Beth Kindig Article on FuboTV

Investment Analysis Clubs Saul’s Investing Discussions
1

Nice Bull article on FuboTV

Conclusion:

"We officially recommended FuboTV in October and did not hesitate to challenge the shorts in January before the last two earnings reports confirmed the company’s strong growth. We specialize in spotting opportunities in tech growth based on product and we were the first analyst (anywhere) to recommend Roku, we were very early to call Nvidia the future for AI during the crypto bust nearly two years before AI drove the data center segment, and we said Zoom’s product would go viral six months before covid.

We are not concerned with broader market weakness that affects short-term price movements. Instead, we look for companies that are executing on a product road map, are capturing a microtrend and are able to scale. Not only do we think Fubo can do this, but we think Fubo will overtake DraftKings in the next 2-5 years."

FuboTV: Why I Like This Stock Better Than DraftKings (Full Article):

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bethkindig/2021/05/21/fubotv-wh…

22 Likes
2

I sold out of my FUBO position. I took a small loss and moved on.

There is too much execution risk around their sports betting pipe dream. While yes it can happen, it’s not happening now. It will take a lot of effort to get the product where it needs to be to be competitive.

This I was aware of and willing to look past.

But, most importantly, they haven’t been able to corner the market on live sports. This is what I was bullish on and they can’t seem to find an edge. They don’t offer much that’s unique, even in niche areas like cycling or mixed martial arts? They have a mixed bag of sports content fragmented across a wide array of areas that will only encourage people to sign up, watch it and then cancel. Which is what I did for the Giro 'di Italia.

Sports content is just too valuable, and everyone knows it. They won’t sell it for cheap.

The stock continues to slump because their costs are sky high and the model, as it stands now, won’t work. Maybe they will get it together at some point. If they do, I will reconsider. But for now, there are too many other great companies to invest in.

And if I want to bet on CTV and advertising, yes that is growing, there are better socks like ROKU to invest in.

My two cents. Thanks.

35 Likes
3

FUBO makes a negative margin on their TV service and it’s not cheap at roughly $65/month.
Currently, they don’t have a betting service so that is a hope and a prayer. I’m not saying it can’t happen but investing based on that is pure speculation at the moment.

What real advantage can you achieve in sports betting when you can place a bet right from the palm of your hand with Draft Kings, Penn, and lots of others? It seems like a real competitive space that they haven’t even entered yet.

I don’t see FUBO as a SAUL stock.

Yes, Beth was early on ROKU. So was TMF
Regarding NVDA, TMF was years ahead of her.

10 Likes
4

-I can see why some folks might not like FuboTV. It is speculative play no doubt and there are certainly risks - it is losing a lot of money and the betting play could be a flop or run into regulatory issues.

However, there is no doubt that most of the metrics are trending in the right direction.

-Q1 revenue was up 135%, subscription revenue was up 131%

-FY revenue guidance was raised and is expected to come in at 95% growth YoY

-Subscriber growth was up 105%

-Subscriber growth guidance was raised by 10% from 765,000 to 840,000 for 2021

-Q1 advertising revenue was up 206%

-ARPU per month was up 57%

-FuboTV is making $85 in ARPU per year vs Roku at around $35 ARPU per year (TTM)

Improving cost structure & a solid balance sheet

-Contribution margin was up 5%

-Operating cash flow improved $20 million qoq

-Operating expenses for the quarter were up 80% vs. 135% in revenue increases

-$465 million in cash and low debt to equity ratio

-While Hulu and Netflix slowed down and reduced subscriber guidance, FuboTV is just getting going with a slew of major sporting events this summer. Cord cutters want live sports and this highly valued demographic (Males aged 18-34, Males aged 18-49, Males aged 25-54, Persons aged 18-34, and Persons aged 18-49) has advertisers salivating. The revenue acceleration is extremely impressive considering the company grew 83% last year in the midst of Covid.

I don’t pay a ton of attention to analysts but the average price target is $41/share, which is close to 95% upside. On top of all of this, Fubo is cheap, at about 5X sales, which is extremely low for a company growing in the triple digits. For reference, Draftkings trades for around 20 times sales.

44 Likes
5

Thanks Jeff for the update! I’ve been watching FUBO, and the stock pricing doesn’t match the company’s performance which you highlighted. I think there is some skepticism on the betting aspect coming later this year, but it’s still drawing more subscribers, and it’s price to subscribers around $65/month is now equal to YouTubeTV as the competitors have been raising their pricing up to @ $60/month with less sports programming.

Here’s an article posted today about FUBO and mentions advertising revenue up over 200% YOY, and some analysts at a $60 target, while its trading in the $20’s currently.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fubotv-stock-price-valuation-…

*No position in FUBO at this time

5 Likes
6

@italianbarber:

I’d tend to agree with you that it may not be a Saul stock, since Beth’s projection to overtake DraftKings is 2-5 years. That doesn’t lean towards high growth stock, but could be one to keep an eye on as they continue to grow their enterprise.

For what it’s worth, back in December a MF service did cover FUBO, so they were ahead of Beth’s write up similar to NVDA.

With the upcoming changes planned in Q4, there could be more volatility coming as they try to incorporate the betting/gaming feature. FUBO just seems to be a few years away from seeing that stock price consistency that our current high confidence stocks maintain.

7

Italianbarber’s statement about negative GM on TV business is wrong. It became positive in 1Q2021.

Jeff posted operating metrics above, I won’t repeat them. The main takeaway is that the metrics are clearly improving and this shows that operating leverage is working.

The stock is lagging, no doubt. There could be different reasons - like Archegos scandal (they held huge position), expectation of weak 2Q (2Q is historically weak for Fubo) etc.

I’m holding small position in Fubo (3-4%) as a in Saul’s words “long-tail” play. The reasons are as follows.

  1. Structural tailwind in cord-cutting. Evident in in new subscribers growth and revenue growth.
  2. Structural tailwind in programmatic ads. Look at ads revenue growth (200%+).
  3. Long runaway in growth. Mid-term 10m subscribers is not unrealistic. Valuation would follow fundamental results.
  4. Strong optionality with betting revenues in the future. Fubo definitely is uniquely positioned to capitalize on betting trend by having hundreds of thousands (for now) subscribers interested in sports and betting on sports is something very natural for many sports fans.
  5. Strong management team. Gandler and Bronfman look like strong team which knows what they’re doing.

There are obviously negatives in Fubo’s business model - like low margins, competition etc. However, these guys clearly have a niche in sports streaming and they focus on this specific niche. As we know from many businesses in the past and now - strong focus on a niche could produce a winner. They’re organically adding ads and (will be adding) betting revs.

As long as Fubo executes and shows great numbers - like in Q1 - I will continue being a shareholder. This is in contrast with, for example, Magnite which showed declining numbers in both last quarters and I ceased being a shareholder of it (already after 4Q report in Feb 21).

Best,
V

7 Likes
8

@nreid:

“For what it’s worth, back in December a MF service did cover FUBO, so they were ahead of Beth’s write up similar to NVDA.”

Just to come back on this point. Beth’s Service bought FUBO on 16th November. So in fact they were actually ahead of MF.

8 Likes
9

Thanks Colin, the Forbes article was recent so thought she had taken out a position in May.

10

Despite the great no.s mentioned in terms of rev growth and subscriber count the contribution margins are very low for their core business which is TV streaming of only 10.7% for 2020.

However I remain optimistic for two reasons. Firstly they are the only digital TV provider which offers 4k streaming on multiple devices at the same time. I have used the service and it works seamlessly.

Secondly if they do successfully get into sport betting they will have a huge advantage vs competitors specifically DraftKings for sports betting who spends a lot of money in advertising. In FUBOs case they can essentially place ads on their platform for free thus cutting out a major cost.

As mentioned previously valuation is very attractive currently but that doesn’t even consider the added rev from sports betting.

Long Fubo 2%

4 Likes
11

Coming at FUBO from purely a customer point of view…

Everybody talks about FUBO as killing it in the sports niche… but, as far as sports fans in the US go, FUBO has almost no sports… they are still a soccer channel. I was one that switched from HULU to FUBO in the first quarter just to give it a try, and I am very disappointed in their US sports coverage… ie as in they have none! In fact, for US sports fans, HULU is actually better because they at least carry the Turner networks which get you the NBA coverage and the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament. Aside from the fact the EVERYBODY will have full coverage of the NFL since it’s covered on CBS and Fox (with a few games on ESPN), FUBO has almost no coverage of MLB baseball, NBA basketball, or NHL hockey. I’ve gone thru my guide many times, and in a week, I may get 5 MLB baseball games that are carried by a local channel or a ‘game of the week’ somewhere (when ~100 are played). If I pay extra for an addon to get MLB Network, I can add maybe a half dozen more games… but still maybe only 10% of all games played.

The kicker is, Sinclair, thru it’s recent purchase of the regional Fox Sports networks, recently rebranded in partnership with Bally to Bally Sports, has the broadcast rights to MLB, NBA, and NHL, along with covering most all college sports and local high school sports. They also own (or partially own) other regional sports networks (some that FUBO does carry right now) like Marquee in Boston or YES in NY…

And the further kicker is that Sinclair, in its partnership with Bally, is planning to come out with their own streaming network which will have wagering just as FUBO is planning. So if you are in the US and want to bet on whether the next pitch will be a strike, or if this guy will hit his free throws… you’re gonna do it on the Bally App, not FUBO.

Also, I imagine that FUBO is in kind of a catch 22 right now… if they aren’t carrying the Turner Channels by the time next Springs NCAA basketball tournament comes around, they will lose customers by the droves (I know I’ll switch back to HULU in a heartbeat)… if they do pick them up, I imagine the price of their service will have to increase (or they wouldn’t have dropped Turner in the first place), so they’ll lose customers that are trying them out only because they are currently a little cheaper than HULU…

Also, re “In FUBOs case they can essentially place ads on their platform for free thus cutting out a major cost”

Don’t forget, you can’t use FUBO unless you’re going thru someone like ROKU… I imagine ROKU has a big say in FUBO ads…

So I’m having a hard time seeing a road ahead for FUBO in the US…

23 Likes
12

https://deadline.com/2020/07/warner-media-networks-fubo-tv-c…

Fubo didn’t “drop” TNT/TBS. There was a disagreement over how much it would/should cost and Warner Media was pushing a price increase (with additional bundled channels). Also, Fubo was behind on payments to Warner Media last year, and negotiations were not cordial. At the same time, Fubo was adding ESPN because how do you claim to be a sports focused streaming service without carrying ESPN?

Bundling is clearly still a big part of the carriage deals, leading to inflated channel counts and perceived “paying for stuff I don’t watch-ism” which is part of the cord-cutting appeal to begin with. (The ESPN deal included Disney Channel(s) leading to (or merely feeding into) Fubo’s marketing of a skinny cable-like bundle instead of being solely sports-focused.)

13

But by the same token, how do you claim to be a sports service in the US and not carry March Madness? Or the NBA?

1 Like
14

Oh, I agree with your observation. March Madness and NBA games are very important to the idea of a sports focused streaming service.

By next year, maybe they’ll have enough subscribers to forge an acceptable deal with Warner Media; plus, Warner media will have new management (from Discovery) and maybe a new perspective on the whole landscape.

1 Like
15

To add on the confusion for soccer viewing, Peacock will be home the the Premier League this fall, and CBS/Paramount+ will be the place for a host of others, further clouding that portion of it for FuboTV. Peacock and Paramount+ are available though ROKU, but not FUBO. Here’s the rundown:

https://www.livesoccertv.com/channels/paramountplus/

R4M (no FUBO position)

1 Like
16

https://www.fubo.tv/welcome/apps

Roku on first position?

1 Like
17

I think the biggest problem for FuboTV and by extension FUBO the stock is that the “Bundles” are clearly still winning. FuboTV has been “pushed off” its original premise to look like everything else. In fact, it may be that the bundles actually subsidize the sports channels; non-sports viewers originally perceived they end up paying for a lot of sports channels in their bundles, which first fueled the cord-cutting movement, but it may be worse than that for sports fans. The non-sports channels may be so profitable by comparison that they will always be bundled to make up for the lesser margins on sports programming.

Pro sports in North America have become incredibly expensive operations with very highly paid athletes, coaches, management, production values, et cetera. They’ve been able to do that by emphasizing the attraction of live audiences to advertising buyers for decades. But, if the equation has actually tipped the other way in recent years, it’s going to be difficult to sustain sports viewing contracts. The NFL just signed a long and expensive contract with multiple channels and platforms. Things could “break” before then.

One useless example: My kids (17 and 20) show no interest in pro sports, even the sports they play. My family barely watches the Super Bowl, we “celebrate” the day by eating crap takeout food and watching the halftime show (but only one kid even watches that); I used to pay more attention (to sports) just for “the watercooler chit chat” at the offices, but there’s no water coolers and no offices anymore, either! You can actually watch Twitter during the super bowl to be aware of the commercials’ popularity… everything about the ad-supported system appears to be on the precipice of “Broken,” and paying directly for this system is “Impossible”.

5 Likes
18

Fubo definitely is uniquely positioned to capitalize on betting trend by having hundreds of thousands (for now) subscribers interested in sports and betting on sports is something very natural for many sports fans.

This is simply not the case. They aren’t uniquely positioned [Sinclair, Fox, Barstool are much bigger/get way more views] and have no hope of breaking into the top 3-5 spots in sports betting currently owned by FanDuel, DraftKings, Penn/Barstool, Foxbet, BetMGM, as well as lower placed but well-funded Caesar’s, RushStreet, Unibet, TwinSpires/BetAmerica, Wynn and others depending on your state, plus the upcoming Sinclair/BallySports.

If ESPN ever gets into the game the top 5 will be locked in pretty much forever, and only the top 3-4 will ever have a chance to make economic profits.

Gambling is always a volume business whether tables, slots or sports, the top two SB firms in PA, for example, are already ~60% of the market and also have the best name recognition. The 5th biggest book by contrast [of 13] has 5% of the revenues and profits.

I’m not an expert on most industries of interest to this board, but I am an expert on the sports betting/gaming industry.

PA is the 2nd largest online sports betting state and FoxBet, to use one massive company with $billions of resources & tons of ads had a 5% hold in March, not bad.

That was less than $1m in yield/GGR. In the 2nd biggest state for online sports!

This is before even getting into the fact that Fubo doesn’t really have much in the way of live sports at all as others have noted. Certainly dwarfed by Fox, Sinclair, Hulu, ESPN, et al.

It’s the furthest thing from a ‘free option,’ this sports betting game is very, very expensive to enter and run: massive money-losing promotional campaigns, free $deposit bonuses, and ad spending to even get off the ground and that’s assuming you win [and pay for] the state licenses in the first place.

32 Likes
19

There are now 18 posts on this FUBO thread and most of the information is just getting argued back and forth. Let’s close this thread for now until there is some new information.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Saul

25 Likes