我沒有說Intel(英特爾)太便宜，NVIDIA太貴喲!
本帖最後由 sec2100 於 2021-10-3 10:35 編輯警語: 這兩家公司並非一樣的公司，前者以CPU為主，後者以GPU為主，承載的裝置和應用也不盡相同。投資一定有風險，投資美股也是。
看一下下方一位獨立分析師報告的匯總:
Today, the market is a sea of red as the major indexes are significantly lower on the 1-day chart. I have a group stock chat with several of my friends, and one of the members, who is a CPA, said that he likes NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA). I asked him why he likes NVDA, and he replied that it's a solid company with more room to grow. I don't disagree with this logic as NVDA has positioned itself to be one of this decade's most dominant chip companies. NVDA has been a phenomenal investment generating a 1,202.07% return in the last five years, 68.25% in the past year, and 65.91% in 2021. Any investor would be crazy if they didn't want those returns in their portfolio. I started doing some research, and to my surprise, I found another chip company that I like more than NVDA in today's market, and it's good old Intel Corp (INTC). Fundamentals haven't mattered in this market for quite some time. I have continuously stated in the group stock chat that I am in, at some point, the high-flying popular stocks will get their wings clipped because people will realize they are tremendously overpaying for future growth. I am all for investing a portion of your capital in growth companies, and I am invested in several, including Palantir (PLTR), which I frequently write about. Would I classify NVDA as a great company? Yes, I would. After looking at the numbers of others in their sector, INTC is much more enticing to me. I can foresee many comments disagreeing with my logic, but the beautiful thing is that numbers are finite and tell a story based on opinions. I am happy to have a discussion with anyone in the comment section about INTC and NVDA. While reading through my comparison, please keep in mind that NVDA has a market cap that is slightly more than double INTC's. In the TTM, INTC has generated $77.62 billion of revenue compared to the $21.9 billion NVDA has generated. Overall, INTC has generated 354.55% more revenue than NVDA. Everyone on team NVDA would say you're paying for growth and that I am old and don't get it. Sure, I am 40, but I understand investing, and I understand that sometimes you can overpay for an investment. NVDA is certainly a growth company as its annual revenue has exploded by 154.28% over the last five years as its annual revenue increased by $14.99 billion. INTC, on the other hand, over the same period increased their annual revenue by 29.04%. From a growth perspective, NVDA's revenue growth from a percentage standpoint completely overshadows INTC's, but I would encourage people to actually look at the numbers. INTC generated an additional $18.23 billion of annual revenue over the same five-year period. Even though NVDA on a percentage base has grown significantly more than INTC, but have they really grown more than INTC? Considering INTC has generated an additional $3.24 billion in revenue compared to NVDA over the past five years, I would say no. While INTC generates significantly more revenue, I like looking at the amount of profit a company produces as well. Over the past five years, NVDA has increased its annual net income by $5.41 billion (324.85%). NVDA has done an incredible job of improving from $614 million of net income in 2015 to $7,08 billion of net income in the TTM. Just like the revenue factor NVDA crushed INTC on a percentage level, but INTC actually increased their net income over the same period by a larger amount than NVDA. In 2015 INTC generated $11.42 billion of net income, and in the TTM, INTC has produced $18.56 billion. This is an increase of $8.24 billion or 79.87% to INTC's annual net income. While people would say they are paying for NVDA's growth, what is neglected to be discussed is how INTC has increased its annual net income produced by an additional $2.83 billion over the past five years. Individuals investing in NVDA are paying for huge growth rates based on percentages, but INTC is growing by larger amounts. My valuations are based on the TTM figures from the income and cash flow statements, the last quarterly report on the balance sheet, and the current stock price and market cap. Price to Sales is a valuation that compares the stock price to the revenue generated per share. It's an indication of the value placed on each dollar of revenue generated. A lower P/S ratio could indicate that the share price is undervalued. INTC trades at a P/S ratio of 2.85x compared to NVDA's 23.47x. Price to earnings is used to value a company's share price to the earnings it generates and indicates how much an investor is willing to pay per $1 of earnings. A lower P/E ratio could indicate that a company's share price is undervalued. INTC has a current P/E of 11.93 compared to NVDA's 72.64. I review the return on equity to measure each company's profitability in relation to the equity on the books. In this category, NVDA is generating a return on equity ratio of 33.47% compared to INTC's 21.78%. The market is placing a huge valuation on NVDA compared to INTC. From total equity to market cap standpoint, INTC has a multiple of 2.58x. INTC has $85.21 billion in total equity on the books, and its market cap is $219.97 billion. NVDA, on the other hand, has $21.15 billion in total equity and a market cap of $551.14 billion. The market is placing a multiple of 26.06x on NVDA's equity. The same theme extends to both company's price to free cash flow. INTC has generated $16.33 billion in FCF in the TTM, placing their price to FCF multiple at 13.47x. NVDA has generated $6.67 billion in FCF in the TTM, and the market has placed its FCF multiple at 82.69x. The current valuation for NVDA is broken. You would be paying a P/S ratio of 23.47, a P/E ratio of 72.64, 26.06x equity multiple, and 82.69x on its FCF. NVDA generated $9.67 billion less in FCF, $55.72 billion less in total revenue, and $11.48 billion less in net income over the TTM compared to INTC. INTC has generated an additional $3.24 billion in annual revenue and $2.83 billion in annual net income over the past five years compared to NVDA. On a percentage basis, they are not growing as quickly, but overall, they are growing by larger amounts, yet investors are paying out the nose for NVDA. This is a perfect example of how some valuations are not based on fundamentals and don't make any sense. Based on the numbers, should NVDA have a market cap that is more than double INTC's? Whether the investment community wants to acknowledge this, spending too much on an investment and paying too much for growth are real occurrences. I am willing to pay for growth and make an investment with a 5-10 year time horizon, but the numbers, sector, and available information need to make sense. I think NVDA is a great company and will continue to experience considerable growth and improve its metrics as the years go on. Still, today they are incredibly overpriced compared to INTC. Over the past five years, INTC has generated $361.06 billion in revenue and $91.16 billion in net income compared to NVDA's $70.92 billion in revenue and $21.4 billion in net income. At some point, the numbers and fundamentals will matter and cause investors to think twice about what they're paying for. Just because NVDA has a larger growth rate doesn't mean a higher valuation is justified as they have a long way to go before producing the annual revenue, FCF, and net income that INTC does. NVDA may be a great company, but I couldn't pay today's valuation for its stock after comparing its numbers to INTC's. Sometimes you need to take the company names out of the equation. On one side, company A has generated $16.33 billion in FCF, paid out $5.58 billion in dividends with a yield of 2.5%. Company A also has a P/E of 11.93, a P/S of 2.85, trades at an FCF multiple of 13.47x, and has increased its annual revenue by $18.23 billion in the past five years. On the other side company, B has generated $6.67 billion in FCF, paid $396 million in dividends for a yield of 0.1%, has a P/E of 72.64, a P/S of 23.47, trades at an FCF multiple of 82.69x, and increased its annual revenue by $14.99 billion over the last five years. It doesn't make sense to pay that type of a valuation for company B, and it's even crazier that company B has a market cap that's more than double company A. Do I wish I invested in NVDA five years ago, sure who wouldn't want a 1200% return in five-years? Does today's valuation make any sense? Absolutely not? Based on today's numbers, I don't see how you justify buying NVDA over INTC at these valuations.
頁:
[1]
2