Share tips thread
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
That isn't specifically what I am saying though.
I am asking 'what purpose does it serve?' The reason being that once someone gets over the greed and excitement of gold and answers that question then they will see that there is absolutely no macro excess demand to drive values up and all the current pressures are on a reduction in demand.
In addition, the retail market will always look at an asset in a clear downtrend and say 'it's 50% cheaper today than yesterday, let's buy some at this bargain level' instead of looking at the other side that the asset was grotesquely over valued by speculative money and even after a 50% fall is still over valued.
If we look at gold I am always interested in investors arguments as to why it should be worth more than a few hundred usd. Who is it on this planet who today has woken up and decided that unlike yesterday they suddenly need to buy enough gold to not just halt the price from falling any lower but to sustain a rally back up to previous highs?
I know what you mean but everything you just said applies equally to any non-yielding asset.I am asking 'what purpose does it serve?' The reason being that once someone gets over the greed and excitement of gold and answers that question then they will see that there is absolutely no macro excess demand to drive values up and all the current pressures are on a reduction in demand.
In addition, the retail market will always look at an asset in a clear downtrend and say 'it's 50% cheaper today than yesterday, let's buy some at this bargain level' instead of looking at the other side that the asset was grotesquely over valued by speculative money and even after a 50% fall is still over valued.
If we look at gold I am always interested in investors arguments as to why it should be worth more than a few hundred usd. Who is it on this planet who today has woken up and decided that unlike yesterday they suddenly need to buy enough gold to not just halt the price from falling any lower but to sustain a rally back up to previous highs?
By definition the investors in them are speculative, since you can't really be "deep value" with zero cashflow!
And traditionally those waking up are those who are becoming incrementally concerned with inflation.
Clearly not a problem with the first rate rise around the corner!!
walm said:
I know what you mean but everything you just said applies equally to any non-yielding asset.
By definition the investors in them are speculative, since you can't really be "deep value" with zero cashflow!
And traditionally those waking up are those who are becoming incrementally concerned with inflation.
Clearly not a problem with the first rate rise around the corner!!
But why is the downtrend suddenly going to reverse today?By definition the investors in them are speculative, since you can't really be "deep value" with zero cashflow!
And traditionally those waking up are those who are becoming incrementally concerned with inflation.
Clearly not a problem with the first rate rise around the corner!!
It most probably will be inflationary fears that reverse the trend but for a speculator to go long today they would need to have a belief that today is the day that buyers outstrip sellers. Does anyone actually believe this to happening today? If not, why go long?
I don't have any issue with non yielding assets and don't subscribe to the zero value camp as this is clearly wrong. But it is as wrong as people go long with no clear reasoning as to why they have chosen this to be the low. People focus far too much on the past and pay almost no attention to either the present or near future.
I wasn't suggesting that either oil or gold have bottomed, just that they seem ripe for a squeeze.
The bigger concern for me related to the US markets is the growing divergences, recent rallies have been occurring on ever declining breadth, that large pop last Friday had something like 36 new highs vs 176 new lows.
63% of Nyse stocks are below the 200ma, and almost comically traders have a new aycroymn "FANG" for literally the only stocks holding up this market.
Don't know about you guys but I'm not betting on a santa rally, at this rate next year is where the real fun will be.
The bigger concern for me related to the US markets is the growing divergences, recent rallies have been occurring on ever declining breadth, that large pop last Friday had something like 36 new highs vs 176 new lows.
63% of Nyse stocks are below the 200ma, and almost comically traders have a new aycroymn "FANG" for literally the only stocks holding up this market.
Don't know about you guys but I'm not betting on a santa rally, at this rate next year is where the real fun will be.
Charlie Michael said:
It'll be interesting, the market has been over-saturated with cheap oil for a while, I expect it to fall to somewhere close to $25 next year before we see an awful lot of O&G companies folding, personally, I look for those companies that aren't in debt currently, those are the only sensible places to put my money on in this segment.
However, people are still buying oil.
As I said above, and obviously this is only my opinion (as someone with money invested in them), but Pantheon have had a meteoric rise since the end of October. The CEO said himself in an interview that they run an $8 profit on a $20 barrel price.
25 is definitely plausible. I'd be surprised though. The Saudis are at war with non OPEC producers and they control the price now. They will know what level they need to hold it at and for how long to do the most damage and remove non OPEC supply and future supply from the market. At the same time, if they drive it too low then they will take more damage themselves than necessary. My wild guess is this level is somewhere between 35-45. However, people are still buying oil.
As I said above, and obviously this is only my opinion (as someone with money invested in them), but Pantheon have had a meteoric rise since the end of October. The CEO said himself in an interview that they run an $8 profit on a $20 barrel price.
Demand is pretty constant now as no one is buying forward, just buying what they need as they need it. This is a supply war and one where OPEC's aim is to take back control of the market and to bring an end to US self sufficiency.
As net consumers of oil it will arguably benefit the UK but the ftse will get revised over coming quarters as some of the high oil/commodity beneficiaries get swapped out of the index for low commodity price beneficiaries. In theory.
For someone who wants to get into more long term trading(i.e. holding shares for 1-2 years), who would you use for buying shares?
I'm interested in dumping some money into Facebook to start with, mainly due to the Oculus Rift due out next year, I can see this really yielding some good returns.
I'm interested in dumping some money into Facebook to start with, mainly due to the Oculus Rift due out next year, I can see this really yielding some good returns.
Marc p said:
I'm interested in dumping some money into Facebook to start with, mainly due to the Oculus Rift due out next year, I can see this really yielding some good returns.
You think that a company that was bought for $2bn (Oculus Rift) is going to move the needle for a $300bn mkt cap company?You know what DYOR means right?
walm said:
Marc p said:
I'm interested in dumping some money into Facebook to start with, mainly due to the Oculus Rift due out next year, I can see this really yielding some good returns.
You think that a company that was bought for $2bn (Oculus Rift) is going to move the needle for a $300bn mkt cap company?You know what DYOR means right?
Virtual reality has been hiding in the shadows for a while now with a few people talking about it, but not much in the way of usage, but when the film and game industries shifts their full attention to it in the near future once the like of Oculus Rift are released, it will be being utilised in everything, I bet in a couple of years we will even see PC interfaces starting to utilise the technology. In amongst that the Oculus Rift is the widely known frontrunner in the home/domestic VR world.
So yes, I believe it will move the needle a rather significant amount.
Marc p said:
Yes I do and I have.
Virtual reality has been hiding in the shadows for a while now with a few people talking about it, but not much in the way of usage, but when the film and game industries shifts their full attention to it in the near future once the like of Oculus Rift are released, it will be being utilised in everything, I bet in a couple of years we will even see PC interfaces starting to utilise the technology. In amongst that the Oculus Rift is the widely known frontrunner in the home/domestic VR world.
So yes, I believe it will move the needle a rather significant amount.
So you disagree with Zuck who said, "this is going to grow slowly" and Forbes who wrote "most projections we are seeing are way too optimistic".Virtual reality has been hiding in the shadows for a while now with a few people talking about it, but not much in the way of usage, but when the film and game industries shifts their full attention to it in the near future once the like of Oculus Rift are released, it will be being utilised in everything, I bet in a couple of years we will even see PC interfaces starting to utilise the technology. In amongst that the Oculus Rift is the widely known frontrunner in the home/domestic VR world.
So yes, I believe it will move the needle a rather significant amount.
What price are you expecting at launch? $500? When do you expect it to drop to their $300 target?
What is the likely market penetration vs the number of consoles and gaming PCs sold every year?
At what gross margin?
How much do you think they will sink into marketing the completely new product with no established market?
What about the studio content costs?
What is the likely ROIC on that $2bn investment and when will it hit that?
Now while OR is clearly the leader (again, a fact everybody knows and is hardly giving you a market-differentiated viewpoint) what are the barriers to entry here?
Software? Nope - EA, ATVI, UBI or even MSFT will have you licked their if they want to.
Hardware? Well it looks like the Gear VR is already out there from Samsung and is at $99 with better content deals... what are their relative market shares going to look like?
And what are your assumptions about the core business - you know, the one that actually generates revenue and earnings TODAY.
The street has $15bn in EBITDA for 2016 and just over $19bn for 2017 - how sure are you about that growth?
What's driving it? Users or rev per user? What level of risk have you included for data hacking? What assumptions are you making around global advertising revenue growth?
And most importantly - what do you pay for it? Both the core and OR...
- How do you value the $2bn investment? To move the needle for FB it obviously needs to be worth around $30bn (10% of market cap) at the very least or otherwise (as I suggest) it is a complete rounding error in the facebook story that every single serious investor can happily ignore.
To give you a sense - Electronic Arts, one of the most successful video game makers in the world is worth $22bn (Activision, with the annuity income stream from MMORPGs, is worth $28bn).
Not into a software comp? OK - how about a hardware example...
HP $22bn.
ASUS $6bn.
My favourite basket case - GPRO - $2bn mkt cap (although in fairness peaking at $7bn).
You think that a niche gaming product which according to its owner will "start slow" and has already pushed back the launch several times is going to be worth more than HP + ASUS + Peak GoPro???
Right OK - sounds like you have really done your homework.
What are your thoughts on $NVDA long term?
Their GPUs are used for massively parallel computation (Big Data + AI research, see Facebook, Amazon EC GPU instances).
They are also working on autonomous cars via neural networks (very impressive video) and most digital dashboards like the one in the Audis, Volkswagens and Teslas are powered by Nvidia Tegra ARM SoCs.
Last but not least they are leading the market for dedicated GPUs for consumer products, so anything on a PC that requires a lot of graphics power (Oculus Rift) will also require a Nvidia or AMD graphics card.
Intel's integrated GPU development seems to have stalled so manufacturers are starting to put GPUs into their mobiles again (i.e. Surfacebook).
Their GPUs are used for massively parallel computation (Big Data + AI research, see Facebook, Amazon EC GPU instances).
They are also working on autonomous cars via neural networks (very impressive video) and most digital dashboards like the one in the Audis, Volkswagens and Teslas are powered by Nvidia Tegra ARM SoCs.
Last but not least they are leading the market for dedicated GPUs for consumer products, so anything on a PC that requires a lot of graphics power (Oculus Rift) will also require a Nvidia or AMD graphics card.
Intel's integrated GPU development seems to have stalled so manufacturers are starting to put GPUs into their mobiles again (i.e. Surfacebook).
walm said:
So you disagree with Zuck who said, "this is going to grow slowly" and Forbes who wrote "most projections we are seeing are way too optimistic".
What price are you expecting at launch? $500? When do you expect it to drop to their $300 target?
What is the likely market penetration vs the number of consoles and gaming PCs sold every year?
At what gross margin?
How much do you think they will sink into marketing the completely new product with no established market?
What about the studio content costs?
What is the likely ROIC on that $2bn investment and when will it hit that?
Now while OR is clearly the leader (again, a fact everybody knows and is hardly giving you a market-differentiated viewpoint) what are the barriers to entry here?
Software? Nope - EA, ATVI, UBI or even MSFT will have you licked their if they want to.
Hardware? Well it looks like the Gear VR is already out there from Samsung and is at $99 with better content deals... what are their relative market shares going to look like?
And what are your assumptions about the core business - you know, the one that actually generates revenue and earnings TODAY.
The street has $15bn in EBITDA for 2016 and just over $19bn for 2017 - how sure are you about that growth?
What's driving it? Users or rev per user? What level of risk have you included for data hacking? What assumptions are you making around global advertising revenue growth?
And most importantly - what do you pay for it? Both the core and OR...
- How do you value the $2bn investment? To move the needle for FB it obviously needs to be worth around $30bn (10% of market cap) at the very least or otherwise (as I suggest) it is a complete rounding error in the facebook story that every single serious investor can happily ignore.
To give you a sense - Electronic Arts, one of the most successful video game makers in the world is worth $22bn (Activision, with the annuity income stream from MMORPGs, is worth $28bn).
Not into a software comp? OK - how about a hardware example...
HP $22bn.
ASUS $6bn.
My favourite basket case - GPRO - $2bn mkt cap (although in fairness peaking at $7bn).
You think that a niche gaming product which according to its owner will "start slow" and has already pushed back the launch several times is going to be worth more than HP + ASUS + Peak GoPro???
Right OK - sounds like you have really done your homework.
You have missed one big HW example there and that is apple, with a mkt cap of $740bn, compare that to pre iphone days and many would have said the same about them.What price are you expecting at launch? $500? When do you expect it to drop to their $300 target?
What is the likely market penetration vs the number of consoles and gaming PCs sold every year?
At what gross margin?
How much do you think they will sink into marketing the completely new product with no established market?
What about the studio content costs?
What is the likely ROIC on that $2bn investment and when will it hit that?
Now while OR is clearly the leader (again, a fact everybody knows and is hardly giving you a market-differentiated viewpoint) what are the barriers to entry here?
Software? Nope - EA, ATVI, UBI or even MSFT will have you licked their if they want to.
Hardware? Well it looks like the Gear VR is already out there from Samsung and is at $99 with better content deals... what are their relative market shares going to look like?
And what are your assumptions about the core business - you know, the one that actually generates revenue and earnings TODAY.
The street has $15bn in EBITDA for 2016 and just over $19bn for 2017 - how sure are you about that growth?
What's driving it? Users or rev per user? What level of risk have you included for data hacking? What assumptions are you making around global advertising revenue growth?
And most importantly - what do you pay for it? Both the core and OR...
- How do you value the $2bn investment? To move the needle for FB it obviously needs to be worth around $30bn (10% of market cap) at the very least or otherwise (as I suggest) it is a complete rounding error in the facebook story that every single serious investor can happily ignore.
To give you a sense - Electronic Arts, one of the most successful video game makers in the world is worth $22bn (Activision, with the annuity income stream from MMORPGs, is worth $28bn).
Not into a software comp? OK - how about a hardware example...
HP $22bn.
ASUS $6bn.
My favourite basket case - GPRO - $2bn mkt cap (although in fairness peaking at $7bn).
You think that a niche gaming product which according to its owner will "start slow" and has already pushed back the launch several times is going to be worth more than HP + ASUS + Peak GoPro???
Right OK - sounds like you have really done your homework.
Zuck has already said that they are putting focus on AR, which will overtake VR but in much longer term as the field of view isn't quite there yet which puts the AR at a disadvantage as it can't do what VR can do yet(just look at the Google glasses flop), but it is catching up and when they can use that tech in AR, the applications will be blown wide open, it will move into the smart phones market, it will have military applications, design applications, the possibilities are endless. We are on the verge of it though and most forcasters but the AR/VR market at $150bn by 2020, so it does appear I'm not alone.
I realise that there are others out there pushing and investing heavily in AR/VR, Magic Leap(looking at gaining another $1bn in funding so another for possible investment) and the Microsoft Hololens, but none have Facebooks 1.6bn users at their fingertips.
You mention Samsungs Gear VR, but this is made and powered by Oculus.
In regard to launch price, I estimate it will be $$375, it won't be $500. I do assume though that the early adoption will be slow due to the price, but when people try it, it will be a sense of 'this is the future' rather than the sense that it's a gimmick. When will it get to $300? I couldn't say, but I would like to think that it would be less than 2 years.
Regarding market penetration, what sort of time frame are you talking about about? The rift can be used on PC and Xbox One via PC(for HW requirements) so I would say that the early adopters would be mainly hardcore PC users, averaged across the whole area, they may account for 1%, but once more developers use the platform and the HW required to run rift is easier/cheaper to access, I can see it accounting for up to 10% of the PC gaming market within 3 years with PC's advancing at the current rate.
A lot of the gaming market does depend on how Sony attacks with the Morpheus as a PS4 doesn't have the required HW requirement for a Rift, but it may be more advanced or lack the immersion.
Marc p said:
You have missed one big HW example there and that is apple, with a mkt cap of $740bn, compare that to pre iphone days and many would have said the same about them.
Seriously?You think a $2bn start-up should be compared to Apple, the most valuable company in the world?
How often do you think people will be replacing their VR headsets? Will it be every two years like a phone? NOPE.
What is the end market? Is it - THE ENTIRE WORLD - like phones? NOPE. (Maybe not the whole world but 1.7bn units x2 is nearly half the world!)
Let me help you here - VR Headsets are a NICHE of a NICHE.
Mobile phones are UBIQUITOUS.
Once again - for what you are saying to make ANY sense then the $2bn business is in fact worth $30bn.
WHY ON EARTH WOULD THE FOUNDERS HAVE SOLD FOR $2bn????
According to you, the people who know the most about VR headsets - the founders of Oculus Rift - just left $28bn LYING ON THE TABLE.
dom9 said:
To defend Marc (not that he needs it, I'm sure) - Who thought half the world would have mobile phones, let alone iPhones, 20 years ago?
I, however, still won't be investing
Don't get me wrong.I, however, still won't be investing
There is plenty of evidence of $2bn start-ups becoming tech behemoths - AAPL, GOOG, FB, AMZN, TWTR, etc...
What is different here is that it is part of a big company that already has a LOT of earnings.
THOSE earnings will be driving the stock not just for the short term but for the next 24 months - and therefore you need to be SUPER confident about the core business otherwise - even if you are RIGHT about VR, you might lose your shirt before it matters!!
I am no FB expert but I just can't see VR moving the needle for them over the next couple of years.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff