Daily Advice Thread - All basic help or advice questions must be posted here. Investing |
- Daily Advice Thread - All basic help or advice questions must be posted here.
- WSJ Exclusive: Exxon, Chevron CEOs Discussed Merger
- Containership Boom Ongoing
- FedEx $FDX - Reason behind weakness?
- Any advice? Very old stock certificates worth anything? I have two that I can hardly find any info on
- Is Facebook's moat widening or shrinking? My unorganized thoughts, do you see any flaws?
- Markets Look Like They’re in a Bubble. What Do Investors Do Now?
- A New Economic Cycle
- How useful is getting a Level 2 data subscription?
- Is $VALE a serious play for the future? EV up demand for Nickel up as well?
- Kinepolis DD (EBR:KIN)
- Macro Economic Thesis: Sector Rotation Late Maturity
- What is "Maker Opportunity"?
| Daily Advice Thread - All basic help or advice questions must be posted here. Posted: 01 Feb 2021 02:00 AM PST If your question is "I have $10,000, what do I do?" or other "advice for my personal situation" questions, you should include relevant information, such as the following:
Please consider consulting our FAQ first - https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/wiki/faq And our side bar also has useful resources. Be aware that these answers are just opinions of Redditors and should be used as a starting point for your research. You should strongly consider seeing a registered financial rep before making any financial decisions! [link] [comments]  |
| WSJ Exclusive: Exxon, Chevron CEOs Discussed Merger Posted: 31 Jan 2021 01:41 PM PST This story could definitely have wide ranging impacts within the O&G sector - should be interesting to see how it unfolds: The chief executives of Exxon XOM -2.65% Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. CVX -4.29% spoke last year about combining the oil giants, according to people familiar with the talks, testing the waters for what could be one of the largest corporate mergers ever. Chevron Chief Executive Mike Wirth and Exxon CEO Darren Woods spoke shortly after the coronavirus pandemic took hold, decimating oil and gas demand and putting enormous financial strain on both companies, the people said. The discussions were described as preliminary and aren't ongoing but could come back in the future, the people said. Such a deal would reunite the two largest descendants of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil monopoly, which was broken up by U.S. regulators in 1911, and reshape the oil industry. A combined company's market value could top $350 billion. Exxon has a market value of $190 billion, while Chevron's is $164 billion. Together, they would likely form the world's second largest oil company by market capitalization and production, producing about 7 million barrels of oil and gas a day, based on pre-pandemic levels, second only in both measures to Saudi Aramco. But a merger of the two largest American oil companies could encounter regulatory and antitrust challenges under the Biden administration. President Biden has said climate change is one of the biggest crises the country faces. In October, he said he would push the country to "transition away from the oil industry." He hasn't been as vocal about antitrust matters, and the administration has yet to nominate the Justice Department's head of that division. One of the people familiar with the talks said the sides may have missed an opportunity to consummate the deal under former President Donald Trump, whose administration was seen as more friendly to the industry. A handful of sizable oil and gas deals were completed last year, including Chevron's $5 billion takeover of Noble Energy Inc. and ConocoPhillips ' roughly $10 billion takeover of Concho Resources Inc., but nothing close to the scale of combining San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron and Irving, Texas-based Exxon. Such a deal would be noteworthy in the oil industry, surpassing in size the mega-oil-mergers of the late 1990s and early 2000s, which included the combination of Exxon and Mobil and Chevron and Texaco Inc. It also could be the largest corporate tie-up ever, depending on its structure. That distinction currently belongs to the roughly $181 billion purchase of German conglomerate Mannesmann AG by Vodafone AirTouch Plc in 2000, according to Dealogic. Many investors, analysts and energy executives have called for consolidation in the beleaguered oil-and-gas industry, arguing that cutting costs and improving operational efficiencies would help companies weather the pandemic-induced downturn and prepare for an uncertain future as many countries seek to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels to combat climate change. In an interview discussing Chevron's earnings Friday, Mr. Wirth, who like Mr. Woods also serves as his company's board chairman, said that consolidation could make the industry more efficient. He was speaking generally and not about a possible Exxon-Chevron merger. "As for larger scale things, it's happened before," Mr. Wirth said, referring to the 1990s and early-2000s megamergers. "Time will tell." Paul Sankey, an independent analyst who hypothesized a merger of Chevron and Exxon in October, estimated at the time that the combined company would have a market capitalization of about $300 billion and $100 billion in debt. A merger would allow them to cut a combined $15 billion in administrative expenses and $10 billion in annual capital expenditures, he wrote. Exxon was America's most valuable company seven years ago, with a market value of more than $400 billion, nearly double Chevron's. But Exxon has fallen from its heights following a series of strategic missteps, which were further exacerbated by the pandemic. It has been eclipsed as a profit engine by tech giants such as Apple Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. in recent years and was removed from the Dow Jones Industrial Average last year for the first time since it was added as Standard Oil of New Jersey in 1928. Exxon's shares have fallen nearly 29% over the last year, while Chevron's are down about 20%. Chevron briefly topped Exxon in market capitalization in the fall. Exxon endured one of its worst financial performances ever in 2020. It is expected to report a fourth consecutive quarterly loss for the first time in modern history on Tuesday and already has posted more than $2 billion in losses through the first three quarters of 2020. Chevron also has struggled, reporting nearly $5.5 billion in 2020 losses Friday. But investors have expressed more faith in Chevron because it entered the downturn with a stronger balance sheet—in part because it failed in its $33 billion bid to buy Anadarko Petroleum Corp. before the pandemic, having been outbid by Occidental Petroleum Corp. in 2019. Exxon has about $69 billion in debt as of September, while Chevron has around $35 billion, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. Some investors have grown increasingly concerned about Exxon's direction under Mr. Woods as the company faces a rapidly changing energy industry and growing global consciousness about climate change. Some are also worried that Exxon may have to cut its hefty dividend, which costs it about $15 billion annually, due to its high debt levels. Many individual investors count on the payments as a source of income. Mr. Woods embarked on an ambitious plan in 2018 to spend $230 billion to pump an additional one million barrels of oil and gas a day by 2025. But before the pandemic, production was up only slightly and Exxon's financial flexibility was diminished. In November, Exxon retreated from the plan and said it would cut billions of dollars from its capital spending every year through 2025 and focus on investing in only the most promising assets. Meanwhile, the company's woes have helped draw the attention of activist investors. One of them, Engine No. 1 LLC, has argued that the company should focus more on investments in clean energy while cutting costs elsewhere to preserve its dividend. The firm nominated four directors to Exxon's board Wednesday and called for it to make strategic changes to its business plan. Exxon also has been in talks with another activist, D.E. Shaw Group, and is preparing to announce one or more new board members, additional spending cuts and investments in new technologies to help it reduce its carbon emissions. Rivals such as BP PLC and Royal Dutch Shell PLC have embarked on bold strategies to remake their business as regulatory and investor pressure to reduce carbon emissions mounts. Both have said they will invest heavily in renewable energy—a strategy that their investors so far haven't rewarded. Exxon and Chevron haven't invested substantially in renewables, instead choosing to double down on oil and gas. Both companies have argued that the world will need vast amounts of fossil fuels for decades to come, and that they can capitalize on current underinvestment in oil production. https://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-chevron-ceos-discussed-merger-11612126203?mod=hp_lead_pos1 [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 31 Jan 2021 08:23 PM PST Rates for containerships (the ships which carry thousands of the 20-40' boxes you seen on railroads and trucks) have been going ballistic the past 4-5 months, but the stock reactions have been mixed. Link to containership rates: https://harpex.harperpetersen.com/harpexVP.do I'm currently long about every name possible in the sector including $NMCI which I've owned for a bit over a year and doubled down hard into last summer at $0.70-$0.80. Even after the huge surge in the stock price, the enterprise value to EBITDA valuation metric has barely moved since cash flows are being net debts down rapidly while 2021 projected EBITDA has nearly tripled. Containerships aren't like tankers and dry bulk vessels which normally just get 60-80 voyages. These ships are typically contracted for 1-2 or even 3+ years. So when we talk about 2021 EBITDA, they've already locked in about 80% of it and over 50% of 2022 rates. I've covered the shipping sector extensively on Seeking Alpha for nearly 10 years and am also on Twitter (@mintzmyer). I figured I'd open up a conversation here and see if anyone is interested in the sector. $NMCI still trades for an unbelievable P/E of under 2x. Nick First (@allthingsventured on Twitter) has recently written a new article on Navios Partners with his own financial projections: Article on Navios Maritime Partners I believe we're just getting started here. For my disclosure, I'm long nearly every name in the space- $ATCO $CMRE $CPLP $DAC $MPCC (Oslo) $NMCI $NMM (they own most of $NMCI) and mostly recently: $ZIM. I have about 10% of my wealth in $NMCI/$NMM. Average basis in NMCI is in the very low $1s after buying a lot this summer at 70-80c. I've been a long time Reddit user, but I've never really posted much about stocks so please forgive the basic post. I'm happy to answer any questions- cheers! Edit: Wow thanks for the great engagement so far. Feel free to check out Twitter (@mintzmyer) or Seeking Alpha profile for more background: https://seekingalpha.com/author/j-mintzmyer#regular_articles [link] [comments]  |
| FedEx $FDX - Reason behind weakness? Posted: 31 Jan 2021 04:02 PM PST FedEx stock has been weak since early December (circa 20% weaker Vs highs). Their last earnings didn't read too badly and they appear to be heavily involved in vaccine distribution. Do people think the weakness in the stock is linked to logistics / parcel delivery sector generally or something specific to FDX? I don't live in the US so have less anecdotal data to go by. Thanks. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 31 Jan 2021 12:52 PM PST I inherited these from my grandmother, who has had these for a really long time. I have looked and looked and all I can come up with is that Ida Hasley was big for women's empowerment. Nothing about either of the two companies. [link] [comments]  |
| Is Facebook's moat widening or shrinking? My unorganized thoughts, do you see any flaws? Posted: 31 Jan 2021 09:48 AM PST Hardware: I think the smartest defensive move Facebook can make at this stage is doing whatever it takes to become a major player in consumer hardware. Even if they breakeven, or lose money on this endeavor it can be treated as user acquisition costs for the people who wouldn't make a Facebook account otherwise, or as a way to make Facebook accounts as sticky as possible to protect against people leaving the platform. Anecdotally, I've seen people that have preached "Facebook is evil" for years, say that not they will not ever delete their newly open accounts because if they did their Oculus hardware wouldn't work, and they'd lose all of their purchases. Facebook is dominating the growing VR market with an iron fist. Non-advertising revenue grew 156% in Q4, and IDC estimates 3 million Quest 2's were sold in Q4. Oculus Quest 2 has stellar reviews, despite the mandatory Facebook account for use. Facebook's VR devices also use Messenger for messages, Workplace for enterprise, and I believe Facebook Horizon (which is integrated with the FB app) will eventually be the place users load into initially, and launch third party apps from. High investment cost makes it unlikely that other social media company can compete with Facebook in hardware (especially AR/VR), and this should give Facebook a permanent utility advantage against its peers. The companies that could compete, big tech, and gaming giants seem unwilling to make the investment to compete. I think they're aware that Facebook is completely fine making $0 to be dominant in the VR space, and that's scared them away in addition to facts like VR being a relatively small market for them.Apple is rumored to be considering a release of a Quest-like headset in later 2022, but the device will be priced far above $1000 according to Mark Gurman. VR is where I'm most confident in Facebook's ability to achieve its hardware dreams, but consumer AR is also an area where its only competition in terms of investments made is Apple. So I think their chances there are decent too. Facebook is working on long term AR glasses, but is also releasing Smartglasses in collaboration with Luxottica (Ray-Ban and Oakley) this year. There's also Facebook's line of smart video chatting devices, Portal. Traditionally Listed Moats Intangible assets consisting of the vast amount of data users have shared: sustained and growing, but people are also sharing things about themselves on other apps increasingly. Growth of users means network effects still growing Number and diversity of advertisers, and advertiser verticals still growing Competition? There is rising social media competition, and always the threat of new entrants. That being said, competition seems to carve out niches, so they aren't competing as directly as we'd think. The closest thing to Facebook the Blue app, for connecting with family and friends is Instagram. Competing apps can have similar features, but the main utilities are different. Tik Tok is mostly a short video app, Youtube is a long video app, Twitter is a breaking news app, Reddit is a communities app, etc. Facebook's utility first and foremost is connecting with REAL people who's identity you can verify, like friends and family. Like previously mentioned, the closest competitor is Instagram. Messaging There can be lack of differentiation here, but Messenger tied to Facebook, Instagram, Portal and Oculus. I suspect it'll be tied to future hardware as well. Whatsapp has network effects, and may one day have lock-in comparable to Chinese super apps (at least that's what's being worked towards). iMessage is the the main competitor here, because they are automatically installed on every iPhone Misc I think Facebook Marketplace, the Craigslist alternative benefits greatly from Facebook using real identities, and is an overall better product. If you want to sell something locally FB Marketplace is the best option, and I think it's a strong reason to have an account. Usage of Marketplace is growing. The integration with Jio in India, and importance in Indian society is worth mentioning for Whatsapp. Facebook Groups, have competition in the form of Reddit, and Discord. The edge here will be real identities, and the tools they are building to make moderating a Facebook group profitable (subscriptions, etc) The only other pure "Real Identity social network" is Linkedin is a professional network. Problems No young people use Facebook? This seems to be a US centric cliche, as Facebook is popular among all age demographics around the world. According to Pew Research 76% of people 18-24 use Facebook, only superseded by Youtube. For teens in 2018, 51% of teens used Facebook which is good in my opinion for a social network not targeted to teens like Tik Tok. I personally think the utility of Facebook kicks in after college age, but regardless if there is a problem, I think the cure can be User Acquisition through hardware. Chance of mass exodus? again, mitigated by the lock-in of hardware, but this is a concern of mine based on Facebook's reputation. 1. Privacy, there is truth to some criticism here, because Facebook's business model does depend on data collection, and in many ways is opposed to strict definitions of privacy, but much of it is also pushed by myth like "Facebook sells data". Facebook has the same business model as its advertising funded peers, but perception is what matters, and Facebook is losing the perception battle. 2. Politics, In my opinion has been half of Facebook's reputation problem. Recently Zuck said that they are trying to make Facebook less political by not recommending political groups, and lowering reach on political posts. Also, Donald Trump being gone should make the next 4 years less politically controversial. Since Facebook is in the business of advertising, and people can mostly say what they want, there's always the small chance of a #DeleteFacebook movement reaching critical mass based on these themes. Being banned in countries? Mitigated by becoming a hardware player, but this is an unlikely outcome for many reasons that my hands are too tired to elaborate on. Apple's privacy stance and iOS 14: The hit to revenue estimates I've seen are between 1%-7%, but it could also be a boost to revenue since third party signals being reduced will give the edge to whoever has the best first party signals, we'll have wait to see. This is something to watch closely, but transferring third party data into first party data by having ecommerce on the platform through initiatives like Facebooks shops, and Instagram shopping can be the cure. Also, being in control of hardware mitigates this risk Antitrust- generally not concerned Privacy as a theme that is adversarial to advertising - slightly concerned but I don't think ad funded business models are going anywhere, many people like not paying for things Might add more to this later... [link] [comments]  |
| Markets Look Like They’re in a Bubble. What Do Investors Do Now? Posted: 31 Jan 2021 05:40 PM PST WSJ Article Below! What is everyone's thought on this? Ever since the markets recovered from the crash in March, I find all stocks are overpriced but I don't know if this means that we're in bubble. Could just mean investors are optimistic? Article starts here: Markets Look Like They're in a Bubble. What Do Investors Do Now? For once, everyone seems to agree: Much of the market looks like it's in a bubble. Shares of unprofitable companies like GameStop Corp. GME 67.87% and AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. AMC 53.65% are rising at a breakneck pace, propelled by a growing army of individual investors. Options activity is surging, bitcoin prices are near records and businesses are rushing to opportunistically sell stock through a flurry of initial public offerings, listings of blank-check companies and follow-on share sales. To many, valuations look stretched as they hover at levels similar to the highflying days of 2000. That said, high valuations alone don't necessarily mean the rally is near its end, investors say. History has shown that markets have often been able to climb far longer than thought possible, be it the dot-com boom in the late 1990s or the dizzying rise in Japanese stocks in the 1980s. And recently, the broader stock market has been on the decline. The S&P 500 dropped 3.3% last week, though it remains up 66% from its March low. The bubblelike behavior there has mostly been contained to a handful of individual stocks, not larger indexes. Single-Stock Bubbles Fast-moving stocks such as GameStop, AMC Entertainment Holdings and BlackBerry have raised concerns of excessive exuberance in pockets of the market, while the S&P 500 largely remains unchanged. An even bigger issue arguing against a marketwide bubble is simple math. With interest rates at rock bottom and further stimulus on the table, many investors are being handsomely rewarded by putting their money into riskier, higher-yielding assets. What's more, in many cases earnings have held up or been robust, despite a global pandemic. That combination of factors has helped push investor optimism. Bullishness on stocks among money managers is at a three-year high, according to a recent Bank of America survey of 194 money managers who oversee $561 billion in assets. Meanwhile, the average share of cash in portfolios—typically a safeguard against market turmoil—is at the lowest level since May 2013. Nonetheless, investors are trying to identify what could cause bubbles among individual stocks to pop and whether any of the bursts will spread to the wider market. Next week, investors will get a look at fresh data on the manufacturing sector, earnings from Amazon.com Inc. AMZN -0.97% and Google parent Alphabet Inc. GOOG -1.47% and the January employment report. "You know, this one has checked off all the boxes from a history book," said Jeremy Grantham, co-founder of Boston money manager Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co., who predicted the market crashes of 2000 and 2008. Mr. Grantham has been calling the current market overheated since last year. But even he concedes the timing of a market top is difficult. "We know each bubble is a little bit different and, with the help of new trading platforms and the internet, it could set more records," he said. Mr. Grantham isn't alone in his worries. Nearly 90% of some 627 market professionals think some financial markets are in a bubble, according to a recent Deutsche Bank survey. Meanwhile, Google searches for the term "stock market bubble" reached an all-time high in January. Jerry Braakman, chief investment officer of First American Trust, says his company, concerned about stretched valuations in the U.S., has been gradually shifting more money into stocks elsewhere. Lately, "the market has not been correlated to the macro picture," he said. New Year Anxieties Google searches for 'stock market bubble' reached an all-time high in January. While the moves of some stocks and assets have been jarring, analysts and investors say they aren't surprised by the freewheeling, speculative activity in the financial markets. A super-accommodative Federal Reserve, low interest rates and, more recently, optimism on the coronavirus vaccine and economy have underpinned much of the buying by investors during the past 11 months. Many Americans built up their savings during the pandemic—and stand to gain even more if Congress follows through on another stimulus package. And the prospect of low returns in most other assets has driven investors to buy stocks more aggressively. Add to that, more individual investors are trading than ever before. Those investors threw their weight around last year by shocking Wall Street veterans with a rash of irrational stock picks, including Hertz Global Holdings Inc., HTZGQ 7.36% which spiked nearly 900% from its low to its high in the wake of filing for bankruptcy protection. This year's encores have been even more stunning. On Wednesday alone, 24.5 billion shares and 57.1 million options contracts changed hands, a record driven by individual investors, according to Rich Repetto, a managing director in Piper Sandler & Co. GameStop shares more than doubled that day, briefly giving shares of the beleaguered videogame retailer a more than 1,700% gain since the year's start. "This is merely one example of what's becoming dozens of dozens," Mr. Grantham said. Other retail darlings include AMC, which jumped more than 300% Wednesday, and BlackBerry Ltd. , whose stock the same day notched its biggest gain in more than 17 years. The Blank-Check Boom Poses Pitfalls for Investors The Blank-Check Boom Poses Pitfalls for Investors Private companies are flooding to special-purpose acquisition companies, or SPACs, to bypass the traditional IPO process and gain a public listing. WSJ explains why some critics say investing in these so-called blank-check companies isn't worth the risk. Illustration: Zoë Soriano/WSJ Companies are rushing to get in on the action. Companies have raised $13.4 billion through 24 IPOs so far this year, a 300% jump in listings from the same period last year, according to Renaissance Capital data. Blank-check companies continued to flood the market, with 91 gathering about $25 billion, nearly a third of the value raised throughout all of last year, according to SPACinsider.com. And there have been 111 offerings of additional shares by U.S.-listed companies, doubling the number from the same period a year earlier, Dealogic data show. Usually, such frenzied activity would lead big money managers to pull back from stocks. But many argue that shares of GameStop, AMC and other highflying stocks represent their own bubbles—and don't pose a threat to the entire financial ecosystem. Analysts at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS -1.40% say the run-up in unprofitable stocks, which they say make up about 5% of the overall market, poses little risk of contagion. "These stocks don't make up the bulk of the stock market," said Samantha McLemore, a portfolio manager at $3.5 billion money-manager Miller Value Partners. "There are so many areas of the market that we're finding attractively valued." At first glance, investors' go-to for measuring valuations, price-to-earnings ratios, suggests the market looks expensive. The S&P 500 currently trades at 22 times projected earnings during the next 12 months, not far off from the 25 times the index traded at in 2000, just before the dot-com crash, according to FactSet. But that's only part of the picture. That level looks less concerning once low interest rates and earnings, which are expected to grow, are factored in, several investors and analysts said. One simple explanation for why investors haven't pulled back more? "We've seen it in the past—if you think you have a bubble and sell too soon, that can be a very costly trade," said Mr. Braakman of First American Trust. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 31 Jan 2021 10:24 AM PST Recently, I've listened a short podcast from Mike Wilson, the Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley. He claims that economy has entered a new cycle, which is expected to continue for years, not months. I know this is not new, and there are multiple other resources that share this belief. What was interesting to me about this podcast was that although the rise in the markets is high, it is exactly what happened in the beginning of the last cycle.
So what do you think? Is this a beginning of a new economic cycle and are we about to enter a consolidation phase, while we wait for the profits of the companies to catch up with the stock markets expectations and normalize to a lower P/E ratio? [link] [comments]  |
| How useful is getting a Level 2 data subscription? Posted: 31 Jan 2021 08:46 AM PST I saw this option available within my brokerage account, and I wasn't sure what it was. I was hoping that someone could provide some detail into what type of information these subscriptions provide, and how useful they are in making informed trading decisions. I am not sure how much they cost, however I am considering one if I can determine if the benefit justifies the cost. If anyone has any direct experience with these subscriptions, hearing your experiences would be great. [link] [comments]  |
| Is $VALE a serious play for the future? EV up demand for Nickel up as well? Posted: 31 Jan 2021 05:18 AM PST I came across two posts over on WSB and before you click out of this post just please hear me out. Ive been on the sub for a while now, i'm talking 3 years and I have found that while there are a bunch of yoloing and smooth brained people on that sub, there are also a lot of bright people there too (not to say the people yoloing and such aren't bright but). What I mean is there are people who carefully form some sort of thesis or in depth review on potential plays that have absolutely helped me grow my portfolio. Anyways so I came across two posts about $VALE and found the research to be incredibly informative and was curious what more people think about this company. Some things to highlight from these posts are how $VALE is the number 1 producer in nickel and they have many production facilities in high volume nickel areas from around the world. I also found it interesting how EVs use a TON of nickel. Shouldn't this be a no brainer play with the shift of EV from around the world? Nickel is used for the battery found within these EVs. I also think it's quite interesting how Nickel has been on a bull run ever since the start of the pandemic back in early 2020. I don't know I just found these two posts to be very interesting reads. Are there any bears out there that can counter this argument and form some sort of case against this pick? I like seeing both sides just to review the risks that I may have not previously thought of before. (I also have done my own personal DD on top of reading a bunch of posts on this company, please go and read those two posts I have provided if you can). Thanks! [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 31 Jan 2021 08:00 AM PST I decided to write a small DD-piece on Kinepolis (EBR:KIN) since I've seen commenters on this subreddit, and other stock market-related subs, wanting to diversify their portfolio with European stocks, but being unsure what exactly to invest in. Coupled with the current hype around AMC, I thought this would be a fun little DD to write up as well. Before the pandemic, KIN was worth around €60 ($72.8). It fell to €30 ($36.4) when COVID-19 reached Europe and, later, North-America. It took another hit in October when it became clear current COVID-19 measures would last into 2021. For the last couple of months, KIN has been hovering around €35 ($42.5). I believe Kinepolis has significantly more potential than its North-American competitors and will quickly reach €60 again once the economy opens up again. Before the pandemic, its worth was almost double that of Cinemark Holdings, INC (CNK) and triple that of AMC and IMAX. The Kinepolis Group operates 111 cinemas: 10 in the US, 45 in Canada, and 56 in Europe - this amounts to a total of 1,081 screens. Its core businesses consist of Box office, cultural events (think theater, art movies, etc.), B2B (Kinepolis provides conferences, premieres, and other corporate events), film distribution, and advertising. So far, pretty ordinary stuff for a cinema chain. Kinepolis distinguishes itself from its competitors through its real estate business (similar to McDonald's strategy). Kinepolis owns the majority of its real estate and rents out venues to shops, restaurants, and cafes. Basically, this means is that Kinepolis is not burdened with enormous rents while having no revenue during the pandemic. It recently also got approved for an €80 million loan. All-in-all, the company is in good shape despite the pandemic. Considering the company's financial stability (and future prospects), I could see Kinepolis win ground in the US with the other struggling cinema groups. It already acquired the American group MJR Digital Cinemas in 2019 and bought Canada's Landmark Cinemas in 2017, for example. The group is also quick to pick up on innovations within the industry like adopting new sound systems and laser technologies. In 2018, Kinepolis adopted Cinionic's world's first 4K smart laser. This was about 1-2 years earlier than its competitors. Fun fact: it built the world's first megaplex in Brussels. Like others have pointed out before me, I genuinely believe people are yearning to go back to the movies. Cinema-going is very much ingrained in Western culture and will, moreover, be one of the more affordable options as well (a huge plus considering the economic situation). Once the vaccination process picks up and restrictions loosening people will be going to the movies again. Personally speaking, I'm an avid movie-goer and the Kinepolis' cinemas are one of the best out there (with a wide range of snacks and drinks, not always common in European cinemas). The bearish take on this is of course people being hesitant to go to the movies again (although Kinepolis takes its COVID-19 precautions seriously, at least in Belgium) and that the movie industry doesn't pick as quickly. Although they did some re-runs of old movies when they were allowed to briefly open again during the summer, it didn't pull as many people as they hoped. New movies like Tenet were successful, however. On 25 February, Kinepolis will publish its annual results of 2020 which will be interesting to follow. Disclaimer: I'm not a financial advisor and this is not investment advice. As has been mentioned ad nauseam: do your own DD. But I do believe in the possibilities of this company because of my research coupled with my personal feelings about this industry and Kinepolis. Sources: https://corporate.kinepolis.com/en/about-kinepolis/core-businesses https://corporate.kinepolis.com/en/about-kinepolis https://corporate.kinepolis.com/en/investor-relations/financial-results/business-update-q3-2020 https://ml-eu.globenewswire.com/Resource/Download/03402190-8c44-4a77-83a2-05582b91e28f http://www.flanderstoday.eu/kinepolis-acquires-american-cinema-chain https://www.barco.com/en/news/press-releases/kinepolis-group-accelerates-transition-to-laser.aspx https://www.cinionic.com/news/laser-projection-by-cinionic-illuminates-cinema-in-the-ksa-for-amc/ [link] [comments]  |
| Macro Economic Thesis: Sector Rotation Late Maturity Posted: 31 Jan 2021 08:48 AM PST Hello fellow investors, I'd love to hear your thoughts on a macro economic perspective of the United States stock market sector rotation cycle. Currently if you compare a 3 month comparison chart of the Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLE) to the S&P 500 ($SPX.X) you'd see that (XLE) is currently at 34.20% growth while ($SPX.X) is at 9.21% growth. Furthermore the 3 month comparison chart of the Utilities Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLU) to S&P 500 ($SPX.X) shows that (XLU) is at -3.99% compared to the ($SPX.X) of 9.21%. Finally comparing Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLP) to the S&P 500 ($SPX.X) you'd see that (XLP) is currently at -0.7121% compared to the ($SPX.X) 9.21%. Based on these percentages of growth vs shrinkage is it a fair assessment to assume that the current cycle is close to the apex of late maturity? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 31 Jan 2021 10:03 AM PST On CBOE's site you can find a "Maker Opportunity" list. It's sorted from high to low by the "Missed Liquidity" column. Under the report, Missed Liquidity is defined as:
My best attempt at understanding that is that it's a list of stocks where people attempted to buy at or above bid, but there weren't enough shares available. Is that correct? Can I use this information to find some good trades? [link] [comments]  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Lose money with friends!. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment