This is not a comparison I'd make, Gary. Completely different businesses, completely different capital requirements and structural profitability. At the end of 2017 $AMZN earned a net margin of 1.3%, but anybody who understood the company knew the margin was headed way higher. 1/
It took no fanciful dreaming to understand $AMZN's net margin would likely grow to perhaps 10% over the next decade, a 10x increase. Investors knew they weren't paying anywhere near the 250x-300x multiple to earnings you suggest, but far less to a realistic achievable margin. 2/
The net margin has already grown to 6.4% over the last year and 7.5% in the most recent quarter. Importantly, Amazon's enormous capital requirement to grow was clearly scalable. Capex will now match depreciation & returns on equity net of the enormous cash balance are mid 20s. 3/
Amazon's core retail operates with negative working capital. Teslas? To the extent Amazon borrowed, they also produced a growing cash balance which offset the debt. I'm yet to see a cogent case properly estimating $TLSA's capital needs and its prospective returns on equity. 4/
It's a car company, an industry requiring $1 of capital to produce $1 of annual revenues. Amazon produces $4 of revenues for every $1 of net capital (headed higher), with more modest capital needs prospectively. Autos don't earn mid-20s on equity and throw off prodigious cash. 5/
@elonmusk was given over 20% of the company in two egregious option grants. Vesting occurs at stages of prototype, production & revenues. The only profitability requirement is EBITDA, which as a capital intensive auto maker ignores pesky charges for interest and depreciation. 6/
These are very real expenses if you ask the car folks in Detroit, Germany and Japan. Amazon's revenues have grown 2.5x since 2017 with the profit margin up almost 6x on its way to 10x. Dilution has been all of 4% cumulative. What is and what will be Tesla's dilution rate? 7/
Amazon is now at the point where it will generate cash by the truckload. Tesla will no doubt grow its sales at a high clip over the next 3 1/2 years. Profitability against equity and capital eludes the conversation at Tesla, ARK and elsewhere. Why is that? Is not ROE relevant? 8/
Convince your followers Tesla will be operating at a mid-20's ROE in 3 1/2 years, throwing off enormous free cash and set to be repurchasing shares in earnest. Then you can make the comparison of Tesla to Amazon circa 2017. Until then the comparison is of a peach to a lemon.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Strange seeing a $LMND thread deleted "justifying" a 121% gross loss, 50 points from the TX freeze alone & use of AI to deny claims by detecting lying in recorded messages. Stranger still seeing yet another new entrant into the private passenger auto game. Will they not learn? 1/
Fin-tech often means even though we light cash on fire it must be worth a fortune. If you gave me $1.5 billion and said go disrupt some industry, property/casualty insurance would NOT be it. It's remarkable some of the things that get financed in the name of disruption. 2/
For a company that’s raised $1.5 billion to disrupt renter, pet health and homeowners insurance, writing a cumulative $185 million to lose a cumulative $369 million seems like a bad idea. Now Lemonade will go after Progressive, GEICO and the heavyweights in auto? Smart. 3/
Payments, clearing, and settlement providers? We will help you (Read: We will disintermediate you and your profits).
Currency and bank accounts? We will complement you (Read: We and our international colleagues will disintermediate you and your profits). 2/
Privacy? Kiss it goodbye in the name of eliminating illicit activities.
Who knows where CBDCs wind up, but the Fed doesn’t float trial balloons for grins. The ability to print and send money directly to citizens in times of crisis circumvents the Federal Reserve Act. 3/
Investments are occasionally priced dangerously far in excess of value. Commodities and speculations as well. When prices rise to where only a fool would buy from you at a higher price, that’s the Greater Fool Theory. Here’s a proven method for knowing you own such an asset...1/
Interesting thoughts on the vagaries of deflation. Curious @CathieDWood what your research team learned when you had them study market cap to GDP, famously now the Buffett Indicator? Perhaps by now you have discussed and published your findings? I haven’t seen anything. 1/
Recall you had written on April 11 that you believed the measure was 2 to 3 times today’s level in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I’d replied but you probably missed it. At today’s level of 200% your premise suggests the stock market was 4 to 6 times the size of GDP. 2/
Of course the peak then was 90% in 1929, followed by an 89% stock market decline and 45% plunge in GDP. Earlier, despite the industrial revolution, the economy was very agrarian & very private (not publicly traded). The market largely consisted of utilities, railroads & banks. 3/
Just realized Berkshire at $437,000 is precisely a 10-bagger from my initial $43,700 purchase in February 2000. With no dividends that’s 11.5% per year. For those that believe Berkshire & Mr.Buffett are “underperforming,” the S&P 500 total return over the same period is 6.7%. 1/
A critic can choose any arbitrary endpoints to bracket a return series. The outlay of cash is not arbitrary and sets the initial bracket. Little media mention of $BRKA up 25% YTD, more than double the index. It’s easy to find short intervals where x lags y and vice versa. 2/
Of course, the change in book value per share and harder to measure intrinsic value per share are better proxies for value accretion and the elements under control of management. By those measures Berkshire has likewise crushed the market over the same period. 3/
A few quick observations from the $BRKA 10-Q.
The cash balance rose from $138.3B at yearend to $141.6B at 3/31. The media reports cash at $145.4B neglecting a $4.1B payable for T-Bill purchases that appears on the right side of the balance sheet. There was no payable at 12/31. 1/
Berkshire purchased $2.6B in common stocks and sold $6.5B for a net sale of $3.9B. The stock portfolio gained about 2% for the quarter and is up nearly 9% ytd. $GM was the best performing stock, up 37% to 3/31. I'd guess it was sold or materially trimmed. 2/
$BYD had grown to a top 7 portfolio holding from a cost of $232 million to $5.9B at yearend and $7.9B on 1/25. BYD is now down 21.5% for the year. I'd guess (and hope) the position was trimmed during the quarter. 3/