Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix is now worth more than $100B

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 321 posts

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#181

Post by logicallee »

anilshanbhag wrote: post #19

The entire stock market feels like its in a bubble. Netflix stock gained more than 25% in the past one month. Their free cash flow (FCF) has been negative every single quarter and will be for many quarters to come. Stocks trade based on discounted cash flow(DCF). Netflix however produces no material return for investors and still majority of the analysts keep putting higher and higher price targets, its like they are…

>Stocks trade based on discounted cash flow(DCF)

You forgot the part where quantum mechanics higgs boson yada yada long story short efficient market.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#182

Post by Amygaz »

joshuaheard wrote: post #95
eldavido wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of sophisticated financial people share your thinking. The problem is there's no growth to be found anywhere. People are cheering for 3% GDP growth in the US. Interest rates are at all-time historical lows, meaning discount rates are lower than they've ever been. These macro trends have added up to an environment where people are willing to pay staggering premiums for even a remote shot at growth. It's affectin…

Real estate is doing well. It's still coming on strong after the '08 ditch. Interest rates are low and demand is still strong. When the stock market tops out, people will take their money out and buy real estate causing another rise. Eventually it will fall again. It seems that there is an 8-10 year market cycle, so it should be topping out soon. A rise in interest rates will be the leading indicator.

Just to give a different perspective on the 'real estate is doing well', while still supporting your final point: the total mortgage debt in the US is $13 trillion, which is a quarter of the total US bond market,

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#183

Post by [deleted] »

mobilefriendly wrote: post #142
js2 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

edpichler's description of P/E is correct. Quoting from wikipedia for a slightly more formal definition: "Trailing P/E" uses the weighted average number of common shares in issue divided by the net income for the most recent 12-month period. This is the most common meaning of "P/E" if no other qualifier is specified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price–earnings_ratio

Yes earnings is for the past 4 quarters but by time component I mean his assertion that "P/E ratio 230.24 is meaning that you need 230 years of profits to return to you the price you are paying today" which is utter nonsense.

[deleted]

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#184

Post by bluthru »

yorby wrote: post #171
bluthru wrote: post #169

Netflix is going to tank if Disney makes their stuff (including Fox) exclusive to hulu or a new service.

Disney is pulling/will pull out a lot of stuff from Netflix[1] and will also start its own streaming service[2]... and Netflix' catalog had already shrunk a lot before that news[3]. 1. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/disney-will-pull-its-movies-... 2. https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/disney-start-own-stre... 3. http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-catalog-size-shrinks-...

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting!

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#185

Post by yeukhon »

jedberg wrote: post #117
yeukhon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix doesn’t have discount for holidays. They recently up the subscription price. My bet is the increase has to do with the holiday effect (more time at home), and the fact more collections are added. A good number of recent movies are available online (Amazon, YouTube, Netflix) as soon as they leave the box. Though the mote interesting graph would be views. During major sport events I can bet there is a big dip.…

> Though the mote interesting graph would be views. During major sport events I can bet there is a big dip. I was looking in my archive but I can't find the graphs right now. Yeah, during big sporting events, there is a flattening of viewing. But what is really fascinating is that if you dig in, you find that it only affected devices that were typically connected to TVs. So streaming was normal on portable devices li…

Wow! Really really interesting indeed. Love to hear this from someone who ran SRE there. Thank you for sharing!!!

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#187

Post by bwilliams18 »

jedberg wrote: post #98
anilshanbhag wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, Amazon also has lot of assets. They have logistics networks across multiple countries, warehouses, data centers, etc. May not be commensurate to their market cap but it does give them a solid moat.

Netflix has assets too. They own a whole bunch of original shows and movies. For comparison, The Big Bang Theory has been worth a couple billion to CBS just in syndication. They also have a worldwide CDN capable of delivering high definition video around the world. And lastly, they have 20 years of movie viewing history. Their prediction models alone are probably worth many billions to the movie studios.

Their original shows and movies depreciate far faster than most other assets and do so much more unpredictably than most assets. That 39M non-cash charge was almost certainly because of an unexpected depreciation of House of Cards post Kevin Spacey.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#188

Post by tomaha »

mattnewton wrote: post #180
tomaha wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that if you're big enough business-wise you don't care that much about NN. It's like in Germany when Google has to pay for content in Google News and they just tell the publishers they will not include them if they don't give it to them for free despite these new rules (which are stupid). But if you're a small startup or company and you want to do this you have no chance doing this. Same goes for NN. I…

That might change when you are in competition with the ISP, as Comcast does with a ~30% stake of Hulu. Then you might start to care about net neutrality a lot.

Yes. That could be a problem. But in for most areas customers will be annoyed with Comcast and blame them for poor performance and switch. Still there are lots of areas in the US where you don't have a choice. But they would also loose a lot of customers in denser areas with more choice.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#189

Post by IntronExon »

nicoburns wrote: post #45
lev99 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very hard to gather statistics on this, but my intuition (casual observance) is that torrent seeding has been declining for the last 10 years, and I suspect streaming services play a non-trival role in the decline.

Anecdotally, it's illegal free streaming services that I see people using as much as legitimate ones like netflix.

I agree. Kodi boxes and transient streaming sites seem to be the way most people pirate now. It makes sense that people pirate in ways that match global trends. When BitTorrent started piracy and legal consumption both meant actually downloading files, possibly over days. Now people are used to it all just being there, right when they want it.

Plus most popular games are multiplayer, so piracy is unlikely or niche. A lot of software is on mobile devices, or licensed as a SaaS. A lot of the underlying machinery of media distribution has changed, and so has piracy.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#190

Post by js2 »

mobilefriendly wrote: post #142
js2 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

edpichler's description of P/E is correct. Quoting from wikipedia for a slightly more formal definition: "Trailing P/E" uses the weighted average number of common shares in issue divided by the net income for the most recent 12-month period. This is the most common meaning of "P/E" if no other qualifier is specified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price–earnings_ratio

Yes earnings is for the past 4 quarters but by time component I mean his assertion that "P/E ratio 230.24 is meaning that you need 230 years of profits to return to you the price you are paying today" which is utter nonsense.

Perhaps it would help if you could explain why it's wrong instead of calling it utter nonsense, because it matches my understanding of P/E ratio.

Here's the example from the same wikipedia link:

As an example, if stock A is trading at $24 and the earnings per share for the most recent 12-month period is $3, then stock A has a P/E ratio of 24/3 or 8. Put another way, the purchaser of the stock is investing $8 for every dollar of earnings.

Now say the company behind stock A is paying out 100% of its earnings as a yearly dividend of $3/share and is taking no additional investment, so it isn't growing. It's going to take 8 years (the P/E) to recoup the $24.

Post reply on HN