@moneyflowinvest they are not particularly cheap now..if something is priced for perfection even smallest risks on the horizon results in large drawdowns
@ReneSellmann I am very sure this is not true. He was for example heavily invested in cable television via Capital cities. As Tom Murphy said himself, they are in the software business (just not software on the internet).
@ReneSellmann The problem about paying for growth is that it’s mostly not so predictable. A 15% grower can become a 7% grower within one financial year or even quarter. How do you deal with that?
@ReneSellmann great results in my opinion, they are investing through the P&L. Revenue slowdown is only because of the significant take-rate reduction.
@Fenmagne Before the 1E acquistion the narrative by the management was that a "moat" is building up in the enterprise space through their VR/Frontline offering. No mention of that in the calls anymore. I hope you are right though.
@Fenmagne Have you done the math? For an attractive ROI they have to start making €60M+ p.a. profit in form of 1E revenues and synergies rather sooner than later.
@ReneSellmann I think it just should not play any role in your decision making whether a stock is talked about a lot or not. Only your assessment matters.
@AcquiredFM I question your A+ on the acquisition. Super simplified: Youtube was bought in 2006. They invested 1.65B + 6-7B to cover losses in the subsequent years. If its really worth 500B today (a 62x Multiple is quite high) then CAGR would be 22%. Amazing but not A+. (esp. b/c dilutive)
@ReneSellmann@stonkmetal Greggs is (with few exceptions) steadily growing wirhout much debt since its founding in 1951. I recommend the book by the founder‘s son. I would put its durability in a league with McDonalds (although TAM is much smaller).
@marcotomasrodr@ReneSellmann Can you give an example? If the low valuation company is highly cash generative and will remain so, over years it will either pay down debt, buyback stocks or pay dividends. I think it's more about avoiding bad businesses or value destroying managers than finding a catalyst...
@marcotomasrodr@ReneSellmann Can you give an example? If the low valuation company is highly cash generative and will remain so, over years it will either pay down debt, buyback stocks or pay dividends. I think it's more about avoiding bad businesses or value destroying managers than finding a catalyst...
In the medium/long run, I expect $WISE's personal customer base to peak — and be cannibalized by its own platform business. That’s not a bug: the entire consumer product is a highly profitable acquisition channel for Wise Platform.
Agree? @ReneSellmann@moneyflowinvest
Wise launched a white-label offering of its platform with Bank Mandiri in 2023. A Mandiri director on why the bank decided to adopt Wise: $WISE
"We observed a decrease in retail remittance transactions in both frequency and volume. After conducting research and surveying our customers, we discovered they were using alternative methods to send money overseas, leading to a loss in market share. Although initially it seemed like a small revenue loss, over time the gap widened significantly. We decided to investigate whether this shift affected our customers' savings account balances. We found that it did. When customers conducted transactions outside our bank, they tended to move their money elsewhere, often opening wallets and keeping their funds there. This posed a problem for us"
Terry Smith is making the opposite point he intends to if you extrapolate his math out:
A 2.3% lower annual return is the difference between:
a 8,100x return
And a 1,460x return
That’s 80% less.