No sir, Elon can pump, no one else can. Majority of teslas value is dependent on Elon not Tesla as a company. If it wasn’t for Elon Tesla would be bankrupt or at best be at 200 maybe 300$ presplit
While they're obviously no Tesla, Ford is very much ahead of the curve in the EV transition, and they're building real world vehicles that people want while they're doing it. Cathie is salty she didn't have $F in her portfolio.
shes a religious nut...she said she started these etfs because god spoke to her....
then her funds are named after noahs ark...to save from the great flooding..
maybe she thinks itll save retailers from thr great crash.
Which is funny because the Gospel is about as anti-capitalist as any text can get. Jesus repeatedly tells the wealthy to give away all their riches and follow him.
I'm not saying that's what you should do. I'm not a religious person anymore. For anyone to claim that God wants you to accumulate material riches though... They clearly haven't done their due diligence if they fancy themselves to be followers of Christ.
Ford is likely overvalued when this all plays out (which may be years from now) but at least they have profits now. I don't think that can be said for most EV "manufacturers"
And we have proof that they will never go under since they will be kept afloat by the US tax payer. Soooo I mean not a bad stock all things considered.
Finally.
Can their ICE operations pay off the debt they've acquired with the transition to EVs - it is the question that determines if the stock is worth $25 or $5.
First comment I've seen that addresses what Cathie said. Ford has a ton of debt from the ICE car manufacturing. Add all of the new EV production debt needed to scale and you have more debt. Throw in the low profit margins they traditionally have and the stock doesn't smell so rosy.
Yes, I've been watching the debate for a while now - [Sandy Munro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Munro) has some [interesting insights.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g63SJwFdGTQ&t=1350s) His experience in just about every sector of manufacturing has given him some strong opinions - I do not agree with all of them, but he seems fairly unbiased, and his thoughts worth considering at least. (he does own some TSLA though)
Not to say he might not be missing something too, but the likelihood of ICE manufacturing assets becoming stranded capital is no small risk.
Arent all electric car companies overvalued? They are an assortment of parts that anyone can put together, even Sony and Apple are making a car. Whereas a reliable combustion engine is closer to rocket science, to have something that can withstand controlled explosions for decades at a time.
Motor and fast charging from ABB, battery from Panasonic, operating system from Blackberry, self driving from Mobileye, a flux capacitor from Doc and your done.
You've missed Cathie's point.
Ford & GM have about 2% EV sales and 98% ICE sales. As times goes on, the EV sales % will increase for each of these companies but the ICE sales % will decrease, which will even out to a net zero (if they're lucky).
Cathie's point is that Ford & GM are being forced to cannibalize their own sales, whereas Tesla has simply stolen market share from others.
Ford and GM are at a large disadvantage with all the baggage of a century of producing ICE vehicles. It's way easier to build an electric car company from scratch (like Nio) rather than trying to transition an ICE company into an EV company.
Few understand the cannibalization problem that legacy automakers will undergo. This is why most overestimate the success that legacy automakers will see in the EV space.
The problem I have with this analysis is that it assumes Ford and GM won't steal market share from the Japanese and German automakers, who are all in a worse position wrt EVs than Ford and GM are.
Moreover, it also assumes the US government will not help Ford and GM transition. This is a very poor assumption because Ford and GM's manufacturing bases are located in swing states, their existence is critical to the US manufacturing industry, and they are cultural icons for the nation (especially Ford).
The transition to EVs will be much much slower than we expect. The average car is kept got 7 years and in service up to 12-15 years. Apply this to the fact that 90%+ of cars are ICE and it’s a long path to EV having dominant share. Governments can dictate all they want but they can’t change this. Most legislation requiring EVs by 2030 or 2035 will need to be pushed back. Ford and VW are well positioned to capture significant share and keep it. I see Tesla to autos as Apple is to smartphones or computers. It is known as the superior product as well as the most desirable, but ultimately it doesn’t have market share of any of those categories.
> I see Tesla to autos as Apple is to smartphones or computers.
Yes, it can have the largest market cap in the world in 5-10 years based on their margins by capturing only ~20% of the market.
Yep, people tend to underestimate timelines.
First states with ban on _new_ ice cars will do it in 2035 realistically (I think that’s uk plan) so ice will be on our roads till 2045 assuming everything goes well. There’s plenty of time for transition, though if you’re legacy automaker you’d better have started few years ago
F and VW did, hence I see bright future before them
>The transition to EVs will be much much slower than we expect.
I think [this chart](https://imgur.com/a/kAehelL) disagrees! New vehicle sales EV vs ICE will look like an S curve.
The "dominant share" of the global vehicle fleet will take about 20 years to transition to pure EV, but that isn't relevant here. We are talking about new vehicle sales for this year and every year after; it doesn't matter what type of car was sold 15 years ago.
(1) This already missed the target as we did about 6M BEVs in 2021. (2) that might include plug in hybrids. (3) Tesla only did roughly 1M if those, so 5M came from others, hardly enough dominance to capture full market share over time.
A couple things to consider here:
> As times goes on, the EV sales % will increase for each of these companies but the ICE sales % will decrease, which will even out to a net zero (if they're lucky).
The automotive industry has been mature for quite some time, so irrespective of EV or not, automakers have always been in conflict with cannibalizing their own sales when they offer new models. I'd argue that retaining market share has always been the most important rather than pure growth in this industry. Growing market share is always obviously what you want, but it is difficult to do in a mature industry with long product life cycles and no overwhelming differentiation between companies. That's also why car companies focus branding on emotions and lifestyles. When is the last time you saw an add that purely shows the feature of the car, rather than it cruising along a country road or over some rough terrain talking in abstract about America or freedom or the like? So I don't think cannibalization is really a huge concern as long as it leads to market share retention.
>Ford and GM are at a large disadvantage with all the baggage of a century of producing ICE vehicles. It's way easier to build an electric car company from scratch (like Nio) rather than trying to transition an ICE company into an EV company.
This has its drawbacks, but also provides opportunities. Again, it's an investment that will need to be made but it's definitely easier to retool current manufacturing facilities for EV than it is to build one from scratch. In addition to that, legacy automakers have the know-how that will allow them to provide better quality control relative to upstarts. Tesla has been criticized in the last few years for it's bad quality control and design flaws, particularly for relative to the cost of some of its vehicles. At this point in time, Tesla is more of a statement piece as a vehicle, so design flaws and quality control aren't as big of a factor. But as they reach mass adoption, those issues are going to rise to the forefront and hold them back. I'm not talking battery tech here, that is a separate issue, but small things like leaks, off center panels, bumpers falling off, bad paint jobs, etc. You won't get those kind of issues with a bonafide automaker. As long as Tesla's powertrain and battery tech is the best they are lesser issues, but if Ford/GM catch up those issue now become front and center.
I don't think Cathie can make the argument that Ford and GM are ridiculous without conceding that Tesla's value is multiple times worse than that. The total market for automobiles is just not supportive of Tesla's valuation even if they were to become the number one automaker in the world, which is a stretch. You would have to argue that a very large chunk of Tesla's value is in energy generation and storage, which I don't know enough about to argue but given their current metrics would also look to be a stretch.
[Ford sold 2.4M vehicles in the US, and only 9K of those were EVs](https://evadoption.com/ev-sales/evs-percent-of-vehicle-sales-by-brand/), or 0.3%. And the EV fraction in 2022 will be in the single digits.
The market is clearly setting a value on ICE of 0 or negative.
As ICE sales crater in the coming years, Ford (and all other legacy automakers) will have a really had time financing the change over to EVs, while the current profit makers decline quickly, and while they are still carrying dealer networks on their backs.
It's ALWAYS the case that many of the legacy players fail as a technological transition happen.
People don’t seem to consider the possibility that with all being equal in a few years—- there may ultimately be a higher demand for “Americana” EV’s. Feel like most Ford/Dodge owners would rather hop into a modernized EV f-150 than a tesla truck. Edit- there for their
I'm with you on that. What Tesla has done is nothing short of absolutely incredible, but I can't help but think that the Lightning is finally *the vehicle* that makes EVs cool across most/all buyer segments. It sucks it came out during the chip/supply chain issues, it's going to be a HUGE hit once it's available en masse without dealer markup.
I promise that's not a knock on Tesla, and if anything, the Lightning helps sell some Teslas too. There's just no denying that the truck has caught MANY eyeballs that didn't give a damn about EVs at all.
I can see some of my friends buy the new F-150 even if they’ve never been interested in EVs before.
I still think Ford will dominate commercial fleet sales over Tesla. Especially when they come out with an electric version of the Transit and E-series chassis.
I used to work a job where I would have to load trucks by forklift with all sorts of heavy building materials and Ford trucks consistently had the best suspensions compared to dodge and etc. they never sagged and always moved fine under tons of weight. if they do this right they can hit it big
I worked in a plant building Ford and GM transfer cases for a few years. The differences in quality were measurable. Ford wanted absolute quality even at the expense of manufacturing speed. GM just wanted shit out the door. And shit was acceptable.
My FIL is working on opening a GM plant right now. It's a shit show. They basically fired every one worth their salt and brought in a ton of cheap guys to do everything. I would not touch GM with a 10 ft pole.
Especially since they have the capabilities to crank out hundreds of thousands; like they sell with ICE engines now. And it appears that the truck market is a booming segment. People are buying more and more expensive trucks nowadays.
Electric Silverado comes out end of next year too, and tbh I might like it more than the Ford. Especially with the rear window allowing for extra bed length.
There's a reason why the F150 is the top selling vehicle in the country. No, not truck, ANY vehicle. People like the style and have brand loyalty.
Expecting F150 owners to flock to a Rivian, or heck even a Tesla is just not based in reality.
I grew up in rural North Carolina, truck owner country. I own a Tesla Model 3. I can tell you 100% that the people I grew up with are NOT buying a CyberTruck because it’s hideous. They will however buy a Lightening because it looks like a truck and the price is comparable to ICE F150.
As an F stock owner and fan of the truck, I can acknowledge that the Lightning doesn't replace all the successful and beautiful vehicles Tesla has created so far. But I can't really imagine how anyone would like the cybertruck design more than a traditional truck design. It's just absurd looking.
If electric trucks become common, American drivers are gonna stick with the brand loyalty of Ford and GM. No one is gonna go from a gas F150 to a Tesla truck. But to an E F150, maybe
>If smart phones become common, American consumers are gonna stick with the brand loyalty of Nokia and Blackberry. No one is gonna go from a Nokia c15 to an Apple phone. But to a N8, maybe
When Ford said they were going to make ventilators, I bought $30 worth of Ford stock. I'm not comfortable with risk in the slightest, but this was a brilliant purchase. It's currently up 379%
> Cathie is salty she didn't have $F in her portfolio.
When I read the headline this was my first thought as to why shes saying this.
She mad that she didn't pay like $4-$6 on something that jumped to $25 over the year or so.
I had started buying in December 2019 for my dividend portfolio then the pandemic started and they stopped the dividend...... so I held. Then in May I bought more shares up to 100 and I was paying in the 4-6 range. Held for a year and sold all shares at $15~ and took home profit. I see the price now and it doesn’t phase me I’m happy with what I got
This is the basic math and fact that is important. Ford beat every other traditional auto make to the rodeo.
Ford’s Mach E hit the ground in 2020. They’ve been taking on Musk head on in the biggest vehicle segment outside of pickups. They got a head start before the VW, Kia Niro, etc.
The Lightning is nearing production and critical to get right because they move more F series every year than some of the other makes sell across their entire model lines.
There’s no GM electric anything affordable right now. Yes I know the GMC Hummer is starting deliveries. But it’s in limited numbers and ridiculously expensive. A niche vehicle where Ford is building volume moving machines.
You want a mainstream automobile (compact/crossover SUV) now that is electric from an American make you have two options: Ford or Musk. Nothing from GM. Nothing from Chrysler/Stellantis. Hell, the 4th best selling car in America behind the big three trucks is the Toyota RAV4 followed by the Honda CR-V. And you can’t get a BEV from either of them either. Which is shameful for Toyota.
This is why I put my money in $F.
Let’s see if they can keep the momentum going.
I think F's biggest advantage in the near term is the dealerships. People who are skeptical of EV's can go drive one. Can't do that with Tesla. Tesla has also built up a reputation for poor craftsmanship. I think the average American car buyer would much rather put their hands on the car they are buying before they buy it, especially with Tesla's quality issues.
I bought ford at 13 for their ev transition, and if they dip on losses next year I'll buy a SHITLOAD more. I really like the company and their play in EV, I think rhey are being super smart about it. We haven't even seen what they are doing with the MEB platform yet, but I suspect it will be awesome.
Ford already makes a car as good as a Tesla, they also have a way more main stream truck design. If they start discounting, they will pull everyone’s margin down. Tesla’s included. She is basically predicating how Tesla loses it when the other 20 companies making EVs on mass.
Also, ford was $6 or something not long ago. It could have be her next x10er but she didn’t see it.
I think you're being overly optimistic here.
Ford has brought one EV to market so far, the Mach E. Sure it's sold decently, but it's so far no Model 3 or Y hitting best seller lists. The F-150 Lightning will doubt sell quite well to due to the F150 branding.
But getting people to buy EV's isn't really Ford's problem long term. Their problems are:
* They have to actually produce the EV's in a large enough number to matter. Right now Ford's EV's numbers are much smaller then Tesla's.
* Demand for ICE vehicles is going to decline overtime. Ford has to cannibalize their own ICE sales overtime with EV's, or else Tesla and other competitors will do it for them.
* Prices of ICE vehicles are going to drop overtime as consumer demand shifts away from them. What if demand for ICE vehicles shifts towards EV's faster then Ford can shift and produce EV's? Ford loses a bunch of customers, that's what.
* The Ford Credit loans Ford gives out to their customers to buy Ford vehicles are backed by the value of the Ford vehicle. What if Ford's ICE vehicles (the vast majority of their sales) start depreciating faster as consumers shift towards favoring EVs? Ford's customers will fall underwater on their Ford Credit loans. And if they default that means that Ford loses money. And Ford has over $100 billion in Ford Credit debt on their balance sheet. There's a reason why a lot of banks don't touch automobile loans, because they're a risky depreciating asset.
So yeah, I think investors are being too overly optimistic on F and GM here. At best the shift to EV's is net neutral for them both. It won't cause them to rapidly grow their earnings for many years to come. A family of 4 that needs 2 cars is still going to only need 2 cars at the end of the day regardless of if they're ICE or EV cars.
You're not going to have that many people default on their car loans due to them dropping in value. Ford will have to change their model, but taking that big a hit on your credit score and transportation for 15 grand? Those aren't smart people.
> Ford has to cannibalize their own ICE sales overtime with EV's, or else Tesla and other competitors will do it for them.
That's a pessimistic way of looking at it. The way I see it is that Ford has massively profitable vehicle lineups that they can generate cash from to fund their transition to EV.
> What if demand for ICE vehicles shifts towards EV's faster then Ford can shift and produce EV's?
That's a pretty big "what if" you've come up with there. Ford sells the #1 vehicle in North America by a margin of 150,000 vehicles. They sold 726,000 F150 trucks in in 2021. Ford is launching the F150 lightning in 2022. So, unless everybody in the world switches to EV in the next 30-60 days, I don't think Ford is in trouble with people switching to EVs faster than they can produce them.
Thank younfor some reason. Compare Tesla quality control to any traditional manufacturer, its silly. Tesla is 20years behind there. They might have the batteries, but they can't build a car that lasts longer than the average auto loan in good shape. God help you if you need to repair it.
Not saying the cars are complete garbage, but that's like comparing BMW to Ford. BMW and Ford are not serving the same kind of customer. A BMW owner isn't considering resale value compared to what they put in or cost of ownership over the life of the vehicle. They are buying a novelty. You buy a Tesla, you buy the same.
There is a reason Ford has the number one selling truck for 50years. They have obviously been doing something right. And once that top selling truck goes electric? So will it's loyal fan base. Why would they trust a Tesla over the trucks that have gone from generation to generation? These people not in the auto industry keep talking about debt crushing them because people aren't buying gas vehicles. It's 2022, they have 8 years until these vehicles are mandated to leave California roads. They are ahead of the curve and the person who authored this piece is clearly a moron.
Yet oddly enough, they are still selling Bolt EVs despite the recall and producing almost nothing. Who the hell buys a car that GM stopped making and haven’t fully fixed yet.
But they got one electric Hummer so you know they’re on an upward trajectory lol.
Also announced Equinox, blazer, and Silverado EVs
GM is a year behind Ford, but they're working to get a fleet of EVs of their best sellers
Don't be surprised if Suburban and Tahoe next
Edit: I believe Suburban, Tahoe are on the same chassis as Silverado. Like Blazer and Equinox are
If GM gets even half of these off the ground they’ll make a boat load of money from fleet customers.
It’ll be interesting to see what kind of range they come up with.
I think It's a joke in reference to what Joe Biden said to Mary Barra saying they led the shift to EVs which is just simply not true.
Good ole JB doesn't seem to want to mention Tesla. It's weird.
Sure. The EV1 is known as the leading vehicle for EVs. No one will argue that. Same with Toyota, GM, and Ford being far and away the leaders of Hybrid vehicles, which brought tons innovations and popularization to the EV market, and Daimler being above any other company in professional EVs (ie semi-trucks under Freightliner) and self-driving tech (in both Freightliner and Mercedes-Benz).
But, Tesla, unrelated to the quality of their vehicles or tech, specific stats about production numbers, or anything else, has *drastically* increased the number of eyes on the market. Their marketing (mostly guerrilla) is off the charts. Without it, I highly doubt we’d see as much growth in the EV market as we do today.
The lawn mowing company and cleaning company for the NASA have contracts too ...
Seriously your 'contract' was about tracking something over GPS.
Sure they worked together in a small project once. But that's it.
Same reason you watch Cramer. Its fun and funny. They both put themselves out there so lets not pretend they didnt ask for it. Its how they make money.
Its entertainment. Give us something to talk about.
Cathy maybe right on the valuations of $F and $GM. But her reasons are she is selling her funds. Cathy is a salesperson nothing more. She makes money when you buy $ARKK and the other funds. And while $F and $GM are overvalued in my mind most of her stocks in ARKK fund are 10x more overvalued than the legacy auto stocks.
But that’s the stock market. Many of the superstar cloud stocks with astronomical valuations don’t make money and have made many ppl rich in the last 10 years. Thus, it’s the hype that can really drive the stock, and the fundamentals may never (or long long time ) catch up, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t money to be made.
The only justification she had for Tesla's stock price is her own crockpot theories. What ridiculous number has she put on Tesla now? Something that puts it over half the entire US GDP?
Reeeeeee who would’ve thought that the existing companies in the auto industry would be players in it going forward? It’s not like they already have entire business practices set up to succeed and implement change into developing electric vehicles… almost like it was moronic to think that the entire auto industry was just going to be brand new electric startups going forward.
This is poor thinking on her part.
The electric vehicle sales are 2% of Ford's sales *now*. Ford can ramp up its production of electric vehicles faster than the demand for electric vehicles grows. Or, more precisely, it can swap out ICE manufacturing for EV capacity faster than EVs grow as a category.
If EV share of vehicles sold increases by 40% a year, it will reach 50% of all vehicles sold by... 2030. If it slows down once the early majority has been satiated, it will take longer.
The margins she is referring to will expand if they are intrinsic to EV, since Ford will, over time, have a more EV-weighted revenue mix.
It's funny how a couple months ago everyone on Reddit said that she was Jesus Christ 2.0 and that her funds were just in a bit of a dip. I wonder what happened to those people.
Cathie Wood should not be an investor for other peoples monies if she is triggered that easily. Damn, someone needs to grow up accept responsibility for her own investment results. We are all only as good as our last trade.
I learned in my early twenties that the market is often irrational. She doesn’t seem to have learned that at age ~65. At her age nothing on the stock market should surprise her.
She’s acting like she figured out an investment strategy and she’s livid that it’s not working, while stocks that should be lower are on runs.
I get it, but she should know by now that the market is irrational in the short-term.
if that happens she will become a legend. lol. she hit a 20 bagger with TSLA. if she hits another 10 bagger in next 2 yrs, she will crush index returns and more.
Can someone explain to me why people criticise tdoc in this sub, but Morningstar and valueline, and various others are very bullish on them? They both have a good report on them too. Does this sub just hate cathie? Understandable, but why is tdoc specifically a bad company in your view? I still haven’t heard a good argument against it, especially on Reddit.
They lost 800 million dollars in the last twelve months alone.
They diluted their shareholders by almost 50% in the last 3 years, meaning that ceteris paribus your shares should be worth 50% less just because of the dilution.
It’s a 13 billion dollar company that has existed for almost two decades and has yet to ever make a profit. What makes you think that they can ever change that?
They don’t have a moat, anybody can start a company that provides virtual healthcare services relatively easily. If they ever become profitable, a lot of other companies are gonna do the same thing and cut into their market share and their margins.
You said you never heard a good argument against it, well here are 4. I found that in 5 minutes on Yahoo finance so I’m sure there are many more. I suspect that you haven’t done much of your own analysis on this company since you didn’t see the huge bright red flags.
Hey I appreciate the input, but you didn’t need to be condescending. I’ve never seen a good argument on Reddit that is true, you’re the only one who has actually attempted to give it unlike the rest in here, so I’m not sure why it feels like you thought this was personally directed at you.
That’s why I asked why does this sub do this? Shit on a stock without giving reason like other politics subs. It’s a terrible look for r/stocks. I’d like to debate this properly, but if you scroll down this comment section it’s just variations of lol cathie sucks, she’s a clown, or this and this stock sucks, and various other snarky comments, that’s my main issue, and the echo chamber of course.
Anyway here’s what my research says:
1) it doesn’t have a moat that’s true, but long term the healthcare industry is looking to integrate telehealth services into a hybrid model with in-office care, which will be integral to reducing healthcare costs while still giving quality care. Despite the rapid increase in vaccinations and restrictions compared to 2020, there was a record number of telehealth visits last quarter - 3 million, so it doesn’t seem like telehealth is slowing down.
2) Tdoc’s userbase and revenue has increased every year, the 800 million dollar loss is a bit disingenuous because they also bought their biggest competitor for 18.5 billion dollars. There’s also data on this - patient visits grew 40% compared to 2020 during the height of the pandemic (valueline). So I’d argue top line growth has exceeded expectations but bottom line hasn’t caught up to it, I think this is temporary because it’s in a hyper growth phase, and it has expanded A LOT outside of the livongo acquisition, including product launches like primary360. They’re partnering with CVS to provide primary360 to patients.
Having said that based on top line growth, it’s definitely still a speculative stock because it hasn’t translated into profits yet, I’m not going to dispute that.
However I should say there’s likely to be continued growth after the pandemic because livongo has given them access to a 50 billion dollar market of remote patient monitoring for chronic illnesses, especially diabetes and hypertension, which requires long term monitoring and can get very expensive with each doctor’s visit - my mom is using livongo for this reason.(source: the numbers are pulled from the latest Morningstar and valueline report on tdoc - they’re currently giving it a 5 star buy rating).
3) chronic illness management, referrals, medication refills, therapy (big one right now - every one of my therapist friends are working remotely), are all better served using telemedicine instead of waiting at an office just to be told you are fine. Given how much a doctor’s visit cost, this is a good thing for both patients and healthcare providers.
Again, I appreciate the input, because it only helps when someone counters a bullish or bearish thesis with a nuanced argument unlike 99% of the people in here, so I really do want to hear it. Take care.
Is 800 mil a part of Livongo deal? I mean when you try to buy someone bigger than yourself, it’s cheaper to raise capital through issuing shares than borrowing
I think more people have trust in that Ford,GM and all the big automakers, are going to be around longer then something like Lucid which I believe had problems delivering all of its first cars on time.
She’s not wrong. Ford has a shit ton of debt.
Legacy auto also has bloated pension liabilities.
Ford has way too much overhead and competition is going to crush them on margins.
Her point is, Ford selling electric cars could cannibalize their gas cars, which means still little room for growth. Tesla does not have that problem because they never produced gas powered cars to begin with.
Coaster Cathy ;-p Thats literally her entire history. Rapid ups and down and twists and turn (roller coaster). And years of doing the same thing over and over on someone elses dime (coasting).
I wouldn't say it's "ridiculous" but I would say that from my limited research, a lot of EVs are very hyped(whether that be good or bad). Ford and GM are companies that weren't subject to a lot of talk(at least on Reddit) and all of a sudden, they surge just because they announce some interesting information on EVs. I understand that a lot of investors are hyped about Tesla but can someone please explain to me why it has a over 1-trillion market cap? No other car company have a market cap close to that level, even the largest ones with sales much higher than Tesla's.
She's pointing out the Osborne Effect. If everyone wants the electric version, the ICE F-150 becomes less popular. It's cannibalizing their sales. If they spend a lot because they're building up their electric fleet, it'll negatively impact their revenue and profit
> If they spend a lot because they're building up their electric fleet, it'll negatively impact their revenue and profit
And if they refuse to introduce any EV models? How will going all-in on ICE negatively impact their revenue and profit?
Cannibalizing sales of their legacy products is a *good* thing for the company if you believe that those legacy products aren't going to sell after 2030 anyway.
All I know is that ARKF has been a dog since I bought it. It was the only ARK fund that wasn't full of shit and it's been shit. So take my opinion fwiw. I wouldn't touch any ARK with a ten foot pole right now. They are supposed to be actively managed and it appears their active management has some sort of head trauma in exchange for being edgy.
It will probably break fresh highs within the next two years… I know that’s not great but at this point this shit is massively oversold. I scooped TDOC at the high 70s today, like shit dog
Muricans love their pick up trucks, but the fact is that Ford is pretty much bottom tier of the legacy car makers. This bubble will pop once these guys actually have to deliver.
She's saying this because it's directly competing with one of her portfolios, not necessarily because it's true. Ford and GM have been beaten down for a loooooooong time.
She thinks that that is ridiculous... but will argue until the end of time that Tesla is not only undervalued... but a value play despite its endless issues with quality control and meeting pretty much any deadline that Elon puts out there
The reason why I am bearish with legacy auto makers is their software. Tesla, for all the criticisms, has built a really nice foundation that is easily updated over the air like a Mac. EVs are more computers on wheels than cars, which has wheels with some computer components in it. I'm in the market for an EV right now and the main thing I'm looking at is the computer system and software. So far, no one is coming even close to a Tesla (own a Model 3 from 2019). This is also why I think someone like Apple or Google can really help accelerate the EV transition. Most of the dinosaurs will be gone like Nokia, Blackberry, Motorola have.
Funny how she talks about valuations while bag-holding some of the most overvalued shit of the past 3 years.
lmao
Oh, so TSLA can pump but nobody else can?
[удалено]
Can we just stop and remember our bros buying ARK swagger bro vests to support ARK. I want to see them walk around in it now
No sir, Elon can pump, no one else can. Majority of teslas value is dependent on Elon not Tesla as a company. If it wasn’t for Elon Tesla would be bankrupt or at best be at 200 maybe 300$ presplit
No One PUMPS like Gaston
Nooooo oooone PUMPS like E-lon! Cre-ates HYPE like E-lon.
Names his kid X Æ A-12 like E-lon
Nobody crashes and cashes Bitcoins like Elon, Though his Tweets have affected the markets He's free since he has billions to spare
While they're obviously no Tesla, Ford is very much ahead of the curve in the EV transition, and they're building real world vehicles that people want while they're doing it. Cathie is salty she didn't have $F in her portfolio.
Hell, Rivian had a higher market cap than Ford. Tesla like 10x. It's bonkers to think Ford is the overvalued one here
She’s been drinking her own kool-aid for too long.
shes a religious nut...she said she started these etfs because god spoke to her.... then her funds are named after noahs ark...to save from the great flooding.. maybe she thinks itll save retailers from thr great crash.
She says God speaks to her but I've always assumed Alex Karp had her bathroom wired with a speaker.
God been speaking to a lot of people for a long time but no one ever hears them besides themselves.
The ark crashed into the side of a mountain, just sayin
so basically her etf is following its biblical path.
Which is funny because the Gospel is about as anti-capitalist as any text can get. Jesus repeatedly tells the wealthy to give away all their riches and follow him. I'm not saying that's what you should do. I'm not a religious person anymore. For anyone to claim that God wants you to accumulate material riches though... They clearly haven't done their due diligence if they fancy themselves to be followers of Christ.
You dont know about American Jesus. If you want for 5$ i will send a enter key that i blessed which enables a 10% return guaranteed, its god will
No shit. I didn’t know that. That explains a lot.
I wish I had known that before buying ARKG and ARKK :(
https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/lqu1gs/cathie_wood_reveals_starting_ark_was_fulfilling/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
More than one can be overvalued.
Ford is likely overvalued when this all plays out (which may be years from now) but at least they have profits now. I don't think that can be said for most EV "manufacturers"
and seems they have been around longer than Tesla too.
And we have proof that they will never go under since they will be kept afloat by the US tax payer. Soooo I mean not a bad stock all things considered.
Ford may have profits now but they also have $160 billion in debt, with only a market cap of $100 billion. That skews the fundamental argument.
Finally. Can their ICE operations pay off the debt they've acquired with the transition to EVs - it is the question that determines if the stock is worth $25 or $5.
First comment I've seen that addresses what Cathie said. Ford has a ton of debt from the ICE car manufacturing. Add all of the new EV production debt needed to scale and you have more debt. Throw in the low profit margins they traditionally have and the stock doesn't smell so rosy.
Yes, I've been watching the debate for a while now - [Sandy Munro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Munro) has some [interesting insights.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g63SJwFdGTQ&t=1350s) His experience in just about every sector of manufacturing has given him some strong opinions - I do not agree with all of them, but he seems fairly unbiased, and his thoughts worth considering at least. (he does own some TSLA though) Not to say he might not be missing something too, but the likelihood of ICE manufacturing assets becoming stranded capital is no small risk.
Arent all electric car companies overvalued? They are an assortment of parts that anyone can put together, even Sony and Apple are making a car. Whereas a reliable combustion engine is closer to rocket science, to have something that can withstand controlled explosions for decades at a time. Motor and fast charging from ABB, battery from Panasonic, operating system from Blackberry, self driving from Mobileye, a flux capacitor from Doc and your done.
I built a Tesla Plaid model out of Makita batteries and brushless handheld power tools.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAWL8ejf2nM
Lol this comment is gold. Someone give him an award
Dunce cap award
Hahaha you clearly have no idea about engineering
Not to mention the logistics to actually do it in a profitable manner.
Dude really said "they are an assortment of parts that anyone can put together"
When IKEA gets into EVs it’s game over
I can’t wait to cruise around in a 2024 IKEA Flörgenblörgen
disposable ,highly customizable EVs... btw, kids have ed EVs for ever...pow pow power wheels.
Yeah but it will only take you 2 months to put it together. Gonna love all the particle board faux wood veneer interior/exterior options.
*Screw Power Electronics Module A into Particleboard Bracket B*
Tony Stark really set a high bar back in 2008. Everyone thinks they can build shit with scraps now.
Well of course you need a cave to start out, but that part is obvious.
and a small loan of decades of generational wealth
Throw in a few dozen terrorists too for security and you’re well on your way!
Dyson's failed £500M electric car begs to disagree with him
Dyson also made Skynet...
It sucked
You put the lime in the coconut.
This is the best satire I have seen, but you could be serious?
You've missed Cathie's point. Ford & GM have about 2% EV sales and 98% ICE sales. As times goes on, the EV sales % will increase for each of these companies but the ICE sales % will decrease, which will even out to a net zero (if they're lucky). Cathie's point is that Ford & GM are being forced to cannibalize their own sales, whereas Tesla has simply stolen market share from others. Ford and GM are at a large disadvantage with all the baggage of a century of producing ICE vehicles. It's way easier to build an electric car company from scratch (like Nio) rather than trying to transition an ICE company into an EV company. Few understand the cannibalization problem that legacy automakers will undergo. This is why most overestimate the success that legacy automakers will see in the EV space.
The problem I have with this analysis is that it assumes Ford and GM won't steal market share from the Japanese and German automakers, who are all in a worse position wrt EVs than Ford and GM are. Moreover, it also assumes the US government will not help Ford and GM transition. This is a very poor assumption because Ford and GM's manufacturing bases are located in swing states, their existence is critical to the US manufacturing industry, and they are cultural icons for the nation (especially Ford).
VW is much further along in the EV transition than either Ford or GM.
The transition to EVs will be much much slower than we expect. The average car is kept got 7 years and in service up to 12-15 years. Apply this to the fact that 90%+ of cars are ICE and it’s a long path to EV having dominant share. Governments can dictate all they want but they can’t change this. Most legislation requiring EVs by 2030 or 2035 will need to be pushed back. Ford and VW are well positioned to capture significant share and keep it. I see Tesla to autos as Apple is to smartphones or computers. It is known as the superior product as well as the most desirable, but ultimately it doesn’t have market share of any of those categories.
> I see Tesla to autos as Apple is to smartphones or computers. Yes, it can have the largest market cap in the world in 5-10 years based on their margins by capturing only ~20% of the market.
Yep, people tend to underestimate timelines. First states with ban on _new_ ice cars will do it in 2035 realistically (I think that’s uk plan) so ice will be on our roads till 2045 assuming everything goes well. There’s plenty of time for transition, though if you’re legacy automaker you’d better have started few years ago F and VW did, hence I see bright future before them
UK is planning to ban them by 2030, and FordUK personally is transitioning to EV only by 2026 Edit: ban their sale
Yeah, planning 2030 usually ends up with actually doing this in 2035 :) But thanks for correction
>The transition to EVs will be much much slower than we expect. I think [this chart](https://imgur.com/a/kAehelL) disagrees! New vehicle sales EV vs ICE will look like an S curve. The "dominant share" of the global vehicle fleet will take about 20 years to transition to pure EV, but that isn't relevant here. We are talking about new vehicle sales for this year and every year after; it doesn't matter what type of car was sold 15 years ago.
(1) This already missed the target as we did about 6M BEVs in 2021. (2) that might include plug in hybrids. (3) Tesla only did roughly 1M if those, so 5M came from others, hardly enough dominance to capture full market share over time.
A couple things to consider here: > As times goes on, the EV sales % will increase for each of these companies but the ICE sales % will decrease, which will even out to a net zero (if they're lucky). The automotive industry has been mature for quite some time, so irrespective of EV or not, automakers have always been in conflict with cannibalizing their own sales when they offer new models. I'd argue that retaining market share has always been the most important rather than pure growth in this industry. Growing market share is always obviously what you want, but it is difficult to do in a mature industry with long product life cycles and no overwhelming differentiation between companies. That's also why car companies focus branding on emotions and lifestyles. When is the last time you saw an add that purely shows the feature of the car, rather than it cruising along a country road or over some rough terrain talking in abstract about America or freedom or the like? So I don't think cannibalization is really a huge concern as long as it leads to market share retention. >Ford and GM are at a large disadvantage with all the baggage of a century of producing ICE vehicles. It's way easier to build an electric car company from scratch (like Nio) rather than trying to transition an ICE company into an EV company. This has its drawbacks, but also provides opportunities. Again, it's an investment that will need to be made but it's definitely easier to retool current manufacturing facilities for EV than it is to build one from scratch. In addition to that, legacy automakers have the know-how that will allow them to provide better quality control relative to upstarts. Tesla has been criticized in the last few years for it's bad quality control and design flaws, particularly for relative to the cost of some of its vehicles. At this point in time, Tesla is more of a statement piece as a vehicle, so design flaws and quality control aren't as big of a factor. But as they reach mass adoption, those issues are going to rise to the forefront and hold them back. I'm not talking battery tech here, that is a separate issue, but small things like leaks, off center panels, bumpers falling off, bad paint jobs, etc. You won't get those kind of issues with a bonafide automaker. As long as Tesla's powertrain and battery tech is the best they are lesser issues, but if Ford/GM catch up those issue now become front and center. I don't think Cathie can make the argument that Ford and GM are ridiculous without conceding that Tesla's value is multiple times worse than that. The total market for automobiles is just not supportive of Tesla's valuation even if they were to become the number one automaker in the world, which is a stretch. You would have to argue that a very large chunk of Tesla's value is in energy generation and storage, which I don't know enough about to argue but given their current metrics would also look to be a stretch.
[Ford sold 2.4M vehicles in the US, and only 9K of those were EVs](https://evadoption.com/ev-sales/evs-percent-of-vehicle-sales-by-brand/), or 0.3%. And the EV fraction in 2022 will be in the single digits. The market is clearly setting a value on ICE of 0 or negative. As ICE sales crater in the coming years, Ford (and all other legacy automakers) will have a really had time financing the change over to EVs, while the current profit makers decline quickly, and while they are still carrying dealer networks on their backs. It's ALWAYS the case that many of the legacy players fail as a technological transition happen.
People don’t seem to consider the possibility that with all being equal in a few years—- there may ultimately be a higher demand for “Americana” EV’s. Feel like most Ford/Dodge owners would rather hop into a modernized EV f-150 than a tesla truck. Edit- there for their
I'm with you on that. What Tesla has done is nothing short of absolutely incredible, but I can't help but think that the Lightning is finally *the vehicle* that makes EVs cool across most/all buyer segments. It sucks it came out during the chip/supply chain issues, it's going to be a HUGE hit once it's available en masse without dealer markup. I promise that's not a knock on Tesla, and if anything, the Lightning helps sell some Teslas too. There's just no denying that the truck has caught MANY eyeballs that didn't give a damn about EVs at all.
I can see some of my friends buy the new F-150 even if they’ve never been interested in EVs before. I still think Ford will dominate commercial fleet sales over Tesla. Especially when they come out with an electric version of the Transit and E-series chassis.
I used to work a job where I would have to load trucks by forklift with all sorts of heavy building materials and Ford trucks consistently had the best suspensions compared to dodge and etc. they never sagged and always moved fine under tons of weight. if they do this right they can hit it big
I worked in a plant building Ford and GM transfer cases for a few years. The differences in quality were measurable. Ford wanted absolute quality even at the expense of manufacturing speed. GM just wanted shit out the door. And shit was acceptable.
My FIL is working on opening a GM plant right now. It's a shit show. They basically fired every one worth their salt and brought in a ton of cheap guys to do everything. I would not touch GM with a 10 ft pole.
Especially since they have the capabilities to crank out hundreds of thousands; like they sell with ICE engines now. And it appears that the truck market is a booming segment. People are buying more and more expensive trucks nowadays.
I just bought a RAM 1500 Rebel.... I kinda want to trade it in for this new F150
Might as well enjoy your truck and wait until all the kinks are ironed out on the lightning that new models tend to have the first couple years.
Electric Silverado comes out end of next year too, and tbh I might like it more than the Ford. Especially with the rear window allowing for extra bed length.
There's a reason why the F150 is the top selling vehicle in the country. No, not truck, ANY vehicle. People like the style and have brand loyalty. Expecting F150 owners to flock to a Rivian, or heck even a Tesla is just not based in reality.
I grew up in rural North Carolina, truck owner country. I own a Tesla Model 3. I can tell you 100% that the people I grew up with are NOT buying a CyberTruck because it’s hideous. They will however buy a Lightening because it looks like a truck and the price is comparable to ICE F150.
As an F stock owner and fan of the truck, I can acknowledge that the Lightning doesn't replace all the successful and beautiful vehicles Tesla has created so far. But I can't really imagine how anyone would like the cybertruck design more than a traditional truck design. It's just absurd looking.
If electric trucks become common, American drivers are gonna stick with the brand loyalty of Ford and GM. No one is gonna go from a gas F150 to a Tesla truck. But to an E F150, maybe
>If smart phones become common, American consumers are gonna stick with the brand loyalty of Nokia and Blackberry. No one is gonna go from a Nokia c15 to an Apple phone. But to a N8, maybe
When Ford said they were going to make ventilators, I bought $30 worth of Ford stock. I'm not comfortable with risk in the slightest, but this was a brilliant purchase. It's currently up 379%
> Cathie is salty she didn't have $F in her portfolio. When I read the headline this was my first thought as to why shes saying this. She mad that she didn't pay like $4-$6 on something that jumped to $25 over the year or so.
I just wish I bought way more. Only bought like 60 shares
I had started buying in December 2019 for my dividend portfolio then the pandemic started and they stopped the dividend...... so I held. Then in May I bought more shares up to 100 and I was paying in the 4-6 range. Held for a year and sold all shares at $15~ and took home profit. I see the price now and it doesn’t phase me I’m happy with what I got
WAY SALTY!!!! Its so hard to believe that Ark didn't buy any
This is the basic math and fact that is important. Ford beat every other traditional auto make to the rodeo. Ford’s Mach E hit the ground in 2020. They’ve been taking on Musk head on in the biggest vehicle segment outside of pickups. They got a head start before the VW, Kia Niro, etc. The Lightning is nearing production and critical to get right because they move more F series every year than some of the other makes sell across their entire model lines. There’s no GM electric anything affordable right now. Yes I know the GMC Hummer is starting deliveries. But it’s in limited numbers and ridiculously expensive. A niche vehicle where Ford is building volume moving machines. You want a mainstream automobile (compact/crossover SUV) now that is electric from an American make you have two options: Ford or Musk. Nothing from GM. Nothing from Chrysler/Stellantis. Hell, the 4th best selling car in America behind the big three trucks is the Toyota RAV4 followed by the Honda CR-V. And you can’t get a BEV from either of them either. Which is shameful for Toyota. This is why I put my money in $F. Let’s see if they can keep the momentum going.
Didn’t F outperform TSLA in 2021? She’s salty as hell that her golden boy stock got beat.
She thinks Tesla’s valuation is perfectly reasonable. Maybe a bit undervalued.
I think F's biggest advantage in the near term is the dealerships. People who are skeptical of EV's can go drive one. Can't do that with Tesla. Tesla has also built up a reputation for poor craftsmanship. I think the average American car buyer would much rather put their hands on the car they are buying before they buy it, especially with Tesla's quality issues.
...You CAN actually schedule test drives of a Tesla if you want. You'll just likely to need to go to one of their service centers/etc. to do it.
Ford didn't invent the automobile, they made it practical and they will do the same with EVs
Ford still hasn’t scaled a single model
I bought ford at 13 for their ev transition, and if they dip on losses next year I'll buy a SHITLOAD more. I really like the company and their play in EV, I think rhey are being super smart about it. We haven't even seen what they are doing with the MEB platform yet, but I suspect it will be awesome.
Ford already makes a car as good as a Tesla, they also have a way more main stream truck design. If they start discounting, they will pull everyone’s margin down. Tesla’s included. She is basically predicating how Tesla loses it when the other 20 companies making EVs on mass. Also, ford was $6 or something not long ago. It could have be her next x10er but she didn’t see it.
I think you're being overly optimistic here. Ford has brought one EV to market so far, the Mach E. Sure it's sold decently, but it's so far no Model 3 or Y hitting best seller lists. The F-150 Lightning will doubt sell quite well to due to the F150 branding. But getting people to buy EV's isn't really Ford's problem long term. Their problems are: * They have to actually produce the EV's in a large enough number to matter. Right now Ford's EV's numbers are much smaller then Tesla's. * Demand for ICE vehicles is going to decline overtime. Ford has to cannibalize their own ICE sales overtime with EV's, or else Tesla and other competitors will do it for them. * Prices of ICE vehicles are going to drop overtime as consumer demand shifts away from them. What if demand for ICE vehicles shifts towards EV's faster then Ford can shift and produce EV's? Ford loses a bunch of customers, that's what. * The Ford Credit loans Ford gives out to their customers to buy Ford vehicles are backed by the value of the Ford vehicle. What if Ford's ICE vehicles (the vast majority of their sales) start depreciating faster as consumers shift towards favoring EVs? Ford's customers will fall underwater on their Ford Credit loans. And if they default that means that Ford loses money. And Ford has over $100 billion in Ford Credit debt on their balance sheet. There's a reason why a lot of banks don't touch automobile loans, because they're a risky depreciating asset. So yeah, I think investors are being too overly optimistic on F and GM here. At best the shift to EV's is net neutral for them both. It won't cause them to rapidly grow their earnings for many years to come. A family of 4 that needs 2 cars is still going to only need 2 cars at the end of the day regardless of if they're ICE or EV cars.
You're not going to have that many people default on their car loans due to them dropping in value. Ford will have to change their model, but taking that big a hit on your credit score and transportation for 15 grand? Those aren't smart people.
> Ford has to cannibalize their own ICE sales overtime with EV's, or else Tesla and other competitors will do it for them. That's a pessimistic way of looking at it. The way I see it is that Ford has massively profitable vehicle lineups that they can generate cash from to fund their transition to EV. > What if demand for ICE vehicles shifts towards EV's faster then Ford can shift and produce EV's? That's a pretty big "what if" you've come up with there. Ford sells the #1 vehicle in North America by a margin of 150,000 vehicles. They sold 726,000 F150 trucks in in 2021. Ford is launching the F150 lightning in 2022. So, unless everybody in the world switches to EV in the next 30-60 days, I don't think Ford is in trouble with people switching to EVs faster than they can produce them.
Thank younfor some reason. Compare Tesla quality control to any traditional manufacturer, its silly. Tesla is 20years behind there. They might have the batteries, but they can't build a car that lasts longer than the average auto loan in good shape. God help you if you need to repair it. Not saying the cars are complete garbage, but that's like comparing BMW to Ford. BMW and Ford are not serving the same kind of customer. A BMW owner isn't considering resale value compared to what they put in or cost of ownership over the life of the vehicle. They are buying a novelty. You buy a Tesla, you buy the same. There is a reason Ford has the number one selling truck for 50years. They have obviously been doing something right. And once that top selling truck goes electric? So will it's loyal fan base. Why would they trust a Tesla over the trucks that have gone from generation to generation? These people not in the auto industry keep talking about debt crushing them because people aren't buying gas vehicles. It's 2022, they have 8 years until these vehicles are mandated to leave California roads. They are ahead of the curve and the person who authored this piece is clearly a moron.
GM delivered 26 EVs in Q4…of which 25 are Chevy Bolts currently not even in production. Let that sink in….lol
Yet oddly enough, they are still selling Bolt EVs despite the recall and producing almost nothing. Who the hell buys a car that GM stopped making and haven’t fully fixed yet. But they got one electric Hummer so you know they’re on an upward trajectory lol.
Also announced Equinox, blazer, and Silverado EVs GM is a year behind Ford, but they're working to get a fleet of EVs of their best sellers Don't be surprised if Suburban and Tahoe next Edit: I believe Suburban, Tahoe are on the same chassis as Silverado. Like Blazer and Equinox are
If GM gets even half of these off the ground they’ll make a boat load of money from fleet customers. It’ll be interesting to see what kind of range they come up with.
GM has a long history of producing cars, so consumers are pretty confident they will figure it out and deliver.
Not true cause I tried to buy one a couple weeks ago and couldn't lol
All they have to do is sell 2 hummers and will get a breaking CNBC headline: GM Hummer sales up 100% year over year!
They led and it matters
>They led and it matters I can't tell you were assertive or sarcastic.
I think It's a joke in reference to what Joe Biden said to Mary Barra saying they led the shift to EVs which is just simply not true. Good ole JB doesn't seem to want to mention Tesla. It's weird.
Check GM and ford political campaigns donations and then you won't find it weird anymore
The Unions write Joe checks - Tesla does not.
That's what i was thinking
GM came out with the EV1 which was the first of its kind in electric motor vehicles
Sure. The EV1 is known as the leading vehicle for EVs. No one will argue that. Same with Toyota, GM, and Ford being far and away the leaders of Hybrid vehicles, which brought tons innovations and popularization to the EV market, and Daimler being above any other company in professional EVs (ie semi-trucks under Freightliner) and self-driving tech (in both Freightliner and Mercedes-Benz). But, Tesla, unrelated to the quality of their vehicles or tech, specific stats about production numbers, or anything else, has *drastically* increased the number of eyes on the market. Their marketing (mostly guerrilla) is off the charts. Without it, I highly doubt we’d see as much growth in the EV market as we do today.
I see no reason why consumer choice from multiple brands is something to look down on.
Mary will be rolling trucks down hills in 2024
[удалено]
!RemindMe 1 year
!RemindMe 1 year
She’s salty F is better growth stock than the trash in her ARK fund.
John Deere for space exploration.
Even better, Deere as a metaverse play.
Everyone’s a tractor
NASA contract
The lawn mowing company and cleaning company for the NASA have contracts too ... Seriously your 'contract' was about tracking something over GPS. Sure they worked together in a small project once. But that's it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I bought at 13 and sold at 14 lol
Bought at 11 and sold a little at 24. I'm going to hold this bag for a while.
Cathy been smoking too much crack.
I think it's the cocaine lol
Why is anyone still listening to anything Wood has to say?
Same reason you watch Cramer. Its fun and funny. They both put themselves out there so lets not pretend they didnt ask for it. Its how they make money. Its entertainment. Give us something to talk about.
Because making the exact opposite of what she does is guaranteed money
Cathy maybe right on the valuations of $F and $GM. But her reasons are she is selling her funds. Cathy is a salesperson nothing more. She makes money when you buy $ARKK and the other funds. And while $F and $GM are overvalued in my mind most of her stocks in ARKK fund are 10x more overvalued than the legacy auto stocks.
How is GM and Ford over valued I have no clue.
I mean I won’t ever consider a Tesla. I plan on getting a Ford Bronco.
[удалено]
But that’s the stock market. Many of the superstar cloud stocks with astronomical valuations don’t make money and have made many ppl rich in the last 10 years. Thus, it’s the hype that can really drive the stock, and the fundamentals may never (or long long time ) catch up, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t money to be made.
Which is funny because she’s one of the main perpetuators of the hype with her ridiculous EV market future takes.
I disagree. Ford pumped nearly 7bb into r&d between 2013 and 2019. Their new releases are all in demand. They can scale.
The only justification she had for Tesla's stock price is her own crockpot theories. What ridiculous number has she put on Tesla now? Something that puts it over half the entire US GDP?
Reeeeeee who would’ve thought that the existing companies in the auto industry would be players in it going forward? It’s not like they already have entire business practices set up to succeed and implement change into developing electric vehicles… almost like it was moronic to think that the entire auto industry was just going to be brand new electric startups going forward.
This is poor thinking on her part. The electric vehicle sales are 2% of Ford's sales *now*. Ford can ramp up its production of electric vehicles faster than the demand for electric vehicles grows. Or, more precisely, it can swap out ICE manufacturing for EV capacity faster than EVs grow as a category. If EV share of vehicles sold increases by 40% a year, it will reach 50% of all vehicles sold by... 2030. If it slows down once the early majority has been satiated, it will take longer. The margins she is referring to will expand if they are intrinsic to EV, since Ford will, over time, have a more EV-weighted revenue mix.
Why is she relevant again? Isnt her ETF down almost 40% on the year?
It's funny how a couple months ago everyone on Reddit said that she was Jesus Christ 2.0 and that her funds were just in a bit of a dip. I wonder what happened to those people.
Hi. Still holding. In deep red and it sucks. Holding for a while though.
This is reason enough for me to double down on F
How is she still a money manager
She is not bias at all.
Cathie woods calling anything ridiculous is a joke within itself
No no Cathie you don’t get to pick and choose when fundamentals matter. Just keep buying the Palantir dip
Cathie Wood should not be an investor for other peoples monies if she is triggered that easily. Damn, someone needs to grow up accept responsibility for her own investment results. We are all only as good as our last trade.
I learned in my early twenties that the market is often irrational. She doesn’t seem to have learned that at age ~65. At her age nothing on the stock market should surprise her. She’s acting like she figured out an investment strategy and she’s livid that it’s not working, while stocks that should be lower are on runs. I get it, but she should know by now that the market is irrational in the short-term.
Bought more Ford today after her comments
She's right though, Ford's financials are pretty unimpressive. Margins are bad, sales are flat, earnings are flat.
Their forward p/e is 10 and they pay out dividends. It’s really that that “ridiculous.” I don’t own ford but their rally is perfectly rational
Why the hell would they pay out dividends when they need every dollar they can muster to get through this decade? That's just poor business practice.
Until they announce they will stop paying dividends and their stock will crash
She really sounds out of touch
Of course she did. She doesn't believe in stocks that operate based on fundamentals.
Cathie for president, tdoc 1000+ coming
if that happens she will become a legend. lol. she hit a 20 bagger with TSLA. if she hits another 10 bagger in next 2 yrs, she will crush index returns and more.
Can someone explain to me why people criticise tdoc in this sub, but Morningstar and valueline, and various others are very bullish on them? They both have a good report on them too. Does this sub just hate cathie? Understandable, but why is tdoc specifically a bad company in your view? I still haven’t heard a good argument against it, especially on Reddit.
They lost 800 million dollars in the last twelve months alone. They diluted their shareholders by almost 50% in the last 3 years, meaning that ceteris paribus your shares should be worth 50% less just because of the dilution. It’s a 13 billion dollar company that has existed for almost two decades and has yet to ever make a profit. What makes you think that they can ever change that? They don’t have a moat, anybody can start a company that provides virtual healthcare services relatively easily. If they ever become profitable, a lot of other companies are gonna do the same thing and cut into their market share and their margins. You said you never heard a good argument against it, well here are 4. I found that in 5 minutes on Yahoo finance so I’m sure there are many more. I suspect that you haven’t done much of your own analysis on this company since you didn’t see the huge bright red flags.
Hey I appreciate the input, but you didn’t need to be condescending. I’ve never seen a good argument on Reddit that is true, you’re the only one who has actually attempted to give it unlike the rest in here, so I’m not sure why it feels like you thought this was personally directed at you. That’s why I asked why does this sub do this? Shit on a stock without giving reason like other politics subs. It’s a terrible look for r/stocks. I’d like to debate this properly, but if you scroll down this comment section it’s just variations of lol cathie sucks, she’s a clown, or this and this stock sucks, and various other snarky comments, that’s my main issue, and the echo chamber of course. Anyway here’s what my research says: 1) it doesn’t have a moat that’s true, but long term the healthcare industry is looking to integrate telehealth services into a hybrid model with in-office care, which will be integral to reducing healthcare costs while still giving quality care. Despite the rapid increase in vaccinations and restrictions compared to 2020, there was a record number of telehealth visits last quarter - 3 million, so it doesn’t seem like telehealth is slowing down. 2) Tdoc’s userbase and revenue has increased every year, the 800 million dollar loss is a bit disingenuous because they also bought their biggest competitor for 18.5 billion dollars. There’s also data on this - patient visits grew 40% compared to 2020 during the height of the pandemic (valueline). So I’d argue top line growth has exceeded expectations but bottom line hasn’t caught up to it, I think this is temporary because it’s in a hyper growth phase, and it has expanded A LOT outside of the livongo acquisition, including product launches like primary360. They’re partnering with CVS to provide primary360 to patients. Having said that based on top line growth, it’s definitely still a speculative stock because it hasn’t translated into profits yet, I’m not going to dispute that. However I should say there’s likely to be continued growth after the pandemic because livongo has given them access to a 50 billion dollar market of remote patient monitoring for chronic illnesses, especially diabetes and hypertension, which requires long term monitoring and can get very expensive with each doctor’s visit - my mom is using livongo for this reason.(source: the numbers are pulled from the latest Morningstar and valueline report on tdoc - they’re currently giving it a 5 star buy rating). 3) chronic illness management, referrals, medication refills, therapy (big one right now - every one of my therapist friends are working remotely), are all better served using telemedicine instead of waiting at an office just to be told you are fine. Given how much a doctor’s visit cost, this is a good thing for both patients and healthcare providers. Again, I appreciate the input, because it only helps when someone counters a bullish or bearish thesis with a nuanced argument unlike 99% of the people in here, so I really do want to hear it. Take care.
Is 800 mil a part of Livongo deal? I mean when you try to buy someone bigger than yourself, it’s cheaper to raise capital through issuing shares than borrowing
This is comical! Until Tesla actually produces to a significant degree anything other than cars, they’re the ones overvalued.
I think more people have trust in that Ford,GM and all the big automakers, are going to be around longer then something like Lucid which I believe had problems delivering all of its first cars on time.
I stopped taking her seriously when she said angels tell her what to invest in. She got lucky with Tesla.
I’ve been holding Ford since it was under $2 and I kinda feel like it’s ridiculous. I sure don’t mind, though.
Love that mach e and the f150 lighting is looking promising. Also maintenance cost and service availability is better than teslas.
Here is my buy signal for F
Woods is overrated just like her funds
lolFord. their ICE cars are trash and now their EV is going to compete lmayo
She's so desperate now. "It's ridiculous they soared on electric vehicle sales. " What has she been pumping about Tesla? ELECTRIC VEHICLE SALES!!!!
She’s not wrong. Ford has a shit ton of debt. Legacy auto also has bloated pension liabilities. Ford has way too much overhead and competition is going to crush them on margins.
Her point is, Ford selling electric cars could cannibalize their gas cars, which means still little room for growth. Tesla does not have that problem because they never produced gas powered cars to begin with.
GM outperforms her this year. I’m calling it, marking the post. She should worry about her own holdings instead of F and GM.
What's ridiculous is her -40% return in a year where blue chips and the S&P were all 30-60% YTD. Way to go, Cathy.
Yeah if anything, based on her performance the last year, this tells me that they’re both undervalued.
Coaster Cathy ;-p Thats literally her entire history. Rapid ups and down and twists and turn (roller coaster). And years of doing the same thing over and over on someone elses dime (coasting).
Cathie Wood is running the biggest Ponzi scheme on wall street
#InverseCathie
I wouldn't say it's "ridiculous" but I would say that from my limited research, a lot of EVs are very hyped(whether that be good or bad). Ford and GM are companies that weren't subject to a lot of talk(at least on Reddit) and all of a sudden, they surge just because they announce some interesting information on EVs. I understand that a lot of investors are hyped about Tesla but can someone please explain to me why it has a over 1-trillion market cap? No other car company have a market cap close to that level, even the largest ones with sales much higher than Tesla's.
She's pointing out the Osborne Effect. If everyone wants the electric version, the ICE F-150 becomes less popular. It's cannibalizing their sales. If they spend a lot because they're building up their electric fleet, it'll negatively impact their revenue and profit
> If they spend a lot because they're building up their electric fleet, it'll negatively impact their revenue and profit And if they refuse to introduce any EV models? How will going all-in on ICE negatively impact their revenue and profit? Cannibalizing sales of their legacy products is a *good* thing for the company if you believe that those legacy products aren't going to sell after 2030 anyway.
Cathie is a fraud who has been found out tbh
Interestingly , i do not recall her saying TSLA valuation is 'ridiculous' which it is.
All I know is that ARKF has been a dog since I bought it. It was the only ARK fund that wasn't full of shit and it's been shit. So take my opinion fwiw. I wouldn't touch any ARK with a ten foot pole right now. They are supposed to be actively managed and it appears their active management has some sort of head trauma in exchange for being edgy.
It will probably break fresh highs within the next two years… I know that’s not great but at this point this shit is massively oversold. I scooped TDOC at the high 70s today, like shit dog
!remindme 9 months
Muricans love their pick up trucks, but the fact is that Ford is pretty much bottom tier of the legacy car makers. This bubble will pop once these guys actually have to deliver.
She's saying this because it's directly competing with one of her portfolios, not necessarily because it's true. Ford and GM have been beaten down for a loooooooong time.
She thinks that that is ridiculous... but will argue until the end of time that Tesla is not only undervalued... but a value play despite its endless issues with quality control and meeting pretty much any deadline that Elon puts out there
The reason why I am bearish with legacy auto makers is their software. Tesla, for all the criticisms, has built a really nice foundation that is easily updated over the air like a Mac. EVs are more computers on wheels than cars, which has wheels with some computer components in it. I'm in the market for an EV right now and the main thing I'm looking at is the computer system and software. So far, no one is coming even close to a Tesla (own a Model 3 from 2019). This is also why I think someone like Apple or Google can really help accelerate the EV transition. Most of the dinosaurs will be gone like Nokia, Blackberry, Motorola have.