derived from life insurance, Berkshire’s total float has grown from $19 million when we entered the insurance business to $147 billion.</p><p>So far, this float has cost us less than nothing. Though we have experienced a number of years when insurance losses combined with operating expenses exceeded premiums, overall we have earned a modest 55-year profit from the underwriting activities that generated our float.</p><p>Of equal importance, float is very sticky. Funds attributable to our insurance operations come and go daily, but their aggregate total is immune from precipitous decline. When it comes to investing float, we can therefore think long-term.</p><p>If you are not already familiar with the concept of float, I refer you to a long explanation on page A-5. To my surprise, our float increased $9 billion last year, a buildup of value that is important to Berkshire owners though is not reflected in our GAAP (“generally-accepted accounting principles”) presentation of earnings and net worth.</p><p>Much of our huge value creation in insurance is attributable to Berkshire’s good luck in my 1986 hiring of Ajit Jain. We first met on a Saturday morning, and I quickly asked Ajit what his insurance experience had been. He replied, “None.”</p><p>I said, “Nobody’s perfect,” and hired him. That was my lucky day: Ajit actually was as perfect a choice as could have been made. Better yet, he continues to be – 35 years later.</p><p>One final thought about insurance: I believe that it is likely – but far from assured – that Berkshire’s float can be maintained without our incurring a long-term underwriting loss. I am certain, however, that there will be some years when we experience such losses, perhaps involving very large sums.</p><p>Berkshire is constructed to handle catastrophic events as no other insurer – and that priority will remain long after Charlie and I are gone.</p><h2>Our Four Giants</h2><p>Through Berkshire, our shareholders own many dozens of businesses. Some of these, in turn, have a collection of subsidiaries of their own. For example, Marmon has more than 100 individual business operations, ranging from the leasing of railroad cars to the manufacture of medical devices.</p><p>• Nevertheless, operations of our “Big Four” companies account for a very large chunk of Berkshire’s value. Leading this list is our cluster of insurers. Berkshire effectively owns 100% of this group, whose massive float value we earlier described. The invested assets of these insurers are further enlarged by the extraordinary amount of capital we invest to back up their promises.</p><p>The insurance business is made to order for Berkshire. The product will never be obsolete, and sales volume will generally increase along with both economic growth and inflation. Also, integrity and capital will forever be important. Our company can and will behave well.</p><p>There are, of course, other insurers with excellent business models and prospects. Replication of Berkshire’s operation, however, would be almost impossible.</p><p>• Apple – our runner-up Giant as measured by its yearend market value – is a different sort of holding. Here, our ownership is a mere 5.55%, up from 5.39% a year earlier. That increase sounds like small potatoes. But consider that each 0.1% of Apple’s 2021 earnings amounted to $100 million. We spent no Berkshire funds to gain our accretion. Apple’s repurchases did the job.</p><p>It’s important to understand that only dividends from Apple are counted in the GAAP earnings Berkshire reports – and last year, Apple paid us $785 million of those. Yet our “share” of Apple’s earnings amounted to a staggering $5.6 billion. Much of what the company retained was used to repurchase Apple shares, an act we applaud. Tim Cook, Apple’s brilliant CEO, quite properly regards users of Apple products as his first love, but all of his other constituencies benefit from Tim’s managerial touch as well.</p><p>• BNSF, our third Giant, continues to be the number one artery of American commerce, which makes it an indispensable asset for America as well as for Berkshire. If the many essential products BNSF carries were instead hauled by truck, America’s carbon emissions would soar.</p><p>Your railroad had record earnings of $6 billion in 2021. Here, it should be noted, we are talking about the old-fashioned sort of earnings that we favor: a figure calculated after interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization and all forms of compensation. (Our definition suggests a warning: Deceptive “adjustments” to earnings – to use a polite description – have become both more frequent and more fanciful as stocks have risen. Speaking less politely, I would say that bull markets breed bloviated bull )</p><p>BNSF trains traveled 143 million miles last year and carried 535 million tons of cargo. Both accomplishments far exceed those of any other American carrier. You can be proud of your railroad.</p><p>• BHE, our final Giant, earned a record $4 billion in 2021. That’s up more than 30-fold from the $122 million earned in 2000, the year that Berkshire first purchased a BHE stake. Now, Berkshire owns 91.1% of the company.</p><p>BHE’s record of societal accomplishment is as remarkable as its financial performance. The company had no wind or solar generation in 2000. It was then regarded simply as a relatively new and minor participant in the huge electric utility industry. Subsequently, under David Sokol’s and Greg Abel’s leadership, BHE has become a utility powerhouse (no groaning, please) and a leading force in wind, solar and transmission throughout much of the United States.</p><p>Greg’s report on these accomplishments appears on pages A-3 and A-4. The profile you will find there is not in any way one of those currently-fashionable “green-washing” stories. BHE has been faithfully detailing its plans and performance in renewables and transmissions every year since 2007.</p><p>To further review this information, visit BHE’s website at brkenergy.com. There, you will see that the company has long been making climate-conscious moves that soak up all of its earnings. More opportunities lie ahead. BHE has the management, the experience, the capital and the appetite for the huge power projects that our country needs.</p><h2>Investments</h2><p>Now let’s talk about companies we don’t control, a list that again references Apple. Below we list our fifteen largest equity holdings, several of which are selections of Berkshire’s two long-time investment managers, Todd Combs and Ted Weschler. At yearend, this valued pair had total authority in respect to $34 billion of investments, many of which do not meet the threshold value we use in the table. Also, a significant portion of the dollars that Todd and Ted manage are lodged in various pension plans of Berkshire-owned businesses, with the assets of these plans not included in this table.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d43587e9f59c0ff76e6c04c6bf9af324\" tg-width=\"1047\" tg-height=\"530\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>* This is our actual purchase price and also our tax basis.</p><p>** Held by BHE; consequently, Berkshire shareholders have only a 91.1% interest in this position.</p><p>*** Includes a $10 billion investment in Occidental Petroleum, consisting of preferred stock and warrants to buy common stock, a combination now being valued at $10.7 billion.</p><p>In addition to the footnoted Occidental holding and our various common-stock positions, Berkshire also owns a 26.6% interest in Kraft Heinz (accounted for on the “equity” method, not market value, and carried at $13.1 billion) and 38.6% of Pilot Corp., a leader in travel centers that had revenues last year of $45 billion.</p><p>Since we purchased our Pilot stake in 2017, this holding has warranted “equity” accounting treatment. Early in 2023, Berkshire will purchase an additional interest in Pilot that will raise our ownership to 80% and lead to our fully consolidating Pilot’s earnings, assets and liabilities in our financial statements.</p><h2>U.S. Treasury Bills</h2><p>Berkshire’s balance sheet includes $144 billion of cash and cash equivalents (excluding the holdings of BNSF and BHE). Of this sum, $120 billion is held in U.S. Treasury bills, all maturing in less than a year. That stake leaves Berkshire financing about 12 of 1% of the publicly-held national debt.</p><p>Charlie and I have pledged that Berkshire (along with our subsidiaries other than BNSF and BHE) will always hold more than $30 billion of cash and equivalents. We want your company to be financially impregnable and never dependent on the kindness of strangers (or even that of friends). Both of us like to sleep soundly, and we want our creditors, insurance claimants and you to do so as well.</p><h2>But $144 billion?</h2><p>That imposing sum, I assure you, is not some deranged expression of patriotism. Nor have Charlie and I lost our overwhelming preference for business ownership. Indeed, I first manifested my enthusiasm for that 80 years ago, on March 11, 1942, when I purchased three shares of Cities Services preferred stock. Their cost was $114.75 and required all of my savings. (The Dow Jones Industrial Average that day closed at 99, a fact that should scream to you: Never bet against America.)</p><p>After my initial plunge, I always kept at least 80% of my net worth in equities. My favored status throughout that period was 100% – and still is. Berkshire’s current 80%-or-so position in businesses is a consequence of my failure to find entire companies or small portions thereof (that is, marketable stocks) which meet our criteria for long- term holding.</p><p>Charlie and I have endured similar cash-heavy positions from time to time in the past. These periods are never pleasant; they are also never permanent. And, fortunately, we have had a mildly attractive alternative during 2020 and 2021 for deploying capital. Read on.</p><h2>Share Repurchases</h2><p>There are three ways that we can increase the value of your investment. The first is always front and center in our minds: Increase the long-term earning power of Berkshire’s controlled businesses through internal growth or by making acquisitions. Today, internal opportunities deliver far better returns than acquisitions. The size of those opportunities, however, is small compared to Berkshire’s resources.</p><p>Our second choice is to buy non-controlling part-interests in the many good or great businesses that are publicly traded. From time to time, such possibilities are both numerous and blatantly attractive. Today, though, we find little that excites us.</p><p>That’s largely because of a truism: Long-term interest rates that are low push the prices of all productive investments upward, whether these are stocks, apartments, farms, oil wells, whatever. Other factors influence valuations as well, but interest rates will always be important.</p><p>Our final path to value creation is to repurchase Berkshire shares. Through that simple act, we increase your share of the many controlled and non-controlled businesses Berkshire owns. When the price/value equation is right, this path is the easiest and most certain way for us to increase your wealth. (Alongside the accretion of value to continuing shareholders, a couple of other parties gain: Repurchases are modestly beneficial to the seller of the repurchased shares and to society as well.)</p><p>Periodically, as alternative paths become unattractive, repurchases make good sense for Berkshire’s owners. During the past two years, we therefore repurchased 9% of the shares that were outstanding at yearend 2019 for a total cost of $51.7 billion. That expenditure left our continuing shareholders owning about 10% more of all Berkshire businesses, whether these are wholly-owned (such as BNSF and GEICO) or partly-owned (such as Coca-Cola and Moody’s).</p><p>I want to underscore that for Berkshire repurchases to make sense, our shares must offer appropriate value. We don’t want to overpay for the shares of other companies, and it would be value-destroying if we were to overpay when we are buying Berkshire. As of February 23, 2022, since yearend we repurchased additional shares at a cost of $1.2 billion. Our appetite remains large but will always remain price-dependent.</p><p>It should be noted that Berkshire’s buyback opportunities are limited because of its high-class investor base. If our shares were heavily held by short-term speculators, both price volatility and transaction volumes would materially increase. That kind of reshaping would offer us far greater opportunities for creating value by making repurchases. Nevertheless, Charlie and I far prefer the owners we have, even though their admirable buy-and-keep attitudes limit the extent to which long-term shareholders can profit from opportunistic repurchases.</p><p>Finally, one easily-overlooked value calculation specific to Berkshire: As we’ve discussed, insurance “float” of the right sort is of great value to us. As it happens, repurchases automatically increase the amount of “float” per share. That figure has increased during the past two years by 25% – going from $79,387 per “A” share to $99,497, a meaningful gain that, as noted, owes some thanks to repurchases.</p><h2>A Wonderful Man and a Wonderful Business</h2><p>Last year, Paul Andrews died. Paul was the founder and CEO of TTI, a Fort Worth-based subsidiary of Berkshire. Throughout his life – in both his business and his personal pursuits – Paul quietly displayed all the qualities that Charlie and I admire. His story should be told.</p><p>In 1971, Paul was working as a purchasing agent for General Dynamics when the roof fell in. After losing a huge defense contract, the company fired thousands of employees, including Paul.</p><p>With his first child due soon, Paul decided to bet on himself, using $500 of his savings to found Tex-Tronics (later renamed TTI). The company set itself up to distribute small electronic components, and first-year sales totaled $112,000. Today, TTI markets more than one million different items with annual volume of $7.7 billion.</p><p>But back to 2006: Paul, at 63, then found himself happy with his family, his job, and his associates. But he had one nagging worry, heightened because he had recently witnessed a friend’s early death and the disastrous results that followed for that man’s family and business. What, Paul asked himself in 2006, would happen to the many people depending on him if he should unexpectedly die?</p><p>For a year, Paul wrestled with his options. Sell to a competitor? From a strictly economic viewpoint, that course made the most sense. After all, competitors could envision lucrative “synergies” – savings that would be achieved as the acquiror slashed duplicated functions at TTI.</p><p>But . . . Such a purchaser would most certainly also retain its CFO, its legal counsel, its HR unit. Their TTI counterparts would therefore be sent packing. And ugh! If a new distribution center were to be needed, the acquirer’s home city would certainly be favored over Fort Worth.</p><p>Whatever the financial benefits, Paul quickly concluded that selling to a competitor was not for him. He next considered seeking a financial buyer, a species once labeled – aptly so – a leveraged buyout firm. Paul knew, however, that such a purchaser would be focused on an “exit strategy.” And who could know what that would be? Brooding over it all, Paul found himself having no interest in handing his 35-year-old creation over to a reseller.</p><p>When Paul met me, he explained why he had eliminated these two alternatives as buyers. He then summed up his dilemma by saying – in far more tactful phrasing than this – “After a year of pondering the alternatives, I want to sell to Berkshire because you are the only guy left.” So, I made an offer and Paul said “Yes.” One meeting; one lunch; one deal.</p><p>To say we both lived happily ever after is an understatement. When Berkshire purchased TTI, the company employed 2,387. Now the number is 8,043. A large percentage of that growth took place in Fort Worth and environs. Earnings have increased 673%.</p><p>Annually, I would call Paul and tell him his salary should be substantially increased. Annually, he would tell me, “We can talk about that next year, Warren; I’m too busy now.”</p><p>When Greg Abel and I attended Paul’s memorial service, we met children, grandchildren, long-time associates (including TTI’s first employee) and John Roach, the former CEO of a Fort Worth company Berkshire had purchased in 2000. John had steered his friend Paul to Omaha, instinctively knowing we would be a match.</p><p>At the service, Greg and I heard about the multitudes of people and organizations that Paul had silently supported. The breadth of his generosity was extraordinary – geared always to improving the lives of others, particularly those in Fort Worth.</p><p>In all ways, Paul was a class act.</p><p>* * * * * * * * * * * *</p><p>Good luck – occasionally extraordinary luck – has played its part at Berkshire. If Paul and I had not enjoyed a mutual friend – John Roach – TTI would not have found its home with us. But that ample serving of luck was only the beginning. TTI was soon to lead Berkshire to its most important acquisition.</p><p>Every fall, Berkshire directors gather for a presentation by a few of our executives. We sometimes choose the site based upon the location of a recent acquisition, by that means allowing directors to meet the new subsidiary’s CEO and learn more about the acquiree’s activities.</p><p>In the fall of 2009, we consequently selected Fort Worth so that we could visit TTI. At that time, BNSF, which also had Fort Worth as its hometown, was the third-largest holding among our marketable equities. Despite that large stake, I had never visited the railroad’s headquarters.</p><p>Deb Bosanek, my assistant, scheduled our board’s opening dinner for October 22. Meanwhile, I arranged to arrive earlier that day to meet with Matt Rose, CEO of BNSF, whose accomplishments I had long admired. When I made the date, I had no idea that our get-together would coincide with BNSF’s third-quarter earnings report, which was released late on the 22nd.</p><p>The market reacted badly to the railroad’s results. The Great Recession was in full force in the third quarter, and BNSF’s earnings reflected that slump. The economic outlook was also bleak, and Wall Street wasn’t feeling friendly to railroads – or much else.</p><p>On the following day, I again got together with Matt and suggested that Berkshire would offer the railroad a better long-term home than it could expect as a public company. I also told him the maximum price that Berkshire would pay.</p><p>Matt relayed the offer to his directors and advisors. Eleven busy days later, Berkshire and BNSF announced a firm deal. And here I’ll venture a rare prediction: BNSF will be a key asset for Berkshire and our country a century from now.</p><p>The BNSF acquisition would never have happened if Paul Andrews hadn’t sized up Berkshire as the right home for TTI.</p><h2>Thanks</h2><p>I taught my first investing class 70 years ago. Since then, I have enjoyed working almost every year with students of all ages, finally “retiring” from that pursuit in 2018.</p><p>Along the way, my toughest audience was my grandson’s fifth-grade class. The 11-year-olds were squirming in their seats and giving me blank stares until I mentioned Coca-Cola and its famous secret formula. Instantly, every hand went up, and I learned that “secrets” are catnip to kids.</p><p>Teaching, like writing, has helped me develop and clarify my own thoughts. Charlie calls this phenomenon the orangutan effect: If you sit down with an orangutan and carefully explain to it one of your cherished ideas, you may leave behind a puzzled primate, but will yourself exit thinking more clearly.</p><p>Talking to university students is far superior. I have urged that they seek employment in (1) the field and (2) with the kind of people they would select, if they had no need for money. Economic realities, I acknowledge, may interfere with that kind of search. Even so, I urge the students never to give up the quest, for when they find that sort of job, they will no longer be “working.”</p><p>Charlie and I, ourselves, followed that liberating course after a few early stumbles. We both started as part- timers at my grandfather’s grocery store, Charlie in 1940 and I in 1942. We were each assigned boring tasks and paid little, definitely not what we had in mind. Charlie later took up law, and I tried selling securities. Job satisfaction continued to elude us.</p><p>Finally, at Berkshire, we found what we love to do. With very few exceptions, we have now “worked” for many decades with people whom we like and trust. It’s a joy in life to join with managers such as Paul Andrews or the Berkshire families I told you about last year. In our home office, we employ decent and talented people – no jerks. Turnover averages, perhaps, one person per year.</p><p>I would like, however, to emphasize a further item that turns our jobs into fun and satisfaction working</p><p>for you. There is nothing more rewarding to Charlie and me than enjoying the trust of individual long-term shareholders who, for many decades, have joined us with the expectation that we would be a reliable custodian of their funds.</p><p>Obviously, we can’t select our owners, as we could do if our form of operation were a partnership. Anyone can buy shares of Berkshire today with the intention of soon reselling them. For sure, we get a few of that type of shareholder, just as we get index funds that own huge amounts of Berkshire simply because they are required to do so.</p><p>To a truly unusual degree, however, Berkshire has as owners a very large corps of individuals and families that have elected to join us with an intent approaching “til death do us part.” Often, they have trusted us with a large – some might say excessive – portion of their savings.</p><p>Berkshire, these shareholders would sometimes acknowledge, might be far from the best selection they could have made. But they would add that Berkshire would rank high among those with which they would be most comfortable. And people who are comfortable with their investments will, on average, achieve better results than those who are motivated by ever-changing headlines, chatter and promises.</p><p>Long-term individual owners are both the “partners” Charlie and I have always sought and the ones we constantly have in mind as we make decisions at Berkshire. To them we say, “It feels good to ‘work’ for you, and you have our thanks for your trust.”</p><h2>The Annual Meeting</h2><p>Clear your calendar! Berkshire will have its annual gathering of capitalists in Omaha on Friday, April 29th through Sunday, May 1st. The details regarding the weekend are laid out on pages A-1 and A-2. Omaha eagerly awaits you, as do I.</p><p>I will end this letter with a sales pitch. “Cousin” Jimmy Buffett has designed a pontoon “party” boat that is now being manufactured by Forest River, a Berkshire subsidiary. The boat will be introduced on April 29 at our Berkshire Bazaar of Bargains. And, for two days only, shareholders will be able to purchase Jimmy’s masterpiece at a 10% discount. Your bargain-hunting chairman will be buying a boat for his family’s use. Join me.</p><p>February 26, 2022</p><p>Warren E. Buffett Chairman of the Board</p></body></html>","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>Buffett Full Annual Letter：Apple is One of ‘Four Giants’ Driving the Conglomerate’s Value</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\">\nBuffett Full Annual Letter：Apple is One of ‘Four Giants’ Driving the Conglomerate’s Value\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1079075236\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Tiger Newspress </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2022-02-27 09:48</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p>Warren Buffett released his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders on Saturday. The 91-year-old investing legend has been publishing the letter for over six decades and it has become required reading for investors around the world.</p><p>Warren Buffett said he now considers tech giant Apple as one of the four pillars driving Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate of mostly old-economy businesses he’s assembled over the last five decades.</p><p>In his annual letter to shareholders released on Saturday, the 91-year-old investing legend listed Apple under the heading “Our Four Giants” and even called the company the second-most important after Berkshire’s cluster of insurers, thanks to its chief executive.</p><p>“Tim Cook, Apple’s brilliant CEO, quite properly regards users of Apple products as his first love, but all of his other constituencies benefit from Tim’s managerial touch as well,” the letter stated.</p><p>Buffett made clear he is a fan of Cook’s stock repurchase strategy, and how it gives the conglomerate increased ownership of each dollar of the iPhone maker’s earnings without the investor having to lift a finger.</p><p>“Apple – our runner-up Giant as measured by its yearend market value – is a different sort of holding. Here, our ownership is a mere 5.55%, up from 5.39% a year earlier,” Buffett said in the letter. “That increase sounds like small potatoes. But consider that each 0.1% of Apple’s 2021 earnings amounted to $100 million. We spent no Berkshire funds to gain our accretion. Apple’s repurchases did the job.”</p><p>Berkshire began buying Apple stock in 2016 under the influence of Buffett’s investing deputies Todd Combs and Ted Weschler. By mid-2018, the conglomerate accumulated 5% ownership of the iPhone maker, a stake that cost $36 billion. Today, the Apple investment is now worth more than $160 billion, taking up 40% of Berkshire’s equity portfolio.</p><p>“It’s important to understand that only dividends from Apple are counted in the GAAP earnings Berkshire reports – and last year, Apple paid us $785 million of those. Yet our ‘share’ of Apple’s earnings amounted to a staggering $5.6 billion. Much of what the company retained was used to repurchase Apple shares, an act we applaud,” Buffett said.</p><p>Berkshire is Apple’s largest shareholder, outside of index and exchange-traded fund providers.</p><p>Buffett also credited his railroad business BNSF and energy segment BHE as two other giants of the conglomerate, which both registered record earnings in 2021.</p><p>“BNSF, our third Giant, continues to be the number one artery of American commerce, which makes it an indispensable asset for America as well as for Berkshire,” Buffett said. “BHE has become a utility powerhouse and a leading force in wind, solar and transmission throughout much of the United States.”</p><p><b>Read the full letter here：</b></p><p>To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.:</p><p>Charlie Munger, my long-time partner, and I have the job of managing a portion of your savings. We are honored by your trust.</p><p>Our position carries with it the responsibility to report to you what we would like to know if we were the absentee owner and you were the manager. We enjoy communicating directly with you through this annual letter, and through the annual meeting as well.</p><p>Our policy is to treat all shareholders equally. Therefore, we do not hold discussions with analysts nor large institutions. Whenever possible, also, we release important communications on Saturday mornings in order to maximize the time for shareholders and the media to absorb the news before markets open on Monday.</p><p>A wealth of Berkshire facts and figures are set forth in the annual 10-K that the company regularly files with the S.E.C. and that we reproduce on pages K-1 – K-119. Some shareholders will find this detail engrossing; others will simply prefer to learn what Charlie and I believe is new or interesting at Berkshire.</p><p>Alas, there was little action of that sort in 2021. We did, though, make reasonable progress in increasing the intrinsic value of your shares. That task has been my primary duty for 57 years. And it will continue to be.</p><p><b>What You Own</b></p><p>Berkshire owns a wide variety of businesses, some in their entirety, some only in part. The second group largely consists of marketable common stocks of major American companies. Additionally, we own a few non-U.S. equities and participate in several joint ventures or other collaborative activities.</p><p>Whatever our form of ownership, our goal is to have meaningful investments in businesses with both durable economic advantages and a first-class CEO. Please note particularly that we own stocks based upon our expectations about their long-term business performance and not because we view them as vehicles for timely market moves. That point is crucial: Charlie and I are not stock-pickers; we are business-pickers.</p><p>I make many mistakes. Consequently, our extensive collection of businesses includes some enterprises that have truly extraordinary economics, many others that enjoy good economic characteristics, and a few that are marginal. One advantage of our common-stock segment is that – on occasion – it becomes easy to buy pieces of wonderful businesses at wonderful prices. That shooting-fish-in-a-barrel experience is very rare in negotiated transactions and never occurs en masse. It is also far easier to exit from a mistake when it has been made in the marketable arena.</p><h2><b>Surprise, Surprise</b></h2><p>Here are a few items about your company that often surprise even seasoned investors:</p><p>• Many people perceive Berkshire as a large and somewhat strange collection of financial assets. In truth, Berkshire owns and operates more U.S.-based “infrastructure” assets – classified on our balance sheet as property, plant and equipment – than are owned and operated by any other American corporation. That supremacy has never been our goal. It has, however, become a fact.</p><p>At yearend, those domestic infrastructure assets were carried on Berkshire’s balance sheet at $158 billion. That number increased last year and will continue to increase. Berkshire always will be building.</p><p>• Every year, your company makes substantial federal income tax payments. In 2021, for example, we paid</p><p>$3.3 billion while the U.S. Treasury reported total corporate income-tax receipts of $402 billion. Additionally, Berkshire pays substantial state and foreign taxes. “I gave at the office” is an unassailable assertion when made by Berkshire shareholders.</p><p>Berkshire’s history vividly illustrates the invisible and often unrecognized financial partnership between  government and American businesses. Our tale begins early in 1955, when Berkshire Fine Spinning and Hathaway Manufacturing agreed to merge their businesses. In their requests for shareholder approval, these venerable New England textile companies expressed high hopes for the combination.</p><p></p><p>The Hathaway solicitation, for example, assured its shareholders that “The combination of the resources and managements will result in one of the strongest and most efficient organizations in the textile industry.” That upbeat view was endorsed by the company’s advisor, Lehman Brothers (yes, that Lehman Brothers).</p><p>I’m sure it was a joyous day in both Fall River (Berkshire) and New Bedford (Hathaway) when the union was consummated. After the bands stopped playing and the bankers went home, however, the shareholders reaped a disaster.</p><p>In the nine years following the merger, Berkshire’s owners watched the company’s net worth crater from</p><p>$51.4 million to $22.1 million. In part, this decline was caused by stock repurchases, ill-advised dividends and plant shutdowns. But nine years of effort by many thousands of employees delivered an operating loss as well. Berkshire’s struggles were not unusual: The New England textile industry had silently entered an extended and non-reversible death march.</p><p>During the nine post-merger years, the U.S. Treasury suffered as well from Berkshire’s troubles. All told, the company paid the government only $337,359 in income tax during that period – a pathetic $100 per day.</p><p>Early in 1965, things changed. Berkshire installed new management that redeployed available cash and steered essentially all earnings into a variety of good businesses, most of which remained good through the years. Coupling reinvestment of earnings with the power of compounding worked its magic, and shareholders prospered.</p><p>Berkshire’s owners, it should be noted, were not the only beneficiary of that course correction. Their “silent partner,” the U.S. Treasury, proceeded to collect many tens of billions of dollars from the company in income tax payments. Remember the $100 daily? Now, Berkshire pays roughly $9 million daily to the Treasury.</p><p>In fairness to our governmental partner, our shareholders should acknowledge – indeed trumpet – the fact that Berkshire’s prosperity has been fostered mightily because the company has operated in America. Our country would have done splendidly in the years since 1965 without Berkshire. Absent our American home, however, Berkshire would never have come close to becoming what it is today. When you see the flag, say thanks.</p><p>• From an $8.6 million purchase of National Indemnity in 1967, Berkshire has become the world leader in insurance “float” – money we hold and can invest but that does not belong to us. Including a relatively small sum derived from life insurance, Berkshire’s total float has grown from $19 million when we entered the insurance business to $147 billion.</p><p>So far, this float has cost us less than nothing. Though we have experienced a number of years when insurance losses combined with operating expenses exceeded premiums, overall we have earned a modest 55-year profit from the underwriting activities that generated our float.</p><p>Of equal importance, float is very sticky. Funds attributable to our insurance operations come and go daily, but their aggregate total is immune from precipitous decline. When it comes to investing float, we can therefore think long-term.</p><p>If you are not already familiar with the concept of float, I refer you to a long explanation on page A-5. To my surprise, our float increased $9 billion last year, a buildup of value that is important to Berkshire owners though is not reflected in our GAAP (“generally-accepted accounting principles”) presentation of earnings and net worth.</p><p>Much of our huge value creation in insurance is attributable to Berkshire’s good luck in my 1986 hiring of Ajit Jain. We first met on a Saturday morning, and I quickly asked Ajit what his insurance experience had been. He replied, “None.”</p><p>I said, “Nobody’s perfect,” and hired him. That was my lucky day: Ajit actually was as perfect a choice as could have been made. Better yet, he continues to be – 35 years later.</p><p>One final thought about insurance: I believe that it is likely – but far from assured – that Berkshire’s float can be maintained without our incurring a long-term underwriting loss. I am certain, however, that there will be some years when we experience such losses, perhaps involving very large sums.</p><p>Berkshire is constructed to handle catastrophic events as no other insurer – and that priority will remain long after Charlie and I are gone.</p><h2>Our Four Giants</h2><p>Through Berkshire, our shareholders own many dozens of businesses. Some of these, in turn, have a collection of subsidiaries of their own. For example, Marmon has more than 100 individual business operations, ranging from the leasing of railroad cars to the manufacture of medical devices.</p><p>• Nevertheless, operations of our “Big Four” companies account for a very large chunk of Berkshire’s value. Leading this list is our cluster of insurers. Berkshire effectively owns 100% of this group, whose massive float value we earlier described. The invested assets of these insurers are further enlarged by the extraordinary amount of capital we invest to back up their promises.</p><p>The insurance business is made to order for Berkshire. The product will never be obsolete, and sales volume will generally increase along with both economic growth and inflation. Also, integrity and capital will forever be important. Our company can and will behave well.</p><p>There are, of course, other insurers with excellent business models and prospects. Replication of Berkshire’s operation, however, would be almost impossible.</p><p>• Apple – our runner-up Giant as measured by its yearend market value – is a different sort of holding. Here, our ownership is a mere 5.55%, up from 5.39% a year earlier. That increase sounds like small potatoes. But consider that each 0.1% of Apple’s 2021 earnings amounted to $100 million. We spent no Berkshire funds to gain our accretion. Apple’s repurchases did the job.</p><p>It’s important to understand that only dividends from Apple are counted in the GAAP earnings Berkshire reports – and last year, Apple paid us $785 million of those. Yet our “share” of Apple’s earnings amounted to a staggering $5.6 billion. Much of what the company retained was used to repurchase Apple shares, an act we applaud. Tim Cook, Apple’s brilliant CEO, quite properly regards users of Apple products as his first love, but all of his other constituencies benefit from Tim’s managerial touch as well.</p><p>• BNSF, our third Giant, continues to be the number one artery of American commerce, which makes it an indispensable asset for America as well as for Berkshire. If the many essential products BNSF carries were instead hauled by truck, America’s carbon emissions would soar.</p><p>Your railroad had record earnings of $6 billion in 2021. Here, it should be noted, we are talking about the old-fashioned sort of earnings that we favor: a figure calculated after interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization and all forms of compensation. (Our definition suggests a warning: Deceptive “adjustments” to earnings – to use a polite description – have become both more frequent and more fanciful as stocks have risen. Speaking less politely, I would say that bull markets breed bloviated bull )</p><p>BNSF trains traveled 143 million miles last year and carried 535 million tons of cargo. Both accomplishments far exceed those of any other American carrier. You can be proud of your railroad.</p><p>• BHE, our final Giant, earned a record $4 billion in 2021. That’s up more than 30-fold from the $122 million earned in 2000, the year that Berkshire first purchased a BHE stake. Now, Berkshire owns 91.1% of the company.</p><p>BHE’s record of societal accomplishment is as remarkable as its financial performance. The company had no wind or solar generation in 2000. It was then regarded simply as a relatively new and minor participant in the huge electric utility industry. Subsequently, under David Sokol’s and Greg Abel’s leadership, BHE has become a utility powerhouse (no groaning, please) and a leading force in wind, solar and transmission throughout much of the United States.</p><p>Greg’s report on these accomplishments appears on pages A-3 and A-4. The profile you will find there is not in any way one of those currently-fashionable “green-washing” stories. BHE has been faithfully detailing its plans and performance in renewables and transmissions every year since 2007.</p><p>To further review this information, visit BHE’s website at brkenergy.com. There, you will see that the company has long been making climate-conscious moves that soak up all of its earnings. More opportunities lie ahead. BHE has the management, the experience, the capital and the appetite for the huge power projects that our country needs.</p><h2>Investments</h2><p>Now let’s talk about companies we don’t control, a list that again references Apple. Below we list our fifteen largest equity holdings, several of which are selections of Berkshire’s two long-time investment managers, Todd Combs and Ted Weschler. At yearend, this valued pair had total authority in respect to $34 billion of investments, many of which do not meet the threshold value we use in the table. Also, a significant portion of the dollars that Todd and Ted manage are lodged in various pension plans of Berkshire-owned businesses, with the assets of these plans not included in this table.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d43587e9f59c0ff76e6c04c6bf9af324\" tg-width=\"1047\" tg-height=\"530\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>* This is our actual purchase price and also our tax basis.</p><p>** Held by BHE; consequently, Berkshire shareholders have only a 91.1% interest in this position.</p><p>*** Includes a $10 billion investment in Occidental Petroleum, consisting of preferred stock and warrants to buy common stock, a combination now being valued at $10.7 billion.</p><p>In addition to the footnoted Occidental holding and our various common-stock positions, Berkshire also owns a 26.6% interest in Kraft Heinz (accounted for on the “equity” method, not market value, and carried at $13.1 billion) and 38.6% of Pilot Corp., a leader in travel centers that had revenues last year of $45 billion.</p><p>Since we purchased our Pilot stake in 2017, this holding has warranted “equity” accounting treatment. Early in 2023, Berkshire will purchase an additional interest in Pilot that will raise our ownership to 80% and lead to our fully consolidating Pilot’s earnings, assets and liabilities in our financial statements.</p><h2>U.S. Treasury Bills</h2><p>Berkshire’s balance sheet includes $144 billion of cash and cash equivalents (excluding the holdings of BNSF and BHE). Of this sum, $120 billion is held in U.S. Treasury bills, all maturing in less than a year. That stake leaves Berkshire financing about 12 of 1% of the publicly-held national debt.</p><p>Charlie and I have pledged that Berkshire (along with our subsidiaries other than BNSF and BHE) will always hold more than $30 billion of cash and equivalents. We want your company to be financially impregnable and never dependent on the kindness of strangers (or even that of friends). Both of us like to sleep soundly, and we want our creditors, insurance claimants and you to do so as well.</p><h2>But $144 billion?</h2><p>That imposing sum, I assure you, is not some deranged expression of patriotism. Nor have Charlie and I lost our overwhelming preference for business ownership. Indeed, I first manifested my enthusiasm for that 80 years ago, on March 11, 1942, when I purchased three shares of Cities Services preferred stock. Their cost was $114.75 and required all of my savings. (The Dow Jones Industrial Average that day closed at 99, a fact that should scream to you: Never bet against America.)</p><p>After my initial plunge, I always kept at least 80% of my net worth in equities. My favored status throughout that period was 100% – and still is. Berkshire’s current 80%-or-so position in businesses is a consequence of my failure to find entire companies or small portions thereof (that is, marketable stocks) which meet our criteria for long- term holding.</p><p>Charlie and I have endured similar cash-heavy positions from time to time in the past. These periods are never pleasant; they are also never permanent. And, fortunately, we have had a mildly attractive alternative during 2020 and 2021 for deploying capital. Read on.</p><h2>Share Repurchases</h2><p>There are three ways that we can increase the value of your investment. The first is always front and center in our minds: Increase the long-term earning power of Berkshire’s controlled businesses through internal growth or by making acquisitions. Today, internal opportunities deliver far better returns than acquisitions. The size of those opportunities, however, is small compared to Berkshire’s resources.</p><p>Our second choice is to buy non-controlling part-interests in the many good or great businesses that are publicly traded. From time to time, such possibilities are both numerous and blatantly attractive. Today, though, we find little that excites us.</p><p>That’s largely because of a truism: Long-term interest rates that are low push the prices of all productive investments upward, whether these are stocks, apartments, farms, oil wells, whatever. Other factors influence valuations as well, but interest rates will always be important.</p><p>Our final path to value creation is to repurchase Berkshire shares. Through that simple act, we increase your share of the many controlled and non-controlled businesses Berkshire owns. When the price/value equation is right, this path is the easiest and most certain way for us to increase your wealth. (Alongside the accretion of value to continuing shareholders, a couple of other parties gain: Repurchases are modestly beneficial to the seller of the repurchased shares and to society as well.)</p><p>Periodically, as alternative paths become unattractive, repurchases make good sense for Berkshire’s owners. During the past two years, we therefore repurchased 9% of the shares that were outstanding at yearend 2019 for a total cost of $51.7 billion. That expenditure left our continuing shareholders owning about 10% more of all Berkshire businesses, whether these are wholly-owned (such as BNSF and GEICO) or partly-owned (such as Coca-Cola and Moody’s).</p><p>I want to underscore that for Berkshire repurchases to make sense, our shares must offer appropriate value. We don’t want to overpay for the shares of other companies, and it would be value-destroying if we were to overpay when we are buying Berkshire. As of February 23, 2022, since yearend we repurchased additional shares at a cost of $1.2 billion. Our appetite remains large but will always remain price-dependent.</p><p>It should be noted that Berkshire’s buyback opportunities are limited because of its high-class investor base. If our shares were heavily held by short-term speculators, both price volatility and transaction volumes would materially increase. That kind of reshaping would offer us far greater opportunities for creating value by making repurchases. Nevertheless, Charlie and I far prefer the owners we have, even though their admirable buy-and-keep attitudes limit the extent to which long-term shareholders can profit from opportunistic repurchases.</p><p>Finally, one easily-overlooked value calculation specific to Berkshire: As we’ve discussed, insurance “float” of the right sort is of great value to us. As it happens, repurchases automatically increase the amount of “float” per share. That figure has increased during the past two years by 25% – going from $79,387 per “A” share to $99,497, a meaningful gain that, as noted, owes some thanks to repurchases.</p><h2>A Wonderful Man and a Wonderful Business</h2><p>Last year, Paul Andrews died. Paul was the founder and CEO of TTI, a Fort Worth-based subsidiary of Berkshire. Throughout his life – in both his business and his personal pursuits – Paul quietly displayed all the qualities that Charlie and I admire. His story should be told.</p><p>In 1971, Paul was working as a purchasing agent for General Dynamics when the roof fell in. After losing a huge defense contract, the company fired thousands of employees, including Paul.</p><p>With his first child due soon, Paul decided to bet on himself, using $500 of his savings to found Tex-Tronics (later renamed TTI). The company set itself up to distribute small electronic components, and first-year sales totaled $112,000. Today, TTI markets more than one million different items with annual volume of $7.7 billion.</p><p>But back to 2006: Paul, at 63, then found himself happy with his family, his job, and his associates. But he had one nagging worry, heightened because he had recently witnessed a friend’s early death and the disastrous results that followed for that man’s family and business. What, Paul asked himself in 2006, would happen to the many people depending on him if he should unexpectedly die?</p><p>For a year, Paul wrestled with his options. Sell to a competitor? From a strictly economic viewpoint, that course made the most sense. After all, competitors could envision lucrative “synergies” – savings that would be achieved as the acquiror slashed duplicated functions at TTI.</p><p>But . . . Such a purchaser would most certainly also retain its CFO, its legal counsel, its HR unit. Their TTI counterparts would therefore be sent packing. And ugh! If a new distribution center were to be needed, the acquirer’s home city would certainly be favored over Fort Worth.</p><p>Whatever the financial benefits, Paul quickly concluded that selling to a competitor was not for him. He next considered seeking a financial buyer, a species once labeled – aptly so – a leveraged buyout firm. Paul knew, however, that such a purchaser would be focused on an “exit strategy.” And who could know what that would be? Brooding over it all, Paul found himself having no interest in handing his 35-year-old creation over to a reseller.</p><p>When Paul met me, he explained why he had eliminated these two alternatives as buyers. He then summed up his dilemma by saying – in far more tactful phrasing than this – “After a year of pondering the alternatives, I want to sell to Berkshire because you are the only guy left.” So, I made an offer and Paul said “Yes.” One meeting; one lunch; one deal.</p><p>To say we both lived happily ever after is an understatement. When Berkshire purchased TTI, the company employed 2,387. Now the number is 8,043. A large percentage of that growth took place in Fort Worth and environs. Earnings have increased 673%.</p><p>Annually, I would call Paul and tell him his salary should be substantially increased. Annually, he would tell me, “We can talk about that next year, Warren; I’m too busy now.”</p><p>When Greg Abel and I attended Paul’s memorial service, we met children, grandchildren, long-time associates (including TTI’s first employee) and John Roach, the former CEO of a Fort Worth company Berkshire had purchased in 2000. John had steered his friend Paul to Omaha, instinctively knowing we would be a match.</p><p>At the service, Greg and I heard about the multitudes of people and organizations that Paul had silently supported. The breadth of his generosity was extraordinary – geared always to improving the lives of others, particularly those in Fort Worth.</p><p>In all ways, Paul was a class act.</p><p>* * * * * * * * * * * *</p><p>Good luck – occasionally extraordinary luck – has played its part at Berkshire. If Paul and I had not enjoyed a mutual friend – John Roach – TTI would not have found its home with us. But that ample serving of luck was only the beginning. TTI was soon to lead Berkshire to its most important acquisition.</p><p>Every fall, Berkshire directors gather for a presentation by a few of our executives. We sometimes choose the site based upon the location of a recent acquisition, by that means allowing directors to meet the new subsidiary’s CEO and learn more about the acquiree’s activities.</p><p>In the fall of 2009, we consequently selected Fort Worth so that we could visit TTI. At that time, BNSF, which also had Fort Worth as its hometown, was the third-largest holding among our marketable equities. Despite that large stake, I had never visited the railroad’s headquarters.</p><p>Deb Bosanek, my assistant, scheduled our board’s opening dinner for October 22. Meanwhile, I arranged to arrive earlier that day to meet with Matt Rose, CEO of BNSF, whose accomplishments I had long admired. When I made the date, I had no idea that our get-together would coincide with BNSF’s third-quarter earnings report, which was released late on the 22nd.</p><p>The market reacted badly to the railroad’s results. The Great Recession was in full force in the third quarter, and BNSF’s earnings reflected that slump. The economic outlook was also bleak, and Wall Street wasn’t feeling friendly to railroads – or much else.</p><p>On the following day, I again got together with Matt and suggested that Berkshire would offer the railroad a better long-term home than it could expect as a public company. I also told him the maximum price that Berkshire would pay.</p><p>Matt relayed the offer to his directors and advisors. Eleven busy days later, Berkshire and BNSF announced a firm deal. And here I’ll venture a rare prediction: BNSF will be a key asset for Berkshire and our country a century from now.</p><p>The BNSF acquisition would never have happened if Paul Andrews hadn’t sized up Berkshire as the right home for TTI.</p><h2>Thanks</h2><p>I taught my first investing class 70 years ago. Since then, I have enjoyed working almost every year with students of all ages, finally “retiring” from that pursuit in 2018.</p><p>Along the way, my toughest audience was my grandson’s fifth-grade class. The 11-year-olds were squirming in their seats and giving me blank stares until I mentioned Coca-Cola and its famous secret formula. Instantly, every hand went up, and I learned that “secrets” are catnip to kids.</p><p>Teaching, like writing, has helped me develop and clarify my own thoughts. Charlie calls this phenomenon the orangutan effect: If you sit down with an orangutan and carefully explain to it one of your cherished ideas, you may leave behind a puzzled primate, but will yourself exit thinking more clearly.</p><p>Talking to university students is far superior. I have urged that they seek employment in (1) the field and (2) with the kind of people they would select, if they had no need for money. Economic realities, I acknowledge, may interfere with that kind of search. Even so, I urge the students never to give up the quest, for when they find that sort of job, they will no longer be “working.”</p><p>Charlie and I, ourselves, followed that liberating course after a few early stumbles. We both started as part- timers at my grandfather’s grocery store, Charlie in 1940 and I in 1942. We were each assigned boring tasks and paid little, definitely not what we had in mind. Charlie later took up law, and I tried selling securities. Job satisfaction continued to elude us.</p><p>Finally, at Berkshire, we found what we love to do. With very few exceptions, we have now “worked” for many decades with people whom we like and trust. It’s a joy in life to join with managers such as Paul Andrews or the Berkshire families I told you about last year. In our home office, we employ decent and talented people – no jerks. Turnover averages, perhaps, one person per year.</p><p>I would like, however, to emphasize a further item that turns our jobs into fun and satisfaction working</p><p>for you. There is nothing more rewarding to Charlie and me than enjoying the trust of individual long-term shareholders who, for many decades, have joined us with the expectation that we would be a reliable custodian of their funds.</p><p>Obviously, we can’t select our owners, as we could do if our form of operation were a partnership. Anyone can buy shares of Berkshire today with the intention of soon reselling them. For sure, we get a few of that type of shareholder, just as we get index funds that own huge amounts of Berkshire simply because they are required to do so.</p><p>To a truly unusual degree, however, Berkshire has as owners a very large corps of individuals and families that have elected to join us with an intent approaching “til death do us part.” Often, they have trusted us with a large – some might say excessive – portion of their savings.</p><p>Berkshire, these shareholders would sometimes acknowledge, might be far from the best selection they could have made. But they would add that Berkshire would rank high among those with which they would be most comfortable. And people who are comfortable with their investments will, on average, achieve better results than those who are motivated by ever-changing headlines, chatter and promises.</p><p>Long-term individual owners are both the “partners” Charlie and I have always sought and the ones we constantly have in mind as we make decisions at Berkshire. To them we say, “It feels good to ‘work’ for you, and you have our thanks for your trust.”</p><h2>The Annual Meeting</h2><p>Clear your calendar! Berkshire will have its annual gathering of capitalists in Omaha on Friday, April 29th through Sunday, May 1st. The details regarding the weekend are laid out on pages A-1 and A-2. Omaha eagerly awaits you, as do I.</p><p>I will end this letter with a sales pitch. “Cousin” Jimmy Buffett has designed a pontoon “party” boat that is now being manufactured by Forest River, a Berkshire subsidiary. The boat will be introduced on April 29 at our Berkshire Bazaar of Bargains. And, for two days only, shareholders will be able to purchase Jimmy’s masterpiece at a 10% discount. Your bargain-hunting chairman will be buying a boat for his family’s use. Join me.</p><p>February 26, 2022</p><p>Warren E. Buffett Chairman of the Board</p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1125580913","content_text":"Warren Buffett released his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders on Saturday. The 91-year-old investing legend has been publishing the letter for over six decades and it has become required reading for investors around the world.Warren Buffett said he now considers tech giant Apple as one of the four pillars driving Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate of mostly old-economy businesses he’s assembled over the last five decades.In his annual letter to shareholders released on Saturday, the 91-year-old investing legend listed Apple under the heading “Our Four Giants” and even called the company the second-most important after Berkshire’s cluster of insurers, thanks to its chief executive.“Tim Cook, Apple’s brilliant CEO, quite properly regards users of Apple products as his first love, but all of his other constituencies benefit from Tim’s managerial touch as well,” the letter stated.Buffett made clear he is a fan of Cook’s stock repurchase strategy, and how it gives the conglomerate increased ownership of each dollar of the iPhone maker’s earnings without the investor having to lift a finger.“Apple – our runner-up Giant as measured by its yearend market value – is a different sort of holding. Here, our ownership is a mere 5.55%, up from 5.39% a year earlier,” Buffett said in the letter. “That increase sounds like small potatoes. But consider that each 0.1% of Apple’s 2021 earnings amounted to $100 million. We spent no Berkshire funds to gain our accretion. Apple’s repurchases did the job.”Berkshire began buying Apple stock in 2016 under the influence of Buffett’s investing deputies Todd Combs and Ted Weschler. By mid-2018, the conglomerate accumulated 5% ownership of the iPhone maker, a stake that cost $36 billion. Today, the Apple investment is now worth more than $160 billion, taking up 40% of Berkshire’s equity portfolio.“It’s important to understand that only dividends from Apple are counted in the GAAP earnings Berkshire reports – and last year, Apple paid us $785 million of those. Yet our ‘share’ of Apple’s earnings amounted to a staggering $5.6 billion. Much of what the company retained was used to repurchase Apple shares, an act we applaud,” Buffett said.Berkshire is Apple’s largest shareholder, outside of index and exchange-traded fund providers.Buffett also credited his railroad business BNSF and energy segment BHE as two other giants of the conglomerate, which both registered record earnings in 2021.“BNSF, our third Giant, continues to be the number one artery of American commerce, which makes it an indispensable asset for America as well as for Berkshire,” Buffett said. “BHE has become a utility powerhouse and a leading force in wind, solar and transmission throughout much of the United States.”Read the full letter here：To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.:Charlie Munger, my long-time partner, and I have the job of managing a portion of your savings. We are honored by your trust.Our position carries with it the responsibility to report to you what we would like to know if we were the absentee owner and you were the manager. We enjoy communicating directly with you through this annual letter, and through the annual meeting as well.Our policy is to treat all shareholders equally. Therefore, we do not hold discussions with analysts nor large institutions. Whenever possible, also, we release important communications on Saturday mornings in order to maximize the time for shareholders and the media to absorb the news before markets open on Monday.A wealth of Berkshire facts and figures are set forth in the annual 10-K that the company regularly files with the S.E.C. and that we reproduce on pages K-1 – K-119. Some shareholders will find this detail engrossing; others will simply prefer to learn what Charlie and I believe is new or interesting at Berkshire.Alas, there was little action of that sort in 2021. We did, though, make reasonable progress in increasing the intrinsic value of your shares. That task has been my primary duty for 57 years. And it will continue to be.What You OwnBerkshire owns a wide variety of businesses, some in their entirety, some only in part. The second group largely consists of marketable common stocks of major American companies. Additionally, we own a few non-U.S. equities and participate in several joint ventures or other collaborative activities.Whatever our form of ownership, our goal is to have meaningful investments in businesses with both durable economic advantages and a first-class CEO. Please note particularly that we own stocks based upon our expectations about their long-term business performance and not because we view them as vehicles for timely market moves. That point is crucial: Charlie and I are not stock-pickers; we are business-pickers.I make many mistakes. Consequently, our extensive collection of businesses includes some enterprises that have truly extraordinary economics, many others that enjoy good economic characteristics, and a few that are marginal. One advantage of our common-stock segment is that – on occasion – it becomes easy to buy pieces of wonderful businesses at wonderful prices. That shooting-fish-in-a-barrel experience is very rare in negotiated transactions and never occurs en masse. It is also far easier to exit from a mistake when it has been made in the marketable arena.Surprise, SurpriseHere are a few items about your company that often surprise even seasoned investors:• Many people perceive Berkshire as a large and somewhat strange collection of financial assets. In truth, Berkshire owns and operates more U.S.-based “infrastructure” assets – classified on our balance sheet as property, plant and equipment – than are owned and operated by any other American corporation. That supremacy has never been our goal. It has, however, become a fact.At yearend, those domestic infrastructure assets were carried on Berkshire’s balance sheet at $158 billion. That number increased last year and will continue to increase. Berkshire always will be building.• Every year, your company makes substantial federal income tax payments. In 2021, for example, we paid$3.3 billion while the U.S. Treasury reported total corporate income-tax receipts of $402 billion. Additionally, Berkshire pays substantial state and foreign taxes. “I gave at the office” is an unassailable assertion when made by Berkshire shareholders.Berkshire’s history vividly illustrates the invisible and often unrecognized financial partnership between  government and American businesses. Our tale begins early in 1955, when Berkshire Fine Spinning and Hathaway Manufacturing agreed to merge their businesses. In their requests for shareholder approval, these venerable New England textile companies expressed high hopes for the combination.The Hathaway solicitation, for example, assured its shareholders that “The combination of the resources and managements will result in one of the strongest and most efficient organizations in the textile industry.” That upbeat view was endorsed by the company’s advisor, Lehman Brothers (yes, that Lehman Brothers).I’m sure it was a joyous day in both Fall River (Berkshire) and New Bedford (Hathaway) when the union was consummated. After the bands stopped playing and the bankers went home, however, the shareholders reaped a disaster.In the nine years following the merger, Berkshire’s owners watched the company’s net worth crater from$51.4 million to $22.1 million. In part, this decline was caused by stock repurchases, ill-advised dividends and plant shutdowns. But nine years of effort by many thousands of employees delivered an operating loss as well. Berkshire’s struggles were not unusual: The New England textile industry had silently entered an extended and non-reversible death march.During the nine post-merger years, the U.S. Treasury suffered as well from Berkshire’s troubles. All told, the company paid the government only $337,359 in income tax during that period – a pathetic $100 per day.Early in 1965, things changed. Berkshire installed new management that redeployed available cash and steered essentially all earnings into a variety of good businesses, most of which remained good through the years. Coupling reinvestment of earnings with the power of compounding worked its magic, and shareholders prospered.Berkshire’s owners, it should be noted, were not the only beneficiary of that course correction. Their “silent partner,” the U.S. Treasury, proceeded to collect many tens of billions of dollars from the company in income tax payments. Remember the $100 daily? Now, Berkshire pays roughly $9 million daily to the Treasury.In fairness to our governmental partner, our shareholders should acknowledge – indeed trumpet – the fact that Berkshire’s prosperity has been fostered mightily because the company has operated in America. Our country would have done splendidly in the years since 1965 without Berkshire. Absent our American home, however, Berkshire would never have come close to becoming what it is today. When you see the flag, say thanks.• From an $8.6 million purchase of National Indemnity in 1967, Berkshire has become the world leader in insurance “float” – money we hold and can invest but that does not belong to us. Including a relatively small sum derived from life insurance, Berkshire’s total float has grown from $19 million when we entered the insurance business to $147 billion.So far, this float has cost us less than nothing. Though we have experienced a number of years when insurance losses combined with operating expenses exceeded premiums, overall we have earned a modest 55-year profit from the underwriting activities that generated our float.Of equal importance, float is very sticky. Funds attributable to our insurance operations come and go daily, but their aggregate total is immune from precipitous decline. When it comes to investing float, we can therefore think long-term.If you are not already familiar with the concept of float, I refer you to a long explanation on page A-5. To my surprise, our float increased $9 billion last year, a buildup of value that is important to Berkshire owners though is not reflected in our GAAP (“generally-accepted accounting principles”) presentation of earnings and net worth.Much of our huge value creation in insurance is attributable to Berkshire’s good luck in my 1986 hiring of Ajit Jain. We first met on a Saturday morning, and I quickly asked Ajit what his insurance experience had been. He replied, “None.”I said, “Nobody’s perfect,” and hired him. That was my lucky day: Ajit actually was as perfect a choice as could have been made. Better yet, he continues to be – 35 years later.One final thought about insurance: I believe that it is likely – but far from assured – that Berkshire’s float can be maintained without our incurring a long-term underwriting loss. I am certain, however, that there will be some years when we experience such losses, perhaps involving very large sums.Berkshire is constructed to handle catastrophic events as no other insurer – and that priority will remain long after Charlie and I are gone.Our Four GiantsThrough Berkshire, our shareholders own many dozens of businesses. Some of these, in turn, have a collection of subsidiaries of their own. For example, Marmon has more than 100 individual business operations, ranging from the leasing of railroad cars to the manufacture of medical devices.• Nevertheless, operations of our “Big Four” companies account for a very large chunk of Berkshire’s value. Leading this list is our cluster of insurers. Berkshire effectively owns 100% of this group, whose massive float value we earlier described. The invested assets of these insurers are further enlarged by the extraordinary amount of capital we invest to back up their promises.The insurance business is made to order for Berkshire. The product will never be obsolete, and sales volume will generally increase along with both economic growth and inflation. Also, integrity and capital will forever be important. Our company can and will behave well.There are, of course, other insurers with excellent business models and prospects. Replication of Berkshire’s operation, however, would be almost impossible.• Apple – our runner-up Giant as measured by its yearend market value – is a different sort of holding. Here, our ownership is a mere 5.55%, up from 5.39% a year earlier. That increase sounds like small potatoes. But consider that each 0.1% of Apple’s 2021 earnings amounted to $100 million. We spent no Berkshire funds to gain our accretion. Apple’s repurchases did the job.It’s important to understand that only dividends from Apple are counted in the GAAP earnings Berkshire reports – and last year, Apple paid us $785 million of those. Yet our “share” of Apple’s earnings amounted to a staggering $5.6 billion. Much of what the company retained was used to repurchase Apple shares, an act we applaud. Tim Cook, Apple’s brilliant CEO, quite properly regards users of Apple products as his first love, but all of his other constituencies benefit from Tim’s managerial touch as well.• BNSF, our third Giant, continues to be the number one artery of American commerce, which makes it an indispensable asset for America as well as for Berkshire. If the many essential products BNSF carries were instead hauled by truck, America’s carbon emissions would soar.Your railroad had record earnings of $6 billion in 2021. Here, it should be noted, we are talking about the old-fashioned sort of earnings that we favor: a figure calculated after interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization and all forms of compensation. (Our definition suggests a warning: Deceptive “adjustments” to earnings – to use a polite description – have become both more frequent and more fanciful as stocks have risen. Speaking less politely, I would say that bull markets breed bloviated bull )BNSF trains traveled 143 million miles last year and carried 535 million tons of cargo. Both accomplishments far exceed those of any other American carrier. You can be proud of your railroad.• BHE, our final Giant, earned a record $4 billion in 2021. That’s up more than 30-fold from the $122 million earned in 2000, the year that Berkshire first purchased a BHE stake. Now, Berkshire owns 91.1% of the company.BHE’s record of societal accomplishment is as remarkable as its financial performance. The company had no wind or solar generation in 2000. It was then regarded simply as a relatively new and minor participant in the huge electric utility industry. Subsequently, under David Sokol’s and Greg Abel’s leadership, BHE has become a utility powerhouse (no groaning, please) and a leading force in wind, solar and transmission throughout much of the United States.Greg’s report on these accomplishments appears on pages A-3 and A-4. The profile you will find there is not in any way one of those currently-fashionable “green-washing” stories. BHE has been faithfully detailing its plans and performance in renewables and transmissions every year since 2007.To further review this information, visit BHE’s website at brkenergy.com. There, you will see that the company has long been making climate-conscious moves that soak up all of its earnings. More opportunities lie ahead. BHE has the management, the experience, the capital and the appetite for the huge power projects that our country needs.InvestmentsNow let’s talk about companies we don’t control, a list that again references Apple. Below we list our fifteen largest equity holdings, several of which are selections of Berkshire’s two long-time investment managers, Todd Combs and Ted Weschler. At yearend, this valued pair had total authority in respect to $34 billion of investments, many of which do not meet the threshold value we use in the table. Also, a significant portion of the dollars that Todd and Ted manage are lodged in various pension plans of Berkshire-owned businesses, with the assets of these plans not included in this table.* This is our actual purchase price and also our tax basis.** Held by BHE; consequently, Berkshire shareholders have only a 91.1% interest in this position.*** Includes a $10 billion investment in Occidental Petroleum, consisting of preferred stock and warrants to buy common stock, a combination now being valued at $10.7 billion.In addition to the footnoted Occidental holding and our various common-stock positions, Berkshire also owns a 26.6% interest in Kraft Heinz (accounted for on the “equity” method, not market value, and carried at $13.1 billion) and 38.6% of Pilot Corp., a leader in travel centers that had revenues last year of $45 billion.Since we purchased our Pilot stake in 2017, this holding has warranted “equity” accounting treatment. Early in 2023, Berkshire will purchase an additional interest in Pilot that will raise our ownership to 80% and lead to our fully consolidating Pilot’s earnings, assets and liabilities in our financial statements.U.S. Treasury BillsBerkshire’s balance sheet includes $144 billion of cash and cash equivalents (excluding the holdings of BNSF and BHE). Of this sum, $120 billion is held in U.S. Treasury bills, all maturing in less than a year. That stake leaves Berkshire financing about 12 of 1% of the publicly-held national debt.Charlie and I have pledged that Berkshire (along with our subsidiaries other than BNSF and BHE) will always hold more than $30 billion of cash and equivalents. We want your company to be financially impregnable and never dependent on the kindness of strangers (or even that of friends). Both of us like to sleep soundly, and we want our creditors, insurance claimants and you to do so as well.But $144 billion?That imposing sum, I assure you, is not some deranged expression of patriotism. Nor have Charlie and I lost our overwhelming preference for business ownership. Indeed, I first manifested my enthusiasm for that 80 years ago, on March 11, 1942, when I purchased three shares of Cities Services preferred stock. Their cost was $114.75 and required all of my savings. (The Dow Jones Industrial Average that day closed at 99, a fact that should scream to you: Never bet against America.)After my initial plunge, I always kept at least 80% of my net worth in equities. My favored status throughout that period was 100% – and still is. Berkshire’s current 80%-or-so position in businesses is a consequence of my failure to find entire companies or small portions thereof (that is, marketable stocks) which meet our criteria for long- term holding.Charlie and I have endured similar cash-heavy positions from time to time in the past. These periods are never pleasant; they are also never permanent. And, fortunately, we have had a mildly attractive alternative during 2020 and 2021 for deploying capital. Read on.Share RepurchasesThere are three ways that we can increase the value of your investment. The first is always front and center in our minds: Increase the long-term earning power of Berkshire’s controlled businesses through internal growth or by making acquisitions. Today, internal opportunities deliver far better returns than acquisitions. The size of those opportunities, however, is small compared to Berkshire’s resources.Our second choice is to buy non-controlling part-interests in the many good or great businesses that are publicly traded. From time to time, such possibilities are both numerous and blatantly attractive. Today, though, we find little that excites us.That’s largely because of a truism: Long-term interest rates that are low push the prices of all productive investments upward, whether these are stocks, apartments, farms, oil wells, whatever. Other factors influence valuations as well, but interest rates will always be important.Our final path to value creation is to repurchase Berkshire shares. Through that simple act, we increase your share of the many controlled and non-controlled businesses Berkshire owns. When the price/value equation is right, this path is the easiest and most certain way for us to increase your wealth. (Alongside the accretion of value to continuing shareholders, a couple of other parties gain: Repurchases are modestly beneficial to the seller of the repurchased shares and to society as well.)Periodically, as alternative paths become unattractive, repurchases make good sense for Berkshire’s owners. During the past two years, we therefore repurchased 9% of the shares that were outstanding at yearend 2019 for a total cost of $51.7 billion. That expenditure left our continuing shareholders owning about 10% more of all Berkshire businesses, whether these are wholly-owned (such as BNSF and GEICO) or partly-owned (such as Coca-Cola and Moody’s).I want to underscore that for Berkshire repurchases to make sense, our shares must offer appropriate value. We don’t want to overpay for the shares of other companies, and it would be value-destroying if we were to overpay when we are buying Berkshire. As of February 23, 2022, since yearend we repurchased additional shares at a cost of $1.2 billion. Our appetite remains large but will always remain price-dependent.It should be noted that Berkshire’s buyback opportunities are limited because of its high-class investor base. If our shares were heavily held by short-term speculators, both price volatility and transaction volumes would materially increase. That kind of reshaping would offer us far greater opportunities for creating value by making repurchases. Nevertheless, Charlie and I far prefer the owners we have, even though their admirable buy-and-keep attitudes limit the extent to which long-term shareholders can profit from opportunistic repurchases.Finally, one easily-overlooked value calculation specific to Berkshire: As we’ve discussed, insurance “float” of the right sort is of great value to us. As it happens, repurchases automatically increase the amount of “float” per share. That figure has increased during the past two years by 25% – going from $79,387 per “A” share to $99,497, a meaningful gain that, as noted, owes some thanks to repurchases.A Wonderful Man and a Wonderful BusinessLast year, Paul Andrews died. Paul was the founder and CEO of TTI, a Fort Worth-based subsidiary of Berkshire. Throughout his life – in both his business and his personal pursuits – Paul quietly displayed all the qualities that Charlie and I admire. His story should be told.In 1971, Paul was working as a purchasing agent for General Dynamics when the roof fell in. After losing a huge defense contract, the company fired thousands of employees, including Paul.With his first child due soon, Paul decided to bet on himself, using $500 of his savings to found Tex-Tronics (later renamed TTI). The company set itself up to distribute small electronic components, and first-year sales totaled $112,000. Today, TTI markets more than one million different items with annual volume of $7.7 billion.But back to 2006: Paul, at 63, then found himself happy with his family, his job, and his associates. But he had one nagging worry, heightened because he had recently witnessed a friend’s early death and the disastrous results that followed for that man’s family and business. What, Paul asked himself in 2006, would happen to the many people depending on him if he should unexpectedly die?For a year, Paul wrestled with his options. Sell to a competitor? From a strictly economic viewpoint, that course made the most sense. After all, competitors could envision lucrative “synergies” – savings that would be achieved as the acquiror slashed duplicated functions at TTI.But . . . Such a purchaser would most certainly also retain its CFO, its legal counsel, its HR unit. Their TTI counterparts would therefore be sent packing. And ugh! If a new distribution center were to be needed, the acquirer’s home city would certainly be favored over Fort Worth.Whatever the financial benefits, Paul quickly concluded that selling to a competitor was not for him. He next considered seeking a financial buyer, a species once labeled – aptly so – a leveraged buyout firm. Paul knew, however, that such a purchaser would be focused on an “exit strategy.” And who could know what that would be? Brooding over it all, Paul found himself having no interest in handing his 35-year-old creation over to a reseller.When Paul met me, he explained why he had eliminated these two alternatives as buyers. He then summed up his dilemma by saying – in far more tactful phrasing than this – “After a year of pondering the alternatives, I want to sell to Berkshire because you are the only guy left.” So, I made an offer and Paul said “Yes.” One meeting; one lunch; one deal.To say we both lived happily ever after is an understatement. When Berkshire purchased TTI, the company employed 2,387. Now the number is 8,043. A large percentage of that growth took place in Fort Worth and environs. Earnings have increased 673%.Annually, I would call Paul and tell him his salary should be substantially increased. Annually, he would tell me, “We can talk about that next year, Warren; I’m too busy now.”When Greg Abel and I attended Paul’s memorial service, we met children, grandchildren, long-time associates (including TTI’s first employee) and John Roach, the former CEO of a Fort Worth company Berkshire had purchased in 2000. John had steered his friend Paul to Omaha, instinctively knowing we would be a match.At the service, Greg and I heard about the multitudes of people and organizations that Paul had silently supported. The breadth of his generosity was extraordinary – geared always to improving the lives of others, particularly those in Fort Worth.In all ways, Paul was a class act.* * * * * * * * * * * *Good luck – occasionally extraordinary luck – has played its part at Berkshire. If Paul and I had not enjoyed a mutual friend – John Roach – TTI would not have found its home with us. But that ample serving of luck was only the beginning. TTI was soon to lead Berkshire to its most important acquisition.Every fall, Berkshire directors gather for a presentation by a few of our executives. We sometimes choose the site based upon the location of a recent acquisition, by that means allowing directors to meet the new subsidiary’s CEO and learn more about the acquiree’s activities.In the fall of 2009, we consequently selected Fort Worth so that we could visit TTI. At that time, BNSF, which also had Fort Worth as its hometown, was the third-largest holding among our marketable equities. Despite that large stake, I had never visited the railroad’s headquarters.Deb Bosanek, my assistant, scheduled our board’s opening dinner for October 22. Meanwhile, I arranged to arrive earlier that day to meet with Matt Rose, CEO of BNSF, whose accomplishments I had long admired. When I made the date, I had no idea that our get-together would coincide with BNSF’s third-quarter earnings report, which was released late on the 22nd.The market reacted badly to the railroad’s results. The Great Recession was in full force in the third quarter, and BNSF’s earnings reflected that slump. The economic outlook was also bleak, and Wall Street wasn’t feeling friendly to railroads – or much else.On the following day, I again got together with Matt and suggested that Berkshire would offer the railroad a better long-term home than it could expect as a public company. I also told him the maximum price that Berkshire would pay.Matt relayed the offer to his directors and advisors. Eleven busy days later, Berkshire and BNSF announced a firm deal. And here I’ll venture a rare prediction: BNSF will be a key asset for Berkshire and our country a century from now.The BNSF acquisition would never have happened if Paul Andrews hadn’t sized up Berkshire as the right home for TTI.ThanksI taught my first investing class 70 years ago. Since then, I have enjoyed working almost every year with students of all ages, finally “retiring” from that pursuit in 2018.Along the way, my toughest audience was my grandson’s fifth-grade class. The 11-year-olds were squirming in their seats and giving me blank stares until I mentioned Coca-Cola and its famous secret formula. Instantly, every hand went up, and I learned that “secrets” are catnip to kids.Teaching, like writing, has helped me develop and clarify my own thoughts. Charlie calls this phenomenon the orangutan effect: If you sit down with an orangutan and carefully explain to it one of your cherished ideas, you may leave behind a puzzled primate, but will yourself exit thinking more clearly.Talking to university students is far superior. I have urged that they seek employment in (1) the field and (2) with the kind of people they would select, if they had no need for money. Economic realities, I acknowledge, may interfere with that kind of search. Even so, I urge the students never to give up the quest, for when they find that sort of job, they will no longer be “working.”Charlie and I, ourselves, followed that liberating course after a few early stumbles. We both started as part- timers at my grandfather’s grocery store, Charlie in 1940 and I in 1942. We were each assigned boring tasks and paid little, definitely not what we had in mind. Charlie later took up law, and I tried selling securities. Job satisfaction continued to elude us.Finally, at Berkshire, we found what we love to do. With very few exceptions, we have now “worked” for many decades with people whom we like and trust. It’s a joy in life to join with managers such as Paul Andrews or the Berkshire families I told you about last year. In our home office, we employ decent and talented people – no jerks. Turnover averages, perhaps, one person per year.I would like, however, to emphasize a further item that turns our jobs into fun and satisfaction workingfor you. There is nothing more rewarding to Charlie and me than enjoying the trust of individual long-term shareholders who, for many decades, have joined us with the expectation that we would be a reliable custodian of their funds.Obviously, we can’t select our owners, as we could do if our form of operation were a partnership. Anyone can buy shares of Berkshire today with the intention of soon reselling them. For sure, we get a few of that type of shareholder, just as we get index funds that own huge amounts of Berkshire simply because they are required to do so.To a truly unusual degree, however, Berkshire has as owners a very large corps of individuals and families that have elected to join us with an intent approaching “til death do us part.” Often, they have trusted us with a large – some might say excessive – portion of their savings.Berkshire, these shareholders would sometimes acknowledge, might be far from the best selection they could have made. But they would add that Berkshire would rank high among those with which they would be most comfortable. And people who are comfortable with their investments will, on average, achieve better results than those who are motivated by ever-changing headlines, chatter and promises.Long-term individual owners are both the “partners” Charlie and I have always sought and the ones we constantly have in mind as we make decisions at Berkshire. To them we say, “It feels good to ‘work’ for you, and you have our thanks for your trust.”The Annual MeetingClear your calendar! Berkshire will have its annual gathering of capitalists in Omaha on Friday, April 29th through Sunday, May 1st. The details regarding the weekend are laid out on pages A-1 and A-2. Omaha eagerly awaits you, as do I.I will end this letter with a sales pitch. “Cousin” Jimmy Buffett has designed a pontoon “party” boat that is now being manufactured by Forest River, a Berkshire subsidiary. The boat will be introduced on April 29 at our Berkshire Bazaar of Bargains. And, for two days only, shareholders will be able to purchase Jimmy’s masterpiece at a 10% discount. Your bargain-hunting chairman will be buying a boat for his family’s use. Join me.February 26, 2022Warren E. Buffett Chairman of the Board","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":506,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9095244585,"gmtCreate":1644937646082,"gmtModify":1676533977502,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":9,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9095244585","repostId":"1132625803","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1132625803","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Providing stock market headlines, business news, financials and earnings ","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Tiger Newspress","id":"1079075236","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1644937492,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1132625803?lang=&edition=full_marsco","pubTime":"2022-02-15 23:04","market":"fut","language":"en","title":"WTI Crude Once Fell 5% to $90.67 a Barrel","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1132625803","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"WTI crude once fell 5% to $90.67 a barrel.","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>WTI crude once fell 5% to $90.67 a barrel.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/de4afc9cf3198dab2dd5bbcd21666ccc\" tg-width=\"713\" tg-height=\"591\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/></p></body></html>","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>WTI Crude Once Fell 5% to $90.67 a Barrel</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\">\nWTI Crude Once Fell 5% to $90.67 a Barrel\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1079075236\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Tiger Newspress </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2022-02-15 23:04</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p>WTI crude once fell 5% to $90.67 a barrel.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/de4afc9cf3198dab2dd5bbcd21666ccc\" tg-width=\"713\" tg-height=\"591\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/></p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1132625803","content_text":"WTI crude once fell 5% to $90.67 a barrel.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":326,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9096581328,"gmtCreate":1644420098193,"gmtModify":1676533924045,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9096581328","repostId":"1154751327","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1154751327","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Providing stock market headlines, business news, financials and earnings ","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Tiger Newspress","id":"1079075236","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1644419033,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1154751327?lang=&edition=full_marsco","pubTime":"2022-02-09 23:03","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Alibaba Shares Jumped over 3% in Morning Trading","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1154751327","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"Alibaba Shares Jumped over 3% in Morning Trading. Softbank Said Additional Alibaba ADS Not Tied to A","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>Alibaba Shares Jumped over 3% in Morning Trading. Softbank Said Additional Alibaba ADS Not Tied to Any Specific Future Softbank Transaction.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ded43a9d79c85fd086b9d3d2dbcd926d\" tg-width=\"872\" tg-height=\"639\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>Alibaba&#39;s recent registration of additional American Depository Shares is not tied to any specific future transaction by SoftBank Group Corp, a spokesperson for the Japanese conglomerate said on Wednesday.</p><p>&#34;The registration of the ADR conversion facility (F6 filing, which was filed by Alibaba), including its size, is not tied to any specific future transaction by SBG,&#34; SoftBank said in a statement to Reuters.</p><p>E-commerce giant Alibaba last week filed to register an additional one billion American Depository Shares. The move, Citigroup analysts said this week, &#34;might also suggest potential selling intention by SoftBank.&#34;</p><p>&#34;Since Softbank has been a pre-IPO investor, we believe a large proportion of those shares have not been previously registered as ADS,&#34; Citi analysts including Alicia Yap wrote.</p><p>SoftBank&#39;s stake of around 25% in Alibaba is worth around $82 billion and has its origins in a $20 million investment in 2000. Alibaba&#39;s shares have fallen by 60% since highs in October 2020.</p><p></p></body></html>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Alibaba Shares Jumped over 3% in Morning Trading</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAlibaba Shares Jumped over 3% in Morning Trading\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1079075236\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Tiger Newspress </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2022-02-09 23:03</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p>Alibaba Shares Jumped over 3% in Morning Trading. Softbank Said Additional Alibaba ADS Not Tied to Any Specific Future Softbank Transaction.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ded43a9d79c85fd086b9d3d2dbcd926d\" tg-width=\"872\" tg-height=\"639\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>Alibaba&#39;s recent registration of additional American Depository Shares is not tied to any specific future transaction by SoftBank Group Corp, a spokesperson for the Japanese conglomerate said on Wednesday.</p><p>&#34;The registration of the ADR conversion facility (F6 filing, which was filed by Alibaba), including its size, is not tied to any specific future transaction by SBG,&#34; SoftBank said in a statement to Reuters.</p><p>E-commerce giant Alibaba last week filed to register an additional one billion American Depository Shares. The move, Citigroup analysts said this week, &#34;might also suggest potential selling intention by SoftBank.&#34;</p><p>&#34;Since Softbank has been a pre-IPO investor, we believe a large proportion of those shares have not been previously registered as ADS,&#34; Citi analysts including Alicia Yap wrote.</p><p>SoftBank&#39;s stake of around 25% in Alibaba is worth around $82 billion and has its origins in a $20 million investment in 2000. Alibaba&#39;s shares have fallen by 60% since highs in October 2020.</p><p></p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BABA":"阿里巴巴"},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1154751327","content_text":"Alibaba Shares Jumped over 3% in Morning Trading. Softbank Said Additional Alibaba ADS Not Tied to Any Specific Future Softbank Transaction.Alibaba's recent registration of additional American Depository Shares is not tied to any specific future transaction by SoftBank Group Corp, a spokesperson for the Japanese conglomerate said on Wednesday.\"The registration of the ADR conversion facility (F6 filing, which was filed by Alibaba), including its size, is not tied to any specific future transaction by SBG,\" SoftBank said in a statement to Reuters.E-commerce giant Alibaba last week filed to register an additional one billion American Depository Shares. The move, Citigroup analysts said this week, \"might also suggest potential selling intention by SoftBank.\"\"Since Softbank has been a pre-IPO investor, we believe a large proportion of those shares have not been previously registered as ADS,\" Citi analysts including Alicia Yap wrote.SoftBank's stake of around 25% in Alibaba is worth around $82 billion and has its origins in a $20 million investment in 2000. Alibaba's shares have fallen by 60% since highs in October 2020.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":247,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9091516380,"gmtCreate":1643898780473,"gmtModify":1676533869036,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":7,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9091516380","repostId":"1167563889","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":242,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":818298182,"gmtCreate":1630410644746,"gmtModify":1676530295359,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/818298182","repostId":"2163859427","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2163859427","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":1630410420,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2163859427?lang=&edition=full_marsco","pubTime":"2021-08-31 19:47","market":"us","language":"en","title":"American Woodmark misses profit expectations, as sales growth lagged rise in cost of sales","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2163859427","media":"Dow Jones","summary":"MW American Woodmark misses profit expectations, as sales growth lagged rise in cost of sales\nAmeric","content":"<p>MW American Woodmark misses profit expectations, as sales growth lagged rise in cost of sales</p>\n<p>American Woodmark Corp. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AMWD\">$(AMWD)$</a> reported Tuesday fiscal first-quarter profit and sales that missed expectations, as \"significant pricing actions\" weren't implemented in time to offset increasing inflationary pressures. The cabinet maker's stock was still inactive in premarket trading. Net income fell to $3.0 million, or 18 cents a share, from $16.1 million, or 94 cents a share, in the year ago period. Excluding nonrecurring items, adjusted earnings per share fell to 70 cents from $1.63, below the FactSet consensus of $1.48. Sales dropped 13.5% to $442.6 million, missing the FactSet consensus of $461.3 million. Cost of sales increased 25.3% to $389.1 million, lowering gross margin to 12.1% from 20.4%. \"Although we have and are also in the process of implementing significant pricing actions due to the increasing inflationary pressures we are facing, we only realized approximately $3 million of impact in the first quarter of fiscal 2022,\" said Chief Executive Scott Culbreth. \"Assuming our current sales level, we expect the impact of confirmed pricing actions to increase in the second half of fiscal 2022 to over $25 million per quarter.\" The stock has shed 14.3% year to date, while the S&amp;P 500 has gained 20.6%.</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>American Woodmark misses profit expectations, as sales growth lagged rise in cost of sales</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\">\nAmerican Woodmark misses profit expectations, as sales growth lagged rise in cost of sales\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\">2021-08-31 19:47</p>\n</div>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>MW American Woodmark misses profit expectations, as sales growth lagged rise in cost of sales</p>\n<p>American Woodmark Corp. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AMWD\">$(AMWD)$</a> reported Tuesday fiscal first-quarter profit and sales that missed expectations, as \"significant pricing actions\" weren't implemented in time to offset increasing inflationary pressures. The cabinet maker's stock was still inactive in premarket trading. Net income fell to $3.0 million, or 18 cents a share, from $16.1 million, or 94 cents a share, in the year ago period. Excluding nonrecurring items, adjusted earnings per share fell to 70 cents from $1.63, below the FactSet consensus of $1.48. Sales dropped 13.5% to $442.6 million, missing the FactSet consensus of $461.3 million. Cost of sales increased 25.3% to $389.1 million, lowering gross margin to 12.1% from 20.4%. \"Although we have and are also in the process of implementing significant pricing actions due to the increasing inflationary pressures we are facing, we only realized approximately $3 million of impact in the first quarter of fiscal 2022,\" said Chief Executive Scott Culbreth. \"Assuming our current sales level, we expect the impact of confirmed pricing actions to increase in the second half of fiscal 2022 to over $25 million per quarter.\" The stock has shed 14.3% year to date, while the S&amp;P 500 has gained 20.6%.</p>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AMWD":"美国伍德马克"},"is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2163859427","content_text":"MW American Woodmark misses profit expectations, as sales growth lagged rise in cost of sales\nAmerican Woodmark Corp. $(AMWD)$ reported Tuesday fiscal first-quarter profit and sales that missed expectations, as \"significant pricing actions\" weren't implemented in time to offset increasing inflationary pressures. The cabinet maker's stock was still inactive in premarket trading. Net income fell to $3.0 million, or 18 cents a share, from $16.1 million, or 94 cents a share, in the year ago period. Excluding nonrecurring items, adjusted earnings per share fell to 70 cents from $1.63, below the FactSet consensus of $1.48. Sales dropped 13.5% to $442.6 million, missing the FactSet consensus of $461.3 million. Cost of sales increased 25.3% to $389.1 million, lowering gross margin to 12.1% from 20.4%. \"Although we have and are also in the process of implementing significant pricing actions due to the increasing inflationary pressures we are facing, we only realized approximately $3 million of impact in the first quarter of fiscal 2022,\" said Chief Executive Scott Culbreth. \"Assuming our current sales level, we expect the impact of confirmed pricing actions to increase in the second half of fiscal 2022 to over $25 million per quarter.\" The stock has shed 14.3% year to date, while the S&P 500 has gained 20.6%.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":220,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":176376255,"gmtCreate":1626867701077,"gmtModify":1703479546431,"author":{"id":"3576288493534856","authorId":"3576288493534856","name":"Starlightdaz","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3576288493534856","authorIdStr":"3576288493534856"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":9,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/176376255","repostId":"2153861046","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":141,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}