I’ve always found this type of Fool article to be odd. I love the Fool, don’t get me wrong, and I nevertheless do see value in this species of writing piece, but…I want to know exactly what is being said here:
I know the Fool today isn’t like the Fool of yesterday - and I have loved both incarnations, absolutely one of the best investment sites out there, if not close to the best - but an article like this tends to lean on Wall Street predictions, and normally the Fool has eschewed analysts, at least in a general sense. Obviously we need analysts - not only does the Fool call its employees (many of them, anyway) analysts, but we all rely on analyst estimates for valuations, and we all rely on data from S&P reports, etc. There obviously is room to consider Wall Street opinion.
However, how should I take an article like this…is it saying that ROKU is a great stock because of Wall Street predictions, or is it saying, hey, we the Fool also agree with Wall Street? And is that number in the headline - and if you read the article, there’s an even better number based on Wood’s prediction - what the author believes I should reasonably expect for stock appreciation? I don’t know, I wouldn’t think anyone can predict the future. Granted, yes, if someone has a price target, that is an opinion that is not guaranteed - but, that is one specific number, 1,058, it just feels a bit hype-oriented.
Nevertheless, I agree with the Fool and have in fact taken the rec a long time ago from them - I just bought ROKU last week, which was me adding to a long-term position. And I will add more as fast as I can. And I do like the article for the most part, I concede, it is exciting, and I will think of it when I add again to the stock. But it just seems I would rather know what the author thinks, maybe from a discounted cash-flow perspective, and not necessarily just from Wall Street. Not being critical, just wondering how I am supposed to interpret the article, and its headline (to be even more specific, I add every week to a certain collection of stocks, and then I add to others once I get through them…I guess one might say after the ones I add to every week, I have “free investment cash flow” to choose other ones in my portfolio…this past week it was MA and PYPL and CPNG, among others…so, is this article imploring me to either make ROKU one of my definite add-to-every-week, or is it saying it absolutely must be one of the free -investment-cash-flow adds at the very least?)