Sweet

As of last quarter, about a third of it is interest income.

The guy centre ground was bragging about it. Regulating a nearly non-existent industry in Europe. And the regulation will probably help ensure all the AI innovation doesn’t happen in Europe. Larry Ellison (think I have that right) said yesterday that AI servers is going to be dominated by about 7 or so companies. To enter the game you need a founding investment of $100 billion. There are a range of American companies willing and able to put those kind of sums up, not sure there is a single EU one. “no EU company with a market capitalisation of more than euro 100 billion has been created from scratch in the last 50 years, while all six US companies with a valuation of more than euro 1 trillion have been created in the same period.” Written by Mario Draghi found here: (https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/97e481fd-2dc3-412d-be4c-f152a8232961_en) No doubt there are opportunities but that fact alone is insane.

Totally. The thread title should be changed to ‘Why is Europe uninvestable?” Good to see Draghi speaking some common sense.

I like ABNB too, but think the earnings last year flatter the company and makes it look cheaper than it actually is.

Others might not, but I like Aswath’s analysis.

Gotta lol:

Possibly, who knows. Had for them when expectations are sky high. Didn’t they beat?

Volatility of this kind is not normal for any stock. One day drops of 10% on little news normally precede other drops. Time shall tell.

Seems to be Nvidia and other CPU / GPU providers that got hit very hard. Not seeing large widespread drops. A 10% drop in Nvidia is not a great sign for that sector.

Whats the thinking with puts on Berkshire?

Does anyone have any useful reading / primers to valuing real estate companies. Sometimes I look at these companies financial statements and it means nothing to me. Cheers.

Thanks for that. I agree it’s a great company with a lot of very valuable sectors, some growing at a decent rate. Top line growth is about 10% for the company, roughly half of what it was 10ish years ago. At $2 trillion, and a current yield of 24x earnings, it has some growth priced in. Let’s be conservative and say fair value for Google is x12 earnings or something like that. Based on that assumption the market is pricing a doubling of revenue / earnings from here. I can see that happening over a 7-10 year period but looking further out I struggle to know how much Google can continue to grow.

How big do you think Google can get in terms of market cap? Looking at it myself for a good while, just not sure how much bigger this monster can get.

Mother in law tells me this all the time . I agree with her to an extent but at the same time you can live in misery. A good quote from the article I am going to say to her the next time: "Money is a terrible master but an excellent servant".

Wow, never expected Lidl to be an up and coming cloud provider. Such a shame for us investors that it’s private, they’ve had enormous growth.

nice list of banks with growth rates of revenue and eps over a 1-7 years

Thanks @hasilp89

is this the biotech company that produces recombinant proteins?

Interesting article, thanks

I’ve been reading about them, he has no money in it, he’s not an investor. I just kept thinking if this is true it could be a great investment. I’m seeing there are several other issues yes.

I had an interesting conversation about Intel with my brother this weekend. In the course of about 10 minutes I got a decent reason why its current woes won’t last. Intel is a bit of a mess right now, they were having problems with their current generation of CPUs because they were allowed to cool on the press (not sure I’m conveying this accurately) and the chips ended up being oxidised with small bits of rust which made them fail or underperform. This is having an obvious impact on its business because the word is out that this generation of chips are faulty. Large companies are demanding refunds and / or compensation and / or replacement CPUs. This has had a big impact on both revenue and income. However the CPU market is a duopoly between AMD and Intel, and historically Intel’s chips have been better. It is likely that Intel already have the fix because these companies tend to have 3-4 new chips with R&D complete ready to hit the market. He expects Intel to bounce back in a year or two with a new chip and new architecture if you can look that far forward and he is reasonably confident you can. I had a check at the financials and from 2021 to now the revenue and income have been terrible. But in 2021 they did 79 bn of revenue and 20bn of income and it was similar the year before. If a turnaround is possible, and revenue can return to where it was then Intel is sitting at 4x PE based on 2021 and 2020 metrics. At half that performance you could be buying it at todays price for 8x. I asked if Nvidia was a threat to Intel and his answer was not really because Nvidia was dominant in GPUs and GPUs can’t replace CPUs. So it seems CPUs aren’t going away and we have a duopoly company getting wrecked from a cockup in recent chip cycle. I expect the world is going to have more computers in 20 years from - I think that’s an easy and likely correct estimate. After the convo I justed wanted to go out and buy a whack of intel but I know I’ve done work to do first.

I def agree with that. I think the best post of this I’ve ever read was by John Huber many years ago. He’s an underrated communicator IMO. Runs Saber Capital.

KJP, you have made assumptions that I haven't and which aren't explicit from the table. I think I follow what you are saying, if the ROIC is 10% then reinvestment at any amount only produces 10% growth on the invested amount - get it. This is where theory breaks down though, tax impacts dividends, so I expect there would be an actual multiple difference for those reasons alone. To make this less theoretical, if I can get a 10% on a Gov bond and can reinvest at the same rate, and a company trading at a PE or 10 which only has 10% ROIC investment and the rest is paid out as a dividend or buybacks... I'm taking the bond every day because there is no added value from the company. I don't like the table, I think it is not intuitive or clear... I hope you didn't write the report.

I understand your math, and agree, but I think you are reading the table incorrectly. Growth is not 10%, ROIC is 10% (top axis). Growth is on the left axis, and it ranges from 2-7%. If ROIC is at 10%, and growth is at 2% it means the company is reinvesting 20% of earnings - not 100%. If ROIC is at 10%, growth at 7%, the company is reinvesting 70% of earnings.

I genuinely think the numbers in that might be made up and there probably wasn’t much thought behind the table. Companies with a 10% ROIC wouldn’t have a consistent 10x multiple if one company had a 2% growth rate and the other 7%. On what planet would they be a consistent 10x?