Why Buying Stocks on Margin is Usually a Bad Bet | The
Why Buying Stocks on Margin is Usually a Bad Bet | The
9 Easy Tips for better Margin Trading
How a Margin Account Works | Margin Trading Calculator
Short-selling, margin-trading, and stock liquidity
What You Need to Know About Margin Trading
Tracing the evolution of trading strategies
Hey, I am doing research on crypo -- could you please help me trace the evolution of the trading strategies employed by the traders? I am looking into the institutional investors in the first place. For a moment, I have pinpointed the following strategies: 2014 - Fundamental Analysis, Technical Analysis, Sentiment Analysis 2014 - Arbitrage Trading 2016 - Algorithmic Trading 2017 - Margin Trading 2017 - High-frequency trading 2018 - A Single entry window for the institutional investors
[Bitstamp] "Margin trading will be introduced in Q2 2017"
Just read this thing in a newsletter email from a day ago. This is huge news, why isn't it all over this pro-"bitcoin trading" subreddit? Been using Bitstamp for couple of years now, never had any problems. I absolutely love it. Do you guys think that users will be able to lend their dollars and bitcoins for market interest rate like on bitfinex?
Kraken will re-enable the ability to open new long and short margin positions at 18:00 UTC on Thursday January 25 (10am PT). This means that clients can once again use leverage to amplify trading profits and gain in both up and down markets. Kraken temporarily disabled the creation of new margin positions as a precaution following a major system upgrade that was completed on January 13 2018. The system upgrade included a new and more scalable trade engine. Note that margin will only be re-enabled for areas it was recently available prior to the system upgrade (as of January 10th). Margin trading works exactly as it did before, only with the system upgrade the experience will now be even smoother. Clients unfamiliar with margin trading who want to get started can begin with our video tutorial and check out our support center for more detailed information on margin trading. Also, free trading and reduced margin fees continue until January 31!
All unleveraged trades will be charged zero fees until January 31, 2018 (UTC)
Margin position, open, and rollover fees are reduced to 0.005% until January 31, 2018 (UTC)
Please follow our status page, Twitter and blog for updates:
Last year, 2017 was the big one for #Bitcoin, as it opened trading at $966 before embarking on a rally that took it to as high as $20,000. Even after the volatility of the past few days, Bitcoin has beaten all the other asset classes by a huge margin.
@Reuters: As the U.S. approaches a record 10.04 million barrels of daily production, trading volumes of so-called “WTI” futures exceeded volumes of Brent crude in 2017 by the largest margin in at least seven years https://t.co/La4hbOU8mn https://t.co/sdHakxLmrH
@Reuters: As the U.S. approaches a record 10.04 million barrels of daily production, trading volumes of so-called “WTI” futures exceeded volumes of Brent crude in 2017 by the largest margin in at least seven years https://t.co/zrX6GvKGuy https://t.co/U6Ija50E3c
@Reuters: As the U.S. approaches a record 10.04 million barrels of daily production, trading volumes of so-called “WTI” futures exceeded volumes of Brent crude in 2017 by the largest margin in at least seven years https://t.co/5dv8xtdbDE https://t.co/r0NqkA5Eqr
Last year, 2017 was the big one for #Bitcoin, as it opened trading at $966 before embarking on a rally that took it to as high as $20,000. Even after the volatility of the past few days, Bitcoin has beaten all the other asset classes by a huge margin.
@Reuters: As the U.S. approaches a record 10.04 million barrels of daily production, trading volumes of so-called “WTI” futures exceeded volumes of Brent crude in 2017 by the largest margin in at least seven years https://t.co/raTcA2gx1S https://t.co/LNauGYmtZf
The NBA league office announced that all awards will be officially based on play PRIOR to the bubble. With that, the cases are locked, the campaigns are closed, and the voting will begin. While the media may focus on the MVP award and other prestigious honors, reddit has the distinct honor of awarding the LVP. The LEAST Valuable Player. It's a tradition that dates back to 2016-17, when aging Indiana SG Monta Ellis won the inaugural trophy and then promptly disappeared from the NBA forever. In 2017-18, Minnesota SG Jamal Crawford won the (dis)honor with some incredibly bad defensive numbers. Last season, New Orleans SF Solomon Hill won LVP by helping to sink a drowning team and accelerating Anthony Davis' decision to fly the coop. Before we announce this year's winner, let's review the criteria and caveats: --- Obviously, the worst players in the league are the ones who sit at the end of the bench and don't get any playing time. However, this award focuses on players who log a decent amount of minutes and consequently affected their team's play the most. Simply put: the more you play, the more damage you can do. --- And that actual "damage" is important. If you're on a tanking team, no one cares about your poor play; it may even be a positive. I'm also ignoring young players (under 21) who are still developing and can't be expected to be solid players yet. --- Similarly, we don't want to judge players within the context of their salary any more than the actual MVP does. We also do not weigh in injuries either. For example, the Wizards would have a hard time competing with John Wall on the sidelines (0 games played, $32M in salary), but we want to focus on players' on-court performance instead.
PG Mike Conley, Utah: 28.6 minutes per game, -0.80 RPM We're using Mike Conley to reiterate that the LVP does NOT factor salary into the equation any more than the MVP does. But if it did, Mike Conley and his $33M salary may be in trouble. It was a disastrous start to the season for Conley. Playing in a new role as a second fiddle to another guard, he could never find his groove. His assists plummeted (down to 4.3 per game), his free-throw attempts cut in half (from 5.8 to 2.9), and he only shot 42.9% from two-point range. That said, he still shot pretty well from 3 (37.6%) and played OK defense, keeping him off our official ballot. SF Miles Bridges, Charlotte: 30.7 minutes per game, -2.68 RPM Like Mike Conley, Miles Bridges seems like a great guy whom you'd hate to criticize. Alas, that's our exercise here. Caught in between positions, Bridges hasn't been able to figure out his rhythm on offense in the NBA either. He hasn't shot well (33% from three, 48.6% from two) and doesn't get to the line enough (2.0 FTA) to make up for it. The advanced stats get even worse from there (although to be fair, they get dragged down by playing in a bad starting lineup.) Fortunately for him, Bridges is spared by his youth. At 22, he's technically over our "21 year old" threshold, but it still feels unfair to pick on his growing pains as a sophomore. Perhaps in time, he can find a role that can take advantage of his athleticism and talent. But be warned: the clock is ticking. We're taking the kid gloves off soon. Bridges and fellow analytics-allergic Kevin Knox (-7.7 RPM!) will be entering Year 3 next season and will need to step their games up to avoid LVP discussion. SF Kyle Kuzma, L.A. Lakers: 24.6 minutes per game, -0.74 RPM Kyle Kuzma can score if need be, but his skill set never made him a natural fit to play third banana to superstars like LeBron James and Anthony Davis. He's not a 3+D player -- he's more of a no-3 (30% this year) no-D player. At the same time, the LVP is about negative impact, and it's hard to find much of consequence here. After all, the Lakers still finished with the # 1 record in the West. Kuzma struggling to find his way is like a tree falling in the woods or a person farting in an empty elevator – ultimately it didn't matter. SF Andre Iguodala, Memphis/Miami It feels like ancient history now, but this past offseason, the Memphis Grizzlies acquired Andre Iguodala in a trade (under the presumption he may be dealt again.) According to official reports, Iguodala and the Grizzlies MUTUALLY decided that he wouldn't play for Memphis and wouldn't even report to the team in the meantime. Okay. Fine. We'll go along with that. Still, that situation leaves a sour taste in the LVP headquarters. Memphis turned out to be better than expected, and could have used an extra rotational player. And even if Iguodala wouldn't have helped much on the court, he could have been a valuable mentor for their young kids. That's the least you can expect for a nice $15M in salary.
our official top 5 LVP ballot
(5) PF Anthony Tolliver (POR, SAC, MEM): 15.6 minutes per game, -3.60 RPM I've always had a soft spot for the wise ol' owl, Anthony Tolliver. He's reportedly a great teammate and locker room presence. He also started to develop into an effective stretch four towards the end of this career. But alas, the end of his career may have snuck up on us sooner than we expected. Tolliver disappointed for Minnesota last season, and completely flopped in his return to Portland. At age 34, he doesn't seem to be a viable rotation player anymore. He didn't play quite enough to merit LVP, but he still played more than he should have. There's a chance Tolliver comes back next year to serve as a veteran mentor and pseudo-assistant coach somewhere, but it's more likely that he retires. If he does, he'll have played for 10 different franchises in his not-so-illustrious but very respectable career. (4) SG Bryn Forbes, San Antonio: 25.1 minutes per game, -0.95 RPM The NBA is all about shooting these days, and Bryn Forbes can shoot. He's hit an even 40.0% from three during his NBA career so far, and wasn't too far removed from that this season with 38.8% on 6.0 attempts per game. As a result, his true shooting percentage (57%) was above average. The Spurs lacked spacers, and Forbes fit that bill. So what's the problem...? Turns out, basketball is more than a halfcourt game. And whenever the ball crosses that pesky midcourt line, Bryn Forbes starts to become a liability. At only 6'3", Forbes is undersized to play the SG position, which is where the Spurs played him 74% of the time (according to basketball-reference.) Partly due to those athletic limitations, he only registered 0.5 steals per game, and blocked a grand total of 0 shots in his 1579 minutes of action. The advanced stats get ugly; Forbes ranks near the bottom at his position in DRPM, DBPM, all the alphabet formulas that you can cook up. At the end of the day, LVP is about negative impact, and there's plenty here. Forbes is not a bad player in a vacuum, but he did not help the Spurs this year. In fact, their undersized lineup is a big reason why they're struggling so much on defense (25th in the NBA). As a direct result, they're on track to miss the playoffs for the first time in decades. (3) SF Mario Hezonja, Portland: 16.3 minutes per game, -2.79 RPM During the entire run of the Damian Lillard - C.J. McCollum era, Portland has struggled to figure out their wing rotation. That would be tested even more this season, with familiar faces like Moe Harkless, Al-Farouq Aminu, and Evan Turner slipping out the door. The trials and tribulations kept coming like Damian Lillard was Job, as injuries ravaged the Blazers' new depth chart. The team didn't need a star to emerge at forward -- but they needed somebody. Anybody. In theory, that player should have been Mario Hezonja, a former lottery pick and a live body with good athleticism and size at 6'8". Signed this summer for a modest price ($1.7M), Hezonja had the chance to jumpstart his NBA career with a major opportunity on the team. Instead, he flopped like Marcus Smart taking a phantom elbow. Hezonja's biggest problem is that, at age 25, he still hasn't found his feel on the court. He's not a good shooter (32.8% from three), and doesn't use his athleticism to find his way to the line (1.1 attempts per game.) He was a non-factor (5 PPG, 3 RPG) on a team that desperately needed him to step up. In fact, the Blazers were so desperate for help that they not only signed Carmelo Anthony, but they played him over 32 minutes a game. Again, we see a real "LVP" candidacy here with a direct effect on the standings. The Blazers' getting a big fat nothing from Hezonja was a major part of their struggle to get to .500 this season. (2) C Dewayne Dedmon, SAC/ATL: 17.6 minutes per game, -2.51 RPM We're not supposed to factor in salaries into this equation, but Dewayne Dedmon's situation merits a mention for context. The Sacramento Kings signed the big man to a head-scratching 3-year, $40M deal this summer (seriously.) Clearly, GM Vlade Divac thought his young Kings were only a few veterans away from making the playoffs, bringing in (and over-paying) Dedmon, Cory Joseph, and Trevor Ariza. Among the three, Dedmon turned out to be the most disappointing for several reasons. He didn't play well to start the season, and got usurped in the rotation by underrated Richaun Holmes. Rather than suck it up, take a deep breath, and take a relaxing dive in his new Scrooge McDuck money pool, Dedmon started to whine and complain and push for a trade. For a team that was struggling, Dedmon's headache became the last thing they needed. Ultimately, they ditched him back to where he came from in Atlanta. Now, being difficult and being a prima donna isn't enough to get you LVP honors. You have to stink on the court as well. And sure enough, Dedmon started to check those boxes. Billed as a stretch five after hitting some threes in Atlanta, Dedmon lost his shot in the SMF airport baggage claim. He shot only 19.7% from three for the Kings, registering a 47.3% true shooting percentage on the season. His defense is OK, but it's not good enough make up for his poor offensive play. He's not bad enough to get LVP, but he hurt his team this year. (1) PG Isaiah Thomas, Washington: 23.1 minutes per game, -2.75 RPM We've awarded three LVP trophies in the past, and a familiar pattern is starting to emerge. The most dangerous players aren't necessarily the bad players; they're the players who used to be good. Because of their prior success, they tend to get overplayed by their coaches and drag their teams down with them. It wasn't too long ago that Isaiah Thomas found himself in the MVP conversation for the Boston Celtics, as his incredible shotmaking helped make up for any defensive limitations he may have as a 5'9" player. That said, a small player like Thomas is always going to have a thin margin for error to remain a winning player. He needs to be GREAT offensively to make up for his defense. Unfortunately, his offense has not been great since his infamous injury. He can still make shots (hitting 41.3% of his threes), but he's not getting inside the paint and not getting to the free-throw line (1.9 attempts per game.) As a result, his true-shooting percentage lagged to 53.1%, well below league average. If Isaiah Thomas isn't making scoring efficiently, then what is he doing to help a team win? He's not a great distributor (3.7 assists per game.) He's a very poor rebounder (1.7 per game.) And yes, that defense is still a major problem. According to ESPN's RPM metric, Thomas graded as a -4.2 impact per 100 possessions, the second worst in the league at PG after Trae Young. Basketball-reference lists his "defensive rating" at 121. For comparison's sake, the worst team defense in the league still held teams under 116. (That worst team? The Wizards.) You can make an argument that there's still a place for Thomas in the NBA as a sparkplug scorer off the bench. Alas, that's not how the Wizards had been using him this season. He started 37 of 40 games for the team. Largely as a result of that, the Wizards' starting lineup was atrocious defensively. Fellow starters like Bradley Beal and Rui Hachimura ranked toward the bottom of their position in defensive metrics as well. When your lineup stinks defensively, a good coach may look in the mirror and say: hey, maybe we need a change here. Sadly, quick reactions are not Scottie Brooks' strong suit. He has the type of sloth-like speed that even frustrate workers at the DMV. The Wizards eventually dumped IT, but it took far too long to make that shift. To be fair, the Wizards' options at point guard were limited with John Wall injured. Veteran Ish Smith is mediocre right now, and Shabazz Napier arrived late in the season. Still, the point here is: almost any competent point guard (like a Napier) would have helped the Wizards more than Isaiah Thomas. He had become a negative for them. The cold hard truth is that: it's very difficult to win basketball games with Thomas starting. And given that, he is our official LVP.
Margin Isn't Dangerous & Why I'd Still Use It If I Had Less Than $25,000
Cash vs. Margin
TL;DR- Use Margin if you're trading securities and either above or below 25k. If you know how to size positions, it won't matter if you move $4,000 into a trade or $4,000,000. As long as you sized the position correctly. If you're limited to 3 trades, then take 3 PERFECT trades: https://imgur.com/a/SpPOERQ I see lots of people discussing contrasting ideas although they attempt to justify using both. Here are some things I see said and written frequently from people that doesn't add up for me:
"Use a cash account to avoid PDT" - (Totally fine, in some cases such as certain options traders. Not if you're trading securities.)
"Risk 1% of your account" - (So if your account is at $25,500, I risk ~$255 and if I lose 2R I'm below PDT. Doesn't sound too great to me if I were to lose the first 2 straight trades.)
"Margin is a double-edged sword" - (It's only dangerous if you don't set hard stops or size your positions correctly.)
"Never take on a trade that is worth more than your account" - (I can agree if you were swing trading but in terms of IntraDay trading, this is hindering your ability to grow your account. If you're risking $100 on a trade that costs less than your account value.. then $25 on a trade because of your account value.. then you're adding unneeded variables. Remember: "Consistency.")
If I were to go back to when I was below $25,000 some years ago. I'd still use a margin account while being limited to 3 trades per week. Here's why:
Formulas you have to know: Position size formula = Risk ÷ Stop Size Stop Size Formula = Entry - StopLoss
Stock ABC, Entry = $10.00 StopLoss = $9.90 StopSize = 10¢ Risk = $100 In Live Trading: $100 ÷ $0.10 = 1000 Shares 1,000 shares at $10.00 = $10,000 position
Stock XYZ, Entry = $385 StopLoss = $383.00 StopSize = $2.00 Risk = $100 In Live Trading: $100 ÷ $2.00 = 50 Shares 50 shares at $385 = $19,250 position. *$10,000 CASH account: CANNOT trade Stock XYZ and must wait 3 days for his entire account to settle after trading Stock ABC. If it was a margin account, they'd still be able to take 2 more trades this week. *$10,000 MARGIN account: CAN trade Stock XYZ and can trade both scenarios while still able to trade 1 more time in a 5 day rolling period.
Then the next point made is, "Just won't trade anything above $20".
Ok. great rebuttal, but why? Let's remember this: StopSizes aren't always directly correlated to the price of a stock. YES you're more likely to have a wider StopSize on a higher priced stock and a tighter StopSize on a lower priced stock. But remember this: 1¢ of slippage on 1,000 shares is 10% of his risk ($10)... It will be even more slippage if his stop loss market order is hit. Even a Sell-StopLimit order will have slippage within the amount you allow for when you enter a position. Stock XYZ would have to be slipped 20¢ just to equate the amount of slippage on Stock ABC.Highly liquid and available stocks such as AAPL, AMD, NVDA etc don't have 20¢ spreads. Not even 10¢. Rarely 5¢. Most of the time. Just a couple cents. Of course there could be more right out of the open but the spread in my years of experience is tightened within 2 minutes of the open. Yes, these small amounts in pennies do hold lots of merit if you're looking at having any longevity in this business, it WILL add up over the years.
Both trades have the same risk [in perfect world theory].
If both stop market orders were hit (StopLoss). Both traders would exit with a $100 loss on each. Although 1 trade required $10,000 in capital and the other trade required $19,250 in capital. Use margin. If I had to go back to when I had less than $25,000 in my account, I'd still do it the same way I did it with margin. I highly suggest using margin even if you’re limited to 3 trades per week. I get asked all the time when I began trading. If you watched my last video, I showed my first ever deposit with Scottrade (Old brokerage that was bought out by TDA a few years ago) in 2015 although I don't consider that's when I started trading because I didn't treat it the way I do today. I really consider myself starting as a trader in 2017 when I: •Wrote a business plan •Understood statistics •How to research. All this being said, slowly over time I noticed that I am taking less and less trades and increasing my risk size. Why? EV: Expected Value. - Margin has zero negative effect if you're sizing your positions the same every time. Margin allows you to take on more expensive positions that are showing your edge. Bonus: Being limited to 3 trades a week isn't fun, I remember that feeling from years ago. Just remember to take 3 perfect trades a week. Sometimes "Perfect Trades" don't work out in your favor while some subpar situations hit target. Some weeks you might take your 3 "Perfect Trades" by Tuesday. Some weeks you might take only 1 "perfect trade". If you follow my watchlists on Twitter (Same handle as my Reddit), I keep my Day Trading Buying Power transparent. Not always is it growing perfectly linear. And not always am I posting every single day because sometimes, my edge isn't there. Just because the market is open doesn't mean you HAVE to trade. My watchlists aren't littered with 15+ tickers. Rarely do they have more than 7. That may work for other traders, but for me, I demand quality. It's either there or it isn't. No reason to force a trade. I'd rather focus heavily on a few tickers rather than spread myself thin across multiple. Trading isn't supposed to be exhilarating or an adrenaline rush. It can be boring. I said that in the post I wrote back in April. Also if you make money, even if its just $20 in a month. Take that money out and buy something. Shrine it. Cherish it. You ripped that money out of WallStreet. Be proud of it. It takes a lot of courage to do this business. Realize that the P/L is real money. Sometimes even just buying a tank of gas or a book will help you realize that. Spend it from time to time. Get something out of your trading account. You may or not be trading for long, get something that is tangible to always remember the experience in case you don't last. Make it your trophy. That's all I've got for right now. Maybe I'll make another post or 2 before the year ends. I hit my 1 year full-time mark in September. Best wishes! -CJT2013
Richard Dobatse, a Navy medic in San Diego, dabbled infrequently in stock trading. But his behavior changed in 2017 when he signed up for Robinhood, a trading app that made buying and selling stocks simple and seemingly free. Mr. Dobatse, now 32, said he had been charmed by Robinhood’s one-click trading, easy access to complex investment products, and features like falling confetti and emoji-filled phone notifications that made it feel like a game. After funding his account with $15,000 in credit card advances, he began spending more time on the app. As he repeatedly lost money, Mr. Dobatse took out two $30,000 home equity loans so he could buy and sell more speculative stocks and options, hoping to pay off his debts. His account value shot above $1 million this year — but almost all of that recently disappeared. This week, his balance was $6,956. “When he is doing his trading, he won’t want to eat,” said his wife, Tashika Dobatse, with whom he has three children. “He would have nightmares.” Millions of young Americans have begun investing in recent years through Robinhood, which was founded in 2013 with a sales pitch of no trading fees or account minimums. The ease of trading has turned it into a cultural phenomenon and a Silicon Valley darling, with the start-up climbing to an $8.3 billion valuation. It has been one of the tech industry’s biggest growth stories in the recent market turmoil. But at least part of Robinhood’s success appears to have been built on a Silicon Valley playbook of behavioral nudges and push notifications, which has drawn inexperienced investors into the riskiest trading, according to an analysis of industry data and legal filings, as well as interviews with nine current and former Robinhood employees and more than a dozen customers. And the more that customers engaged in such behavior, the better it was for the company, the data shows. Thanks for reading The Times. Subscribe to The Times More than at any other retail brokerage firm, Robinhood’s users trade the riskiest products and at the fastest pace, according to an analysis of new filings from nine brokerage firms by the research firm Alphacution for The New York Times. In the first three months of 2020, Robinhood users traded nine times as many shares as E-Trade customers, and 40 times as many shares as Charles Schwab customers, per dollar in the average customer account in the most recent quarter. They also bought and sold 88 times as many risky options contracts as Schwab customers, relative to the average account size, according to the analysis. The more often small investors trade stocks, the worse their returns are likely to be, studies have shown. The returns are even worse when they get involved with options, research has found. This kind of trading, where a few minutes can mean the difference between winning and losing, was particularly hazardous on Robinhood because the firm has experienced an unusual number of technology issues, public records show. Some Robinhood employees, who declined to be identified for fear of retaliation, said the company failed to provide adequate guardrails and technology to support its customers. Those dangers came into focus last month when Alex Kearns, 20, a college student in Nebraska, killed himself after he logged into the app and saw that his balance had dropped to negative $730,000. The figure was high partly because of some incomplete trades. “There was no intention to be assigned this much and take this much risk,” Mr. Kearns wrote in his suicide note, which a family member posted on Twitter. Like Mr. Kearns, Robinhood’s average customer is young and lacks investing know-how. The average age is 31, the company said, and half of its customers had never invested before. Some have visited Robinhood’s headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., in recent years to confront the staff about their losses, said four employees who witnessed the incidents. This year, they said, the start-up installed bulletproof glass at the front entrance. “They encourage people to go from training wheels to driving motorcycles,” Scott Smith, who tracks brokerage firms at the financial consulting firm Cerulli, said of Robinhood. “Over the long term, it’s like trying to beat the casino.” At the core of Robinhood’s business is an incentive to encourage more trading. It does not charge fees for trading, but it is still paid more if its customers trade more. That’s because it makes money through a complex practice known as “payment for order flow.” Each time a Robinhood customer trades, Wall Street firms actually buy or sell the shares and determine what price the customer gets. These firms pay Robinhood for the right to do this, because they then engage in a form of arbitrage by trying to buy or sell the stock for a profit over what they give the Robinhood customer. This practice is not new, and retail brokers such as E-Trade and Schwab also do it. But Robinhood makes significantly more than they do for each stock share and options contract sent to the professional trading firms, the filings show. For each share of stock traded, Robinhood made four to 15 times more than Schwab in the most recent quarter, according to the filings. In total, Robinhood got $18,955 from the trading firms for every dollar in the average customer account, while Schwab made $195, the Alphacution analysis shows. Industry experts said this was most likely because the trading firms believed they could score the easiest profits from Robinhood customers. Vlad Tenev, a founder and co-chief executive of Robinhood, said in an interview that even with some of its customers losing money, young Americans risked greater losses by not investing in stocks at all. Not participating in the markets “ultimately contributed to the sort of the massive inequalities that we’re seeing in society,” he said. Mr. Tenev said only 12 percent of the traders active on Robinhood each month used options, which allow people to bet on where the price of a specific stock will be on a specific day and multiply that by 100. He said the company had added educational content on how to invest safely. He declined to comment on why Robinhood makes more than its competitors from the Wall Street firms. The company also declined to comment on Mr. Dobatse or provide data on its customers’ performance. Robinhood does not force people to trade, of course. But its success at getting them do so has been highlighted internally. In June, the actor Ashton Kutcher, who has invested in Robinhood, attended one of the company’s weekly staff meetings on Zoom and celebrated its success by comparing it to gambling websites, said three people who were on the call. Mr. Kutcher said in a statement that his comment “was not intended to be a comparison of business models nor the experience Robinhood provides its customers” and that it referred “to the current growth metrics.” He added that he was “absolutely not insinuating that Robinhood was a gambling platform.” ImageRobinhood’s co-founders and co-chief executives, Baiju Bhatt, left, and Vlad Tenev, created the company to make investing accessible to everyone. Robinhood’s co-founders and co-chief executives, Baiju Bhatt, left, and Vlad Tenev, created the company to make investing accessible to everyone.Credit...via Reuters Robinhood was founded by Mr. Tenev and Baiju Bhatt, two children of immigrants who met at Stanford University in 2005. After teaming up on several ventures, including a high-speed trading firm, they were inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement to create a company that would make finance more accessible, they said. They named the start-up Robinhood after the English outlaw who stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Robinhood eliminated trading fees while most brokerage firms charged $10 or more for a trade. It also added features to make investing more like a game. New members were given a free share of stock, but only after they scratched off images that looked like a lottery ticket. The app is simple to use. The home screen has a list of trendy stocks. If a customer touches one of them, a green button pops up with the word “trade,” skipping many of the steps that other firms require. Robinhood initially offered only stock trading. Over time, it added options trading and margin loans, which make it possible to turbocharge investment gains — and to supersize losses. The app advertises options with the tagline “quick, straightforward & free.” Customers who want to trade options answer just a few multiple-choice questions. Beginners are legally barred from trading options, but those who click that they have no investing experience are coached by the app on how to change the answer to “not much” experience. Then people can immediately begin trading. Before Robinhood added options trading in 2017, Mr. Bhatt scoffed at the idea that the company was letting investors take uninformed risks. “The best thing we can say to those people is ‘Just do it,’” he told Business Insider at the time. In May, Robinhood said it had 13 million accounts, up from 10 million at the end of 2019. Schwab said it had 12.7 million brokerage accounts in its latest filings; E-Trade reported 5.5 million. That growth has kept the money flowing in from venture capitalists. Sequoia Capital and New Enterprise Associates are among those that have poured $1.3 billion into Robinhood. In May, the company received a fresh $280 million. “Robinhood has made the financial markets accessible to the masses and, in turn, revolutionized the decades-old brokerage industry,” Andrew Reed, a partner at Sequoia, said after last month’s fund-raising. Image Robinhood shows users that its options trading is free of commissions. Robinhood shows users that its options trading is free of commissions. Mr. Tenev has said Robinhood has invested in the best technology in the industry. But the risks of trading through the app have been compounded by its tech glitches. In 2018, Robinhood released software that accidentally reversed the direction of options trades, giving customers the opposite outcome from what they expected. Last year, it mistakenly allowed people to borrow infinite money to multiply their bets, leading to some enormous gains and losses. Robinhood’s website has also gone down more often than those of its rivals — 47 times since March for Robinhood and 10 times for Schwab — according to a Times analysis of data from Downdetector.com, which tracks website reliability. In March, the site was down for almost two days, just as stock prices were gyrating because of the coronavirus pandemic. Robinhood’s customers were unable to make trades to blunt the damage to their accounts. Four Robinhood employees, who declined to be identified, said the outage was rooted in issues with the company’s phone app and servers. They said the start-up had underinvested in technology and moved too quickly rather than carefully. Mr. Tenev said he could not talk about the outage beyond a company blog post that said it was “not acceptable.” Robinhood had recently made new technology investments, he said. Plaintiffs who have sued over the outage said Robinhood had done little to respond to their losses. Unlike other brokers, the company has no phone number for customers to call. Mr. Dobatse suffered his biggest losses in the March outage — $860,000, his records show. Robinhood did not respond to his emails, he said, adding that he planned to take his case to financial regulators for arbitration. “They make it so easy for people that don’t know anything about stocks,” he said. “Then you go there and you start to lose money.”
What has Trump actually done? I've done some research...
A little about myself: I have always been a right-leaning financially conservative liberal. Meaning I'm all for newer technologies. I want solar energy, electric cars, auto-driving technologies (Love Musk). I do care about our environment. I do believe LGBT relationships/marriage is awesome. I'm all for Black people having their fair style of policing as well. I hate Nazis, hate Communists, hate racism, sexism, abuse, etc. I hate hate. I love LOVE! I want our government to be LESS controlling and want less taxes. I do NOT believe we should be handing out welfare checks unless IF needed (you just lost a job, sure). If you are sitting on welfare for 10 years....that becomes a problem. I look at BOTH SIDES. I've signed up for newsletters/emails/facebook/twitter groups from both sides. However I've seen that the left has become a socialist groupthink mindset, for example omitting the word God in a few speeches....It's not a BIG deal but small unnoticed details may lead to big overhauls. The censorships of channels, the media attacking conservatives, people getting fired for just having a different political opinion...are you kidding me?? The media turning a blind eye to destruction yet talk about Coronavirus numbers and criminals that are resisting arrest get shot as the cop's fault...however we do need more police training. Cops are aggressive here (I do agree with my liberal friends on that). The double standard: letting people protest for BLM but when the Conservatives tried to protest to go back to work, at the beginning in March/April, they were at fault. Or how CA Gov Newsom stated "You're allowed to protest, but not allowed to have social gatherings"....isn't a protest a type of social gathering. I don't like to be biased, but holy crap how much I've found what Trump has done for the past 3.5 years is insane!! My point is I look at both sides for politics. Anyways, I decided to do a full day's work with the help of some people to compile a list:
Trump recently signed 3 bills to benefit Native people. One gives compensation to the Spokane tribe for loss of their lands in the mid-1900s, one funds Native language programs, and the third gives federal recognition to the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians in Montana.
Trump finalized the creation of Space Force as our 6th Military branch.
Trump signed a law to make cruelty to animals a federal felony so that animal abusers face tougher consequences.
Violent crime has fallen every year he’s been in office after rising during the 2 years before he was elected.
Trump signed a bill making CBD and Hemp legal.
Trump’s EPA gave $100 million to fix the water infrastructure problem in Flint, Michigan.
Under Trump’s leadership, in 2018 the U.S. surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the world’s largest producer of crude oil.
Trump signed a law ending the gag orders on Pharmacists that prevented them from sharing money-saving information.
Trump signed the “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act” (FOSTA), which includes the “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act” (SESTA) which both give law enforcement and victims new tools to fight sex trafficking.
Trump signed a bill to require airports to provide spaces for breastfeeding Moms.
The 25% lowest-paid Americans enjoyed a 4.5% income boost in November 2019, which outpaces a 2.9% gain in earnings for the country's highest-paid workers.
Low-wage workers are benefiting from higher minimum wages and from corporations that are increasing entry-level pay.
Trump signed the biggest wilderness protection & conservation bill in a decade and designated 375,000 acres as protected land.
Trump signed the Save our Seas Act which funds $10 million per year to clean tons of plastic & garbage from the ocean.
He signed a bill this year allowing some drug imports from Canada so that prescription prices would go down.
Trump signed an executive order this year that forces all healthcare providers to disclose the cost of their services so that Americans can comparison shop and know how much less providers charge insurance companies.
When signing that bill he said no American should be blindsided by bills for medical services they never agreed to in advance.
Hospitals will now be required to post their standard charges for services, which include the discounted price a hospital is willing to accept.
In the eight years prior to President Trump’s inauguration, prescription drug prices increased by an average of 3.6% per year. Under Trump, drug prices have seen year-over-year declines in nine of the last ten months, with a 1.1% drop as of the most recent month.
He created a White House VA Hotline to help veterans and principally staffed it with veterans and direct family members of veterans.
VA employees are being held accountable for poor performance, with more than 4,000 VA employees removed, demoted, and suspended so far.
Issued an executive order requiring the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs to submit a joint plan to provide veterans access to access to mental health treatment as they transition to civilian life.
Because of a bill signed and championed by Trump, In 2020, most federal employees will see their pay increase by an average of 3.1% — the largest raise in more than 10 years.
Trump signed into a law up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave for millions of federal workers.
Trump administration will provide HIV prevention drugs for free to 200,000 uninsured patients per year for 11 years.
All-time record sales during the 2019 holidays.
Trump signed an order allowing small businesses to group together when buying insurance to get a better price
President Trump signed the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act that provides funding for states to develop maternal mortality reviews to better understand maternal complications and identify solutions & largely focuses on reducing the higher mortality rates for Black Americans.
In 2018, President Trump signed the groundbreaking First Step Act, a criminal justice bill which enacted reforms that make our justice system fairer and help former inmates successfully return to society.
The First Step Act’s reforms addressed inequities in sentencing laws that disproportionately harmed Black Americans and reformed mandatory minimums that created unfair outcomes.
The First Step Act expanded judicial discretion in sentencing of non-violent crimes.
Over 90% of those benefitting from the retroactive sentencing reductions in the First Step Act are Black Americans.
The First Step Act provides rehabilitative programs to inmates, helping them successfully rejoin society and not return to crime.
Trump increased funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) by more than 14%.
Trump signed legislation forgiving Hurricane Katrina debt that threatened HBCUs.
New single-family home sales are up 31.6% in October 2019 compared to just one year ago.
Made HBCUs a priority by creating the position of executive director of the White House Initiative on HBCUs.
Trump received the Bipartisan Justice Award at a historically black college for his criminal justice reform accomplishments.
The poverty rate fell to a 17-year low of 11.8% under the Trump administration as a result of a jobs-rich environment.
Poverty rates for African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans have reached their lowest levels since the U.S. began collecting such data.
President Trump signed a bill that creates five national monuments, expands several national parks, adds 1.3 million acres of wilderness, and permanently reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Trump’s USDA committed $124 Million to rebuild rural water infrastructure.
Consumer confidence & small business confidence is at an all-time high.
More than 7 million jobs created since election.
More Americans are now employed than ever recorded before in our history.
More than 400,000 manufacturing jobs created since his election.
Trump appointed 5 openly gay ambassadors.
Trump ordered Ric Grenell, his openly gay ambassador to Germany, to lead a global initiative to decriminalize homosexuality across the globe.
Through Trump’s Anti-Trafficking Coordination Team (ACTeam) initiative, Federal law enforcement more than doubled convictions of human traffickers and increased the number of defendants charged by 75% in ACTeam districts.
In 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) dismantled an organization that was the internet’s leading source of prostitution-related advertisements resulting in sex trafficking.
Trump’s OMB published new anti-trafficking guidance for government procurement officials to more effectively combat human trafficking.
Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations arrested 1,588 criminals associated with Human Trafficking.
Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services provided funding to support the National Human Trafficking Hotline to identify perpetrators and give victims the help they need.
The hotline identified 16,862 potential human trafficking cases.
Trump’s DOJ provided grants to organizations that support human trafficking victims – serving nearly 9,000 cases from July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018.
The Department of Homeland Security has hired more victim assistance specialists, helping victims get resources and support.
President Trump has called on Congress to pass school choice legislation so that no child is trapped in a failing school because of his or her zip code.
The President signed funding legislation in September 2018 that increased funding for school choice by $42 million.
The tax cuts signed into law by President Trump promote school choice by allowing families to use 529 college savings plans for elementary and secondary education.
Under his leadership ISIS has lost most of their territory and been largely dismantled.
ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi was killed.
Signed the first Perkins CTE reauthorization since 2006, authorizing more than $1 billion for states each year to fund vocational and career education programs.
Executive order expanding apprenticeship opportunities for students and workers.
Trump issued an Executive Order prohibiting the U.S. government from discriminating against Christians or punishing expressions of faith.
Signed an executive order that allows the government to withhold money from college campuses deemed to be anti-Semitic and who fail to combat anti-Semitism.
President Trump ordered a halt to U.S. tax money going to international organizations that fund or perform abortions.
Trump imposed sanctions on the socialists in Venezuela who have killed their citizens.
Finalized new trade agreement with South Korea.
Made a deal with the European Union to increase U.S. energy exports to Europe.
Withdrew the U.S. from the job killing TPP deal.
Secured $250 billion in new trade and investment deals in China and $12 billion in Vietnam.
Okay’ d up to $12 billion in aid for farmers affected by unfair trade retaliation.
Has had over a dozen US hostages freed, including those Obama could not get freed.
Trump signed the Music Modernization Act, the biggest change to copyright law in decades.
Trump secured Billions that will fund the building of a wall at our southern border.
The Trump Administration is promoting second chance hiring to give former inmates the opportunity to live crime-free lives and find meaningful employment.
Trump’s DOJ and the Board Of Prisons launched a new “Ready to Work Initiative” to help connect employers directly with former prisoners.
President Trump’s historic tax cut legislation included new Opportunity Zone Incentives to promote investment in low-income communities across the country.
8,764 communities across the country have been designated as Opportunity Zones.
Opportunity Zones are expected to spur $100 billion in long-term private capital investment in economically distressed communities across the country.
Trump directed the Education Secretary to end Common Core.
Trump signed the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund into law.
Trump signed measure funding prevention programs for Veteran suicide.
Companies have brought back over a TRILLION dollars from overseas because of the TCJA bill that Trump signed.
Manufacturing jobs are growing at the fastest rate in more than 30 years.
Stock Market has reached record highs.
Median household income has hit highest level ever recorded.
African-American unemployment is at an all-time low.(was until Covid bullshit)
Hispanic-American unemployment is at an all-time low.
Asian-American unemployment is at an all-time low.
Women’s unemployment rate is at a 65-year low.
Youth unemployment is at a 50-year low.
We have the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded.
The Pledge to America’s Workers has resulted in employers committing to train more than 4 million Americans.
95 percent of U.S. manufacturers are optimistic about the future— the highest ever.
As a result of the Republican tax bill, small businesses will have the lowest top marginal tax rate in more than 80 years.
Record number of regulations eliminated that hurt small businesses.
Signed welfare reform requiring able-bodied adults who don’t have children to work or look for work if they’re on welfare.
Under Trump, the FDA approved more affordable generic drugs than ever before in history.
Reformed Medicare program to stop hospitals from overcharging low-income seniors on their drugs—saving seniors 100’s of millions of $$$ this year alone.
Signed Right-To-Try legislation allowing terminally ill patients to try experimental treatment that wasn’t allowed before.
Secured $6 billion in new funding to fight the opioid epidemic.
Signed VA Choice Act and VA Accountability Act, expanded VA telehealth services, walk-in-clinics, and same-day urgent primary and mental health care.
U.S. oil production recently reached all-time high so we are less dependent on oil from the Middle East.
The U.S. is a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957.
NATO allies increased their defense spending because of his pressure campaign.
Withdrew the United States from the job-killing Paris Climate Accord in 2017 and that same year the U.S. still led the world by having the largest reduction in Carbon emissions.
Has his circuit court judge nominees being confirmed faster than any other new administration.
Had his Supreme Court Justice’s Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh confirmed.
Moved U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
Agreed to a new trade deal with Mexico & Canada that will increase jobs here and $$$ coming in.
Reached a breakthrough agreement with the E.U. to increase U.S. exports.
Imposed tariffs on China in response to China’s forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and their chronically abusive trade practices, has agreed to a Part One trade deal with China.
Signed legislation to improve the National Suicide Hotline.
Signed the most comprehensive childhood cancer legislation ever into law, which will advance childhood cancer research and improve treatments.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into law by Trump doubled the maximum amount of the child tax credit available to parents and lifted the income limits so more people could claim it.
It also created a new tax credit for other dependents.
In 2018, President Trump signed into law a $2.4 billion funding increase for the Child Care and Development Fund, providing a total of $8.1 billion to States to fund child care for low-income families.
The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) signed into law by Trump provides a tax credit equal to 20-35% of child care expenses, $3,000 per child & $6,000 per family + Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) allow you to set aside up to $5,000 in pre-tax $ to use for child care.
In 2019 President Donald Trump signed the Autism Collaboration, Accountability, Research, Education and Support Act (CARES) into law which allocates $1.8 billion in funding over the next five years to help people with autism spectrum disorder and to help their families.
In 2019 President Trump signed into law two funding packages providing nearly $19 million in new funding for Lupus specific research and education programs, as well an additional $41.7 billion in funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the most Lupus funding EVER.
Another upcoming accomplishment to add: In the next week or two Trump will be signing the first major anti-robocall law in decades called the TRACED Act (Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence.) Once it’s the law, the TRACED Act will extend the period of time the FCC has to catch & punish those who intentionally break telemarketing restrictions. The bill also requires voice service providers to develop a framework to verify calls are legitimate before they reach your phone.
Israel-UAE peace. More Muslim countries (Countries such as Oman, Morocco, Sudan, Lebanon) said they may follow. Last time Israel and a Muslim country normalized ties was 26 years ago.
US stock market continually hits all-time record highs.
Note: I would like to also add that this list will obviously be very similar to other lists if not the same, since these are facts and not really opinions. I may have missed some stuff or duplicated a few things. Sorry about that. Please let me know if you have anything to add. Thanks for reading!
The Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS) es una compañía multinacional estadounidense dedicada principalmente a los medios de comunicación masivos y a la industria del entretenimiento. Su sede está en Burbank, California, EEUU. La compañía cotiza bajo el ticker DIS, en Nueva York, a un precio de US$ 127,44 al 23/8/2020. Goza de un tamaño prominente, teniendo 223 mil empleados y una capitalización de mercado de 230.292M de dólares. Disney integra el índice Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) desde 1991, y también integra el S&P 100 y el S&P 500. Evaluando más en detalle el desempeño de la acción, la acción cotiza US$ 127,44 al 23/8/2020. Hace aproximadamente un año, el 26/8/2019 la acción cotizaba a US$ 137,26 lo que representa una caída aproximada del 7,15% anual (TTM). La caída es mas pronunciada YTD, Disney cotizaba US$ 148,2 a principios de año, por lo que al día de hoy la caída seria del 14%. No obstante, la acción a recuperado bastante valor después de la caída pronunciada que sufrió en Febrero-Marzo, llegando a cerrar a US$ 85,76 el 23/3/20 (habiendo subido un 48% desde entonces). Es para destacar que desde dicha caída se vio un significativo incremento en el volumen operado del papel. Mirando brevemente las medias móviles, vemos que la cotización actual esta por encima del promedio de 30 días (US$ 122,73), del de 90 días (US$ 115,98) y de 200 días (US$ 124,12). Con respecto al mercado, al 25/8, desde comienzo de año Disney se desempeñó por debajo del S&P 500 (5,7%), y del DJIA (-2,15%), con desempeño de -12,42% YTD. La compañía fue fundada en 1923 por los hermanos Walt y Roy Disney. A lo largo de su historia, Disney se consolidó como líder en la industria de animación estadounidense y luego diversificó sus negocios dedicándose a la producción de películas live-action, televisión y parques temáticos. A partir de 1980 Disney creo y adquirió diversas divisiones corporativas, para penetrar en mercados que fueran mas allá de sus marcas insignia orientadas a productos familiares. Disney es conocida por su división de estudios cinematográficos (The Walt Disney Studios), que incluye Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Animation Studios, Pixar, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm, 20th Century Studios, Searchlight Pictures y Blue Sky Studios. Otras unidades y segmentos de la compañía son Disney Media Networks; Disney Parks, Experiences and Products y Walt Disney Direct-to-Consumer & International. A través de estas unidades, Disney posee y opera canales de televisión como ABC, Disney Channel, ESPN, Freeform, FX y National Geographic, así como también venta de publicidad, merchandising y música. También tiene divisiones de producción teatral (Disney Theatrical Group) y posee un grupo de 14 parques temáticos alrededor del mundo. Es evidente la complejidad de las operaciones de Disney, por lo que vale la pena ir un poco mas a fondo en la composición de los segmentos operativos de Disney, en base al reporte anual de 2019 (mas representativo que el ultimo reporte trimestral en medio de la pandemia), donde encontramos cuatro segmentos relevantes. El primer segmento, denominado “Media Networks”, compuesto principalmente por los canales domésticos de TV, este segmento generó 24.827M US$ de ingresos en 2019 (un 34,7% del total). El segundo segmento es el de “Parks, Experiences and Products”, compuesto por los parques temáticos, resorts y cruceros de las compañías, así como también de las licencias de los nombres, personajes y marcas de la compañía y de los productos de merchandising propios, este segmento reportó 26.225M US$ de ingresos en 2019 (un 36,66% del total, el segmento mas relevante de la compañía). El tercer segmento, es el de “Studio Entertainment” que contiene las operaciones de producción de películas, música y obras de teatro, así como también los servicios de post-produccion. Este segmento reportó 11.127M US$ (un 15,55% del total). El ultimo segmento, quizás el mas interesante es “Direct-to-Consumer & International”, donde además de contener las operaciones internacionales de TV y servicios de distribución de contenido digital como apps y paginas web, se incluyen las unidades de servicios de streaming de Disney, compuestas principalmente por Hulu, ESPN+ y Disney+. Este sector reporto ingresos por 9.349M US$ (un 13,07%, enorme incremento respecto del 5,6% que reportó en 2018). Respecto a la distribución territorial de las operaciones, es notorio el bagaje del mercado doméstico (EEUU y Canadá) donde concentraron en 2019 el 72,6% de las operaciones. Vale destacar también que hubo un incremento significativo interanual de las operaciones en los mercados de Asia-Pacífico (del 9,3% al 11,2%) y en Latinoamérica y otros mercados (del 3,09% al 4,61%). En lo que respecta a la política de dividendos de la compañía, encontré registros de pago constante de dividendos desde al menos 1989. El ultimo dividendo fue el 13/12, habiendo pagado $0,88 y arrojando un dividend yield anual de 1,2%. La compañía decidió omitir el dividendo semestral correspondiente al primer semestre de 2020 por la pandemia del COVID-19. Evaluando un poco la posición financiera de la empresa, a junio de 2020, según el balance presentado, Disney tenia activos corrientes por 41.330M US$ y pasivos corrientes por 30.917M US$, lo que resulta en un working capital (activos corrientes netos, activos corrientes menos pasivos corrientes) de 10.413 US$. El working capital entonces representa el 33,68% de los pasivos corrientes (Con lo cual, el current ratio es de 1,34 apreciándose una mejoría respecto del 0,9 reportado en septiembre 2019). En relación con la deuda de largo plazo, la podemos estimar en 70.052M US$ (borrowings + other long-term liabilities), dado que en septiembre 2019 la cifra era de 51.889M US$, vemos que sufrió un aumento considerable (en el orden del 35%). Respecto a los flujos de efectivo de Disney, vemos que en lo que va del año fiscal (septiembre 2019-junio 2020) Disney reportó flujo de efectivo por operaciones por 5949M US$, casi lo mismo que reportó para todo el año fiscal 2019 (5984M US$). Viendo la evolución de 10 años del CF de operaciones:
CF de operaciones (mill. USD)
Dif. Anual %
Viendo la evolución en 10 años del flujo de efectivo de operaciones, vemos que en 2019 hubo una drástica reversión de la tendencia al alza que se venia reportando (con un 58,14% de caída interanual). Esto se debe en parte a la política de adquisiciones de la empresa, que vemos reflejado en el flujo de efectivo por inversiones, equivalente en 2019 a -15.096M US$ (muy por encima del promedio de 2010-2018, equivalente a -4179,4M US$). En lo relativo a las ganancias de la compañía, para el Q2 2020 Disney reportó pérdidas por 4721M US$ (contra una ganancia de 1760M US$ para el Q2 2019). La situación se atenúa considerando las cifras para los últimos nueve meses (Q4 2019-Q2 2020), donde Disney totalizó perdidas por 1813M US$. No obstante, la situación del COVID-19 distorsiona nuestro análisis a largo plazo, por lo que para analizar la evolución interanual desde los últimos 10 años, utilizare los datos de los reportes anuales (datando el ultimo de septiembre 2019).
Net Income (mill. USD)
Dif. Anual %
Como se puede ver en el cuadro, pese al revés sufrido por las obvias complicaciones de la pandemia, el historial de ganancias de Disney es sólido. La compañía tuvo en los últimos 10 años, 2 años de contracción en las ganancias (2017 y 2019), pero en términos generales, las ganancias crecieron a una tasa promedio del 13,02% los últimos 10 años. Para evaluar el crecimiento general estos 10 años, si tomamos el promedio de los primeros 3 años (2010-2012) y el promedio de los últimos 3 (2017-2019), las ganancias de Disney crecieron un 125,8%. Mirando un poco de ratios, analizaré el EPS (Earnings Per Share) de la acción. Para el Q2 2020, Disney presentó un EPS negativo, de -2,61, contra un 0,98 obtenido en el Q2 2019. Refiriéndonos al desempeño pre-pandemia, el EPS promedio anual de los últimos 5 años fue de 6,3 y el ultimo EPS anual reportado (septiembre 2019) estaba ligeramente por encima, alrededor de 6,68. En lo respectivo al Price/Earning, el P/E (TTM) al valor de la acción del 23/8 es de -208,9. No obstante, si eliminamos la distorsión producto de la pandemia, calculando las ganancias promedio de los últimos 3 años (de acuerdo con los reportes anuales), es de 18,38, lo cual es un valor aceptable dada la coyuntura de los últimos años. En lo que respecta al Price-To-Book (P/B) ratio, el book value a junio 2020, es de 50, por lo que el P/B (siempre al precio del 23/8) es de 2,54, un valor razonable dados los promedios de los sectores en los que Disney tiene incidencia. El ultimo ratio a analizar es Price/Assets (P/E*P/B) que, (usando P/E con promedio de las ganancias de los últimos 3 años) arroja un valor de 46,68. Sobre el soporte institucional de la compañía, Disney tiene un apoyo considerable, calculado en el 66,42% del flotante en manos de instituciones. Los tenedores líderes son Vanguard con el 8,22%; BlackRock (NYSE:BLK) con el 6,32% y State Street Corporation (NYSE:STT) con el 4,19%. Otros tenedores significantes (1-2%) son Bank of America (NYSE:BAC), MorganStanley (NYSE:MS) y Bank of New York Mellon (NYSE:BK). En lo respectivo al management de Disney, la primera consideración importante es respecto al legendario CEO de la compañía, Robert “Bob” Iger, quien, en febrero de este año, después de posponerlo por años, decidió dar un paso al costado como CEO de la compañía, dejando a cargo al director del segmento de Parques y Resorts, Bob Chapek. Esto duró poco, y en abril Iger volvió a tomar las riendas de la compañía. No obstante, es altamente probable que, una vez estabilizado el panorama Iger retome su frustrado plan de dar un paso al costado. En lo relativo a la compensación, Iger cobró 47.525.560 US$, los executive officers una remuneración promedio de 11.319.422 US$ y el empleado promedio de Disney cobró 52.184 US$. Una cosa que llama la atención del balance de Disney (septiembre 2019), es el incremento notorio del goodwill (de 31.269M US$ a 80.293M US$, un aumento del 157%). No obstante, este incremento puede deberse a la política de fusiones y adquisiciones de la compañía. Disney viene llevando en los últimos años una política de adquisiciones relativamente agresiva, ideada por el CEO Bob Iger, de las cuales podemos destacar 4 o 5 operaciones clave, la primera de ellas fue la adquisición de Pixar, la famosa empresa de animación que había despegado bajo la conducción de Steve Jobs y Ed Catmull, en 2006 por 7,4MM US$ (de esa adquisición se beneficiaron sacando películas muy exitosas como Up, Wall-E, Ratatouille, Toy Story 3, etc.). Otra adquisición clave, fue la compra de Marvel en 2009 por 4MM US$ (La última de sus películas Avengers: Endgame, la más taquillera de la historia de Disney, vendió entradas por 3MM US$). En 2012, Disney compró Lucasfilm (histórica productora de Star Wars), por 4,05MM US$, y posteriormente anunció una muy lucrativa tercera trilogía de Star Wars. Por último, en marzo de 2019, Disney concretó la adquisición de 2oth Century Fox, en marzo de 2019, por la extraordinaria cifra de 73MM US$, sus resultados aún están por verse. Analizar la competencia de Disney es algo trabajoso, dado la variedad de sectores en los que se involucra y la falta de compañías que abarquen tantos sectores como Disney. Considero que la compañía que más se aproxima en cuanto a sus operaciones y al volumen de las mismas es Comcast (NASDAQ:CMSCA), si bien Disney compite con numerosas empresas en numerosos sectores, como podrían ser, por ejemplo Cedar Fair (NYSE:FUN) o Six Flags (NYSE:SIX) en el negocio de los parques temáticos; ViacomCBS (NYSE:VIAC) o Discovery Communications (NASDAQ:DISCA) en el negocio mediático; así como Netflix (NASDAQ:NFLX) o Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) en el negocio del streaming, sobre los cuales hablare más adelante. También compite con segmentos de negocios de conglomerados grandes como Sony (NYSE: SNE) o AT&T (NYSE:T). Observando a Comcast, el acérrimo rival, vemos que la capitalización bursátil es similar, siendo de 198.301M US$ para Comcast y de 234.538M US$ para Disney, así como los empleados, teniendo 190.000 (CMCSA) y 236.000 (DISN). El desempeño de ambas acciones es parejo, en términos generales Comcast tuvo mejor performance, sobre todo YTD (-3,47% contra -10,26%). En los márgenes y ratios también gana Comcast, supera ampliamente en gross margin (TTM) a Disney, con 56,78% contra 27,95% y en net margin (TTM) con 10,91% frente a un pobre -1,91%. El EPS (TTM) da 2,53 para Comcast contra -0,6 para Disney. Consecuentemente, Comcast pudo mantener un P/E positivo de 17,56. Si bien los números parecen positivos en la comparación para el lado de Comcast, me parece relevante destacar que lo mismo que fue su mayor ventaja comparativa (la composición de sus segmentos operativos), puede ser lo que la haga perder en la comparación a futuro, dada la absoluta supremacía que tiene la operatoria relacionada con la televisión, así como la falta de un segmento de negocios dedicado al streaming de video (sobre el cual también me referiré mas adelante). Para analizar el futuro, creo que es relevante hacer unas breves conclusiones sobre la actualidad. En primer lugar, los segmentos operativos mas afectados fueron el segmento de parques temáticos, resorts, etc. y el segmento de los estudios cinematográficos con lo cual los ingresos de Disney este último trimestre quedaron a cargo, principalmente, de los canales de TV (que sufrieron una breve baja del 2%) y de los servicios de streaming. Empezando por los sectores más afectados, respecto a la producción fílmica (Studio Entertainment), me parece que la situación no es crítica, claramente la situación de la pandemia redujo fuertemente los ingresos del sector (al haberse reducido lógicamente la asistencia a salas de cine). No obstante, el manejo del sector viene siendo exitoso hace años (en los últimos 2 años lanzaron 3 de las 4 películas más taquilleras de la historia de la compañía, Endgame, Infinity War, y el live-action de El Rey León), y no hay indicios de que esto vaya a cambiar en el futuro (hay un esquema de estrenos futuros interesante). En lo que respecta a los parques, las perspectivas no son tan buenas. La caída para el Q2 2020 fue del 85% en relación al Q2 2019. Es evidente que al haber una cuestión sanitaria de por medio, el turismo va a ser uno de los sectores mas afectados, habiendo sufrido una caída increíble en la primera mitad del año.  Actualmente, la actividad comercial de los parques temáticos está empezando a reanudarse, habiendo reabierto las operaciones en Walt Disney World en Florida, y estando a la espera de reabrir Disneyland en California, dada la incertidumbre de la pandemia. No obstante, la recuperación fue peor de lo esperado y a partir de Septiembre Walt Disney World recortará los horarios de sus parques. Asimismo, comparativamente, el desempeño de Universal Studios (propiedad de Comcast), parece ser mejor que el de Disney en esta reapertura. No obstante, es importante destacar el carácter de líder absoluto de Disney en este sector, con una competencia que difícilmente pueda igualar su posición, con lo cual si bien el desempeño en el corto plazo puede ser inferior al de la competencia, es altamente probable que recupere su posición dominante en el mediano-largo plazo. Es interesante ver, en tercer lugar, el segmento “Media Networks” que consiste principalmente en los canales de TV que Disney posee. Este sector no tuvo una caída significante (solo del 2% para el Q2 2020 en relacion al Q2 2019) en el corto plazo, pero en el largo plazo, es evidente que la tendencia del sector es a desaparecer. Las encuestas y reportes muestran un lento descenso año tras año de la audiencia, tanto de TV en vivo, TV diferida y radio. Con lo cual, a largo plazo, es previsible que este segmento sufra una disminución considerable en su volumen de operaciones. También es previsible (y así lo reflejan las encuestas), que el reemplazo de la TV tradicional sea protagonizado por los servicios de video streaming (VOD), es decir, por las operaciones del cuarto segmento (Direct-to-Consumer). Disney tiene hoy 3 servicios de streaming, Hulu, ESPN+, y Disney+ (ofrece los tres en un bundle que cuesta US$ 12,99). Como ya dijimos, el incremento de los ingresos por estos servicios durante el FY 2019 fue significante. Veamos la evolución de los subscriptores a estos servicios en lo que va del FY 2020 (es decir, Q4 2019, Q1 2020 y Q2 2020).
Investment Thesis: Why investing in POW.TO (Power Corporation of Canada) now is an investment in a future high market cap Wealthsimple IPO
I have seen some posts here wondering about the wisdom of investing in Wealthsimple's parent company, Power Corporation of Canada (POW.TO). I decided to look more into this, decided to post my investment thesis and research on why I, long-term, I have a very bullish view on Wealthsimple (and by extension POW.TO), and why I think this is equal to being an early stage investor in a Wealthsimple IPO.
Ownership: Power Corporation of Canada (POW.TO) (83.2% ownership)
AssetsUnderMangement: $5.4 billion, as of June 30, 2020 (4.9 billion in June 30, 2019)
Wealthsimple Invest (ETF Roboadvisor service), WS was one of the first-movers in this space in Canada and offered robo-advising as part of its initial product in 2015. WS claims to have largest digital investing presence in Canada (70% of the market) (reference).
Wealthsimple Cash, a savings account service
Wealthsimple Trade, a commission free trading app where users can buy and sell ~8,000 stocks and ETFs
Wealthsimple Crypto, a commission free cryptocurrency trading app, currently in beta
SimpleTax.ca, a free tax-return service used by ~1 million Canadians per year, acquired in late 2019
WS has had many successful rounds of funding and a vote of confidence from both its parent POW.TO and other multinationals investing in fintech.
Last year WS received a $100 million dollar investment led by Allianz X, the start up investor arm of German financial services giant Allianz
WS has had 7 total investing rounds, totalling $266.9 million (reference)
WS has been extremely aggressive in targeting growth areas. Wealthsimple’s CEO Mike Katchen has said he wants to position the company as a “full-stack” financial services company. Here are some of their current expansion areas:
UK and USA Expansion - in 2017, they started offering similar investing services in the UK and the US (reference and reference).
Socially Responsible ETFs - WS recently partnered with Mackenzie Investment to offer socially responsible ETFs with a social and environmental focus. Although probably not something that older investors care about, this is particularly important for younger investors who want to make sure their investments are socially responsible
Cryptocurrency - WS is currently testing a beta service of their cryptocurrency app, and offering fee-free cryptocurrency trading, similar to Wealthsimple Trade. Whatever your views of cryptocurrency (I'm of the view that I can in some cases be part of a portfolio to hedge against risk), it's here to stay. Earlier this month, WS was the first company in Canada to register with the Ontario Securities Exchange Commission (reference). My sense is that crypto will face increasing regulations and scrutiny in the coming years, which will be a good thing for WS which is a step ahead of the game (reference). Even Google is starting to look into relaxing its restraints on crypto (reference).
Other full-stack services - WS has been mum on what other services they might offer, but insurance, mortgages, and chequing accounts could be other areas of disruption. (Reference)
WS is run by young guys who have big ambitions and plans for the company. Sometimes there are CEOs with the intangibles that can really drive a company's growth, and from what I can glean, I think the company has a lot of potential here in terms of vision by its leaders. You can read more about the founders here
Michael Katchen, CEO, Background: Led product and marketing at a start up called 1000memories, a Y Combinator startup later acquired by Ancestry.com. Worked for McKinsey & Company.
Brett Huneycutt, COO, Rhodes Scholar... not much else I know about the guy
Quote sfrom CEO: Michael Katchen On being laughed out of the boardroom when he proposed his idea for Wealthsimple:
Within the last month, Wealthsimple has also opened an office in London. Katchen said a push into the European market is “possible” as its “ambitions are global,” but right now the Canadian and U.S. markets are “a lot to chew.” It is a far cry from the company’s early days: Katchen said he was “laughed out of the boardroom” for laying out a global vision for Wealthsimple at a time when they had just $1.9-million in funding and 20 users***.***“It’s a very personal mission of mine since I moved back from California, to inspire more Canadian companies to think big and to think internationally about the businesses that they’re building,” he said. (reference)
On Wealthsimple's growth in the next 10-15 years:
Wealthsimple has more than $5 billion in assets under management and 175,000 customers in Canada, the U.S. and U.K. He sees that reaching $1 trillion 15 years. “We’re just getting started,” he said. “Our plans are to get to millions of clients in the next five years.” (reference)
Brand Value and Design
Out of all the financial services company in Canada, WS probably has the most cohesive and smart design concept across its platforms and products. I see the value in Wealthsimple in not just the assets they have under management, but also the value of the brand itself. I mean, what kind of financial services company makes a blog post about their branding colour scheme and font choices? Also see: Wealthsimple’s advertisement earlier this year capturing 4 million views on Youtube. There also seems to be very strong brand awareness and brand loyalty amongst its users. I think a lot of users find WS refreshing as a financial services company because they cut through the "bullshit" and legalese, and try to simply things for the consumer. They also have their own in house team of designers and creative directors to do branding, design, and advertising, and this kind of vertical integration is generally unheard of in the financial services industry (reference).
Interestingly, the CEO’s ultimate goal is to take the company public. Therefore, I see an investment in POW.TO as being an early stage pre-IPO investor in WS (reference).
The goal is to get Wealthsimple to the size and scale to go public, something that Katchen said he’s “obsessed with.” While admitting that an IPO was still a few years down the road, Katchen already has a target of $20 billion in assets under administration (AUA) as the tipping point (the company recently announced $4.3 billion in AUA as of Q1 2019) (reference)
Ultimately, my sense is that a spun-out Wealthsimple IPO eventually be worth a lot, perhaps even more than POW.TO at some point. Obviously the company is losing money right now, and no where even close to an IPO, and there are still many chances that this company could flop. The best analogy that I can think of is when Yahoo bought an early stake in Alibaba (BABA) back in the early 2000s, and there came a point where their stake in BABA was worth more than Yahoo’s core business. I think an investment in POW.TO now is an early investment in WS before it goes public. (reference)
Expansion problems. In the UK, they reported significant losses and despite increasing users. (reference). The US is also an especially competitive space with lots of similar competitors.
The robo-advising, fintech space is highly competitive now, and the Big Five Banks and other investment/trading companies could easily start offering low-cost or commission free trading
Competitors such as Robinhood could also expand into the Canadian market and take out a huge chunk of WS's userbase
The X Factor
What I find particularly compelling about WS is they have aggressively positioned themselves to be a disruptor in the Canadian financial services industry. This is an area that has traditionally been thought to be a firewall for the Big Five Banks. There is also a generational gap in investing approaches, knowledge, and strategy, and I think WS has positioned itself nicely with first-time investors. My sense is that COVID-19 has also captured a huge amount of young adults with its trading app in the last few months, who will continue to use Wealthsimple products in the future. The average age of its user is around 34. As younger individuals are more comfortable with moving away traditional banking products, I think Wealthsimple’s product offering offers significant advantages over its competitors.
Power Corp is a Good Home
Currently POW.TO is trading at $26.30, down from its 52-week high of $35.15. I see an investment in POW.TO now as fairly low risk, and while WS grows, and there is also the added benefit of a high dividend stock. One of the most confusing things I found about Power Corp was its confusing corporate structure where there were two stocks, Power Financial Corp, and Power Corp of Canada. Fortunately, in Dec 2019, they simplified and consolidated the stocks, which also simplifies the holding structure of WS. I currently see POW.TO has a good stock to hold as well if you're a dividend holder, with a dividend of 6.86%. Also, POW.TO is patient enough to bide its time and let its investment in WS grow, unlike a VC that might want to sell it quick. For example, the reason why WS went with POW.TO instead of the traditional VC route is explained here:
Katchen has directly addressed the question of why he did not go the traditional VC route recently, saying: If you are a business that requires perhaps decades to achieve the vision you have, well, if you’re not going to be able to generate the kind of returns that venture needs is they will force you to sell yourself, they will force you to go public before you’re ready, or they will just forget about you because you’re going to be a write off. And so Katchen essentially flipped Wealthsimple to Power Financial. Power is well known as a conservative, patient, long-term investor. (https://opmwars.substack.com/p/the-wealthsimple-founders-before)
My belief is there is a huge unrecognized potential in POW.TO's massive ownership stake in WS that will be realized maybe 5-10 years down the road. I didn't really dive into the financials of POW.TO in relation to WS's performance, because the earnings reports do no actually say much about WS. I'm aware of the main criticisms that POW.TO is a mature company and dividend stock that has been trading sideways for many years, and the fact that WS is currently not a profitable company. I am not a professional investor, and this is just my amateur research, so I certainly welcome any comments/criticism of this thesis that people on this subreddit might have! (Please be gentle on me!).
Long Thesis - Progyny - 100% upside - High-growth, profitable company is the only differentiated provider in a large, growing, and underserved market. PGNY’s high-touch, seamless offering helps them stand out against large insurance carriers.
Link to my research report on PGNY Summary High-growth, profitable company is the only differentiated provider in a large, growing, and underserved market. PGNY’s high-touch, seamless offering helps them stand out against large insurance carriers. Covid-19 has shown the importance of benefits for employees and will continue to be the key differentiator for those thinking of changing jobs. According to RMANJ (Reproductive Medicine Associates of New Jersey), 68% of people would switch jobs for fertility benefits. For employers, Progyny reduces costs by including the latest cutting-edge technology in one packaged price, thereby lowering the risk of multiples and increasing the likelihood of pregnancy, keeping employees happy with an integrated, data-driven, concierge service partnering with a selective group of fertility doctors. Upside potential is 2x current price in the next 18 months. Overview Progyny Inc. (Nasdaq: PGNY), “PGNY” or the “Company”, based in New York, NY, is the leading independent fertility and family building benefits manager. Progyny serves as a value-add benefits manager sold to employers who want to improve their benefits coverage and retain and attract the best employees. Progyny offers a comprehensive solution and is truly disrupting the fertility industry. There is no standard fertility cycle, but the below is a good approximation of possible workflows: https://preview.redd.it/7aip8pna9zi51.png?width=941&format=png&auto=webp&s=7ef868a67eae10534bac254ab58fb3d4295aef37
Patient is referred to fertility center for evaluation for Assisted Reproductive Technology (“ART”) procedures, including in-vitro fertilization (“IVF “) and intrauterine insemination (“IUI”). Both can be aided by pharmaceuticals that stimulate egg production in the female patient. IVF involves the fertilization of the egg and sperm in the lab, while IUI is direct injection of the sperm sample into the uterus. Often, IUI is done first as it is less expensive. As success rates of IVF have increased, IUI utilization will likely fall.
Sperm washing is the separation of the sperm from the semen sample for embryo creation, and it enhances the freezing capacity of the sperm. Typically, a wash solution is added to the sample and then a centrifuge is used to undergo separation. This is done in both IUI and IVF.
Some OB/GYN platforms are pursuing vertical integration and offering fertility services directly. The OB would need to be credentialed at the lab / procedure center.
Specialty pharmacy arranges delivery of temperature sensitive Rx. Drug regimens include ovarian stimulation to increase the number of eggs or hormone manipulation to better time fertility cycles, among others.
Oocyte retrieval / aspiration is done under deep-sedation anesthesia in a procedure room, typically in the attached IVF lab. Transfer cycle implantation is done using ultrasound guidance without anesthesia. (Anecdotally, we have been told that only REIs can perform an egg retrieval. We have not been able to validate this).
Many clinics house frozen embryos on-site, while some clinics contract with 3rd parties to manage the process. During an IVF cycle, embryos are created from all available eggs. Single-embryo transfer (“SET”) is becoming the norm, which means that multiple embryos are then cryopreserved to use in the future. A fertility preservation cycle ends here with a female storing eggs for long-term usage (e.g. a woman in her young 20s deciding to freeze her eggs for starting a family later).
Common nomenclature refers to an IVF cycle or an IVF cycle with Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (“ICSI”). From a technical perspective, ICSI and IVF are different forms of embryo fertilization within an ART cycle.
ART clinics are frequently offering ancillary services such as embryo / egg adoption or surrogacy services. More frequently, there are independent companies that help with the adoption process and finding surrogates.
ART procedures are broken into two different types of cycles: a banking cycle is the process by which eggs are gathered, embryos are created and then transferred to cryopreservation. A transfer cycle is typically the transfer of a thawed embryo to the female for potential pregnancy. If a pregnancy does not occur, another transfer cycle ensues. Many REIs are moving towards a banking cycle, freezing all embryos, then transfer cycles until embryos are exhausted or a birth occurs. If a birth occurs with the first embryo, patients can keep their embryos for future pregnancy attempts, donate the embryos to a donation center, or request the destruction of the embryos.
The Company started as Auxogen Biosciences, an egg-freezing provider before changing business models to focus on providing a full-range of fertility benefits. In 2016, they launched with their first 5 employer clients and 110,000 members. As of June 30, 2020, the Company provided benefits to 134 employers and ~2.2 million members, year over year growth of 63%. 134 employers is less than 2% of the total addressable market of “approximately 8,000 self-insured employers in the United States (excluding quasi-governmental entities, such as universities and school systems, and labor unions) who have a minimum of 1,000 employees and represent approximately 69 million potential covered lives in total. Our current member base of 2.1 million represents only 3% of our total market opportunity.” The utilization rate for all Progyny members was less than 1% in 2019, offering significant leverageable upside as the topic of fertility becomes less taboo.
Fertility has historically been a process fraught one-sided knowledge, even more so than the typical physician procedure. Despite the increased availability of information on the internet, women who undergo fertility treatments have often described the experience as “byzantine” and “chaotic”. Outdated treatment models without the latest technology (or the latest tech offered as expensive a la carte options) continue to be the norm at traditional insurance providers as well as clinics that do not accept insurance. Progyny’s differentiated approach, including a high-touch concierge level of service for patients and data-driven decision making at the clinical level, has led to an NPS of 72 for fertility benefits and 80 for the integrated, optional pharmacy benefit. Typically, fertility benefits offered by large insurance carriers are add-ons to existing coverage subject to a lifetime maximum while simultaneously requiring physicians to try IUI 3 – 6 times before authorizing IVF. The success rate of IUI, also known as artificial insemination, is typically less than 10%, even when performed with medication. As mentioned in Progyny’s IPO “A patient with mandated fertility step therapy protocol may be required to undergo three to six cycles of IUI, which has an average success rate range of 5% to 15%, takes place over three to six months and can cost up to $4,000 per cycle (or an aggregate of approximately $12,000 to $24,000), according to FertilityIQ. Multiple rounds of mandated IUI is likely to exhaust the patient's lifetime dollar maximum fertility benefits and waste valuable time before more effective IVF treatment can be begun.” Success Rates for IVF IVF success rates vary greatly by age but were 49% on average for women younger than 35. The graph below shows success rates by all clinics by age group for those that did at least 10 cycles in the specific age group. As an example, for those in the ages 35 – 37, out of 456 available clinics, 425 performed at least 10 cycles with a median success rate of 39.7%. https://preview.redd.it/d2l5dtw89zi51.png?width=4990&format=png&auto=webp&s=5ff2ab9948b94419558a27ac861d4e498dce6713 Progyny’s Smart Cycle is the proprietary method the company has chosen as a “currency” for fertility benefits. As opposed to a traditional fee-for-service model with step-up methods, employers may choose to provide between 2 and unlimited Smart Cycles to employees. This enables employees to choose the provider’s best method. Included in the Smart Cycle, and another indicator of the Company’s forward-thinking methodology, are treatment options that deliver better outcomes (PGS, ICSI, multiple embryo freezing with future implantations). https://preview.redd.it/np577a389zi51.png?width=734&format=png&auto=webp&s=c061a2b24c8515890ba204479b4677893dabf755 As detailed in the chart above, a patient could undergo an IVF cycle that freezes all embryos (3/4 of a Smart Cycle), then transfer 5 frozen embryos (1/4 cycle each; each transfer would occur at peak ovulation, which would take at least 5 months) and use only 2 Smart Cycles. Alternatively, if the patient froze all embryos and got pregnant on the first embryo transfer, they would only use one cycle. Before advances in vitrification (freezing), patients could not be sure that an embryo created in the lab and frozen for later use would be viable, so using only one embryo at a time seemed wasteful. Now, as freezing technology has advanced, undergoing one pharmaceutical regime, one oocyte collection procedure, creating as many embryos as possible, and then transferring one embryo back into the uterus while freezing the rest provides the highest ROI. If the first transferred embryo fails to implant or otherwise does not lead to a baby, the patient can simply thaw the next embryo and try implantation again next month. Included in each Smart Cycle is pre-implantation genetic sequencing (“PGS”) on all available embryos and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (“ICSI”). PGS uses next-generation sequencing technology to determine the viability and sex of the embryo while ICSI is a process whereby a sperm is directly inserted into the egg to start fertilization, rather than allowing the sperm to penetrate the egg naturally. ICSI has a slightly higher rate of successful fertilization (as opposed to simply leaving the egg and sperm in the petri dish). Because Progyny’s experience is denominated in cycles of care, not simply dollars, patients and doctors can focus on what procedures offer the best return. 30% of the Company’s existing network of doctors do not accept insurance of any kind, other than Progyny, which speaks to the value that is provided to doctors and employers. For patients not looking to get pregnant, Progyny offers egg freezing as well. Progyny started as an egg-freezing manager, which allows a woman to preserve her fertility and manage her biological clock. As mentioned previously, pregnancy outcomes vary significantly and align closely with the age of the egg. Egg freezing is designed to allow a woman to save her younger eggs until she is ready to start a family. From an employer’s perspective, keeping younger women in the work force for longer is a cost savings. Vitrification technology has improved significantly since “Freeze your eggs, Free Your Career” was the headline on Bloomberg Businesweek in 2014, but we still don’t yet know the pregnancy rates for women who froze their eggs 5 years ago, but early results are promising and on par with IVF rates for women of similar ages now. From a female perspective, the egg freezing process is not an easy one. The patient is still required to inject themselves with stimulation drugs and the egg retrieval process is the same as in the IVF process (under sedation). The same number of days out of work are required. Using the SmartCycle benefit above as an example, the egg freezing process would require ½ of a Smart Cycle. The annual payment required to the clinic is typically included in the benefits package but may require out-of-pocket expenses covered by the employee. Contrary to popular belief, IVF pregnancies do not have a higher rate of multiples (twins, triplets, etc.), rather in order to reduce out of pocket costs, REIs have transferred multiple embryos to the patient, in the hopes of achieving a pregnancy. If you have struggled for years to get pregnant, and the doctor is suggesting that transferring 3 embryos at once is your best chance at success, you are unlikely to complain, nor are you likely to selectively eliminate an implanted embryo because you now have twins. There are several factors that are making it more likely / acceptable to transfer one embryo at a time, enabling Progyny’s success. https://preview.redd.it/48vk9gc69zi51.png?width=953&format=png&auto=webp&s=2c75a2771a1dd9a079074331b317451f076725ca From the Company: “According to a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology that analyzed the total costs of care over 400,000 deliveries between 2005 and 2010, as adjusted for inflation, the maternity and perinatal healthcare costs attributable to a set of twins are approximately $150,000 on average, more than four times the comparable costs attributable to singleton births of approximately $35,000, and often exceed this average. In the case of triplets, the costs escalate significantly and average $560,000, sometimes extending upwards of $1.0 million.” “Progyny's selective network of high-quality fertility specialists consistently demonstrate a strong adherence to best practices with a substantially higher single embryo transfer rate. As a result, our members experience significantly fewer pregnancies with multiples (e.g., twins or triplets). Multiples are associated with a higher probability of adverse medical conditions for the mother and babies, and as a byproduct, significantly escalate the costs for employers. Our IVF multiples rate is 3.6% compared to the national average of 16.1%. A lower multiples rate is the primary means to achieving lower high-risk maternity and NICU expenses for our clients.” An educated and supported patient leads to better outcomes. Each patient gets a patient care advocate who interacts with a patient, on average, 15x during their usage of fertility benefits - before treatment, during treatment and post-pregnancy. The Company provides phone-based clinical education and support seven days a week and the Company’s proprietary “UnPack It” call allows patients to speak to a licensed pharmacy clinician who describes the medications included in the package (which contains an average of 20 items per cycle), provides instruction on proper medication administration, and ensures that cycles start on time. The Company’s single medication authorization and delivery led to no missed or delayed cycles in 2018. Previous conference calls have made note of the fact that the Company would like to purchase their own specialty pharmacy and own every aspect of that interaction, which should provide a lift to gross margins. This would allow PGNY to manage both the medication and the treatment, leading to decreased cost of fertility drugs. Under larger carrier programs, carriers manage access to treatment, but PBM manages access to medications, which can lead to a delay in cycle commencement. Progyny Rx can only be added to the Progyny fertility benefits solution (not offered without subscription to base fertility benefits) and offers patients a potentially lower cost fertility drug benefit, while streamlining what is often a frustrating part of the consumer experience. The Progyny Rx solution reduces dispensing and delivery times and eliminates the possibility that a cycle does not start on time due to a specialty pharmacy not delivering medication. Progyny bills employers for fertility medication as it is dispensed in accordance with the individual Smart Cycle contract. Progyny Rx was introduced in 2018 and represented only 5% of total revenue in 2018. By June 30, 2020, Progyny Rx represented 28% of total revenue and increased 15% y/y. The growth rate should slow and move more in line with the fertility benefits solution as the existing customer base adds it to their package. Progyny Rx can save employers 5% on spend for typical carrier fertility benefits or 21% of the drug spend. Prior authorization is not required, and the pre-screened network of specialty pharmacies can deliver within 48 hours. Additionally, PGNY has 1-year contracts, as opposed to 3 – 5 years like standard PBMs, but with guaranteed minimums, allowing them to purchase at discounts and pass part of the savings on to employers – another reason the attachment rate is so high. Large, Underpenetrated Addressable Market Total cycle counts are increasing (below, in 000s), including both freezing cycles and intended-pregnancy cycles. Acceleration in cycle volume is likely driven by a declining birth rate as women wait later in life to start a family, resulting in reduced fertility, as well as the number of non-traditional (LGBT and single parents). Conservatively, we believe cycles can double in the next 8 years, a 7% CAGR. https://preview.redd.it/y6y7jb559zi51.png?width=943&format=png&auto=webp&s=6cc5cdde7c6583d8e943d2675ad3b6ae85f818de Progyny believes its addressable market is the $6.7B spent on infertility treatments in 2017, but these numbers could easily understate the available market and potential patients as over 50% of people in the US who are diagnosed as infertile do not seek treatment. Additionally, according to the Company, 35% of its covered universe did not previously have fertility benefits in place previously, meaning there is a growing population of people who are now considering their fertility options. According to Willis Towers, Watson, ~ 55% of employers offered fertility benefits in 2018. A quick review of CDC stats and FertilityIQ shows a significant disparity in outcomes and emotions for those who are seeking treatment. While technology in the embryo lab is improving rapidly and success rates between clinics should be converging, there continue to be significant outliers. Clinics that follow what are now generally accepted procedures (follicle stimulating hormones, a 5-day incubation period and PGS to determine embryo viability) have seen success rates of at least 40%. There continue to be several providers that offer a mini-IVF cycle or natural IVF cycle. Designed to appeal to cost conscious cash payors, the on average $5,000 costs, is simply IVF without prescription drugs or any add-ons such as PGS. However, the success rates are on par with IUI and there is an abundance of patients over 40 using the service, where the success rates are already low. Additionally, success stories at these clinics frequently align with what is perceived as the worst parts of the process: One clinic offering a natural cycle IVF has a rating at FertilityIQ of ~8.0 with 60% of people strongly recommending it. This clinic performed 2,000 cycles in 2018 (the most recently available data from the CDC), making it one of the top 10 most active fertility center in the US. Their success rate for women under 35 was 23%, as opposed to the national average of 50% for all clinics. For women over 43, the average success rate for the most active 40 clinics in this demographic was 5.0% this clinics success rate was 0.4%. The lower success rate is likely due to the lack of pre-cycle drugs and PGS, but the success rate and the average rating is hard to understand. Part of this could be to the customer service provided by the clinic, or the perceived benefit of having to go into the office less often for check-ups when not doing a medication driven cycle. . Reviews from other clinics with high average customer ratings, but low success rates include: - “start of a journey that consisted of multiple IUI’s with numerous medications, but they were not successful.” - After an IVF retrieval, the couple had two viable embryos, both were transferred the next month” - “The couple started with a series of IUI treatments, three in total that were not successful.” - “After a fresh transfer of two embryos, again another unsuccessful cycle”. - “He suggested transferring 2 due to higher implantation rates, but there is increased rate of twins “ Valuation https://preview.redd.it/tqcykjm39zi51.png?width=6358&format=png&auto=webp&s=b63fd53c054ac5cbacaf9ccc734c7e73f0ea3c32 Progyny’s comps have typically been other high-growth companies that went public in the last two years: 1Life Healthcare (ONEM), Accolade (ACCD), Health Catalyst (HCAT), Health Equity (HQY), Livongo (LVGO), Phreesia (PHR), as well as Teladoc (TDOC). Despite revenue growth that outpaces these companies, PGNY’s revenue multiple of 4.4x 2021E revenue is a 40% discount to the peer group median. PNGY’s lower gross margin is likely limiting the multiple. However, Progyny is the one of the few profitable companies in this group and the only one with realistic EBTIDA margins. SG&A leverage is the most likely driver of increased EBITDA and can be achieved by utilizing data to improve clinical outcomes in the future, but primarily by increased productive of the sales reps, including larger employer wins and larger employee utilization. Perhaps the best direct comp is Bright Horizons (BFAM). BFAM offers childcare as a healthcare benefit where employees can use pre-tax dollars to pay for childcare. BFAM offers both onsite childcare centers built to the employer’s specification (owned by the employer and operated by BFAM), as well as shared-site locations that are open to the public and back-up sitter services. Currently, PGNY is trading at 4.4x 2021E Revenue, in-line with BFAM’s 4.3x multiple. I would argue that PGNY should trade significantly higher given the asset-lite business model and higher ROIC. Recent Results Post Covid-19, fertility treatments came back faster than anticipated, combined with disciplined operations, PGNY drove revenue and EBITDA above 2Q2020 consensus estimates. Utilization is still below historical levels, but management’s visibility led to excellent FY21 revenue estimates (consensus is around $555M, a y/y increase of 62%. 2Q2020 revenue increased 15% to $64.6M, and EBITDA increased 18% to $6.5M, primarily driven by SBC as the 15% revenue was not enough to leverage the additional G&A people hired in the last 18 months. The end of the quarter as fertility docs opened their offices back up for remote visits saw better operating margin. Despite the shutdown in fertility clinics during COVID-19, Progyny was able to successfully add several clients. “The significant majority of the clinics in our network chose to adhere to ASRMs guidelines, and our volume of fertility treatments and dispensing of the related medications declined significantly over the latter part of the quarter. . . Through the end of March and into the first half of April, we saw significant reductions in the utilization of the benefit by our members down to as low as 15%, when compared to the early part of Q1 were 15% of what we consider to be normal levels. In April, the New York Department of Health declared that fertility is an essential health service and stated that clinics have the authority to treat their patients and perform procedures during the pandemic. Then on April 24, ASRM updated its guidelines which were reaffirmed on May 11, advising that practices could reopen for all procedures so long as it could be done in a measured way that is safe for patients and staff.” Revenue increased by $33.8 million, 72% in 1Q2020. This increase is primarily due to a $19.0 million, or 47% increase, in revenue from fertility benefits. Additionally, the Company experienced a $14.8 million or 216% increase in revenue from specialty pharmacy. Revenue growth was due to the increase in the number of clients and covered lives. Progyny Rx revenue growth outpaced the fertility benefits revenue since Progyny Rx went live with only a select number of clients on January 1, 2018 and has continued to add both new and existing fertility benefit solution clients since its initial launch. Competition The only true competition is the large insurance companies, but, as mentioned previously, they are not delivering care the same way. WINFertility is the largest manager of fertility insurance benefits on behalf of Anthem, Aetna and Cigna and are not directly involved in the delivery of care. Carrot is a Silicon Valley startup that recently raised $24M in a Series B with several brand name customers (StitchFix, Slack) where they focus on negotiating discounts at fertility clinics for their customers, who then use after-tax dollars from their employers. Risks to Thesis Though there is risk a large carrier may switch to a model similar to Progyny’s, I believe it is unlikely given the established relationships with REIs at the clinic level, the difficulty of managing a more selective network of providers, and the lack of interest shown previously in eliminating the IUI. It is more likely a carrier would acquire Progyny first.
The current turmoil in Belarus and its impact to Belarusian-Russian bilateral relations: A few points of consideration
Aleksandr Lukashenko was purportedly re-elected in Belarus's most recent elections. The current turmoil resulted. As is fairly common in certain Eastern European elections, the 80% margin by which he claimed victory gives rise to obvious doubts as to legitimacy. Mass protests and demonstrations resulted. Lukashenko has 'won' past elections by similar margins, at least 85-90%+. Lukashenko has arrested most of his political opponents, and jailed or exiled others. Journalists which report on the extent of his corruption (of which there is no shortage) tend to find themselves in prison. His title as Europe's so called 'last dictator' is well deserved. The Global Response to Lukashenko's Purported Re-Election The global response to Lukashenko's purported re-election has been largely as would be anticipated. Western countries -- and specifically the United States, through Mike Pompeo -- have expressed their reservations. The results are self evidently suspect. Despite this, Russia and China both endorsed the results and both countries have officially signaled their endorsement of the results. Notably, Russia historically has been Belarus's strongest and closest ally, the animosity between Putin and Lukashenko in the recent years notwithstanding. Uncertainty from Russia Despite the official endorsement from Putin, uncertainty remains as to the future of Russian and Belarusian bilateral relations. Several prominent Russians, including those inside Putin's inner circle, have signaled that the Lukashenko's backing from Moscow is not guaranteed. Several developments this year contextualize the current status quo. First, negotiations for discounted oil broke down in totality earlier in February 2020. Russia not only suspended deliveries to Belarus, but offered future sales at "market rates" on a purely commercial basis. Second, the oil negotiations broke down after Putin's proposal to merge the two countries was flatly rejected. Natural gas sales were still discounted somewhat, but the lack of a market rate discount for oil sales to Belarus was a significant blow to the integrity of their relationship. The basic idea here is that when global oil prices were high, Russia could with very little significant loss discount its sales to Belarus to gain favor and geopolitical influence. When oil prices bottomed out -- as they have in recent years -- the costs of that deal to Russia rose, so Russia sought to re-negotiate. In the past, Lukashenko made few concessions (and in fact used the potential of closer ties with the West to extract that concession from Russia, consistent with his historical maneuvering of the animosity between Russia and NATO to his distinct advantage). At the very least, Russia wanted closer economic (and by implication, political) integration; potentially, integration to the level of merging the two countries once Lukashenko left office. Lukashenko predictably rebuked any such proposal. Shrinking Russian Sphere of Influence From the outside looking in, it may not make sense why Russia would even want to integrate with Belarus. All doubt however is resolved in consideration of how the other near and distant dominoes seem to be lining up -- each of them to fall outside the Russian sphere of influence. Consider Kazakhstan, for example. Nazarbayev (Kazakh president) has made deliberate efforts to broaden its economic and cultural reach outside the sphere of Russian influence, even to the point that he changed the Kazakh alphabet from Cyrillic to Latin in 2017. The idea was to draw a line in the sand relative to the scope and extent of Russian influence in Central Asia in general and Kazakhstan in particular. The fact that Russia hemorrhaged allied states following the USSR's collapse is a matter of historical record. Thirteen Warsaw Pact countries have joined NATO. So, when Georgia endeavored to join the EU in 2007, Putin invaded Abkhazia and South Ossetia -- both of which remain allegedly "disputed" territories to this day. A highly deceptive analysis concluded Georgia was to blame; but the whole reason Russia invaded in the first place was because Georgia was actively seeking NATO membership -- of course, to prevent exactly such an invasion. In reality, Russia invaded a sovereign country for the purpose of preventing it from joining NATO. Putin's response shows that in Russia's analysis, Georgia is better as a fragmented state than a NATO ally or EU member. A similar pattern played out in Ukraine. As I have discussed before, when Ukraine sought closer economic and political integration with Western Europe and the United States, that was met with Russian meddling in Ukraine's domestic politics, even to the point of installing Yanukovych as Russia's puppet Ukrainian president. Thereafter, in the face of maidan, Putin invaded eastern Ukraine and seized Crimea. In the example of Ukraine as in Georgia, the outcome shows that Russia would prefer that Ukraine be a failed or fragmented state than a NATO ally or EU member. Recall that the goal here was for Putin to create an economic alliance in at least Eastern Europe and Central Asia to rival the EU, and ideally as an insurance policy against further sanctions. The first step in that process would be developing individualized economic integration projects among each of the former Soviet bloc states. Instead, Putin lost Kazakhstan, Georgia, and Ukraine in the span of less than a decade. Ukraine was the first such integration project -- and that resulted in then-president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych's absconding Ukraine for Russia in disgrace. So is Belarus next? Perhaps. It's a question worth asking; especially considering what "being next" could mean. In a first set of possible worlds, Lukashenko is out because of his own decisions, or because he is forced out (potentially by the protesters, Russia or both). In 2018-2019, when Russian-Belarusian bilateral relations were at their worst, it's conceivable that Putin might have tried something like he achieved in Ukraine -- but highly unlikely. It isn't obvious that Putin would be unwilling invade, given in particular the fact that he invaded Georgia and Ukraine under somewhat similar circumstances and that at this moment Lukashenko is very weak. Lukashenko has never faced mass protests/demonstrations of this caliber before. Putin has, and he survived them, but the public's dissatisfaction with Lukashenko's "leadership" is amplified by the uncertainty surrounding the coronavirus, the consequential economic fallout attributable to the world's response to the coronavirus, and an increasingly ravenous lion to the east in its once-closer ally Russia. This combination of factors certainly suggests that if Moscow sees the opportunity to try to replace Lukashenko with someone more reliable to the Kremlin, that is exactly what the Kremlin would try to accomplish. In that situation, Moscow would be re-running the same play-book it ran to get Yanukovych elected as president of Ukraine. Even if such a far-fetched plan were to work -- and it almost certainly would not, in the short term or the long term -- who would take Lukashenko's place? There is no one that would not leave Moscow worse off than they would be with Lukashenko. While it's obvious why he's not ideal, given the recent history of strife between the two countries, there is no world where Russia's interests are -- at this time -- served by trying to replace Lukashenko with a Kremlin puppet. In the second set of possible worlds, Lukashenko remains and has to quell or pacify the Belarusian political unrest while maintaining ground against increasing Russian pressure. To accomplish this, Lukashenko could do something like seek a trade deal with the EU, as both Georgia and Ukraine did. But that would almost certainly would involve some kind of military response from Russia, just like Georgia and then Ukraine. While there's an argument to be made that Lukashenko's historically closer relationship with Russia (however complicated) insulates him from the kind of retaliation Putin visited upon Georgia and Ukraine, he would still be playing with fire. The Russian response to that kind of a bargaining chip from Russia would likely not come in the form of unwillingness to discount oil; it would come in the same form as was witnessed in Eastern Ukraine. To be clear, neither Putin nor Lukashenko benefit in that case. The remaining option is most likely: Lukashenko "cracks down" on the protests, and then everything goes back to normal. Why Belarus is Different from Ukraine & Georgia As I wrote before, Belarus is not Ukraine. Maidan in Ukraine was in direct response to Ukrainian government's preventing Ukraine from joining the EU. The Ukrainian government opted for a counter-agreement with Russia instead. In response, Ukrainians took to the streets and sought Yanukovych's resignation. He subsequently fled to Russia. There were other abuses that precipitated the demonstrations, like Yanukovych arresting his pro-democracy political opponents and arresting journalists who were reporting on the extent of his corruption, but the threshold moment was when Yanukovych tried to rebuke the democratic will of the Ukrainian people (shirk the EU in favor of the Kremlin). So, for Ukraine, the goal was a clear and decisive move towards the EU and the United States (and NATO, by implication). This was in response to decades of Kremlin meddling in Ukrainian domestic political affairs. Maidan there was Ukraine setting forth a future for itself that did not include Putin. Belarus also isn't Georgia. The purported underlying ethnic conflict behind the Russian invasion of Georgia was little more than an illusory pretext; Saakashvili's primary aim for Georgia was to become a NATO member and there was clear support for that in the Bush Administration because of the implications that would have to world oil markets. Specifically, despite the fact that Georgia has no reserves of its own, a pipeline across Georgia would substantially decrease Western dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Bush even outlined a pathway for both Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. This was intolerable to Putin, and so he invaded as a result. Belarus and its present situation is almost wholly incongruous. Belarus is now and has always been a far more authoritarian regime than Ukraine ever was, even at its worst. Unlike Ukraine and Georgia, Belarus never made the initial step towards actual democracy that ultimately laid the foundation the Ukrainian maidan or the Georgian efforts to draw closer to the West. Belarus also does not have ambitions of closer ties with the West, and the EU and Untied States in particular -- which Ukraine has sought for some time. Lukashenko only ever used that as a bargaining chip to extract concessions from Moscow -- a fact of which Putin is invariably aware. The riots taking place now in Belarus are not oriented towards any goal in particular, either. It's arbitrary rage. Even if they were oriented towards democratic reform, and it is not clear that they are, Belarus has no intention of divesting itself from the Russian sphere of influence -- however high the costs of maintaining that relationship may be. Compromise / Cooperation best serve both Belarus's & Russia's Interests If both Belarus and Russia act rationally, they will cooperate and compromise. Russia will have little choice but to accept the fact that Belarus is not merging with Russia any time soon. The costs of Russia's invading would be inexorably high. There is no one in Belarusian politics that can replace Lukashenko that would be both able to preserve Belarus as a state and that would in the same instance be able to more effectively advance Moscow's interests. Likewise, it is in Russia's interest that these riots and protests throughout Belarus come to and end -- as quickly and expeditiously as possible. Political unrest in one totalitarian country has a tendency to spread to another; as Putin has experienced time and again, dating back to his time in Dresden through the present. Further, this all comes at a time when Russian public confidence in Putin is at an all time low -- and the potential for another Moscow maidan (and perhaps one that might actually be successful) is at an all time high. Given that, the more pertinent question in the final analysis might even be, if Lukashenko falls, is Putin next? Their fates are tied together, whether they like it or not.
5G is the next mobile technology standard, and is driven by our insatiable appetite to stream more content, faster and connect everything we own to the internet. As a result the market is expected to grow at almost 100% each year for the next 5 years, making it a great place to park your cash if you can find the right company to invest in. Ciena are a telecoms networking company based in Maryland, they employ 6,500 staff, 2,700 of which are R&D specialists, they have 2,000 patents, 1,500 customers operating out of 65 offices in 35 countries. 5G will require heavy investments in network infrastructure to handle the huge volumes of bandwidth, and with the growing sanctions against Huewai, this should open up significantly more business opportunities for Ciena (and they know it).
In the past 10 years Ciena’s share price has seen an average growth of 12.27% a year which is great, but in the past 3 years that’s more than doubled to 26.51% a year outpacing other major telecoms players T-Mobile, Ericsson, Verizon, AT&T and Nokia, demand for this stock is seriously ramping up. In the past 10 years their top line has seen growth of around 13.45% a year outpacing Crowncastle International, Skyworks and Nvidia In the past 5 years they’ve grown their bottom line by a whopping 28.26% each year, almost tripling that last year 78.79% which is just insane, and destroys competitors Vuzix, Apple and Broadcom In the past 5 years they’ve grown their free cash flow by a staggering 42.10%, more than doubling that in the last year by 84.34%, and beating Rogers, Qualcomm and Nokia. In the past 5 years they’ve grown their book value by 65.34% which is just mental, these guys have an appetite for acquiring assets that is unmatched in the industry and beat Verizon, Analog Devices and T-Mobile
Management, Margins and Balance Sheet
Last year Ciena saw a a return on invested capital of 14.78%, a return on equity of 14.71% and an ROA of 8.36% These numbers are growing and all of them (with the exception of ROA) are above the 10% number I’m looking for, I can forgive the ROA being a little below 10% as that number has been gaining serious momentum over the past 5 years. The management team have been doing a sterling job of finding good investment opportunities to get returns that I would like to see on my own investments. They have a monster gross margin at 44.53% which isn’t actually that typical for a networking company and more than doubles the 20% number I’m looking for and it’s been increasing over the past 3 years. The operating margin is good at 11.57% and just inches ahead of the 10% I’m looking for and has been increasing over the past 3 years. But the real success story here is that net margin at 8.78% which is almost double what I want to see in a stock, and is the most accurate indicator of a companies profit, and it’s come a long way since the 4.16% days of 2017. Ceina have almost no debt with a D/E ratio 0.34 and they in the past 12 months they earned enough in EBITDA to cover the interest on that debt by 10 times, in lamens terms they are managing that debt very well. They have a hell of lot of cash versus the next 12 months of liabilities, almost 3 times the amount I want to see in a company at 1.20%, and they own a bunch of stuff that they can use as collateral should they want to open extended lines of credit.
Future Growth and Price
In the short term Ciena is expected to see some mammoth growth at 37.40% this year, and in the long term that mammoth growth is set to continue as it expands its operations and market share in Data Center Interconnectivity, Optical Networking and Purpose Built Modular DCI, as over the next 5 years they are expected to grow at a rate of 23.20% a year which is far more than the double digit growth I want to see. At the time of writing CIEN is trading with a PE of 29.11 and a PEG of… get this, 0.91. Honestly anywhere between $60 and $65 dollars is a good entry point as in my opinion, but today it's trading well below that at $59.14 which makes this stock an absolute steal. Let me know if you agree/disagree, but I see a very healthy future for Ciena and have started to add it to my portfolio.
Earning Plays for Dummies: $UA is Under Water (Basic TA & Obvious Catalysts)
TL;DR: $UA is taking on a lot of debt because of historically low retail sales causing near bankruptcy cash flow. Largest athletic apparel retailer or not, when the business isn't making money it's losing it. Taking on LARGE amount of debt, to raise cash, to keep the doors open is not the nail in the coffin, but it is damn near close. ER this Friday 7/31 could be a historic miss and future projections, margins, growth and competition will cause a sell off. Super BEAR: 7/31 $8.50-$9 Puts Conservative BEAR: 8/14 $7.50-$8 Puts
To Bearish Autists,
Alright retards, this DD is not done by a professional CFA, CPA or single employee LLC day trading firm. I'm a college grad, with a BS in Chemistry, and i'm 100% self taught on trading for the last 5 years. It's a hobby that pays for other hobbies, not a job and definitely not a thing i do without being informed. That being said heres my hypothesis.
$UA Has Struggled
This is no secret as many of us have brand name recognition of $UA and many of us own it. We know its not Nike and it's a step above Champions and other retail store brands, but it is simply the cost efficient/value brand for people that want quality and but aren't willing to pay Nike prices or get chafed nipples from the $WMT brand. It's become the largest athletic apparel brand in the US, with growth potential in China, signing one of the NBAs biggest star Steph Curry. Heres the problem, the company is facing increased competition and Covid may of burned down the house when they closed retailers. $UA helped prove there is a middle ground between $NKE and $WMT in quality and price, but they failed to build beyond that, and now $AMZN and other other brands have saturated the market. When i need workout clothes, i look online, a small part of $UA business model. I look for value, and although i'm not buying Nike i'm not buying $UA either. There are tons of other brands that provide the same quality cheaper, and i don't care about brand at they gym, just comfort. $UA failed to build a signature style, they got Steph Curry, but i never hear a 24 year old sneaker head dying over their new pair of shoes. They failed to push online channels of distribution, "have you been to their website?", and some compare their pandemic model to $LULU but they are completely different brands by quality, price and consumer segment. The companies lack of success could be bad marketing, they have the largest athletic apparel market share, but they can't turn a decent YOY earnings report. So it comes down to poor financial management and high levels of competition driving lower margins. In 2016 $UA was nearly $50/share and its lost billions YOY. Now it's facing an unpredictable pandemic, and record low revenue on a house of debt.
Important Factors for ER
The pandemic closed retailers and one of the largest retailers of $UA is Kohl's ($KSS). Because nearly 80% of the companies worth is in their merchandise revenue, this is a major hit. The other 20% is a licensee program that they get from selling the right to 3rd party manufacturers to make and sell the brand. They get revenue from licenses, but i'm not sure about royalties. This means that wholesale manufacturers could sell to other online retailers at a lower competitive rate than $UA if they are crafty enough, and their is supposedly low oversight on this. You can buy $UA on $AMZN but that doesn't mean you will be buying directly from $UA, and this could be true in open retail stores now. from 2017 to Q1 2020 online sales on $UA website have only grown 4%. $UA has had a tough time to have a direct to consumer channel over the past two quarters. The pandemic has lead to huge losses in retail sales, and the brands themselves. This leads us to our next subject.
DEBT DEBT & More DEBT
$UA Market Cap: $4.837 Billion Liabilities: $3.387 Billion (Q1 2020) Assets: $1.550 Billion (Q1 2020) Cash is KING and $UA is in desperate need of it with a recent convertible note offering that raised over $400 million dollars. I'm not a finance expert, but here's a snippet that explains the liquidity crunch.
As of March 31, Under Armour had just $959 million in cash. Now, it recently raised another $460 million or so in a convertible note, so its total liquidity is about $1.41 billion. But if it burns through $400 million over the next two quarters, the balance would fall to $600 million or so. At that point, the company would likely have to raise permanent equity and/or a mixture of equity and debt. Right now the company’s tangible book value per share (TBVPS) is just $1.02 billion, or $2.26 per share, according to data compiled by Seeking Alpha.>So, here is the problem: By the end of Q3, with another $800 million in FCF loses, the tangible book value will fall to $224 million or so, and the TBVPS will be just 49 cents per share. If that’s the case, there is no way that UA stock would still be trading at $9.28 per share, where it was earlier this week.-InvestorsPlace (Mark Hake)
Simply put they need to be frugal and cut cost to prevent bankruptcy. this is shown further in the last two weeks when $UA announced they will sell their running/social app, MyFitnessPal. They also sought to break a sponsorship deal with UCLA to conserve cash (nearly $20mil/year). The price tag for MyFitnessPal in 2015 was $425million, i don’t think $UA will have a easy time getting anyone to buy it, much less gain on the investment. Also the sponsorship deal isn’t broken, yet, and if they do it may come with a huge monetary penalty....exactly what they want to avoid. This weeks earnings report will announce a huge amount of new liabilities along with massive reductions in revenue expectations. This is the most important part of the ER this week.
Good news this week for $UA is that they won a branding lawsuit in China this week...against a competitor that you nor I have and will never hear of. China is a very interesting component in the American economic and political world. They are a huge market, but politically they are neither our ally nor our foe. India will give us the same problem in 10-15 years. With increased tensions between DC and Beijing the risk of tariffs and american companies suffering are on the rise, especially retail and manufacturing. However, China presents a huge growth opportunity to whichever lucky retailers and brands can bribe the right officials and not get caught. $UA is one of those lucky companies, but they are competing in a tough sector. Nike, Adidas, New Balance, a zillion new brands that nobody has heard of and of course knock offs. I lived in Shanghai for a year in college, and theirs “Fake mall” everywhere selling the new Jorban’s and Rolex’s and of course $UA and the Chinese government will never stop it because they don’t practice fair trade practices, at least correctly. 30% of revenue for $UA is international business including several asian and european countries and Australia. China could eventually be more of a cash cow than the US for $UA. The international opportunity is real, but $UA may never see the light at the end of the tunnel due to this dark period of financial ruins and a competitive marketplace.
The ER for $UA is going to be devastating as it has been in quarters past. you’d be insane to think any differently as the company has only seen worse and worse circumstances with little navigational correction. The only thing that could prevent a total 15-25% downside is some sort of good news. What possible good news could they have, i personally can’t think of any if they are being honest and don’t give BS projections like $TSLA. IF you think of any, or i’m missing any honest upside to this ER please comment.
EPS: -0.4$ (Big miss) Revenue: $536mil (Near miss) Revenue is key, but the Cash flow and added liabilities will be the dagger.
A LITTLE TA & CHART PRICE ACTION
6 month Daily candle The price of $UA has been hovering around $6.40 & $10.60 for nearly 5 months. $UA has found a solid support at $8.25 and has an upward channel trend, and this has been a very slow recovery relative to other retail brands. RSI is inching toward overbought. MACD is unsure of the last two months progression and is looking to swing one way or the other after the ER, my bet is down. i expect that $UA will continue on trend nearing $10.60, if the stock price does not fall below the three day trend line(Lilac) then i will wait until thursday afternoon to buy the Puts for the morning ER Call. IF it falls below the lilac line before thursday afternoon i expect my downward channel to be correct and i purchase puts immediately. Still pondering my strategy for entry and optimizing the return, between there two option ideas. Super BEAR: 7/31 $9-$9.50 Conservative BEAR: 8/14 $7.50-$8 Puts $UA has a great value product. It has not done a good job financially due to massive oversight in fiscal management, not creating a better direct to consumer interface, and not being competitive enough in a market with stagnant margins and retail competition that can undercut and or be more popular than the other with celebrities and fashion. $UA is not $LULU, and its drowning in debt with no end in sight. Their model has failed, and their leadership has failed. I suspect retail traders who know $UA by name recognition are propping this up, not understanding their in trouble. As soon as institutional money abandons so will the pocket investors, not to poke fun at you retards. But hey, i may just be a fucking retard. P.S. - IF $UA goes under, or is bought out, which athletic apparel company gains the most? My guess is $NKE (long) or $AMZN. Edit: 7/27 today the SEC notified $UA that they will enforce action against the company for accounting practices seen as fraudulent in 2016 and 2017. It keeps getting worse. Edit: 7/30 today will most likely be the best opportunity to get cheap 10-20% OTM puts for Friday’s earning call. The stock is shrugged off SEC notices to top executives and a gloomy prediction for earnings. But the market isn’t rational right now, if it ever is, and the stock is looking to squeeze out of its channel past $10.60, and people will take profit before the crash after ER. Edit: 7/30 AH. 2500 shares pushed the stock up nearly 4%...still expecting big downward projection come morning. Bought 8/14 $8.50 puts this AM. Edit: 7/30 AH. 10,000 volume pushed the stock up 10% when it moves 1-2% on 5-7 million volume days. I smell stock manipulation by an insider who want to distract from the ER. Result: AH high of $12.80 and down to $10.25 pre market, I didn’t expect price action to play such a large role in this ER. Final: watching for 8/14 $8 put, won’t hold till expire most likely. AH/PM on 7/31 was wild and ruined the lotto for 7/31. I’m convinced it was manipulated, why else would a stock increase 25% AH before earnings and drop 27% thereafter from the AH high...in the first hour of trading...they wanted the stock to have buffer and show a new price action target/action...should of dropped below $9 but $9.49 from $12.80 high at least validates my opinion to some degree. $9.31 new support for monday, may blow past support channel at $8.90 and then drop to $8.20 soon after. OR there could be a retracement to the idiotic $12.81. All in all Lost 1% of my account on a yolo, truly retarded. Daily Candles 1min candles - Note AH pump...
This podcast was recorded on March 20, 2017. Gaby Lapera: "I have a question about trading on margin.I just opened a brokerage account and I'm building a portfolio of high-quality stocks that I Using your own money, you could purchase 1,000 shares at $30 per share. If you use margin, you can increase the number of shares you can buy. Let’s say you buy 1,500 shares. At this point your total portfolio with margin would be $45,000, instead of the $30,000 you could’ve bought with just your money. Without using Margin Trading product If the investment portfolio worth SR 1,000,000 The client can buy 10,000 shares at SR 100 per share, if share price increases by 20%, the client’s profit will be SAR 200,000. With using Margin Trading product - leverage 1:1 The reality is that margin trading is an inherently risky strategy that can transform even the safest blue-chip stock purchase into a high-stakes gamble. It allows aggressive traders—both individuals and institutions—to buy more shares than they could otherwise afford. Although the asymmetrical impact of margin trading on liquidity is studied in Kahraman and Tookes (2017), the potential asymmetry in short selling's influence has seldom been investigated. Literature on the effect of short sale bans naturally only examines periods of financial crisis, while we are able to study whether short selling has
⚡️ Welcome Welcome Group "Margin Trading" Gather a Closed group, and while out instructions and deals ===== Ký Advertising sign: BingBon: https://bit.ly/bingbon0 (Transactional copy floor ... In this video you will see my day trading Colmex account profit and loss for 2017 and some previous years. All my trades were taken in my live trading room a... Square Off Margin Position-28.11.2017 Vivid colors. Loading... Unsubscribe from Vivid colors? ... WHAT IS PREMIUM AMOUNT IN OPTIONS TRADING - Duration: 11:26. ChapdiZ 9,044 views. Published on Jun 7, 2017 LIKE COMMENT SHARE SUBSCRIBE Margin Trading Poloniex in hindi , Altcoin par margin Trade kaise kare .. Published on Jun 23, 2017 Advanced trading tools like Margin trading and Stop Loss orders are the staple of regular stock investing. Whilst these tools are available in many cryptocurrency ...