NFLX up AH

Not sure how many of you own NFLX. I do. And given all the recent talk about UA’s high PE, I’m taking another look at all my high PE stocks (NFLX, DATA, Z, LNKD, AMZN, SPLK, YELP, UA all totaling about 13% of my portfolio). I sold half of my UA yesterday.

NFLX earnings seem to be decelerating, and revenue growth is consistent at about 25%. But at the AH price (I hope it holds) of $529 I’m calculating a trailing PE of 137, up from 110. The price has apparently gone up due to increasing subscribers, and an explanation of earnings miss being partly due to forex.

I bought shares in 2008 and again in 2011. But thinking it’s time to let some go while the price is nice. I welcome your comments.

2 Likes

P/E is a useful metric, but it’s not the best measure of value for every company. Netflix right now is in a mad dash for subscribers and is investing the cash that it is earning to grow the subscriber base, particularly internationally. Growing subscribers requires having good content and that content costs a lot of money. Domestically, Netflix is quite profitable but internationally they are losing money and this is putting a drag on earnings.

Should Netflix be penalized for this international expansion? Hardly. As they expand into new markets and these new markets mature they lose less and less money and eventually become profitable. Eventually, these international markets should be able to become as profitable as the domestic market. So I am quite happy for a Netflix to keep expand its subscriber base as they have shown this will lead to future earnings down the road. Subscriber growth is a much better metric for Netflix.

-Jesse

7 Likes

I don’t apply the PE rule to the truly outstanding rule breakers that have the potential to grab market share and create new market opportunities. Netflix is one of them.

The way I look at it, Netflix paved the way for video-on-demand of TV/movie content. No other company has achieved this kind of scale with video-on-demand, except for YouTube which succeeded in the user generated content category. It’s my opinion that ‘cable cord cutting’ has still got ways to go and there’s a lot of big markets to conquer … Japan, China, India, to name few TV/movie loving economies.

Seeing the success of Netflix, others have jumped into the fray, but I think Netflix has the advantage of being first out the gate and being a pure play. It’s got a well oiled content acquisition model in place. For example, Netflix uses its horde of viewing data to reasonably price content. They also have an eye for ‘original’ content. As our TVs become bigger and tech improves, I can see movies premiering directly on Netflix. I think the cord cutting will ultimately lead to the death of conventional movie theatres; we will be left with specialised theatres such as 3D, extreme viewing, and IMAX.

And, I also believe that apart from Apple, Netflix is the other company that understands human computer interaction … seamless interfaces, great use of viewing data in the background, no adverts, skipping of the titles and jumping on to the next episode etc.

So, personally, I 'm keeping my stake in Netflix … subscriber count is only at about 60 odd million. Still got ways to go, and its going to continue to reap the benefits of massive changes in the content consumption spectrum.

Anirban

PS: Who’s sad that he let his judgement slip and sold 2/3rd of his holdings during the initial run-up of Netflix shares having bought shares for as low at $50! At that time, I wasn’t clearly looking into all the possibilities in front of Netflix.

7 Likes

Agree totally with you, Anirban, about NFLX being an exception to the generally accepted P/E rule.

As a long term shareholder, it will be satisfying to see the 12% pop tomorrow morning from the surprise growth of international subscribers.

Great summary in this link:

Netflix surprises on international growth
6:37 PM ET 4/15/15 | MarketWatch
By Therese Poletti, MarketWatch

Opinion: International growth spurt has pluses and minuses

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) – Netflix Inc. saw bigger growth in its international subscribers at a pace that outstripped Wall Street’s expectations, but euphoric investors need to remember that with that extra growth comes the potential negative impact of foreign currency fluctuations.

Netflix (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix-adds-more-users-tha…(NFLX)) shares soared 12% (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix-adds-more-users-tha…) in after-hours trading, after the company’s results showed that it reached 20 million international subscribers, and surpassed 40 million in the U.S. Some analysts had recently been expecting a bit of an upside surprise from international growth, however the subscriber number was better than most had projected. SunTrust Robinson Humphrey analyst Robert Peck recently upgraded his international estimate to 19.6 million subscribers.

Still, as Netflix Chief Executive Reed Hastings noted in his letter to shareholders (http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/NFLX/47625901x0x82140…), the stronger dollar hurt its financial results, with international revenue lower by $48 million, which resulted in a $15 million negative foreign exchange impact. The company reported first quarter net earnings of 38 cents a share, which would have been 77 cents a share if not for the foreign currency loss.

“We’ll have a full quarter of content expenses in ANZ [Australia and New Zealand] in Q2 and expect the international segment loss to grow to $101 million, increasing throughout the back half of 2105 as we expand to additional markets,” Hastings wrote.

Netflix does not have a currency hedging program, as other big tech giants do, such as Apple Inc.(AAPL) and IBM Corp. (IBM) and says in an investor FAQ on its website (http://ir.netflix.com/faq.cfm#Question31058) that it engages in “natural hedging” in which its content licenses in international markets are paid in local currency to match local revenue collected by members.

Most investors don’t appear to mind, at least for now, with the goal of seeing bigger profits eventually. Pacific Crest Securities analyst Andy Hargreaves wrote in a note last week that the company’s “ongoing global expansion should increase the size of this competitive advantage as Netflix’s scale should allow it to target content even more efficiently and amortize that content over a broader sub base than any of its linear or on-demand competitors.” He gave the stock an “outperform” rating.

In addition, with new competition in the U.S., such as Time Warner (TWX) HBO’s new streaming service HBO Now, the company is likely to up its marketing spending as well.

“Profitability appears to be an afterthought,” said Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter, in a note. “Netflix will be forced to increase marketing spending in future periods to maintain subscriber net adds, the most important metric for many investors.”

So as Netflix continues to grow, it’s going to see some pains along the way. But as its shares soar to new highs in after hours, it would appear that investors are willing to live with the pain, for now.

-Therese Poletti

Dow Jones Newswires

2 Likes

Thanks guys. Do you all feel the same way about AMZN also?

Chris,

I have profitably owned AMZN in the past. However, Saul opened my eyes to the fact that even though they take in zillions of dollars quarterly, the CEO has publicly stated that he cares nothing about earnings. Earnings are the air we shareholders breathe.

Check out the stock price of AMZN last year and you will see that it was a major loser in a rising market. Compare the stock price for the past 5 years to “Old Faithful”, WAB. No contest.

IMO there are far better investments where solid earnings are growing quarterly and whose stock appreciation will reward far more than AMZN.

Jim

1 Like

Hi Chris,

I hold Amazon, it’s a small position but I really don’t feel very strongly about it. Amazon is into too many things but I like the fact that it’s founder led with solid insider ownership. Plus, Bezos is a sharp leader. Right now, I sort of think they are spread a bit thin with focus on trying to do too many things … but then the online marketplace is very large and its disrupting the way people have traditionally done business. (I buy most non-perishable stuff online!).

With Amazon, my expectation is to get about 12-15% annualised return over say a 5-year period. I treat it like a large cap slow grower, and I use options to juice my returns.

Let me explain how I have been using Amazon for the past two years. When Amazon was hitting $300/share, I was selling puts with the goal of buying it cheaper or making some income. I kept writing puts until Amazon went past $345. When Amazon was around $310, I setup a synthetic long, and I have now closed the written put leg of the synthetic long. I will be closing the long call as soon as my holding period exceeds one year (so that I can get long term capital gains advantage). Once I sell off this call, my position will become 1.5% of my portfolio value. Then, I will be on the look out for the next opportunity presented by a sell off. Also, with Amazon I pay attention to revenue growth and P/S more than anything else. PE is meaningless for a company like Amazon which always finds way to reinvest in the business with the goal of achieving world domination!

Now, if someone wasn’t using options, I can see how they might not be able to get north of 20% returns. With options in the mix, I can lever the returns.

Hope this helps.

Anirban

1 Like

NFLX, AMZN, etc. Stop thinking about where these stocks might be in 5 years. Are they performing for you now? Today? Are there better investments with better returns to be had today?

OK, maybe not quite so literally today, but look at it this way. If you can put your money into SKX or SWKS or something with more realistic promise today, why not do so? If AMZN or NFLX starts turning into a cash machine in 5 years, why not but it when it starts showing a good return and put your money to work with a more profitable investment today?

What’s the point in being patient and giving up decent returns now (or at least potentially better returns now) in order to hold onto something that might be a good investment in 5 years?

I don’t know if this was really one of Saul’s intended lessons (I think it is), but it is a lesson I’ve gleaned from this board. The TMF notion of buy and hold may pay off with a few investments, but why suffer losses with go nowhere positions when it’s avoidable?

You’ll never bat 1000. No matter what, you’re going to have some losers, but why hang on to stock which is virtually guaranteed to go nowhere?

2 Likes

brittlerock,

Both Netflix and Amazon have been excellent investments for me. Netflix straight up and Amazon with a mix of options. Actually, if one used options judiciously with Netflix the returns would have been phenomenal. They are good now and can continue to be so for the next several years. So, at least I see both as good investments to hold for sometime.

With respect to SKX and SWKS: these two can also be great investments. Nothing against them. But comparing these to Netflix and Amazon is difficult. Why? First off, these investments are in different industries (media/communications, e-commerce/cloud computing, retail, and semi-conductors). There might be room for all of these in a portfolio. Then, there’s the question of competitive advantages. Netflix and Amazon have serious competitive advantages. I don’t see that to be the case with SKX or SWKS, so I think of these four as fulfilling different roles in an investment portfolio.

So, just to make it clear, neither Netflix nor Amazon are loss making investments.

Anirban

3 Likes

NFLX, AMZN, etc. Stop thinking about where these stocks might be in 5 years. Are they performing for you now? Today? Are there better investments with better returns to be had today? OK, maybe not quite so literally today, but look at it this way. If you can put your money into SKX or SWKS or something with more realistic promise today, why not do so? If AMZN or NFLX starts turning into a cash machine in 5 years, why not but it when it starts showing a good return and put your money to work with a more profitable investment today?What’s the point in being patient and giving up decent returns now (or at least potentially better returns now) in order to hold onto something that might be a good investment in 5 years? I don’t know if this was really one of Saul’s intended lessons (I think it is), but it is a lesson I’ve gleaned from this board. The TMF notion of buy and hold may pay off with a few investments, but why suffer losses with go nowhere positions when it’s avoidable? You’ll never bat 1000. No matter what, you’re going to have some losers, but why hang on to stock which is virtually guaranteed to go nowhere?

Beautifully put, Brittleglass. As Jim said, if you compared AMZN to even WAB for the past five years, there’s no contest. WAB wins hands down. Bezos has said very clearly over and over again that he doesn’t care about being profitable. They’ve been in business about 20 years now. When is he going to get around to it? Or compare NFLX in May 2011 (before the crash) to WAB in May 2011. Everyone crows about how NFLX came back. They are indeed up 80% since then, but a stock that has grown steadily like WAB has almost tripled since then. Tripled! Stocks that are going to grow into their earnings in five or ten years like UA may work out or may not, but everyone on this board who has had a personal experience with Skechers shoes has been surprised to discover they bought multiple pairs. And Skechers is growing faster, and is at a PE under 25.

I don’t know if this was really one of Saul’s intended lessons (I think it is), but it is a lesson I’ve gleaned from this board. The TMF notion of buy and hold may pay off with a few investments, but why suffer losses with go nowhere positions when it’s avoidable?
You’ll never bat 1000. No matter what, you’re going to have some losers, but why hang on to stock which is virtually guaranteed to go nowhere?

Saul

1 Like

Hi Saul,

I don’t think the following statement is correct, at least not as per the quick Google Finance screen I ran:
As Jim said, if you compared AMZN to even WAB for the past five years, there’s no contest. WAB wins hands down.

Over last 5-years, according to Google Finance, WAB returned 309%, while NFLX returned 477%.

Over the last 10-years, again according to Google Finance, WAB returned a pretty solid 902%, but NFLX returned a not to shabby 3967%.

Both races were won by NFLX. If I were to hazard a prediction, I would say the next 5-year races might also be won by Netflix.

Anirban

3 Likes

Oops sorry, I didn’t realise you were talking about Amazon … the thread has morphed from being about Netflix to being about Amazon.

With respect to Amazon versus WAB, I would guess WAB might win …

My apologies.

Anirban

Hi anirban, Yes it was about amazon. As you, indeed, posted:

As Jim said, if you compared AMZN to even WAB for the past five years, there’s no contest. WAB wins hands down.

But I thought I should check out for myself how WAB did against AMZN

1-year comparison
AMZN $383/$323 = 18.6% gain
WAB $96/$73 = 31.5% gain

2-year comparison
AMZN $383/$267 = 43% gain
WAB $96/$51 = 88% gain

3-year comparison
AMZN $383/$189 = 103% gain
WAB $96/$38 = 153% gain

5-year comparison
AMZN $383/$143 = 168% gain
WAB $96/$25 = 284% gain

WAB wins on every comparison. WAB has a PE of 26.6.

AMZN had negative earnings of 52 cents. But even if you turned it around and gave them positive earnings of $1.00, they’d have a PE of 383 !!!

I don’t know what else to say.

Saul

2 Likes

Hi Saul,

WAB has been a better investment compared to AMZN over the past 5 years. However, I am fairly certain (I didn’t check so I could be wrong) that if we extend the time horizon back 10 years Amazon would win.

Going forward, I still do think that Amazon might still be a very good investment. Amazon’s total market opportunity is very very large. Much larger than WAB’s. Companies like Amazon create new markets while companies like WAB create a niche in an existing market (the electronic market place, the e-book market, and the cloud computing market can be credited to Amazon). Couple the opportunity of expanding existing markets plus creating new markets with a visionary CEO with skin in the game, and one’s got a very good chance of satisfying returns.

I with with investments like Amazon you need to think of holding for a very long time. If held for a long time the rate of return would be very good.

Anirban.

Hi Saul,

You looked back 5-years. Clearly WAB wins,

5-year comparison
AMZN $383/$143 = 168% gain
WAB $96/$25 = 284% gain

WAB wins on every comparison.

To validate my hunch regarding the 10-year outlook, I looked up the 10-year data on Google.

AMZN returned 1061%.

WAB returned 826%. Both have been great holdings over the past decade but Amazon wins when looking back over a decade!

My original point was that we shouldn’t really be comparing Amazon with WAB. Amazon is a wide moat business, one that has a long runway for growth (the e-commerce, cloud penetration in emerging economies has a lot of catch-up to do), and along the way Amazon will probably invent new verticals. That’s the beauty of working in the Internet space. New verticals can be invented all the time.

I see WAB as a narrow moat company in a specialised industrial area. I see WAB doing well, but I don’t see it as having the disruptive potential or wide berth of opportunities as AMZN.

Anirban

4 Likes

5 year test WAB vs. AMZN & NFLX
http://softwaretimes.com/pics/wab-04-16-2015.gif

10 year test WAB vs. NFLX
http://softwaretimes.com/pics/wab1-04-16-2015.gif

The start date MATTERS which means that the price you pay when buying matters very much. This is the reason for waiting for the 50% drop before getting into market darlings. It pays to have volatility on your side which is the reason I bought DDD now and not before. :wink:

http://softwaretimes.com/pics/ddd-04-16-2015.gif

I bought NFLX early on but sold when the crash came. I lost interest because they were changing the way they did business from DVDs to streaming and that made making predictions even more difficult. I never bought AMZN nor WAB. Online retail is “the future” but Amazon is too complicated. I didn’t like all those warehouses they now have. And the cloud is a commodity business, nothing but hot air. WAB is quite amazing for an industrial company but I have no position.

Denny Schlesinger

1 Like

Anirban, AMZN looks good going back 10 years because, as a hugh PE stock, it collapsed in 2000 and lost 95% of its value and took a long, long time coming back, so it was still low in 2005 where you are looking. You are looking at an artificially low starting point for AMZN.

Go back to Jan 2000

AMZN $383/$64.6 - up 492%
WAB $96/$5.56 - up 1,626%

WAB wins again by more than triple.

Saul

1 Like

Saul,

The start date matters. Why not compare from 2001 when AMZN was price under $10? Of course, the entry point will matter.

I guess your point is WAB has been a steady winner and I agree that’s true. But WAB’s future may not be as bright as Amazon’s for all the reasons I posted earlier. They are very different industries and Amazon has a much larger runway for growth.

Anirban.

To validate my hunch regarding the 10-year outlook, I looked up the 10-year data on Google.

WAB vs. AMZN vs. NFLX ten years

http://softwaretimes.com/pics/wab-amzn-nflx-10.gif

Denny (loves the bird’s eye view) Schlesinger

With respect to SKX and SWKS: these two can also be great investments. Nothing against them. But comparing these to Netflix and Amazon is difficult. Why? First off, these investments are in different industries (media/communications, e-commerce/cloud computing, retail, and semi-conductors). There might be room for all of these in a portfolio. Then, there’s the question of competitive advantages. Netflix and Amazon have serious competitive advantages. I don’t see that to be the case with SKX or SWKS, so I think of these four as fulfilling different roles in an investment portfolio.

Wow, Anirban that’s quite an assertion from one of the folks I consider to be one of the really smart contributors to this board.

So I’m one of the understudies here, I really don’t have a great deal of sage advice to impart to the investing newcomers. But this comment, …I think of these four as fulfilling different roles in an investment portfolio. is really difficult for me to understand.

So far as I’m concerned there’s only one role for an investment in my portfolio - That is to provide a positive return. I may have a goal, such as return z% a year so long as I chose to hold the investment. And maybe I have some objectives like generate x% cash by way of dividends, interest or other (though I’m not sure that there are other ways of generating cash). And I may have rules to mitigate risk, like no investment should comprise more than n% of my portfolio and I should have no more that m% of my investments in a particular business sector. And so forth and so on . . . But when it comes to the role of an investment, I have but one, provide a positive return.

3 Likes