Profile - To The Moon

WLTan2

Posts · 24Posts · 24
Following · 0Following · 0
Followers · 0Followers · 0

- WLTan2WLTan2
  ·2023-09-13
  😵‍💫😱
  U.S. CPI Rose 3.7% in August, Higher Than Expected
  U.S. CPI Rose 3.7% in August, Higher Than Expected
  U.S. CPI Rose 3.7% in August, Higher Than Expected
  247 Comment
  5
  Share
  Report
- WLTan2WLTan2
  ·2023-01-03
  $Alphabet(GOOGL)$ Will Chat GPT rock Google? What do you all think?
  372 Comment
  2
  Share
  Report
- WLTan2WLTan2
  ·2022-12-18
  $Tesla Motors(TSLA)$ is your account working properly?
  773 1
  4
  Share
  Report
- WLTan2WLTan2
  ·2022-09-29
  $Tesla Motors(TSLA)$
  282 Comment
  Like
  Share
  Report
- WLTan2WLTan2
  ·2022-08-27
  Looks like its hard landing
  Full Speech By Federal Reserve Chair Powell on Monetary Policy and Price Stability
  Monetary Policy and Price StabilityChair Jerome H. PowellAt “Reassessing Constraints on the Economy and Policy,” an economic policy symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jack
  Full Speech By Federal Reserve Chair Powell on Monetary Policy and Price Stability
  306 Comment
  Like
  Share
  Report
- WLTan2WLTan2
  ·2022-08-08
  Careful
  The S&P 500 May Be Near The Most Dangerous Phase Of The Bear Market
  SummaryThe bear market of 2022 has eerily similar characteristics of bear markets of the past.The 20
  The S&P 500 May Be Near The Most Dangerous Phase Of The Bear Market
  227 Comment
  Like
  Share
  Report
- WLTan2WLTan2
  ·2022-05-21
  $Tesla Motors(TSLA)$580?
  274 Comment
  1
  Share
  Report
- WLTan2WLTan2
  ·2022-05-10
  $Tesla Motors(TSLA)$Chicken Genius has spoken! Hold!
  1.51K Comment
  10
  Share
  Report
- WLTan2WLTan2
  ·2022-05-08
  😂
  Tesla: Overvalued By 85.26% And Not A Technology Company
  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
  Tesla: Overvalued By 85.26% And Not A Technology Company
  322 Comment
  2
  Share
  Report
- WLTan2WLTan2
  ·2022-04-26
  $Tesla Motors(TSLA)$Great Stock Sale starting!
  276 Comment
  1
  Share
  Report
No following yet

Most Discussed

Terms and Conditions·Privacy Policy

Company: TTMF Limited. Tech supported by Xiangshang Yixin.

Email：uservice@ttm.financial

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"isCurrentUser":false,"userPageInfo":{"id":"4099286635764140","uuid":"4099286635764140","gmtCreate":1636190116151,"gmtModify":1636190116151,"name":"WLTan2","pinyin":"wltan2","introduction":"","introductionEn":"","signature":"","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":6,"headSize":18,"tweetSize":24,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":3,"name":"书生虎","nameTw":"書生虎","represent":"努力向上","factor":"发布10条非转发主帖,其中5条获得他人回复或点赞","iconColor":"3C9E83","bgColor":"A2F1D9"},"themeCounts":2,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":4,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":"success","userBadges":[{"badgeId":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493-2","templateUuid":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493","name":"Senior Tiger","description":"Join the tiger community for 1000 days","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0063fb68ea29c9ae6858c58630e182d5","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/96c699a93be4214d4b49aea6a5a5d1a4","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/35b0e542a9ff77046ed69ef602bc105d","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2024.08.03","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},{"badgeId":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be-2","templateUuid":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be","name":"Master Trader","description":"Total number of securities or futures transactions reached 100","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ad22cfbe2d05aa393b18e9226e4b0307","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/36702e6ff3ffe46acafee66cc85273ca","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d52eb88fa385cf5abe2616ed63781765","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2024.01.13","exceedPercentage":"80.56%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100},{"badgeId":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789-1","templateUuid":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789","name":"Knowledgeable Investor","description":"Traded more than 10 stocks","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e74cc24115c4fbae6154ec1b1041bf47","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d48265cbfd97c57f9048db29f22227b0","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76c6d6898b073c77e1c537ebe9ac1c57","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2023.01.24","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1102},{"badgeId":"cbe1c45c584340f3bd9ae6c77e0e9981-1","templateUuid":"cbe1c45c584340f3bd9ae6c77e0e9981","name":"Academy Experiencer","description":"5 lessons learned","bigImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/fb5ae275631fb96a92d475cdc85d2302","smallImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/c2660a1935bd2105e97c9915619936c3","grayImgUrl":null,"redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2022.08.06","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":2006},{"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":"2021.12.29","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100}],"userBadgeCount":5,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":null,"starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":4,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"page":1,"watchlist":null,"tweetList":[{"id":219501223673880,"gmtCreate":1694608393108,"gmtModify":1694608397321,"author":{"id":"4099286635764140","authorId":"4099286635764140","name":"WLTan2","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4099286635764140","authorIdStr":"4099286635764140"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"😵‍💫😱","listText":"😵‍💫😱","text":"😵‍💫😱","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/219501223673880","repostId":"1108152520","repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1108152520","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":1694618287,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1108152520?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2023-09-13 23:18","market":"us","language":"en","title":"U.S. CPI Rose 3.7% in August, Higher Than Expected","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1108152520","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"U.S. CPI Rose 3.7% in August, Higher Than Expected","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>Inflation posted its biggest monthly increase this year in August as consumers faced higher prices on energy and a variety of other items.</p><p style=\"text-align: start;\">The consumer price index, which measures costs across a broad variety of goods and services, rose a seasonally adjusted 0.6% for the month, and was up 3.7% from a year ago, the U.S. Department of Labor reported Wednesday. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones were looking for respective increases of 0.6% and 3.6%.</p><p style=\"text-align: start;\">However, excluding volatile food and energy, core CPI increased 0.3% and 4.3% respectively, against estimates for 0.2% and 4.3%. Federal Reserve officials focus more on core as it provides a better indication of where inflation is heading over the long term.</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/20fb3534e11d10b2622de7e0c9f710b2\" tg-width=\"1332\" tg-height=\"264\"/></p><p>Energy prices fed much of gain, rising 5.6% on the month, an increase that included a 10.6% surge in gasoline.</p><p style=\"text-align: start;\">Food prices rose 0.2% while shelter costs, which make up about one-third of the CPI weighting, increased 0.3%.</p><p style=\"text-align: start;\">Stock market futures initially fell following the report then rebounded. Treasury yields were higher across the board.</p><p style=\"text-align: start;\">The jump in headline inflation hit worker paychecks. Real average hourly earnings declined 0.5% for the month, though they were still up 0.5% from a year ago, the Labor Department said in a separate release.</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>U.S. CPI Rose 3.7% in August, Higher Than Expected</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\">\nU.S. CPI Rose 3.7% in August, Higher Than Expected\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\">2023-09-13 23:18</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p>Inflation posted its biggest monthly increase this year in August as consumers faced higher prices on energy and a variety of other items.</p><p style=\"text-align: start;\">The consumer price index, which measures costs across a broad variety of goods and services, rose a seasonally adjusted 0.6% for the month, and was up 3.7% from a year ago, the U.S. Department of Labor reported Wednesday. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones were looking for respective increases of 0.6% and 3.6%.</p><p style=\"text-align: start;\">However, excluding volatile food and energy, core CPI increased 0.3% and 4.3% respectively, against estimates for 0.2% and 4.3%. Federal Reserve officials focus more on core as it provides a better indication of where inflation is heading over the long term.</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/20fb3534e11d10b2622de7e0c9f710b2\" tg-width=\"1332\" tg-height=\"264\"/></p><p>Energy prices fed much of gain, rising 5.6% on the month, an increase that included a 10.6% surge in gasoline.</p><p style=\"text-align: start;\">Food prices rose 0.2% while shelter costs, which make up about one-third of the CPI weighting, increased 0.3%.</p><p style=\"text-align: start;\">Stock market futures initially fell following the report then rebounded. Treasury yields were higher across the board.</p><p style=\"text-align: start;\">The jump in headline inflation hit worker paychecks. Real average hourly earnings declined 0.5% for the month, though they were still up 0.5% from a year ago, the Labor Department said in a separate release.</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":"1108152520","content_text":"Inflation posted its biggest monthly increase this year in August as consumers faced higher prices on energy and a variety of other items.The consumer price index, which measures costs across a broad variety of goods and services, rose a seasonally adjusted 0.6% for the month, and was up 3.7% from a year ago, the U.S. Department of Labor reported Wednesday. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones were looking for respective increases of 0.6% and 3.6%.However, excluding volatile food and energy, core CPI increased 0.3% and 4.3% respectively, against estimates for 0.2% and 4.3%. Federal Reserve officials focus more on core as it provides a better indication of where inflation is heading over the long term.Energy prices fed much of gain, rising 5.6% on the month, an increase that included a 10.6% surge in gasoline.Food prices rose 0.2% while shelter costs, which make up about one-third of the CPI weighting, increased 0.3%.Stock market futures initially fell following the report then rebounded. Treasury yields were higher across the board.The jump in headline inflation hit worker paychecks. Real average hourly earnings declined 0.5% for the month, though they were still up 0.5% from a year ago, the Labor Department said in a separate release.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":247,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9950298490,"gmtCreate":1672760248611,"gmtModify":1676538732441,"author":{"id":"4099286635764140","authorId":"4099286635764140","name":"WLTan2","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4099286635764140","authorIdStr":"4099286635764140"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/GOOGL\">$Alphabet(GOOGL)$&nbsp;</a>Will Chat GPT rock Google? What do you all think?&nbsp;","listText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/GOOGL\">$Alphabet(GOOGL)$&nbsp;</a>Will Chat GPT rock Google? What do you all think?&nbsp;","text":"$Alphabet(GOOGL)$ Will Chat GPT rock Google? What do you all think?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9950298490","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":372,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9928460702,"gmtCreate":1671378269807,"gmtModify":1676538527296,"author":{"id":"4099286635764140","authorId":"4099286635764140","name":"WLTan2","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4099286635764140","authorIdStr":"4099286635764140"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TSLA\">$Tesla Motors(TSLA)$&nbsp;</a>is your account working properly?&nbsp;","listText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TSLA\">$Tesla Motors(TSLA)$&nbsp;</a>is your account working properly?&nbsp;","text":"$Tesla Motors(TSLA)$ is your account working properly?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9928460702","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":773,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9918775401,"gmtCreate":1664465046204,"gmtModify":1676537460800,"author":{"id":"4099286635764140","authorId":"4099286635764140","name":"WLTan2","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4099286635764140","authorIdStr":"4099286635764140"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TSLA\">$Tesla Motors(TSLA)$</a><v-v data-views=\"0\"></v-v>","listText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TSLA\">$Tesla Motors(TSLA)$</a><v-v data-views=\"0\"></v-v>","text":"$Tesla Motors(TSLA)$","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9918775401","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":282,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9994011136,"gmtCreate":1661529688127,"gmtModify":1676536536341,"author":{"id":"4099286635764140","authorId":"4099286635764140","name":"WLTan2","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4099286635764140","authorIdStr":"4099286635764140"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Looks like its hard landing","listText":"Looks like its hard landing","text":"Looks like its hard landing","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9994011136","repostId":"1131787080","repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1131787080","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":1661526671,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1131787080?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-08-26 23:11","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Full Speech By Federal Reserve Chair Powell on Monetary Policy and Price Stability","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1131787080","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"Monetary Policy and Price StabilityChair Jerome H. PowellAt “Reassessing Constraints on the Economy and Policy,” an economic policy symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jack","content":"<html><head></head><body><p><b><i>Monetary Policy and Price Stability</i></b></p><p>Chair Jerome H. Powell</p><p>At “Reassessing Constraints on the Economy and Policy,” an economic policy symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole, Wyoming</p><p>Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.</p><p>At past Jackson Hole conferences, I have discussed broad topics such as the ever-changing structure of the economy and the challenges of conducting monetary policy under high uncertainty. Today, my remarks will be shorter, my focus narrower, and my message more direct.</p><p>The Federal Open Market Committee&#39;s (FOMC) overarching focus right now is to bring inflation back down to our 2 percent goal. Price stability is the responsibility of the Federal Reserve and serves as the bedrock of our economy. Without price stability, the economy does not work for anyone. In particular, without price stability, we will not achieve a sustained period of strong labor market conditions that benefit all. The burdens of high inflation fall heaviest on those who are least able to bear them.</p><p>Restoring price stability will take some time and requires using our tools forcefully to bring demand and supply into better balance. Reducing inflation is likely to require a sustained period of below-trend growth. Moreover, there will very likely be some softening of labor market conditions. While higher interest rates, slower growth, and softer labor market conditions will bring down inflation, they will also bring some pain to households and businesses. These are the unfortunate costs of reducing inflation. But a failure to restore price stability would mean far greater pain.</p><p>The U.S. economy is clearly slowing from the historically high growth rates of 2021, which reflected the reopening of the economy following the pandemic recession. While the latest economic data have been mixed, in my view our economy continues to show strong underlying momentum. The labor market is particularly strong, but it is clearly out of balance, with demand for workers substantially exceeding the supply of available workers. Inflation is running well above 2 percent, and high inflation has continued to spread through the economy. While the lower inflation readings for July are welcome, a single month&#39;s improvement falls far short of what the Committee will need to see before we are confident that inflation is moving down.</p><p>We are moving our policy stance purposefully to a level that will be sufficiently restrictive to return inflation to 2 percent. At our most recent meeting in July, the FOMC raised the target range for the federal funds rate to 2.25 to 2.5 percent, which is in the Summary of Economic Projection&#39;s (SEP) range of estimates of where the federal funds rate is projected to settle in the longer run. In current circumstances, with inflation running far above 2 percent and the labor market extremely tight, estimates of longer-run neutral are not a place to stop or pause.</p><p>July&#39;s increase in the target range was the second 75 basis point increase in as many meetings, and I said then that another unusually large increase could be appropriate at our next meeting. We are now about halfway through the intermeeting period. Our decision at the September meeting will depend on the totality of the incoming data and the evolving outlook. At some point, as the stance of monetary policy tightens further, it likely will become appropriate to slow the pace of increases.</p><p>Restoring price stability will likely require maintaining a restrictive policy stance for some time. The historical record cautions strongly against prematurely loosening policy. Committee participants&#39; most recent individual projections from the June SEP showed the median federal funds rate running slightly below 4 percent through the end of 2023. Participants will update their projections at the September meeting.</p><p>Our monetary policy deliberations and decisions build on what we have learned about inflation dynamics both from the high and volatile inflation of the 1970s and 1980s, and from the low and stable inflation of the past quarter-century. In particular, we are drawing on three important lessons.</p><p>The first lesson is that central banks<i>can</i>and<i>should</i>take responsibility for delivering low and stable inflation. It may seem strange now that central bankers and others once needed convincing on these two fronts, but as former Chairman Ben Bernanke has shown, both propositions were widely questioned during the Great Inflation period.1Today, we regard these questions as settled. Our responsibility to deliver price stability is unconditional. It is true that the current high inflation is a global phenomenon, and that many economies around the world face inflation as high or higher than seen here in the United States. It is also true, in my view, that the current high inflation in the United States is the product of strong demand and constrained supply, and that the Fed&#39;s tools work principally on aggregate demand. None of this diminishes the Federal Reserve&#39;s responsibility to carry out our assigned task of achieving price stability. There is clearly a job to do in moderating demand to better align with supply. We are committed to doing that job.</p><p>The second lesson is that the public&#39;s expectations about future inflation can play an important role in setting the path of inflation over time. Today, by many measures, longer-term inflation expectations appear to remain well anchored. That is broadly true of surveys of households, businesses, and forecasters, and of market-based measures as well. But that is not grounds for complacency, with inflation having run well above our goal for some time.</p><p>If the public expects that inflation will remain low and stable over time, then, absent major shocks, it likely will. Unfortunately, the same is true of expectations of high and volatile inflation. During the 1970s, as inflation climbed, the anticipation of high inflation became entrenched in the economic decisionmaking of households and businesses. The more inflation rose, the more people came to expect it to remain high, and they built that belief into wage and pricing decisions. As former Chairman Paul Volcker put it at the height of the Great Inflation in 1979, &#34;Inflation feeds in part on itself, so part of the job of returning to a more stable and more productive economy must be to break the grip of inflationary expectations.&#34;2</p><p>One useful insight into how actual inflation may affect expectations about its future path is based in the concept of &#34;rational inattention.&#34;3When inflation is persistently high, households and businesses must pay close attention and incorporate inflation into their economic decisions. When inflation is low and stable, they are freer to focus their attention elsewhere. Former Chairman Alan Greenspan put it this way: &#34;For all practical purposes, price stability means that expected changes in the average price level are small enough and gradual enough that they do not materially enter business and household financial decisions.&#34;4</p><p>Of course, inflation has just about everyone&#39;s attention right now, which highlights a particular risk today: The longer the current bout of high inflation continues, the greater the chance that expectations of higher inflation will become entrenched.</p><p>That brings me to the third lesson, which is that we must keep at it until the job is done. History shows that the employment costs of bringing down inflation are likely to increase with delay, as high inflation becomes more entrenched in wage and price setting. The successful Volcker disinflation in the early 1980s followed multiple failed attempts to lower inflation over the previous 15 years. A lengthy period of very restrictive monetary policy was ultimately needed to stem the high inflation and start the process of getting inflation down to the low and stable levels that were the norm until the spring of last year. Our aim is to avoid that outcome by acting with resolve now.</p><p>These lessons are guiding us as we use our tools to bring inflation down. We are taking forceful and rapid steps to moderate demand so that it comes into better alignment with supply, and to keep inflation expectations anchored. We will keep at it until we are confident the job is done.</p><p></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>Full Speech By Federal Reserve Chair Powell on Monetary Policy and Price Stability</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\">\nFull Speech By Federal Reserve Chair Powell on Monetary Policy and Price Stability\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\">2022-08-26 23:11</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p><b><i>Monetary Policy and Price Stability</i></b></p><p>Chair Jerome H. Powell</p><p>At “Reassessing Constraints on the Economy and Policy,” an economic policy symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole, Wyoming</p><p>Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.</p><p>At past Jackson Hole conferences, I have discussed broad topics such as the ever-changing structure of the economy and the challenges of conducting monetary policy under high uncertainty. Today, my remarks will be shorter, my focus narrower, and my message more direct.</p><p>The Federal Open Market Committee&#39;s (FOMC) overarching focus right now is to bring inflation back down to our 2 percent goal. Price stability is the responsibility of the Federal Reserve and serves as the bedrock of our economy. Without price stability, the economy does not work for anyone. In particular, without price stability, we will not achieve a sustained period of strong labor market conditions that benefit all. The burdens of high inflation fall heaviest on those who are least able to bear them.</p><p>Restoring price stability will take some time and requires using our tools forcefully to bring demand and supply into better balance. Reducing inflation is likely to require a sustained period of below-trend growth. Moreover, there will very likely be some softening of labor market conditions. While higher interest rates, slower growth, and softer labor market conditions will bring down inflation, they will also bring some pain to households and businesses. These are the unfortunate costs of reducing inflation. But a failure to restore price stability would mean far greater pain.</p><p>The U.S. economy is clearly slowing from the historically high growth rates of 2021, which reflected the reopening of the economy following the pandemic recession. While the latest economic data have been mixed, in my view our economy continues to show strong underlying momentum. The labor market is particularly strong, but it is clearly out of balance, with demand for workers substantially exceeding the supply of available workers. Inflation is running well above 2 percent, and high inflation has continued to spread through the economy. While the lower inflation readings for July are welcome, a single month&#39;s improvement falls far short of what the Committee will need to see before we are confident that inflation is moving down.</p><p>We are moving our policy stance purposefully to a level that will be sufficiently restrictive to return inflation to 2 percent. At our most recent meeting in July, the FOMC raised the target range for the federal funds rate to 2.25 to 2.5 percent, which is in the Summary of Economic Projection&#39;s (SEP) range of estimates of where the federal funds rate is projected to settle in the longer run. In current circumstances, with inflation running far above 2 percent and the labor market extremely tight, estimates of longer-run neutral are not a place to stop or pause.</p><p>July&#39;s increase in the target range was the second 75 basis point increase in as many meetings, and I said then that another unusually large increase could be appropriate at our next meeting. We are now about halfway through the intermeeting period. Our decision at the September meeting will depend on the totality of the incoming data and the evolving outlook. At some point, as the stance of monetary policy tightens further, it likely will become appropriate to slow the pace of increases.</p><p>Restoring price stability will likely require maintaining a restrictive policy stance for some time. The historical record cautions strongly against prematurely loosening policy. Committee participants&#39; most recent individual projections from the June SEP showed the median federal funds rate running slightly below 4 percent through the end of 2023. Participants will update their projections at the September meeting.</p><p>Our monetary policy deliberations and decisions build on what we have learned about inflation dynamics both from the high and volatile inflation of the 1970s and 1980s, and from the low and stable inflation of the past quarter-century. In particular, we are drawing on three important lessons.</p><p>The first lesson is that central banks<i>can</i>and<i>should</i>take responsibility for delivering low and stable inflation. It may seem strange now that central bankers and others once needed convincing on these two fronts, but as former Chairman Ben Bernanke has shown, both propositions were widely questioned during the Great Inflation period.1Today, we regard these questions as settled. Our responsibility to deliver price stability is unconditional. It is true that the current high inflation is a global phenomenon, and that many economies around the world face inflation as high or higher than seen here in the United States. It is also true, in my view, that the current high inflation in the United States is the product of strong demand and constrained supply, and that the Fed&#39;s tools work principally on aggregate demand. None of this diminishes the Federal Reserve&#39;s responsibility to carry out our assigned task of achieving price stability. There is clearly a job to do in moderating demand to better align with supply. We are committed to doing that job.</p><p>The second lesson is that the public&#39;s expectations about future inflation can play an important role in setting the path of inflation over time. Today, by many measures, longer-term inflation expectations appear to remain well anchored. That is broadly true of surveys of households, businesses, and forecasters, and of market-based measures as well. But that is not grounds for complacency, with inflation having run well above our goal for some time.</p><p>If the public expects that inflation will remain low and stable over time, then, absent major shocks, it likely will. Unfortunately, the same is true of expectations of high and volatile inflation. During the 1970s, as inflation climbed, the anticipation of high inflation became entrenched in the economic decisionmaking of households and businesses. The more inflation rose, the more people came to expect it to remain high, and they built that belief into wage and pricing decisions. As former Chairman Paul Volcker put it at the height of the Great Inflation in 1979, &#34;Inflation feeds in part on itself, so part of the job of returning to a more stable and more productive economy must be to break the grip of inflationary expectations.&#34;2</p><p>One useful insight into how actual inflation may affect expectations about its future path is based in the concept of &#34;rational inattention.&#34;3When inflation is persistently high, households and businesses must pay close attention and incorporate inflation into their economic decisions. When inflation is low and stable, they are freer to focus their attention elsewhere. Former Chairman Alan Greenspan put it this way: &#34;For all practical purposes, price stability means that expected changes in the average price level are small enough and gradual enough that they do not materially enter business and household financial decisions.&#34;4</p><p>Of course, inflation has just about everyone&#39;s attention right now, which highlights a particular risk today: The longer the current bout of high inflation continues, the greater the chance that expectations of higher inflation will become entrenched.</p><p>That brings me to the third lesson, which is that we must keep at it until the job is done. History shows that the employment costs of bringing down inflation are likely to increase with delay, as high inflation becomes more entrenched in wage and price setting. The successful Volcker disinflation in the early 1980s followed multiple failed attempts to lower inflation over the previous 15 years. A lengthy period of very restrictive monetary policy was ultimately needed to stem the high inflation and start the process of getting inflation down to the low and stable levels that were the norm until the spring of last year. Our aim is to avoid that outcome by acting with resolve now.</p><p>These lessons are guiding us as we use our tools to bring inflation down. We are taking forceful and rapid steps to moderate demand so that it comes into better alignment with supply, and to keep inflation expectations anchored. We will keep at it until we are confident the job is done.</p><p></p><p></p></body></html>\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":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1131787080","content_text":"Monetary Policy and Price StabilityChair Jerome H. PowellAt “Reassessing Constraints on the Economy and Policy,” an economic policy symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole, WyomingThank you for the opportunity to speak here today.At past Jackson Hole conferences, I have discussed broad topics such as the ever-changing structure of the economy and the challenges of conducting monetary policy under high uncertainty. Today, my remarks will be shorter, my focus narrower, and my message more direct.The Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC) overarching focus right now is to bring inflation back down to our 2 percent goal. Price stability is the responsibility of the Federal Reserve and serves as the bedrock of our economy. Without price stability, the economy does not work for anyone. In particular, without price stability, we will not achieve a sustained period of strong labor market conditions that benefit all. The burdens of high inflation fall heaviest on those who are least able to bear them.Restoring price stability will take some time and requires using our tools forcefully to bring demand and supply into better balance. Reducing inflation is likely to require a sustained period of below-trend growth. Moreover, there will very likely be some softening of labor market conditions. While higher interest rates, slower growth, and softer labor market conditions will bring down inflation, they will also bring some pain to households and businesses. These are the unfortunate costs of reducing inflation. But a failure to restore price stability would mean far greater pain.The U.S. economy is clearly slowing from the historically high growth rates of 2021, which reflected the reopening of the economy following the pandemic recession. While the latest economic data have been mixed, in my view our economy continues to show strong underlying momentum. The labor market is particularly strong, but it is clearly out of balance, with demand for workers substantially exceeding the supply of available workers. Inflation is running well above 2 percent, and high inflation has continued to spread through the economy. While the lower inflation readings for July are welcome, a single month's improvement falls far short of what the Committee will need to see before we are confident that inflation is moving down.We are moving our policy stance purposefully to a level that will be sufficiently restrictive to return inflation to 2 percent. At our most recent meeting in July, the FOMC raised the target range for the federal funds rate to 2.25 to 2.5 percent, which is in the Summary of Economic Projection's (SEP) range of estimates of where the federal funds rate is projected to settle in the longer run. In current circumstances, with inflation running far above 2 percent and the labor market extremely tight, estimates of longer-run neutral are not a place to stop or pause.July's increase in the target range was the second 75 basis point increase in as many meetings, and I said then that another unusually large increase could be appropriate at our next meeting. We are now about halfway through the intermeeting period. Our decision at the September meeting will depend on the totality of the incoming data and the evolving outlook. At some point, as the stance of monetary policy tightens further, it likely will become appropriate to slow the pace of increases.Restoring price stability will likely require maintaining a restrictive policy stance for some time. The historical record cautions strongly against prematurely loosening policy. Committee participants' most recent individual projections from the June SEP showed the median federal funds rate running slightly below 4 percent through the end of 2023. Participants will update their projections at the September meeting.Our monetary policy deliberations and decisions build on what we have learned about inflation dynamics both from the high and volatile inflation of the 1970s and 1980s, and from the low and stable inflation of the past quarter-century. In particular, we are drawing on three important lessons.The first lesson is that central bankscanandshouldtake responsibility for delivering low and stable inflation. It may seem strange now that central bankers and others once needed convincing on these two fronts, but as former Chairman Ben Bernanke has shown, both propositions were widely questioned during the Great Inflation period.1Today, we regard these questions as settled. Our responsibility to deliver price stability is unconditional. It is true that the current high inflation is a global phenomenon, and that many economies around the world face inflation as high or higher than seen here in the United States. It is also true, in my view, that the current high inflation in the United States is the product of strong demand and constrained supply, and that the Fed's tools work principally on aggregate demand. None of this diminishes the Federal Reserve's responsibility to carry out our assigned task of achieving price stability. There is clearly a job to do in moderating demand to better align with supply. We are committed to doing that job.The second lesson is that the public's expectations about future inflation can play an important role in setting the path of inflation over time. Today, by many measures, longer-term inflation expectations appear to remain well anchored. That is broadly true of surveys of households, businesses, and forecasters, and of market-based measures as well. But that is not grounds for complacency, with inflation having run well above our goal for some time.If the public expects that inflation will remain low and stable over time, then, absent major shocks, it likely will. Unfortunately, the same is true of expectations of high and volatile inflation. During the 1970s, as inflation climbed, the anticipation of high inflation became entrenched in the economic decisionmaking of households and businesses. The more inflation rose, the more people came to expect it to remain high, and they built that belief into wage and pricing decisions. As former Chairman Paul Volcker put it at the height of the Great Inflation in 1979, \"Inflation feeds in part on itself, so part of the job of returning to a more stable and more productive economy must be to break the grip of inflationary expectations.\"2One useful insight into how actual inflation may affect expectations about its future path is based in the concept of \"rational inattention.\"3When inflation is persistently high, households and businesses must pay close attention and incorporate inflation into their economic decisions. When inflation is low and stable, they are freer to focus their attention elsewhere. Former Chairman Alan Greenspan put it this way: \"For all practical purposes, price stability means that expected changes in the average price level are small enough and gradual enough that they do not materially enter business and household financial decisions.\"4Of course, inflation has just about everyone's attention right now, which highlights a particular risk today: The longer the current bout of high inflation continues, the greater the chance that expectations of higher inflation will become entrenched.That brings me to the third lesson, which is that we must keep at it until the job is done. History shows that the employment costs of bringing down inflation are likely to increase with delay, as high inflation becomes more entrenched in wage and price setting. The successful Volcker disinflation in the early 1980s followed multiple failed attempts to lower inflation over the previous 15 years. A lengthy period of very restrictive monetary policy was ultimately needed to stem the high inflation and start the process of getting inflation down to the low and stable levels that were the norm until the spring of last year. Our aim is to avoid that outcome by acting with resolve now.These lessons are guiding us as we use our tools to bring inflation down. We are taking forceful and rapid steps to moderate demand so that it comes into better alignment with supply, and to keep inflation expectations anchored. We will keep at it until we are confident the job is done.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":306,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9904072910,"gmtCreate":1659967651332,"gmtModify":1703476464982,"author":{"id":"4099286635764140","authorId":"4099286635764140","name":"WLTan2","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4099286635764140","authorIdStr":"4099286635764140"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Careful","listText":"Careful","text":"Careful","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9904072910","repostId":"1111364601","repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1111364601","pubTimestamp":1659972720,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1111364601?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-08-08 23:32","market":"other","language":"en","title":"The S&P 500 May Be Near The Most Dangerous Phase Of The Bear Market","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1111364601","media":"Seeking Alpha","summary":"SummaryThe bear market of 2022 has eerily similar characteristics of bear markets of the past.The 20","content":"<html><head></head><body><p><b>Summary</b></p><ul><li>The bear market of 2022 has eerily similar characteristics of bear markets of the past.</li><li>The 2022 bear market looks very similar to those in 1937, 2000, and 2008.</li><li>If the bear markets are similar, the 2022 version is nearing its most dangerous phase.</li></ul><p>History can act as a guide, not because it can predict the future, but because sometimes it can prepare us for what may happen next. Investing is very much about understanding the fundamentals and the technical trends. But the element that is lost most times is emotion, and it is the emotion of how people respond to news or events that seem to endure, shaping history.</p><p>Similarities in today&#39;s stock market and S&amp;P 500 (SP500) echo the great bear markets of the past. The 2022 S&amp;P 500 path has followed the paths of 1936, 2000, and 2008 cycles. It isn&#39;t to say that future is on a predetermined course; it is not. But it can give us a glimpse into what may happen next based on how bear markets and emotions have steered past performance.</p><p><b>1937</b></p><p>After rallying from March 1935 to March 1937, the S&amp;P 500 dropped sharply until the summer of 1937, by nearly 19%. That was when the index saw a solid summer rally, which lifted the S&amp;P 500 more than 14% off its lows, peaking around August 20, 1937. Following that summer rally, the market fell sharply, nearly 70% between September 1937 and April 1938.</p><p>Using a 31,065-day offset to overlay the S&amp;P 500 of today versus that bear market, we can see the S&amp;P 500 of today has plotted a very similar course to that of 1937. It would suggest that the S&amp;P 500 of today is likely to be hitting an inflection point in the next couple of weeks. It could result in the recent 2022 rally continuing, the comparison with 1937 no longer working, or the S&amp;P 500 of 2022 turning sharply lower as the market did in 1937.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bf9e75e86ede6d5127a530f868dcedf3\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"357\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Bloomberg</p><p><b>2000</b></p><p>The bear market that started in the year 2000 also shares many of the same properties as the S&amp;P 500 of today. In this case, using a 7874-day offset, the two charts will line up. Following the 1998 sell-off, the S&amp;P 500 rallied sharply until 2000. The S&amp;P 500 of 2000 was more resilient at first, retesting its March 2000 highs again in September 2000. After that, the index saw a pronounced sell-off, followed by a January 2001 rally. That January 2001 rally marked the final rebound, followed by a nearly 20% decline into April 2001.</p><p>Again, the market of today is at the same point in time. Therefore, if the S&amp;P 500 is going to turn lower and follow the path of 2000, that sharp decline could happen over the next couple of weeks.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c67e3a7716980557c4c7d467f03d1b40\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"255\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Bloomberg</p><p><b>2008</b></p><p>Finally, the bear market of 2008 seems to match the S&amp;P 500 of 2022 the most closely. A 5,218-day offset lines the double bottom in the fall of 2020 up with the double bottom in the spring of 2006. Like the two previous bear market examples, after peaking in October 2007, the S&amp;P 500 went lower on a slow and steady decline of nearly 19%. That was followed by a rally in the spring of 2008, which led to a gain of almost 12%. Of course, after that rally, the S&amp;P 500 again found itself turning lower, erasing the spring gains.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8d85ceaf1cd7900663bbf9dbbe300dee\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"357\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Bloomberg</p><p><b>Similarities</b></p><p>The declines may differ in each of these cases, but it isn&#39;t the reason that matters. It is the patterns the market followed that matter. When overlaying 1937, 2000, and 2008 all together on one chart, they show that the bull rally phases had nearly the same duration, with all peaking within a 6-month time frame, followed by a sharp decline, a very sharp countertrend rally followed by a significantly steeper decline.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/03c254a06087baa45767c1b5a5d0c6aa\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"357\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Bloomberg</p><p>Does this mean the market of 2022 has to follow the same path? No, of course, it does not. But if this is a bear market we are in, and the pattern continues, the market may be entering the most dangerous part of the bear market. The part where a powerful rally catches everyone off guard and is followed by a sharp and sudden decline.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/34566ce27f9a5b7d5ac6c173ee363be9\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"357\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Bloomberg</p><p>What happens next for stocks is anyone&#39;s guess, and these charts do not tell us what that outcome will be. But the power of history and human emotion tells us what <i>may</i> happen next, and in this case, the answer may be staring us right in the face for all to see.</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>The S&P 500 May Be Near The Most Dangerous Phase Of The Bear Market</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\">\nThe S&P 500 May Be Near The Most Dangerous Phase Of The Bear Market\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-08-08 23:32 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://seekingalpha.com/article/4531046-sp-500-near-most-dangerous-phase-of-bear-market><strong>Seeking Alpha</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>SummaryThe bear market of 2022 has eerily similar characteristics of bear markets of the past.The 2022 bear market looks very similar to those in 1937, 2000, and 2008.If the bear markets are similar, ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4531046-sp-500-near-most-dangerous-phase-of-bear-market\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4531046-sp-500-near-most-dangerous-phase-of-bear-market","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1111364601","content_text":"SummaryThe bear market of 2022 has eerily similar characteristics of bear markets of the past.The 2022 bear market looks very similar to those in 1937, 2000, and 2008.If the bear markets are similar, the 2022 version is nearing its most dangerous phase.History can act as a guide, not because it can predict the future, but because sometimes it can prepare us for what may happen next. Investing is very much about understanding the fundamentals and the technical trends. But the element that is lost most times is emotion, and it is the emotion of how people respond to news or events that seem to endure, shaping history.Similarities in today's stock market and S&P 500 (SP500) echo the great bear markets of the past. The 2022 S&P 500 path has followed the paths of 1936, 2000, and 2008 cycles. It isn't to say that future is on a predetermined course; it is not. But it can give us a glimpse into what may happen next based on how bear markets and emotions have steered past performance.1937After rallying from March 1935 to March 1937, the S&P 500 dropped sharply until the summer of 1937, by nearly 19%. That was when the index saw a solid summer rally, which lifted the S&P 500 more than 14% off its lows, peaking around August 20, 1937. Following that summer rally, the market fell sharply, nearly 70% between September 1937 and April 1938.Using a 31,065-day offset to overlay the S&P 500 of today versus that bear market, we can see the S&P 500 of today has plotted a very similar course to that of 1937. It would suggest that the S&P 500 of today is likely to be hitting an inflection point in the next couple of weeks. It could result in the recent 2022 rally continuing, the comparison with 1937 no longer working, or the S&P 500 of 2022 turning sharply lower as the market did in 1937.Bloomberg2000The bear market that started in the year 2000 also shares many of the same properties as the S&P 500 of today. In this case, using a 7874-day offset, the two charts will line up. Following the 1998 sell-off, the S&P 500 rallied sharply until 2000. The S&P 500 of 2000 was more resilient at first, retesting its March 2000 highs again in September 2000. After that, the index saw a pronounced sell-off, followed by a January 2001 rally. That January 2001 rally marked the final rebound, followed by a nearly 20% decline into April 2001.Again, the market of today is at the same point in time. Therefore, if the S&P 500 is going to turn lower and follow the path of 2000, that sharp decline could happen over the next couple of weeks.Bloomberg2008Finally, the bear market of 2008 seems to match the S&P 500 of 2022 the most closely. A 5,218-day offset lines the double bottom in the fall of 2020 up with the double bottom in the spring of 2006. Like the two previous bear market examples, after peaking in October 2007, the S&P 500 went lower on a slow and steady decline of nearly 19%. That was followed by a rally in the spring of 2008, which led to a gain of almost 12%. Of course, after that rally, the S&P 500 again found itself turning lower, erasing the spring gains.BloombergSimilaritiesThe declines may differ in each of these cases, but it isn't the reason that matters. It is the patterns the market followed that matter. When overlaying 1937, 2000, and 2008 all together on one chart, they show that the bull rally phases had nearly the same duration, with all peaking within a 6-month time frame, followed by a sharp decline, a very sharp countertrend rally followed by a significantly steeper decline.BloombergDoes this mean the market of 2022 has to follow the same path? No, of course, it does not. But if this is a bear market we are in, and the pattern continues, the market may be entering the most dangerous part of the bear market. The part where a powerful rally catches everyone off guard and is followed by a sharp and sudden decline.BloombergWhat happens next for stocks is anyone's guess, and these charts do not tell us what that outcome will be. But the power of history and human emotion tells us what may happen next, and in this case, the answer may be staring us right in the face for all to see.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":227,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9021761239,"gmtCreate":1653103501921,"gmtModify":1676535225288,"author":{"id":"4099286635764140","authorId":"4099286635764140","name":"WLTan2","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4099286635764140","authorIdStr":"4099286635764140"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TSLA\">$Tesla Motors(TSLA)$</a>580?","listText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TSLA\">$Tesla Motors(TSLA)$</a>580?","text":"$Tesla Motors(TSLA)$580?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9021761239","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":274,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9065234635,"gmtCreate":1652195265128,"gmtModify":1676535050146,"author":{"id":"4099286635764140","authorId":"4099286635764140","name":"WLTan2","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4099286635764140","authorIdStr":"4099286635764140"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TSLA\">$Tesla Motors(TSLA)$</a>Chicken Genius has spoken! Hold!","listText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TSLA\">$Tesla Motors(TSLA)$</a>Chicken Genius has spoken! Hold!","text":"$Tesla Motors(TSLA)$Chicken Genius has spoken! Hold!","images":[{"img":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/8c2e0e12f1bf395b15645f71ed5520ad","width":"1170","height":"2532"}],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":10,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":1,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9065234635","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1511,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":1,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9062047875,"gmtCreate":1651981448797,"gmtModify":1676535008306,"author":{"id":"4099286635764140","authorId":"4099286635764140","name":"WLTan2","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4099286635764140","authorIdStr":"4099286635764140"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"😂","listText":"😂","text":"😂","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9062047875","repostId":"1131831539","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1131831539","pubTimestamp":1651980653,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1131831539?lang=&edition=fundamental","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 $986.92 billion.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":322,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9087828561,"gmtCreate":1650987864253,"gmtModify":1676534828783,"author":{"id":"4099286635764140","authorId":"4099286635764140","name":"WLTan2","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4099286635764140","authorIdStr":"4099286635764140"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TSLA\">$Tesla Motors(TSLA)$</a>Great Stock Sale starting!","listText":"<a href=\"https://ttm.financial/S/TSLA\">$Tesla Motors(TSLA)$</a>Great Stock Sale starting!","text":"$Tesla Motors(TSLA)$Great Stock Sale starting!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9087828561","isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":276,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"defaultTab":"following","isTTM":true}