- Joined
- 17 August 2006
- Posts
- 7,931
- Reactions
- 8,657
and Co-founder sell down.
Insiders selling, capital raising, nothing to see here. Someone else pointed out that this is the business model, makes a loss on customers, profits from shareholders, redistributes wealth created by shareholders to founders.
@Dona Ferentes we don't use outdated metrics like P/E for stocks, the best formula to use is the Stonk Ratio, (Capitalisation/Number of Shares Outstanding)/Share Price=Stonk Ratio (SR) Ideally SR should be about 1.0 if you are looking to buy.
I don't think the consumer credit market is a sector with any real niches of competitive advantage. The excess margins will be competed away. Australia is only profitable because of default fees and the unsustainable credit charges.
I think it is ridiculously overpriced, the sort of margin, growth and scale assumptions that need to be just about infinite, sustained and exponential to allow a value anywhere near its price is beyond the power of my imagination.
Of course in stonk world thats a contrarian take, as is any consideration of value in a traditional sense, and there is a very real possibility the price will continue to go up for long enough to make buyers at current prices look like they know what they are doing. Not a game i want to play though!
Understand, difference between investor and trader.got a few apt via one systemI don't agree with your analysis, and its really just reflective of the spin & hype that the sell side has been pumping on this consumer credit company. Thanks for sharing your thoughts in such detail, its always good to have one's views and opinions challenged by constructive and considered responses.
My poor opinion of the business is also coloured by my intense dislike of an unethical business model that makes us all pay more to provide what looks like 'free' credit to a few.
I will leave the discussion here, as I think I have previously sworn off this thread because its not really a productive use of my time given I would never use the lender, nor buy shares in the company!
As you know with market darling, this is thrown out of the windows.could still double triple the Fed is the limit...;-)I note the owners are taking some profits which is understandable but all suggests that the shares may be fully priced. I think the model is good, but I don't know if the price adequately takes into account risks.
I don't agree with your analysis, and its really just reflective of the spin & hype that the sell side has been pumping on this consumer credit company. Thanks for sharing your thoughts in such detail, its always good to have one's views and opinions challenged by constructive and considered responses.
My poor opinion of the business is also coloured by my intense dislike of an unethical business model that makes us all pay more to provide what looks like 'free' credit to a few.
I will leave the discussion here, as I think I have previously sworn off this thread because its not really a productive use of my time given I would never use the lender, nor buy shares in the company!
It is an interesting sector, BNPL . It has emerged so suddenly through a convergence of circumstances;More than fair.
Even though I'm making the bull case, the truth is I've put this in the "I Don't Know" basket, as I don't own it.
It is an interesting sector, BNPL . It has emerged so suddenly through a convergence of circumstances;
- Covid has focused things,
- Move away from cash. Cashless is the NEW NORMAL
- digitisation and smart phone apps have allowed it
- the uptake by younger generations
- reaction against credit charges (much better pass 4% to merchant than cop 20% yourself)
Whether it will achieve scale remains to be seen. My hesitation has been that rational people will only spend a certain amount on what can only be thought of as unnecessary items, impulse buying. For that I think galumay has a point about it being unethical, preying on the weakness of consumers (mindless or not). It has always been in the back of my mind the trajectory of growth could not be sustainable. To date, I have got that wrong. Also bringing forward consumption doesn't really achieve anything.
Plus I would have thought the incumbents would have found a way to fight back or at least deny the new players the space to grow. That is a failure.
Now the institutions are on board, the dynamic of "research" and the building of portfolios and index construction gives me great cause to worry about too much upside. If it was a hard one to buy earlier, it can be thought of as being even more fraught now, with new players and new agendas
My only takeout is that if I see AfterPay on offer, I have a duty to request a 5% discount (at the very least) because otherwise I am subsidising someone else's frivolity.
Merchant fees vary, depending on size of retailer, and was aware of it being 4%. I have a duty to myself to get best price"My only takeout is that if I see AfterPay on offer, I have a duty to request a 5% discount (at the very least) because otherwise I am subsidising someone else's frivolity."
Technically, it's 4% minus the cost of electronic payment (if using a debit or credit card).
Either way, you have a point. I am going to try this the next time I'm shopping at a retailer that offers Afterpay
Biggest game in town. The suits are onto this one:
UBS has a price target of $27.
Morgan Stanley price target is $36.
Morgans has a $68.58 target price.
Macquarie has a price target of $70.
Bell Potter has a $81.25 price target.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?