When we put a high multiple to sales, the most important thing to worry about is - what could disrupt those cash flows. A lower multiple to sales (like a 1x or 2x) justifies Yo-Yo cyclicality and 10x sales implies relatively stable gross margins, cash flow and business economics.
It's amazing \U0001f60a 25% NP
— Avinash (@Aviral_Bharat) February 17, 2022
$8b revenue
$2b Profit
$92b MCap
At 11 times revenue, it seems to be cheap compared to\U0001f609
More from Conviction | Patience
Many stock specific questions on my DM or otherwise remain unanswered. Have shared my thesis, process/framework over many months and would encourage you all to find your own process that suits your very own genome. Learn to do that hard leg-work. Put that effort. Survive. Thrive.
[Free CDMO Masterclass #18] https://t.co/208eQbYKEF
— Conviction | Patience (@unseenvalue) July 25, 2021
[Free Art of Investing] https://t.co/bHvUqnpiTE
[Paid IIC Dec 2020 on SeQuent] https://t.co/3iDO438Et9
[Charity fund raise on Unseen Trends in Biotechnology] https://t.co/eNi1x1qwhH
[Q&A on APIs] https://t.co/EQGz007a9S
More from Valuation
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".