Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View porthos' Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Lindsay Corp.: Strong Balance Sheet, Reasonably Valued, And Rapid Dividend Growth [View article]
    any thoughts re: their awful infrastructure business? In 2013 it dragged operating margins down 5% and through 2013 revenue was down -15%. Lindsey would be a buy in a heartbeat for me but for this horrible side business of theirs. Can't imagine why they don't spin it off, sell it or close it down. Any i information on whether they might do this you have turned up in research? The only good news is it has dropped to 9% of revenue from a high of 28%. Just get rid of it for heaven's sake guys!
    Feb 7 05:46 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Netflix Already A Bubble? [View article]
    Professionals should realize value is irrelevant. They can run all the numbers and scenarios imaginable but in the end, it won't make any difference in how Netflix sells to investors. Of course it's in a bubble-goes without saying. A bubbly Netflix is SOP.

    There are only two numbers that move Netfix in a big way and that's subscriber increase rates and international margin improvement. If subscriber numbers begin to slow and reverse and international expansion expenses mushroom again and eat up margins, Netflix will stall. But a PE or any other valuation technique and resultant number/figure just falls on deaf ears and is futile
    Jan 30 10:38 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Brad Thomas Positions For 2014: Attractive Opportunities Present Themselves In REITs [View article]
    good article

    Am at the tail end of evaluating VTR. They have somewhat higher leverage at present than either SNH or OHI. I looked at the debt levels with several ratios including debt to enterprise value, debt to capital and debt to totals assets. Which measure do you you feel gives us the best indication of too much debt?

    As for NAV, for any investor that can't subscribe to Greenstreet or fly around the country appraising properties how would you suggest one calculate NAV? VTR sold several properties in 2013 for gains on sales of 10% to 25%. Is it logical to apply some rough appreciation along these lines to the $20 billion in acquisition costs or would you approach it some other way?

    Dec 30 11:26 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ulta Is More Than Just A Beauty Retailer [View article]
    not exactly in its infancy since Ulta has been around since 1990. Store growth is about 60% done if the target is 1200 so again not in its infancy and approaching the last half of the game. The target was moved to 1200 stores from 1000. They could reset again but the tone of the conference was decidedly downbeat and Mary Dillon sounded like she was regretting the huge 125 store increase this year. They will scale back to 100 in 2014 and admitted they had overspent on new stores and underspent on IT and other support systems for the base. These were not the comments of a retail concept happy with the results of its plans for growth
    Dec 12 11:34 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Senior Housing Will Never Get Old [View article]
    can you discuss the NAV/share for SNH? I get roughly $58 for VTR so its not selling at much of a discount. Have not had a chance to look at SNH for comps. Used a cap rate of 6.6% for VTR because they recently acquired $1.3 billion in properties with a cap rate averaged around that. I am curious if you think this might be broadly applicable to senior housing REITs. If not what do you think an appropriate cap rate for SNH might be?
    Dec 1 05:57 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Steer Clear Of Netflix Until The Correction Occurs [View article]
    no numbers?NFLX has revised their accounting and it's now easy to tease out the DVD from VOD results and know exactly how each is doing and progressing and what is being contributed to actual earnings on a cash basis. Without that information these articles are a dime a dozen, irritating generalities and basically useless.
    Nov 13 11:20 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Netflix Is A Solid Buy [View article]
    comcast is a thumbs down
    Oct 30 06:01 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix: Love The Company, Hate The Stock [View article]
    netflix double counts the dual membership. Customer count was 33 million. I think it's unfortunate they quit reporting unique paid subscribers and churn. While the number of subscribers is impressive it's hard to know exactly what is happening. There were free memberships handed out with a Google product and there will be more free subscriptions that go along with some set top boxes to further obfuscate actual paying subscriptions
    Oct 21 03:45 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix: Dare To Short This Momentum Stock? 25% Downside Coming [View article]
    ""Valuation is based on future sub growth and the company sees significant possibilities of penetration in the US with an objective of 60-90 million households. ""

    Last I read on hi-speed internet households, there were 88 million in the US. Can they actually get more than 100% of US households as subscribers? Maybe NFLX will scrape up excess subscribers through purely mobile wifi enabled devices. Never have seen any cable or other media delivery business penetrate more than about 33% of the US market. I think the pricing for the stocks expects them to capture 100% of available consumers in the US and hit HBO-like numbers internationally.HBO has around 114 million total subs and 70 million are international
    Oct 18 09:53 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Big Stock Principle [View article]
    this is a great article

    Thinking a lot about companies like Tesla and Netflix that is the other Big Stock that could be included in this article.

    There have been reams of cyber print wasted here and elsewhere trying to make a case for the actual value of Netflix (or Tesla or AZ take your pick) and why the $XX price at any particular time is absurd. Valuation is a total waste of time and effort--I should know I tried to value Netflix for a couple of years

    The author is dead on --value is irrelevant and valuation exercises are futile.

    I call these Story Stocks but same idea. They are in newish (electic cars and streaming are not new) areas of business with charismatic leaders having a brilliant command of PR-- the addressable market is an unknown but perceived to be limitless. The 1990s internet and tech stocks fit the description perfectly. As long as there is growth in whatever metric investors regard as key, the stocks move up. Find that metric and you can invest with great results until the measure begins to fail. For Tesla it's number of cars sold and guidance for numbers to be sold quarter to quarter.

    For Netflix, it's subscriber additions. As long as those move up in the high teens to 20%, all's well at Netflix and $300 per share is no more ridiculous than $800 per share. It doesn't matter what the PE or the price is. When Netflix lost subscribers it went to $50 -- a very clear demonstration of what investors consider key

    I think you could put Priceline in here too.

    What is the next Big Stock going to be?
    Oct 3 10:09 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • In spite of Amazon Prime's (AMZN) content-licensing binge, Netflix (NFLX) still offers a much wider selection of the most popular TV shows, says Piper. The firm estimates Netflix offers 33% of the top 75 TV shows from the last 4 years, and Amazon just 7%. Hulu Plus offers an even larger portion (44%), but they come with ads. The gap isn't so great for recent movies: Piper estimates Netflix offers 14% of the top 50 movies from the last 3 years, and Amazon 11%. Movie-only Redbox Instant (CSTR, VZ) is said to offer 10%, and Hulu Plus none of them. (NPD market share data[View news story]
    you missed the point--without subscribers to cable and advertising there will be no new content for Netflix to buy as reruns. If all subscriptions to cable were stopped today and no company in America gave networks ad dollars, producers would have to rely on Netflix Amazon and Hulu to pay for the new stuff. They can't afford it. It's not a matter of waiting for a year or so , it's who is paying the artists the directors etc to make the programming. Netflix can afford around $2 billion per year and still break even--doesn't come close to covering everything people want to see. They can't afford to fund the flood of new stuff coming out daily. You need subscribers paying big bucks (not $7.99) and advertising to float the cash to cable to buy product made by studios and networks.Netflix left to its own devices can't afford it--they can do a handful of series per year
    Sep 27 10:30 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • In spite of Amazon Prime's (AMZN) content-licensing binge, Netflix (NFLX) still offers a much wider selection of the most popular TV shows, says Piper. The firm estimates Netflix offers 33% of the top 75 TV shows from the last 4 years, and Amazon just 7%. Hulu Plus offers an even larger portion (44%), but they come with ads. The gap isn't so great for recent movies: Piper estimates Netflix offers 14% of the top 50 movies from the last 3 years, and Amazon 11%. Movie-only Redbox Instant (CSTR, VZ) is said to offer 10%, and Hulu Plus none of them. (NPD market share data[View news story]
    ""I know that some on these comment pages argue that the cable and satellite model is still strong. But those who have broken free from the cord will never go back to paying the big bucks that the cable and satellite services have been getting. And that goes double for many younger folks who never had a cord arrangement. ""

    The only things making Netflix able to stream content to cord cutters are subscribers to cable/satellite services and advertisers that have fed money to cable companies so cable companies can buy from producers. They will pay the freight for the nearly $120 billion that content costs are estimated to cost this year--not Netflix. If cordcutters are going to rule the world they are going to have to settle for year+ old content and House of Cards, Orange is The New Black, LillyHammer, Hemlock Grove and one new season of Arrested Development. Until Netflix can foot the entire $120 billion they can continue to benefit from a secondary market funded by cable subscriptions and ads. Either that or Netflix can start charging $3428 per year per subscriber for the present 35 million subscribers
    Sep 26 09:57 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Netflix A Buy? [View article]
    the margins cited are deceptive

    Combined streaming gross margins using the cash cost of the content and not the reported figures gives a gross margin of 15.4% and an operating margin of 1.1% and that's just marketing and not tech expense and administrative. You can be sure full operating margins and net margins are negative for streaming and that's due to the impact of cash expenses of cost of sales. These have to be calculated--they are not given.

    DVDs have great margins but sadly DVDs are vanishing and total subscribers in Q2 were 7.4 million but that is double counting subscribers that are DVD only and combined. And it's down 2 million from Q2 2012. DVDs have 51% gross margins and 49% operating margins that include marketing only. It's a given that DVDs have positive net margins and positive operating margins that include tech and administrative.

    It's not wrong to put the cost of content in CFFO and as an asset on the balance sheet--it is capex. You just have to use the information they now thoughtfully provide to see how streaming is doing and how its margins and costs look. So far not so good.
    Sep 26 05:54 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix: The One Metric Nobody Is Watching [View article]
    good research. Are there more recent months available after June on the chart?
    Sep 23 04:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Coach Vs. Kors: Who Will Win The Handbag Wars? [View article]
    coach has 58% of the business in handbags with 23% in accessories and 11% men's. Kors is only 16%. In a sense they are not bag competitors. Shoes, watches and jewelry are 84% of Kors business.

    Kors is affordable luxury with watches between $200-$450 and in no way do they comp LVMH starting at $3K going up to $50K. You have to appreciate them for what they are and thats aspirational not the Rolex crowd. They have a long way to run and growth is phenomenal
    Sep 14 01:00 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment