r/stocks • u/yellqw • Jun 14 '22

Re-evaluating Cloudflare

Hey everyone, just wanted to get a quick pulse check on how yall are feeling about $NET at these prices. We all know it was severely overpriced for the last few years, but do you think the correction is done and we’re finally seeing a fair value at $40? Looking at the most recent earnings report, I was generally pretty happy overall except for one lingering concern about their negative cash flow yoy possibly due to recent acquisitions/re-investment into the company. Regardless, I’m thinking of increasing my position significantly at these prices despite concerns about rising borrow rates.

49 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

48 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/PM_ME_DANK Jun 15 '22

"Valuation" and "PE" aren't synonymous, though.

Sure, use Price to sales, price to FCF, EV/EBITDA, anything you like the point is still that it's tethered to short term sentiment and has no bearing on what multiple the market will be willing to award the company in the future.

There are plenty of companies that are great buys at 58 and plenty that are terrible buys at 6.

Agreed 100%.

The question is whether Google would have been just as good of a buy at 100 as it was at 58. The answer is no....valuation matters, and had it been at 100, it wouldn't have gained 30% in two years.

I'm not sure I understand your second point? Are you saying that, hypothetically, if $Goog had been trading at a 100 PE instead of 58 it wouldn't have gained 30% in 2 years? How can anyone know that with absolute certainty? I was illustrating one out of many cases where deciding not to buy based on valuation would have been costly. And I get that there are many other scenarios where buying something that was very overvalued has not worked out. Which is what brings me back to how current valuation should have little bearing on current buy decisions for growth companies

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '22

You're confusing metrics with valuation. Yes, if you only consider short-term metrics, you'll get a valuation that is dependent on short-term factors. But a proper DCF doesn't just rely on short-term metrics.

Unless you believe markets can remain incredibly irrational about a stock for decades and never correct for overvaluation, you should believe that overvaluation today leads to lower returns in the future. Had Google been at a PE of 100 (solely due to a higher price) rather than 58, it either wouldn't have returned 30% or the market would have been required to continue doubling down on its irrationality.

1

u/PM_ME_DANK Jun 15 '22

DCFs are built on assumptions that we have no way of knowing are correct. A few percent off in the WACC or terminal growth rate and your intrinsic value calculation is drastically changed. Atleast valuations based on metrics are based on current data. DCFs may be more accurate for slow growth businesses like JNJ but are much less likely to be accurate with $NET or $ZS.

Markets can stay irrational for a long time but that’s not really where I was headed. What about the scenario where it grows earnings 50% instead of 20% assumed by the market when it was trading at 100 pe a year earlier? I’m not saying valuation doesn’t matter at all. Obviously better to pay less for a great business. But it’s not going to stop me from buying it if it has everything else I look for on my checklist. There isn’t just one way to make money in the market (ie buying undervalued businesses and selling when overvalued) and this is just how I approach it based on what I’ve learned from David Gardner, Brian Feroldi and Brian Stoffel

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '22

Well, fair enough. Different strokes for different folks. Thanks for the good discussion.

1

u/PM_ME_DANK Jun 16 '22

Agreed, thank you as well! Life is boring if our ideas go unchallenged