Jump to content

adhital

Member
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ok, let's use 9.6 trillion RMB Or, 70% share by Alibaba. JD.com, Suning.com Co., Ltd, Guangzhou VIP.com, Pinduoduo Inc & Others = ~30% = 2.88 Trillion RMB = $458B Public reported 2020 GMV numbers : JD rev = $114B PDD rev = $214B Suning.com rev = $50B VIP.com = $25B (remaining for all other e-com) = ~$55B Overall, Alibaba's GMV looks reasonable. Is it not? Unless there are other e-com GMV's that we're not accounting for then yes, I agree, LM did uncovered something everyone overlooked.
  2. Let's use NBS figure as it is. In 2020, China's online retail sales was 11,760.1 billion yuan or $1.8T Alibaba's 60% e-com market share based this figure look questionable? why so? If you notice, I've excluded 48% of entire consumer population to be conservative. PDD's GMV most likely is from that pie and the reason I got 70% share for Alibaba. Market share is not a magic number. Its the reported revenue of any particular company by total sales for that region, right? Regardless of however I look at this, disposable income distribution or, combining GMV figure from other ec
  3. @LearningMachine I’m enjoying this exercise and appreciate your pushback on this I don’t think any source would of be of any help if BABA if fabricating the number. who else would know their revenue without them reporting first, right? perhaps internal tax filings but that's too much to dig into For now, let’s try to invert this for fun. Let’s start with retail sales figure: USA: Total retail sales $5 trillion China: Total retail sales $6 trillion I’ll use chinapower.csis.org disposable income brackets for our fun analysis. 96% of USA consumer (317 milli
  4. @LearningMachine, sure, I'll listen to this video. I'm a shareholder so I should believe this number right ? But as pointed by concerto, I think, the top % spenders are concentrated on a few % of population. For e.g. BABA's platform is the leading e-marketplace for luxury goods in china and getting higher share of top-spenders and perhaps in similar other areas as well. Overall, I think this concentration risk is higher then a GMV fraud and JD is getting into that territory However, looking at the big picture, if we agree that 1/ the total retail sales of the consumer goods industry in
  5. That's a % of disposable income but again, I don’t know how many are spending on BABA. I don’t think anyone can quantify this without looking into each consumers income statement. All I did was playing with dollar-per-day spending amounts expressed in purchasing power parity terms, based on data from that one site, and trying to understand the probability of fraud with BABA's reported number as you've stated. BABA is not claiming that the only 190 million middle class spend $X. This is what they're saying: "High-spending consumers consist of consumers who spent more than RMB7,000 on o
  6. @LearningMachine GDP per capital is another misleading average indicator to quantify spending. Income disparity is not comparable with the US with much wider distribution curve between haves and have-nots. . Average is not the way to look into Chinese consumer market yet IMO. The devil is always in the details and one number doesn't justify the analysis. Just an example, as of 2018 (https://chinapower.csis.org/china-middle-class/#toc-1), ~50% of population, over 600million, has dollar-per-day spending amounts between $10 to $50 a day. Taking upper-middle mid point, over 200Million spen
  7. @LearningMachineI think the fraud was with the pre-ipo sales data and not the quarter since Ernst and Young started audit. That’s why auditor was not fined.
  8. It’s all my guess, and without knowing the exact spending distribution, it’s very hard to quantify. For example, GMV & average spend can change in either directions if you change the average spend on any of the buckets. But, it’s a valid skepticism to compare the numbers with Amazon. If you ignore the bucket, average BABA consumer spending is $1300, almost compared to the prime. So yes, it looks like they’re spending much more on BABA platform that US consumers on Amazon. Chinese consumers spend considerable % of their disposable income in goods compared to services. The top percent
  9. I think the "average" may not be the right way to quantify this but "median”. china has more billionaires then here in US so the top percentile might be spending much more then the overall Chinese. Just an example, say out of 190Mn Chinese consumer, top 20% may be spending >$20,000/yr and then the remaining can spend less to come up with average $3889 as you calculated. Just a thought..
  10. Nothing comes for free and life is not fair. All I need to know is that that I'm paying less then 10c buying 2 shares APPL using PFOF vs. flat fee. It’s almost free. I mean no disrespect but I don't need to be an Einstein to understand order flow Or, care about it either for my 2 shares of trading I’m not advocating for Robinhoold. They should've disclosed it better about order flow and not say completely *free*; however, they provided a platform for many retail investors to learn about stock market, trading and so forth. Now every brokerage is following their model. They deserved to
  11. Well.. I think paying a cent for buying 1 shares of Apple is much better then paying a flat commission. For average retail investor with limited capital, Robinhood's model is nothing to complain about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_for_order_flow#:~:text=Payment for order flow (PFOF,been called a "kickback". Payment for order flow (PFOF) refers to the compensation, as much as 1 penny per share, that a stockbroker receives from a market maker in exchange for the broker routing its clients' trades to such market maker.
  12. Robinhood pioneered commission-free trading. They are the first online brokerage to do so. Is it not? unlike 20 free trade when you open an account with us type deal
  13. I’ve a big % of my net worth in BRK and been investing for the last 12 years or so. Have been to BRK annual meetings few times. I’m a big believer in long-term value investing, buffet, Munger, and still learning about investing every day. I started stock investing following some newsletter, lost thousands of dollars during the process, got my MBA inspired by the 2008 crash, and knowing nothing about the stock market even with a degree in engineering. Everyone starts from somewhere. Buffet started with charts before he got to know Graham. Robinhood gave an option to invest with no commiss
  14. wsj: “As part of the penalty, reg­u­la­tors will re­quire that Al­ibaba carry out a com­pre­hen-sive re­vamp of its op­er­a­tions and sub­mit a “self-ex­am­i­na­tion com­pli­ance re­port” within the next three years, they said. The 18.2 bil­lion yuan fine is equiv­a­lent to 4% of the com­pa­ny’s do­mes­tic an­nual sales, the reg­u­la­tor added. Un­der Chi­nese rules, an­titrust fines are capped at 10% of a com­pa­ny’s an­nual sales.” ”Al­ibaba ac­cepts the penalty with sin­cer­ity and will en­sure its com­pli­ance with de­ter­mi­na­tion,” the com­pany said. “To serve its re­spon­si­bil­it
  15. I just listened to the "AerCap Investor Presentation" recording and my thoughts... - BV/Share slightly improved. - Lower depreciation. improved ROE and earnings. Not much SG&A synergy and that's not the reason for this deal - expands capital market given its size and asset. Cost of funding as a competitive advantage. - Decision is based on a long-term view and not to get big. imply that it's much better than buying back its share at the current price. - Asset sale will continue as they've been doing it for the past many years - New opportunity in oil/gas recovery, no1 teams f
×
×
  • Create New...