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

271–280 of 321 posts

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#271

Post by crispytx »

eldavido wrote: post #42
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…

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…

I think one of the big problems is that most people's retirement money gets pumped into the stock market to purchase shares on the SECONDARY market. When people buy shares on the secondary market, companies never see any of that money. But when companies sell shares directly to the public through the primary capital markets, that money can be invested to produce NEW goods and services which create economic GROWTH. The whole point of a stock market is for companies to raise money from the public to produce new goods and services and generate economic growth, but in reality companies are doing very little of this. In fact, they often do the OPPOSITE! Instead of raising capital by issuing new shares, companies burn their earnings buying back existing shares from the public. It's insane! Economists in the future will look back in amazement and wonder how we could have possibly been so stupid.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#272

Post by IkmoIkmo »

skinnymuch wrote: post #60
nimos wrote: post #16

Surprised Netflix hasn't branched out into more content types or more dynamic content. You now have this two way communication channel seems kind of boring to not try and use it even just for mostly video content. Some of their shows run 7+ million an episode. If you look at the development costs of simple mobile games and cut out all the stuff related to IAP it seems like they could create a lot of value for custome…

Are you talking about their shows sometimes costing $7M an episode? Do you know which ones besides House of Cards and The Crown?

Well, don't forget it's not just their own shows. It's been said Netflix's license payment is responsible for financing the $7m budget of Star Trek Discovery. Again, not their own show, but that's irrelevant for the point the parent is making (Netflix hasn't branched out into other content types and spends $7m per episode on video, but won't spend a similar amount on games).

That having been said, I don't really see the point for Netflix to pursue some kind of mini-steam play. Not a core competency and all...

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#273

Post by badpun »

losteric wrote: post #85
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…

To what degree does income inequality, consumer debt, and rapidly rising barriers of entry to high-income fields contribute slowing GDP growth? Is there research and evidence on the subject? I'm just an engineer with basic financial survival skills... but blind intuition suggests fixing those problems is necessary for a sustainable growing economy. "Trickle-down" theory and growing inequality drains economic activity…

> To what degree does income inequality, consumer debt, and rapidly rising barriers of entry to high-income fields contribute slowing GDP growth? Is there research and evidence on the subject?

I would say that a huge factor contributing to low growth in developed countries is the fact that, on a global scale, they're just very rich and for most businesses it makes more sense to develop in countries with much lower costs. I.e. the next 50 years will be about poor countries slowly catching up with the developed ones, not about developed ones getting even more ahead.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#274

Post by dingo_bat »

JamesBarney wrote: post #238
yters wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw a graph showing the bailout doubled the number of existing dollars.

But that doesn't mean it lost half it's value. If I printed an extra 100 trillion dollars and launched it into space that wouldn't affect the value of the dollar. And the same thing was true during the bailout. 99% of that money was never spent so it didn't have any affect on the economy.

> 99% of that money was never spent

Then where did it go?

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#275

Post by RALaBarge »

wolco wrote: post #170
aphextron wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came here to say this as well. The entire market is in a feeding frenzy. Theres simply no way this can continue. I've made 10% returns this year on my whole-market mutual fund since Jan 1.

It's tough to go back to the stock market after bitcoin's daily 10% increase this fall. Might be wise to take 10% and invest in some coin.

Lol, you can’t be serious.

There is a very large difference between investing and speculation, and blockchain currencies are a supreme example of a pump and dump speculation scam.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#276

Post by sheeshkebab »

kingkongjaffa wrote: post #270
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…

Forgive my ignorance but how does the stock market as a whole keep growing if the GDP isn't growing at a similar rate? where is all the attributed value coming from? Or am I thinking about it the wrong way ?

Probably hidden inflation... There is only so much stuff someone needs to buy before starting to sink the rest into index funds/stocks/speculative things.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#277

Post by Joe-Z »

kgwgk wrote: post #251
telchar wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This right here is extremely frustrating to me. There is approximately zero marginal cost to distribute that back-catalog, but they just keep it locked away. I think Amazon does the best job of the legal sources I have seen, though I find it hard to stomach paying $4 to watch a movie made before my parents were born.

If you don’t want to pay a few dollars to watch a movie and the parent comment finds ridiculous to subscribe to yet another provider, what incentive do they have to make their catalogs available?

Making a shitton of money, because when your expenses are virtually zero, every $ you make will be profit

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#278

Post by vadansky »

nemothekid wrote: post #175
cm2187 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that still going on? Last time I looked (a while ago) forums where flooded with junk and eveything else was DMCA-ed.

I've been using a private tracker for the past couple years, and I know some of the larger public trackers have been shutdown. On the private trackers I haven't found trouble finding mostly anything.

Any advice on getting into one? I'd be willing to put in the work but it seems like you need to know the right people and I tend to keep to myself.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#279

Post by whatok »

js2 wrote: post #190
mobilefriendly wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ever…

I've never seen a years recouped metric in reference to P/E used in a professional context ever. You don't see it because you're holding everything static. This makes no sense (particularly in the case of growth stocks) because the whole point is that you're expecting growth in earnings and that number is going to wildly change over time periods and what earnings you use.

One of the biggest reasons why P/E is a relevant metric is that it enables you to easily compare stocks between one another.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than $100B

#280

Post by xapata »

p10_user wrote: post #231
xapata wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> research and evidence The trouble is that income/wealth inequality is often ignored in macroeconomic models. The math gets tough and an easy way to simplify the equations is to assume an equilibrium growth path. More complex models use a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium, but an equilibrium all the same. Unfortunately, the key feature of rising inequality is that it may move the system into an unstable equilib…

I think the “us vs them” mentality is too strong here. Don’t you think these billionaires are just as against each other (if not more so) than against the common man?

I don't think they'd need to intentionally cooperate. In fact, one of the worst motivations could be competitive status-seeking. A few billionaires trying to go to space is good. What if 10 of them do it?

Read about Fordlandia. It's hard to measure the economic impact of Ford's obsessions on Detroit.

> us vs them

I'm not sure where you got that sense. Capitalist societies tend to create log-normal distributions of wealth. There's no threshold where you can say one person is "us" and the next on the curve is "them".

Post reply on HN