lmlm personal page - To The Moon

lmlm

lmlm

No personal profile

11Follow

0Followers

2Topic

0Badge

2022-08-17

OK

AMC’s CEO Will Do Whatever It Takes to Keep His Company a Meme Forever

2022-08-17

Great ariticle, would you like to share it?

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2022-08-17

OK

Meme Stocks Show a Resurgence, Be Wary of Impulse Buying

2022-08-17

Thanks

Buying In ProShares TQQQ And SQQQ ETFs Appears To Confirm A New Bull Market

2022-08-03

Great thanks

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2022-07-07

Ok

Crypto Stocks Rose in Morning Trading

2022-06-30

Yeah

NIO: Questions And Challenges To The Grizzly Short-Seller Report

2022-06-28

Ok

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2022-06-28

Ok

U.S. Supreme Court Won't Hear Apple's Bid to Revive Qualcomm Patent Challenges

2022-06-24

OK

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2022-06-24

OK

Gaming Stocks Climbed in Morning Trading

2022-06-17

Ok

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2022-06-17

Ok

The Recovery in Amazon Is Exaggerated

2022-06-17

Ok

Crypto Stocks Plummeted in Morning Trading, With BIT Mining Sliding Over 8% and Block Falling Nearly 5%

2022-06-17

Ok

Semiconductor Stocks Remained Low in Morning Trading, With Qualcomm Falling Over 5% and Nvidia Falling Over 4%

Go to Tiger App to see more news

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"4116732676543212","uuid":"4116732676543212","gmtCreate":1653629599184,"gmtModify":1654485648553,"name":"lmlm","pinyin":"lmlm","introduction":"","introductionEn":null,"signature":"","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":0,"headSize":11,"tweetSize":15,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":1,"name":"萌萌虎","nameTw":"萌萌虎","represent":"呱呱坠地","factor":"评论帖子3次或发布1条主帖（非转发）","iconColor":"3C9E83","bgColor":"A2F1D9"},"themeCounts":2,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":93,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":"init","userBadges":[{"badgeId":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03-1","templateUuid":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03","name":"Boss Tiger","description":"The transaction amount of the securities account reaches $100,000","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c8dfc27c1ee0e25db1c93e9d0b641101","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f43908c142f8a33c78f5bdf0e2897488","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/82165ff19cb8a786e8919f92acee5213","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2025.01.17","exceedPercentage":"60.40%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1101},{"badgeId":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be-2","templateUuid":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be","name":"Master Trader","description":"Total number of securities or futures transactions reached 100","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ad22cfbe2d05aa393b18e9226e4b0307","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/36702e6ff3ffe46acafee66cc85273ca","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d52eb88fa385cf5abe2616ed63781765","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2024.07.27","exceedPercentage":"80.77%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100},{"badgeId":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493-1","templateUuid":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493","name":"Debut Tiger","description":"Join the tiger community for 500 days","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0e4d0ca1da0456dc7894c946d44bf9ab","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f2f65e8ce4cfaae8db2bea9b127f58b","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c5948a31b6edf154422335b265235809","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2023.10.11","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},{"badgeId":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789-1","templateUuid":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789","name":"Knowledgeable Investor","description":"Traded more than 10 stocks","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e74cc24115c4fbae6154ec1b1041bf47","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d48265cbfd97c57f9048db29f22227b0","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76c6d6898b073c77e1c537ebe9ac1c57","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2022.08.13","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1102},{"badgeId":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84-1","templateUuid":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84","name":"Real Trader","description":"Completed a transaction","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2022.06.02","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100}],"userBadgeCount":5,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":null,"starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":4,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"post","tweets":[{"id":9991023296,"gmtCreate":1660751447617,"gmtModify":1676536392085,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"OK","listText":"OK","text":"OK","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9991023296","repostId":"1145675545","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1145675545","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1660742957,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1145675545?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-08-17 21:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"AMC’s CEO Will Do Whatever It Takes to Keep His Company a Meme Forever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1145675545","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"For most movie fans, their dream selfie with a Hollywood star never quite materializes. But on a Fri","content":"<html><head></head><body><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/60d6c00a61a62e50a7c0c72dd49d67cc\" tg-width=\"1400\" tg-height=\"1050\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>For most movie fans, their dream selfie with a Hollywood star never quite materializes. But on a Friday night in June, Bruce and Deborah Cooke spotted one of their favorite movie heroes, just feet away. They moved in and asked for a photo.</p><p>Adam Aron, the chairman and chief executive officer ofAMC Entertainment Holdings Inc., greeted the couple warmly, making small talk as they arranged themselves for the camera. Bruce was dressed in slacks and a button-down. Deborah wore a striking green dress. “I put my arm around you, I go to jail,” Aron, who’s 67, playfully said to Deborah, who’s 55. Everyone laughed.</p><p>Three days earlier, Aron had announced on Twitter that he would personally be hosting a screening of Pixar’s new movie,<i>Lightyear</i>, at an AMC theater in Olathe, Kan. The Cookes, who together own a small mortgage company in Sacramento, had vowed on the spot to make the pilgrimage to Kansas.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/26d2f8d2a68830ff364ec91c9beb7be7\" tg-width=\"600\" tg-height=\"800\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>The entire AMC saga meant so much to them. During the onset of the pandemic, when movie theaters were hastily shuttered, they bought their first batch of AMC stock. Moviegoing, they believed, would eventually bounce back. Plus, they thought it was cruel that a subset of investors were trying to force the company into bankruptcy. So the Cookes joined a legion of outsider traders, loosely organized on the Reddit forumr/wallstreetbets, who were swarming to AMC’s down-and-out stock, driving up its share price and sticking it to the skeptical short sellers and hedge funds betting big on the company’s failure. The Cookes recruited their loved ones to join them. “We got a lot of friends involved,” Deborah says.</p><p>On social media, people started calling their pugnacious tribe theAMC Apes, as in<i>Planet of the Apes</i>, the movie about a primate uprising. By Wall Street standards, they might be primitive, but they possessed power in numbers.</p><p>Better yet, they had a fearless leader atop AMC, an alpha CEO who grunted and roared on Twitter, throwing feces, so to speak, at their enemies (recurring hashtag: #LetThemEatCrow) and beating his chest every time a movie performed well at the box office (#CHOKEonTHAT). Aron hired Nicole Kidman tostar in several AMC promotionsand bellowed tirelessly about her bravura performance, dubbing the glamorous actor “the first lady of AMC.” The whole thing had a King-Kong-palming-a-fair-maiden vibe. The Apes were ecstatic.</p><p>Now, after a flight to Dallas, a four-hour drive to Tulsa, a break for the night, several more hours on the road, and another respite at a crummy hotel, the Cookes were right where they wanted to be, standing loyally at the Silverback’s side. After capturing their trophy shot, the California couple took their seats. With a few minutes left before the start of the previews, the place was far from full—a slightly ominous development, which the Cookes would later chalk up to “the bad guys,” aka the hedge funds, who they suspected had snapped up tickets and let them go unused to make AMC look bad. Anything to drive down the company’s share price. “There’s no telling what [they] will do,” Deborah says.</p><p>“He creates a sound, a song, a whistle from his pipe that will cause people to gravitate preferentially to whatever business in the sector that he is running”</p><p>At the front of the theater, Aron got up, gave a shoutout to the Apes, and acknowledged that the pandemic had been difficult. But the vaccines were working. Movies were storming back. “Our investors are passionate,” he said. “They like AMC as a company. They don’t think I’m that bad either. But most of all, they really want to see movie theaters survive.”</p><p>At first glance, Aron, who became CEO of AMC in 2016, might not seem like a natural candidate to lead a successful investor insurgency. For much of his career he worked as a well-compensated turnaround artist, the kind of mercenary operator with the right pedigree (Harvard Business School) and right demeanor (bombastically self-assured) who gets hired to fix up a faltering company and maybe sell it off at a nice markup. If anything, Aron seemed like a well-sharpened tool of the Wall Street establishment, not of the internet masses.</p><p>But the pandemic shook up the entertainment cosmos and exposed a surprising lack of leadership in Hollywood. Amid all the halted productions and scrambled release schedules, everyone looked around for somebody to rally the American people behind the movie industry. When no compelling candidates emerged from the studios or the streaming services, Aron charged headlong into the void.</p><p>He’s spent his entire career perfecting the art of stunt marketing and the science of customer loyalty programs. Ideal training, in other words, for this weird new zeitgeist in the business world, one that favors combative, incautious, performative CEOs (see:Musk, Elon) who can draw loyal swarms of fans online and compel them to buy their products, pump up their stock price, and troll their critics. “He has an almost Pied Piper-ish ability to attract people,” says Darryl Hartley-Leonard, former CEO of Hyatt Hotels Corp., who hired Aron at Hyatt in the 1980s. “He creates a sound, a song, a whistle from his pipe that will cause people to gravitate preferentially to whatever business in the sector that he is running.”</p><p>With AMC, that whistle has taken the form of meme-y membership schemes, free-for-all earnings calls, acomical stock ticker (APE), and the bizarre acquisition of a72,000-acre gold mine. Having narrowly navigated the company through the dark days of the early pandemic and taken his followers with him on a Hollywood blockbuster-worthy ride, Aron is now facing a much more fundamental challenge: holding the entire rickety, debt-laden enterprise together during a time of rising inflation, falling stocks, accelerating economic pressure, and a troop of Apes that might finally be questioning its alpha.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/20522e4c8b6fbdb61e5f3ebad3fe7c6b\" tg-width=\"650\" tg-height=\"348\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Mission control for Aron isn’t Los Angeles or New York or even Las Vegas.AMC’s headquartersis in Kansas. The offices are housed in a sleek, glass-clad structure in Leawood, a prosperous suburb of Kansas City. The heart of the building is an open, spacious “test seating area” that doubles as a gathering spot. Throughout the workday, staffers can grab a snack and watch whatever is playing on its jumbo screen, from the latest Hollywood trailers to an afternoon Royals game.</p><p>Beginning in 2016, employees would occasionally glance up and see cable news channels airing live interviews with their new CEO, who’d arrived right after fixing up and selling off Starwood Hotels &amp; Resorts Worldwide.</p><p>Aron typically shows up at a company looking as thoroughly distressed as the properties he’s swooping in to save. The strands of his comb-over meander across his head, sometimes losing a few stragglers en route. His wardrobe, friends and former colleagues note, is remarkably beaten up for a multimillionaire executive. Even on a sunny day, he can look like a man who just parachuted in through a tempest: suit wrinkled, tie stained, shirttail flapping in the wind.</p><p>When Aron took over AMC, the entire theater business was facing mounting pressure. Shopping malls, which had long enjoyed a rich, symbiotic relationship with AMC multiplexes, were losing customers to online retail, jeopardizing foot traffic to ticket booths. Meanwhile, American viewers were growing increasingly enchanted with streaming networks such as Netflix.</p><p>Not long after joining the company, Aron met with Wang Jianlin, head of the Dalian Wanda Group, a Chinese conglomerate, then the majority owner of AMC. He proceeded to show Wang a list he’d drawn up of 10 things to better position AMC for the future. One idea was to revamp its customer loyalty program, AMC Stubs. Another was to expand the company through acquisitions. Wang particularly liked the notion of supersizing AMC.</p><p>Aron soon embarked on a $3 billion buying spree, snapping up three major theater chains in the US and Europe. By the spring of 2017 he’d made AMC into a colossus, with more than 10,000 screens in 15 countries. Aron—who has a professional wrestling promoter’s penchant for speaking in grandiose, history-in-the-making superlatives—could now brag about AMC on a planetary scale. “The largest in the US, the largest in Europe, and the largest globally,” he says.</p><p>He threw himself into every aspect of the operations, spiffing up the company’s pre-movie promos; stiff-arming a startup,MoviePass Inc., that was elbowing into the loyalty rewards market for moviegoers; and flavor-jamming AMC’s food menu with the kind of flamboyance thatGuy Fierimight relish. Before long, Aron was touting AMC’s giant new pretzel, a salty 1.5-pound behemoth dubbed the Bavarian Legend.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b60a0ecf9ad876f2376ae392e6e04605\" tg-width=\"600\" tg-height=\"899\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>Aron at AMC’s headquarters in Leawood, Kan.Photographer: Shawn Brackbill for Bloomberg Businessweek</p><p>Although he was a relative newbie to the film industry, Aron had popcorn in his blood. In the 1930s his grandfather, a convivial, politically connected businessman, co-founded a successful company called Berlo Vending. Among other things, Berlo sold all the popcorn in all the movie theaters of eastern Pennsylvania. “By the time I came around, whatever family fortune there was had pretty much been squandered,” says Aron, who grew up in a middle-class Philadelphia suburb.</p><p>Like his father, an ad man who regularly acted in an amateur theater troupe, Aron gravitated to the spotlight. By high school he was a math whiz, hockey goalie, and hammy stage performer. His comedic speeches playing up the life-altering sacrifices he’d made on behalf of his classmates won him the office of class treasurer twice. Once, as president of his high school’s Key Club, he organized a fundraiser basketball game that went on for 100 straight hours—which, according to Aron, set a Guinness World Record. When he discovered a catalog that sold slightly aged Hollywood film reels by mail, he rallied friends to construct a plywood screen in their school’s auditorium, where they charged for showings of<i>Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid</i>,<i>Cool Hand Luke</i>, and, of course,<i>Planet of the Apes</i>. The money poured into the coffers of the senior class. “What he was like then is what he is like now,” says Aron’s high school buddy Ashton Carter, who decades later would serve as secretary of defense under Barack Obama. “He could always convince a diverse group of people to get behind his vision.”</p><p>After graduating from Harvard in three years, Aron stayed to get his MBA. He studied marketing, was elected co-president of the school’s transportation club, and was captain of the hockey team. While many of his peers beelined for the riches of Wall Street, he took a job with the airline Pan Am, which by 1979 was well past its glory years. A top executive, Stephen Wolf, was looking for someone who could create more loyalty among the airline’s dwindling customers. “The problem is that anybody who was semi-young and had half a brain had sensibly and correctly left Pan Am long ago,” recalls Wolf, who went on to become CEO of United Airlines. “I found Adam in the bowels of the organization somewhere.”</p><p>Aron concocted Pan Am’s first frequent-flyers club and suddenly found himself on the fast track. He’d go on to create or reengineer loyalty programs for Western Airlines (TravelPass); Hyatt Hotels (Gold Passport); United Airlines (MileagePlus); Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL Latitudes); Vail Resorts (Peaks); the Philadelphia 76ers (the Franklin Club)—and, eventually, AMC (Stubs). “Adam is a pioneer of loyalty management,” says high school pal Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, now a professor at the Yale School of Management.</p><p>In the late ’80s, Hyatt Hotels CEO Hartley-Leonard hired Aron to serve as a top marketing executive. “When he came in, he really was the most disheveled human being that you’d ever seen,” Hartley-Leonard says. “The problem with Adam is that his body is deformed such that his shirt doesn’t stay in his trousers.” Aron proved to be an unusually crafty marketer who generated ideas nonstop for winning over customers from rivals and for garnering free publicity, says his former boss. He also periodically mesmerized his colleagues with stunts, like the time he floated into an executive meeting on a custom-made dirigible. “Jay Pritzker [whose family owned Hyatt] turned to me and said, ‘What the f--- did this cost?’ ” Hartley-Leonard recalls. “I said, ‘Leave Adam alone. That’s who he is.’ ”</p><p>In 1996, Apollo Global Management Inc. was in the market for someone to turn around Vail Resorts, the ski resort operator. By the time Aron left that job 10 years later, he’d diversified the company’s business model and more than quintupled revenue. “Vail was transformative,” says Marc Rowan, Apollo’s billionaire CEO. “He did an unbelievable job.”</p><p>So much so that when Rowan’s partner, billionaire Apollo co-founder Joshua Harris, led a group of investors to acquire middling NBA team the 76ers in 2011, they installed Aron, a minority owner, to usher in a franchise turnaround. Of course, his first order of business was a barrage of promotional schemes. He made the team’s dance squad larger. He added Julius Erving as a consultant. He showered fans in confetti. And even though he’d step aside as CEO only two years later following another lousy season, he still left an Aron-shaped imprint on the franchise:“Big Bella,”the world’s largest T-shirt launcher, a cartoonishly massive, 600 pound, multibarrel leviathan that looks like something Mad Max might have mounted on a battle tank.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/788e4b080973d8a9e6c27d08e72d96b3\" tg-width=\"800\" tg-height=\"534\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>The 2011 press conference to announce Apollo Global Management’s acquisition of the NBA’s Philadelphia 76ers. For two years, Aron was the team’s CEO.Photo: Getty Images</p><p>As the world locked down in 2020, Aron’s acquisition binge looked disastrous. AMC, saddled with $5 billion in debt, was forced to hastily shut down 1,000 theaters worldwide. He furloughed most of roughly 26,000 workers. “You know what they don’t teach in Harvard Business School?” he says. “The zero-revenue case.”</p><p>AMC warned in a filing that it was weeks away from running out of cash. Bankruptcy seemed imminent. But Aron harbored a deep, abiding dislike for what he calls “Bankruptcy Inc.” In his 30s he’d spent months fighting off the vulturous bankruptcy professionals hungrily circling Norwegian Cruise Line. At one point, he recalls indignantly, the CEO of rival Carnival Corp. predicted publicly that Norwegian would file for bankruptcy within months—but it never happened. “I’m very pleased to have proven him wrong,” Aron says.</p><p>Seven months into the pandemic, there were whispers on Wall Street and in the press that AMC could be filing for Chapter 11 any day. Aron scrambled to buy more time, renegotiating AMC’s rent payments with its landlords and looking for some way to ride out the pandemic disruptions.</p><p>Eventually he found a lifeline in Jason Mudrick, a lantern-jawed, poker-playing graduate of Harvard Law School, who runs Mudrick Capital Management LP, a $3.4 billion hedge fund specializing in distressed businesses. Unlike financial advisers and lawyers who make money on fees when a bankruptcy is filed, Mudrick’s firm loans money to companies facing near-death circumstances. If the company recovers, the capital is repaid handsomely. If not, the fund can seize collateral or control. In December 2020, Mudrick loaned AMC $100 million, receiving an equity stake in return. Other lenders followed.</p><p>News of the loans reached retail investors just as a strange new energy began coursing through Wall Street. Thanks to some combustible mix of pandemic-induced boredom, intemperance, and ingenuity, the meme-stock phenomenon was taking off. Day traders on Reddit were identifying downtrodden, heavily shorted stocks, then piling in collectively, pushing up the share price, and hyping the frenzy on social media to rope in more buyers. It had already happened with GameStop Corp.</p><p>Then it was AMC’s turn. From January to early June it soared from $2 to more than $62. Along the way, Aron seized on the freakish moment by issuing new equity at the heightened prices, replenishing AMC’s coffers.</p><p>By June 2021, 4 million retail investors had bought up more than 80% of the company’s shares. Aron knew from his years optimizing stunts and membership schemes that first you capture their attention, then you get them hooked. “It was just as true with our shareholders in the year 2021 as it was with airline passengers in 1981,” he says. So he designed a program that bridged the meme world with the real one: Buying AMC’s stock would get you movie-related perks.</p><p>With AMC Investor Connect, after purchasing the company’s shares and signing up for its existing Stubs rewards program, you’d be given access to discounts at theaters, invitations to movie screenings with Aron, and a free tub of popcorn. The new program may have seemed gauche to the traditional Wall Street crowd, but it gave an air of exclusivity to everyman investors, even if the benefits were fairly silly. By 2022 the program would swell to more than 700,000 members.</p><p>Aron with Kidman, whom he describes as “the first lady of AMC.”Source: Adam Aron</p><p>Meanwhile, Aron began doubling down on his new AMC persona. Dating back to his time with the 76ers, he’d been an active social media user, albeit with fewer followers and more mishaps. At an investor roundtable last year, he was briefly caught on Zoom untrousered, according to a participant. In June 2021 he was doing a remoteinterview with a YouTube market influencerwhen he accidentally bumped his webcam, which swiveled downward to reveal that, once again, he wasn’t wearing pants. Some AMC fans speculated that the YouTube incident was another one of Aron’s public-relations stunts. When asked about it, Aron declined to comment. “I would be the first to admit that I can be iconoclastic,” he says.</p><p>As his audience grew, he’d spend an hour a day on Twitter, reading feedback from the Apes and crafting truculent messages. He’d quote Winston Churchill on an earnings call—“We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds”—or retweet a depiction of himself wearing a chef’s hat, holding a cleaver, and standing over a dead crow. By lacing his act with combative emotion, Aron infused AMC fandom with the kind of fervent personal identification once reserved for political parties and sports teams. Any analyst who’d dare question AMC’s prospects could expect to receive a torrent of online vitriol, even death threats, from hismore than 268,000 Twitter followers.</p><p>While the Apes ate up his bellicose energy, continuing to buy up shares and vowing to hold them long-term, Aron and AMC’s other major investors began looking to cash out. With the stock riding high, everyone from the Dalian Wanda Group to Mudrick Capital to other top AMC executives were either selling off the bulk of their shares or eyeing the exits.</p><p>Aron wasn’t going to let the opportunity pass. He enjoyed the perks of swank living as much as the next scorekeeping CEO, buying and selling over the years a portfolio of luxury properties from Beaver Creek, Colo., to Miami Beach. On Nov. 10, 2021, he revealed that for “estate planning” purposes he was unloading 625,000 AMC shares worth $25 million. The following month, he sold an additional chunk for $9.65 million. The family popcorn fortune, once squandered, was now restored. “Many of his friends went off into consulting and investment banking,” says high school friend Sonnenfeld. “Those people made more money initially. But he’s closed the gap a lot.”</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/82b063380f89c7eca208a72fd34d0a9d\" tg-width=\"600\" tg-height=\"800\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>Aron with Mudrick at the Hycroft gold and silver mine in Nevada.</p><p>Around midnight on Sunday, March 13, after landing at a tiny two-runway airport in rural Nevada, Aron headed to a nearby Best Western to catch a few hours of sleep. Several days earlier he’d gotten a call from Mudrick, who pitched him on an opportunity for AMC that had nothing to do with the movie business. Mudrick’s hedge fund owned a stake inHycroft Mining Holding Corp., a struggling operation in northwestern Nevada. To remain solvent, the company needed a quick cash infusion to appease its lenders. He wanted to know if AMC wanted in on a literal gold mine.</p><p>Although Aron was familiar with a long list of industries, mining wasn’t one of them. But he was an expert at financial engineering, not to mention the strange metallurgy of transforming a business crisis into a windfall—and a spectacle. In recent months he’d been toying with diversifying AMC beyond theaters. There were plans to sell movie-themed merchandise, AMC-branded nonfungible tokens (NFTs), and, maybe someday, a branded credit card and cryptocurrency. Already in the works was AMC Perfectly Popcorn, which will be sold in supermarkets across the US next year. “Watch out, Orville Redenbacher,” he said on an earnings call on March 1.</p><p>Aron told Mudrick he was interested. The hedge fund executive explained that they’d have to move fast: They had five days before the cost of the deal would significantly increase. Hycroft’s share price was rising, and Nasdaq rules required Aron to buy his stake at a share price that averaged the previous five days’ trading levels.</p><p>So Mudrick corralled a jet in Teterboro, N.J., flew to Miami, picked up AMC Lead Director Philip Lader, then fetched Aron and AMC’s general counsel, Kevin Connor, who were on a work trip in Dallas. While in the air to Nevada, Mudrick and Aron batted around the numbers and dug into dinner. Mudrick ate a steak. Aron put away a seafood medley.</p><p>Now, at 6 a.m., they arose in the dark at the hotel and set off for the mine. They drove past Winnemucca, a long-in-the-tooth railroad town where Butch Cassidy had once robbed a bank and the cellphone service was abysmal. The sun rose over the Black Rock Desert, a Martian landscape of dry playas and craggy, arid mountains. After two hours they arrived at theHycroft Mine, a dusty archipelagoof geological debris, jumbo trucks, and gaping holes in the ground—a toddler’s idea of heaven. They squeezed into a temporary office, the only place in the vicinity with Wi-Fi. For the next several hours, Aron and Mudrick took turns persuading lenders and board members to approve the sale. They inked the deal with a few minutes to spare.</p><p>On March 15, when Aron announced that AMC was acquiring 22% of the largely dormant mine for $28 million, he got roughly the same reaction he’d triggered years earlier with his dirigible. Jaws dropped. Minds reeled. Somehow a recently distressed movie theater chain, saved by a hedge fund specializing in distressed lending, pumped up by retail investors profiting on distressed stocks, was now part owner of a distressed gold and silver mine, in a water-distressed pocket of the country, on a pandemic-distressed planet. The whole thing felt like a national parable. In America in 2022, distress was the new gold—or maybe fool’s gold. It was hard to say for certain.</p><p>Much of the press and most analysts derided the move as just another gimmick, while others opined that the money should’ve been used to pay down the company’s exorbitant debt. But on Twitter, Aron was busy retweeting memes of himself draped in gold chains. His rationale for the investment, he said: Only two years earlier, AMC was in free fall; now it could deploy everything it learned to another underdog business.</p><p>The loyal Apes followed him into the mineshaft, sending the penny stock sailing and netting AMC a $30 million profit. With the share price soaring, Hycroft took a page from the AMC playbook and offered more equity. Mudrick had initially hoped to raise $20 million. Thanks to the AMC bump, they wound up raising $200 million. Says Mudrick of Aron: “He could convince an Eskimo to buy ice.”</p><p>So what exactly is AMC at this point? A legacy theater chain with a penchant for shiny objects? A precious-metals multiplex exhibitor venture fund?</p><p>Last year, in a magnanimous gesture to the Apes, Aron tweaked the format of AMC’s quarterly earnings calls, allowing consumers to pose questions directly to the company’s brass. The inquiries of amateurs, he says, are often better than the ones from the professionals. “Not to be disrespectful to security analysts, but they often use earnings calls to build their financial models,” he says, segueing into an imitation of a squeaky-voiced analyst posing a tediously small-bore question.</p><p>The stroke of populism has annoyed some of the pros. “These are the most painful calls for me to listen to of any in my career,” says Hunter Martin, an analyst at Creditsights Inc., a research shop. “The rhetoric is … very us vs. them, retail investor and common man. That’s their narrative. To their credit, they’re talking about the things that are important to those people. But it comes at a cost to more traditional investors who want to hear the numbers.”</p><p><b>The Face That Launched a Thousand Memes</b></p><p>Aron’s fans will send him homemade memes of the CEO’s face hacked onto a movie poster, which he praises and tweets to his 268,000 Twitter followers</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/32e77d080b7c7f197793148442df6b6d\" tg-width=\"400\" tg-height=\"522\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>Source: Twitter<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/beabe7f722197aa352c08fde8d207cf2\" tg-width=\"400\" tg-height=\"602\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/>Source: TwitterSource: Twitter</p><p>There may be good reason to create some distractions. In a recent report, Bloomberg Intelligence projected that the 2022 domestic box-office numbers will come in at $7.5 billion, a significant boost from 2021’s $4.5 billion—but still just 66% of pre-pandemic levels. Meanwhile, 2022 has been a brutal environment for media companies, whose stock prices have tumbled across the board. The studios that supply AMC with its primary product are all facing potentially severe cutbacks of their own. Keeping the Apes amped won’t be easy. “Regardless of a brighter outlook, we fear that the 4 million-plus retail investors who have driven a 2,000%-plus surge in the stock may flip and eventually cash out, prompting more volatility,” Bloomberg Intelligence noted late last year.</p><p>For much of the summer, AMC’s share price was hovering in the $12 to $17 range. On AMC fan boards, many Apes were itching for a new rally. For months there’d been chatter about the coming Mother of All Short Squeezes—a moment, it was foretold, when the Silverback would once again rear up and smite AMC’s enemies and somehow send the share price back up. As to the timing, everyone dug through the mud of Aron’s tweets looking for buried clues.</p><p>Without any clear signs of action, frustration was evident. At AMC’s annual meeting in June, shareholders rejected the company’s executive pay plan, which in 2021 rewarded Aron with $18.9 million in total compensation. “I don’t think any of them need more money yet,” says Deborah Cooke, the AMC superfan from the Kansas screening.</p><p>Aron shook off the intra-simian setback. During the same annual meeting in June, he told shareholders that AMC would be creating a $100 million fund to invest in other businesses. First came the gold mine; who knows what could be next. “There are a number of things that we looked at that we rejected, either because it wasn’t interesting enough, or there was too much risk, or the financial returns weren’t attractive enough,” he says. “But I’m sure we’ll find other opportunities as we turn over every rock.”</p><p>AMC’s early gains on its Hycroft shares have already all but disappeared as the miner’s stock rally faded, though Aron has said he sees Hycroft as a longer-term investment, to net profits as the mine expands operations.</p><p>So what exactly is AMC at this point? A legacy theater chain with a penchant for shiny objects? A precious-metals multiplex exhibitor venture fund? Or, as Bloomberg Opinion columnistMatt Levine described it this spring, “a merchant bank that helps small companies do meme-driven at-the-market offerings and takes equity for its fee”? Aron sticks with the most anodyne of explanations: “We are a movie theater company that is looking to diversify,” he says.</p><p>In early August, with signs of Ape dissatisfaction still smoldering online, AMC reported second-quarter results that topped analysts’ estimates and revealed a plan to create a new class of preferred AMC equity, which will begin trading on the New York Stock Exchange on Aug. 22 under the new ticker “APE.” Aron promptly uncorked a tweetstorm, explaining the “game-changing” strategy, which he compared to playing “3-D chess.”</p><p>For each share of AMC Class A common stock, shareholders would be given a preferred equity unit as a dividend. Once the trading commenced, investors would be able to buy and sell them normally. In the future, at Aron’s discretion, the company would be able to issue new APE shares to raise additional money for potential moves such as paying down debt or making acquisitions. Such issuance could, of course, reduce the value of the outstanding shares that Apes cling to. Using the all-caps style often seen in the Ape vernacular, Aron summed up the slightly byzantine proceedings in terms everyone in the community could easily understand. “TODAY … WE … POUNCE,” he wrote.</p><p>While the reaction from professional analysts was mixed, the Reddit crowd went wild. By the following day, AMC gained 19%, to close at $22.18, a four-month high.</p><p>In spite of all the grim news in the broader market, things were looking up. Historically, Aron says, movie theaters have weathered economic downturns better than more expensive forms of entertainment. “I’ve been selling tickets all my life,” he says. “I’ve sold cruise tickets, lift tickets, game tickets. I’m still selling tickets.”</p><p>Over the summer he began selling something else—commemorative Thor hammersto promote Marvel’s<i>Thor: Love and Thunder</i>. For $39.99, fans could buy their very own version of the powerful god’s favorite weapon, reimagined in a handy new form: a warlike popcorn container. Aron appears almost as excited about the popcorn hammer as the gold mine. “We’ve sold 40,000 of them already.”</p></body></html>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>AMC’s CEO Will Do Whatever It Takes to Keep His Company a Meme Forever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAMC’s CEO Will Do Whatever It Takes to Keep His Company a Meme Forever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-08-17 21:29 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-08-17/amc-amc-stock-became-a-meme-thanks-to-adam-aron-s-antics><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>For most movie fans, their dream selfie with a Hollywood star never quite materializes. But on a Friday night in June, Bruce and Deborah Cooke spotted one of their favorite movie heroes, just feet ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-08-17/amc-amc-stock-became-a-meme-thanks-to-adam-aron-s-antics\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-08-17/amc-amc-stock-became-a-meme-thanks-to-adam-aron-s-antics","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1145675545","content_text":"For most movie fans, their dream selfie with a Hollywood star never quite materializes. But on a Friday night in June, Bruce and Deborah Cooke spotted one of their favorite movie heroes, just feet away. They moved in and asked for a photo.Adam Aron, the chairman and chief executive officer ofAMC Entertainment Holdings Inc., greeted the couple warmly, making small talk as they arranged themselves for the camera. Bruce was dressed in slacks and a button-down. Deborah wore a striking green dress. “I put my arm around you, I go to jail,” Aron, who’s 67, playfully said to Deborah, who’s 55. Everyone laughed.Three days earlier, Aron had announced on Twitter that he would personally be hosting a screening of Pixar’s new movie,Lightyear, at an AMC theater in Olathe, Kan. The Cookes, who together own a small mortgage company in Sacramento, had vowed on the spot to make the pilgrimage to Kansas.The entire AMC saga meant so much to them. During the onset of the pandemic, when movie theaters were hastily shuttered, they bought their first batch of AMC stock. Moviegoing, they believed, would eventually bounce back. Plus, they thought it was cruel that a subset of investors were trying to force the company into bankruptcy. So the Cookes joined a legion of outsider traders, loosely organized on the Reddit forumr/wallstreetbets, who were swarming to AMC’s down-and-out stock, driving up its share price and sticking it to the skeptical short sellers and hedge funds betting big on the company’s failure. The Cookes recruited their loved ones to join them. “We got a lot of friends involved,” Deborah says.On social media, people started calling their pugnacious tribe theAMC Apes, as inPlanet of the Apes, the movie about a primate uprising. By Wall Street standards, they might be primitive, but they possessed power in numbers.Better yet, they had a fearless leader atop AMC, an alpha CEO who grunted and roared on Twitter, throwing feces, so to speak, at their enemies (recurring hashtag: #LetThemEatCrow) and beating his chest every time a movie performed well at the box office (#CHOKEonTHAT). Aron hired Nicole Kidman tostar in several AMC promotionsand bellowed tirelessly about her bravura performance, dubbing the glamorous actor “the first lady of AMC.” The whole thing had a King-Kong-palming-a-fair-maiden vibe. The Apes were ecstatic.Now, after a flight to Dallas, a four-hour drive to Tulsa, a break for the night, several more hours on the road, and another respite at a crummy hotel, the Cookes were right where they wanted to be, standing loyally at the Silverback’s side. After capturing their trophy shot, the California couple took their seats. With a few minutes left before the start of the previews, the place was far from full—a slightly ominous development, which the Cookes would later chalk up to “the bad guys,” aka the hedge funds, who they suspected had snapped up tickets and let them go unused to make AMC look bad. Anything to drive down the company’s share price. “There’s no telling what [they] will do,” Deborah says.“He creates a sound, a song, a whistle from his pipe that will cause people to gravitate preferentially to whatever business in the sector that he is running”At the front of the theater, Aron got up, gave a shoutout to the Apes, and acknowledged that the pandemic had been difficult. But the vaccines were working. Movies were storming back. “Our investors are passionate,” he said. “They like AMC as a company. They don’t think I’m that bad either. But most of all, they really want to see movie theaters survive.”At first glance, Aron, who became CEO of AMC in 2016, might not seem like a natural candidate to lead a successful investor insurgency. For much of his career he worked as a well-compensated turnaround artist, the kind of mercenary operator with the right pedigree (Harvard Business School) and right demeanor (bombastically self-assured) who gets hired to fix up a faltering company and maybe sell it off at a nice markup. If anything, Aron seemed like a well-sharpened tool of the Wall Street establishment, not of the internet masses.But the pandemic shook up the entertainment cosmos and exposed a surprising lack of leadership in Hollywood. Amid all the halted productions and scrambled release schedules, everyone looked around for somebody to rally the American people behind the movie industry. When no compelling candidates emerged from the studios or the streaming services, Aron charged headlong into the void.He’s spent his entire career perfecting the art of stunt marketing and the science of customer loyalty programs. Ideal training, in other words, for this weird new zeitgeist in the business world, one that favors combative, incautious, performative CEOs (see:Musk, Elon) who can draw loyal swarms of fans online and compel them to buy their products, pump up their stock price, and troll their critics. “He has an almost Pied Piper-ish ability to attract people,” says Darryl Hartley-Leonard, former CEO of Hyatt Hotels Corp., who hired Aron at Hyatt in the 1980s. “He creates a sound, a song, a whistle from his pipe that will cause people to gravitate preferentially to whatever business in the sector that he is running.”With AMC, that whistle has taken the form of meme-y membership schemes, free-for-all earnings calls, acomical stock ticker (APE), and the bizarre acquisition of a72,000-acre gold mine. Having narrowly navigated the company through the dark days of the early pandemic and taken his followers with him on a Hollywood blockbuster-worthy ride, Aron is now facing a much more fundamental challenge: holding the entire rickety, debt-laden enterprise together during a time of rising inflation, falling stocks, accelerating economic pressure, and a troop of Apes that might finally be questioning its alpha.Mission control for Aron isn’t Los Angeles or New York or even Las Vegas.AMC’s headquartersis in Kansas. The offices are housed in a sleek, glass-clad structure in Leawood, a prosperous suburb of Kansas City. The heart of the building is an open, spacious “test seating area” that doubles as a gathering spot. Throughout the workday, staffers can grab a snack and watch whatever is playing on its jumbo screen, from the latest Hollywood trailers to an afternoon Royals game.Beginning in 2016, employees would occasionally glance up and see cable news channels airing live interviews with their new CEO, who’d arrived right after fixing up and selling off Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide.Aron typically shows up at a company looking as thoroughly distressed as the properties he’s swooping in to save. The strands of his comb-over meander across his head, sometimes losing a few stragglers en route. His wardrobe, friends and former colleagues note, is remarkably beaten up for a multimillionaire executive. Even on a sunny day, he can look like a man who just parachuted in through a tempest: suit wrinkled, tie stained, shirttail flapping in the wind.When Aron took over AMC, the entire theater business was facing mounting pressure. Shopping malls, which had long enjoyed a rich, symbiotic relationship with AMC multiplexes, were losing customers to online retail, jeopardizing foot traffic to ticket booths. Meanwhile, American viewers were growing increasingly enchanted with streaming networks such as Netflix.Not long after joining the company, Aron met with Wang Jianlin, head of the Dalian Wanda Group, a Chinese conglomerate, then the majority owner of AMC. He proceeded to show Wang a list he’d drawn up of 10 things to better position AMC for the future. One idea was to revamp its customer loyalty program, AMC Stubs. Another was to expand the company through acquisitions. Wang particularly liked the notion of supersizing AMC.Aron soon embarked on a $3 billion buying spree, snapping up three major theater chains in the US and Europe. By the spring of 2017 he’d made AMC into a colossus, with more than 10,000 screens in 15 countries. Aron—who has a professional wrestling promoter’s penchant for speaking in grandiose, history-in-the-making superlatives—could now brag about AMC on a planetary scale. “The largest in the US, the largest in Europe, and the largest globally,” he says.He threw himself into every aspect of the operations, spiffing up the company’s pre-movie promos; stiff-arming a startup,MoviePass Inc., that was elbowing into the loyalty rewards market for moviegoers; and flavor-jamming AMC’s food menu with the kind of flamboyance thatGuy Fierimight relish. Before long, Aron was touting AMC’s giant new pretzel, a salty 1.5-pound behemoth dubbed the Bavarian Legend.Aron at AMC’s headquarters in Leawood, Kan.Photographer: Shawn Brackbill for Bloomberg BusinessweekAlthough he was a relative newbie to the film industry, Aron had popcorn in his blood. In the 1930s his grandfather, a convivial, politically connected businessman, co-founded a successful company called Berlo Vending. Among other things, Berlo sold all the popcorn in all the movie theaters of eastern Pennsylvania. “By the time I came around, whatever family fortune there was had pretty much been squandered,” says Aron, who grew up in a middle-class Philadelphia suburb.Like his father, an ad man who regularly acted in an amateur theater troupe, Aron gravitated to the spotlight. By high school he was a math whiz, hockey goalie, and hammy stage performer. His comedic speeches playing up the life-altering sacrifices he’d made on behalf of his classmates won him the office of class treasurer twice. Once, as president of his high school’s Key Club, he organized a fundraiser basketball game that went on for 100 straight hours—which, according to Aron, set a Guinness World Record. When he discovered a catalog that sold slightly aged Hollywood film reels by mail, he rallied friends to construct a plywood screen in their school’s auditorium, where they charged for showings ofButch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,Cool Hand Luke, and, of course,Planet of the Apes. The money poured into the coffers of the senior class. “What he was like then is what he is like now,” says Aron’s high school buddy Ashton Carter, who decades later would serve as secretary of defense under Barack Obama. “He could always convince a diverse group of people to get behind his vision.”After graduating from Harvard in three years, Aron stayed to get his MBA. He studied marketing, was elected co-president of the school’s transportation club, and was captain of the hockey team. While many of his peers beelined for the riches of Wall Street, he took a job with the airline Pan Am, which by 1979 was well past its glory years. A top executive, Stephen Wolf, was looking for someone who could create more loyalty among the airline’s dwindling customers. “The problem is that anybody who was semi-young and had half a brain had sensibly and correctly left Pan Am long ago,” recalls Wolf, who went on to become CEO of United Airlines. “I found Adam in the bowels of the organization somewhere.”Aron concocted Pan Am’s first frequent-flyers club and suddenly found himself on the fast track. He’d go on to create or reengineer loyalty programs for Western Airlines (TravelPass); Hyatt Hotels (Gold Passport); United Airlines (MileagePlus); Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL Latitudes); Vail Resorts (Peaks); the Philadelphia 76ers (the Franklin Club)—and, eventually, AMC (Stubs). “Adam is a pioneer of loyalty management,” says high school pal Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, now a professor at the Yale School of Management.In the late ’80s, Hyatt Hotels CEO Hartley-Leonard hired Aron to serve as a top marketing executive. “When he came in, he really was the most disheveled human being that you’d ever seen,” Hartley-Leonard says. “The problem with Adam is that his body is deformed such that his shirt doesn’t stay in his trousers.” Aron proved to be an unusually crafty marketer who generated ideas nonstop for winning over customers from rivals and for garnering free publicity, says his former boss. He also periodically mesmerized his colleagues with stunts, like the time he floated into an executive meeting on a custom-made dirigible. “Jay Pritzker [whose family owned Hyatt] turned to me and said, ‘What the f--- did this cost?’ ” Hartley-Leonard recalls. “I said, ‘Leave Adam alone. That’s who he is.’ ”In 1996, Apollo Global Management Inc. was in the market for someone to turn around Vail Resorts, the ski resort operator. By the time Aron left that job 10 years later, he’d diversified the company’s business model and more than quintupled revenue. “Vail was transformative,” says Marc Rowan, Apollo’s billionaire CEO. “He did an unbelievable job.”So much so that when Rowan’s partner, billionaire Apollo co-founder Joshua Harris, led a group of investors to acquire middling NBA team the 76ers in 2011, they installed Aron, a minority owner, to usher in a franchise turnaround. Of course, his first order of business was a barrage of promotional schemes. He made the team’s dance squad larger. He added Julius Erving as a consultant. He showered fans in confetti. And even though he’d step aside as CEO only two years later following another lousy season, he still left an Aron-shaped imprint on the franchise:“Big Bella,”the world’s largest T-shirt launcher, a cartoonishly massive, 600 pound, multibarrel leviathan that looks like something Mad Max might have mounted on a battle tank.The 2011 press conference to announce Apollo Global Management’s acquisition of the NBA’s Philadelphia 76ers. For two years, Aron was the team’s CEO.Photo: Getty ImagesAs the world locked down in 2020, Aron’s acquisition binge looked disastrous. AMC, saddled with $5 billion in debt, was forced to hastily shut down 1,000 theaters worldwide. He furloughed most of roughly 26,000 workers. “You know what they don’t teach in Harvard Business School?” he says. “The zero-revenue case.”AMC warned in a filing that it was weeks away from running out of cash. Bankruptcy seemed imminent. But Aron harbored a deep, abiding dislike for what he calls “Bankruptcy Inc.” In his 30s he’d spent months fighting off the vulturous bankruptcy professionals hungrily circling Norwegian Cruise Line. At one point, he recalls indignantly, the CEO of rival Carnival Corp. predicted publicly that Norwegian would file for bankruptcy within months—but it never happened. “I’m very pleased to have proven him wrong,” Aron says.Seven months into the pandemic, there were whispers on Wall Street and in the press that AMC could be filing for Chapter 11 any day. Aron scrambled to buy more time, renegotiating AMC’s rent payments with its landlords and looking for some way to ride out the pandemic disruptions.Eventually he found a lifeline in Jason Mudrick, a lantern-jawed, poker-playing graduate of Harvard Law School, who runs Mudrick Capital Management LP, a $3.4 billion hedge fund specializing in distressed businesses. Unlike financial advisers and lawyers who make money on fees when a bankruptcy is filed, Mudrick’s firm loans money to companies facing near-death circumstances. If the company recovers, the capital is repaid handsomely. If not, the fund can seize collateral or control. In December 2020, Mudrick loaned AMC $100 million, receiving an equity stake in return. Other lenders followed.News of the loans reached retail investors just as a strange new energy began coursing through Wall Street. Thanks to some combustible mix of pandemic-induced boredom, intemperance, and ingenuity, the meme-stock phenomenon was taking off. Day traders on Reddit were identifying downtrodden, heavily shorted stocks, then piling in collectively, pushing up the share price, and hyping the frenzy on social media to rope in more buyers. It had already happened with GameStop Corp.Then it was AMC’s turn. From January to early June it soared from $2 to more than $62. Along the way, Aron seized on the freakish moment by issuing new equity at the heightened prices, replenishing AMC’s coffers.By June 2021, 4 million retail investors had bought up more than 80% of the company’s shares. Aron knew from his years optimizing stunts and membership schemes that first you capture their attention, then you get them hooked. “It was just as true with our shareholders in the year 2021 as it was with airline passengers in 1981,” he says. So he designed a program that bridged the meme world with the real one: Buying AMC’s stock would get you movie-related perks.With AMC Investor Connect, after purchasing the company’s shares and signing up for its existing Stubs rewards program, you’d be given access to discounts at theaters, invitations to movie screenings with Aron, and a free tub of popcorn. The new program may have seemed gauche to the traditional Wall Street crowd, but it gave an air of exclusivity to everyman investors, even if the benefits were fairly silly. By 2022 the program would swell to more than 700,000 members.Aron with Kidman, whom he describes as “the first lady of AMC.”Source: Adam AronMeanwhile, Aron began doubling down on his new AMC persona. Dating back to his time with the 76ers, he’d been an active social media user, albeit with fewer followers and more mishaps. At an investor roundtable last year, he was briefly caught on Zoom untrousered, according to a participant. In June 2021 he was doing a remoteinterview with a YouTube market influencerwhen he accidentally bumped his webcam, which swiveled downward to reveal that, once again, he wasn’t wearing pants. Some AMC fans speculated that the YouTube incident was another one of Aron’s public-relations stunts. When asked about it, Aron declined to comment. “I would be the first to admit that I can be iconoclastic,” he says.As his audience grew, he’d spend an hour a day on Twitter, reading feedback from the Apes and crafting truculent messages. He’d quote Winston Churchill on an earnings call—“We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds”—or retweet a depiction of himself wearing a chef’s hat, holding a cleaver, and standing over a dead crow. By lacing his act with combative emotion, Aron infused AMC fandom with the kind of fervent personal identification once reserved for political parties and sports teams. Any analyst who’d dare question AMC’s prospects could expect to receive a torrent of online vitriol, even death threats, from hismore than 268,000 Twitter followers.While the Apes ate up his bellicose energy, continuing to buy up shares and vowing to hold them long-term, Aron and AMC’s other major investors began looking to cash out. With the stock riding high, everyone from the Dalian Wanda Group to Mudrick Capital to other top AMC executives were either selling off the bulk of their shares or eyeing the exits.Aron wasn’t going to let the opportunity pass. He enjoyed the perks of swank living as much as the next scorekeeping CEO, buying and selling over the years a portfolio of luxury properties from Beaver Creek, Colo., to Miami Beach. On Nov. 10, 2021, he revealed that for “estate planning” purposes he was unloading 625,000 AMC shares worth $25 million. The following month, he sold an additional chunk for $9.65 million. The family popcorn fortune, once squandered, was now restored. “Many of his friends went off into consulting and investment banking,” says high school friend Sonnenfeld. “Those people made more money initially. But he’s closed the gap a lot.”Aron with Mudrick at the Hycroft gold and silver mine in Nevada.Around midnight on Sunday, March 13, after landing at a tiny two-runway airport in rural Nevada, Aron headed to a nearby Best Western to catch a few hours of sleep. Several days earlier he’d gotten a call from Mudrick, who pitched him on an opportunity for AMC that had nothing to do with the movie business. Mudrick’s hedge fund owned a stake inHycroft Mining Holding Corp., a struggling operation in northwestern Nevada. To remain solvent, the company needed a quick cash infusion to appease its lenders. He wanted to know if AMC wanted in on a literal gold mine.Although Aron was familiar with a long list of industries, mining wasn’t one of them. But he was an expert at financial engineering, not to mention the strange metallurgy of transforming a business crisis into a windfall—and a spectacle. In recent months he’d been toying with diversifying AMC beyond theaters. There were plans to sell movie-themed merchandise, AMC-branded nonfungible tokens (NFTs), and, maybe someday, a branded credit card and cryptocurrency. Already in the works was AMC Perfectly Popcorn, which will be sold in supermarkets across the US next year. “Watch out, Orville Redenbacher,” he said on an earnings call on March 1.Aron told Mudrick he was interested. The hedge fund executive explained that they’d have to move fast: They had five days before the cost of the deal would significantly increase. Hycroft’s share price was rising, and Nasdaq rules required Aron to buy his stake at a share price that averaged the previous five days’ trading levels.So Mudrick corralled a jet in Teterboro, N.J., flew to Miami, picked up AMC Lead Director Philip Lader, then fetched Aron and AMC’s general counsel, Kevin Connor, who were on a work trip in Dallas. While in the air to Nevada, Mudrick and Aron batted around the numbers and dug into dinner. Mudrick ate a steak. Aron put away a seafood medley.Now, at 6 a.m., they arose in the dark at the hotel and set off for the mine. They drove past Winnemucca, a long-in-the-tooth railroad town where Butch Cassidy had once robbed a bank and the cellphone service was abysmal. The sun rose over the Black Rock Desert, a Martian landscape of dry playas and craggy, arid mountains. After two hours they arrived at theHycroft Mine, a dusty archipelagoof geological debris, jumbo trucks, and gaping holes in the ground—a toddler’s idea of heaven. They squeezed into a temporary office, the only place in the vicinity with Wi-Fi. For the next several hours, Aron and Mudrick took turns persuading lenders and board members to approve the sale. They inked the deal with a few minutes to spare.On March 15, when Aron announced that AMC was acquiring 22% of the largely dormant mine for $28 million, he got roughly the same reaction he’d triggered years earlier with his dirigible. Jaws dropped. Minds reeled. Somehow a recently distressed movie theater chain, saved by a hedge fund specializing in distressed lending, pumped up by retail investors profiting on distressed stocks, was now part owner of a distressed gold and silver mine, in a water-distressed pocket of the country, on a pandemic-distressed planet. The whole thing felt like a national parable. In America in 2022, distress was the new gold—or maybe fool’s gold. It was hard to say for certain.Much of the press and most analysts derided the move as just another gimmick, while others opined that the money should’ve been used to pay down the company’s exorbitant debt. But on Twitter, Aron was busy retweeting memes of himself draped in gold chains. His rationale for the investment, he said: Only two years earlier, AMC was in free fall; now it could deploy everything it learned to another underdog business.The loyal Apes followed him into the mineshaft, sending the penny stock sailing and netting AMC a $30 million profit. With the share price soaring, Hycroft took a page from the AMC playbook and offered more equity. Mudrick had initially hoped to raise $20 million. Thanks to the AMC bump, they wound up raising $200 million. Says Mudrick of Aron: “He could convince an Eskimo to buy ice.”So what exactly is AMC at this point? A legacy theater chain with a penchant for shiny objects? A precious-metals multiplex exhibitor venture fund?Last year, in a magnanimous gesture to the Apes, Aron tweaked the format of AMC’s quarterly earnings calls, allowing consumers to pose questions directly to the company’s brass. The inquiries of amateurs, he says, are often better than the ones from the professionals. “Not to be disrespectful to security analysts, but they often use earnings calls to build their financial models,” he says, segueing into an imitation of a squeaky-voiced analyst posing a tediously small-bore question.The stroke of populism has annoyed some of the pros. “These are the most painful calls for me to listen to of any in my career,” says Hunter Martin, an analyst at Creditsights Inc., a research shop. “The rhetoric is … very us vs. them, retail investor and common man. That’s their narrative. To their credit, they’re talking about the things that are important to those people. But it comes at a cost to more traditional investors who want to hear the numbers.”The Face That Launched a Thousand MemesAron’s fans will send him homemade memes of the CEO’s face hacked onto a movie poster, which he praises and tweets to his 268,000 Twitter followersSource: TwitterSource: TwitterSource: TwitterThere may be good reason to create some distractions. In a recent report, Bloomberg Intelligence projected that the 2022 domestic box-office numbers will come in at $7.5 billion, a significant boost from 2021’s $4.5 billion—but still just 66% of pre-pandemic levels. Meanwhile, 2022 has been a brutal environment for media companies, whose stock prices have tumbled across the board. The studios that supply AMC with its primary product are all facing potentially severe cutbacks of their own. Keeping the Apes amped won’t be easy. “Regardless of a brighter outlook, we fear that the 4 million-plus retail investors who have driven a 2,000%-plus surge in the stock may flip and eventually cash out, prompting more volatility,” Bloomberg Intelligence noted late last year.For much of the summer, AMC’s share price was hovering in the $12 to $17 range. On AMC fan boards, many Apes were itching for a new rally. For months there’d been chatter about the coming Mother of All Short Squeezes—a moment, it was foretold, when the Silverback would once again rear up and smite AMC’s enemies and somehow send the share price back up. As to the timing, everyone dug through the mud of Aron’s tweets looking for buried clues.Without any clear signs of action, frustration was evident. At AMC’s annual meeting in June, shareholders rejected the company’s executive pay plan, which in 2021 rewarded Aron with $18.9 million in total compensation. “I don’t think any of them need more money yet,” says Deborah Cooke, the AMC superfan from the Kansas screening.Aron shook off the intra-simian setback. During the same annual meeting in June, he told shareholders that AMC would be creating a $100 million fund to invest in other businesses. First came the gold mine; who knows what could be next. “There are a number of things that we looked at that we rejected, either because it wasn’t interesting enough, or there was too much risk, or the financial returns weren’t attractive enough,” he says. “But I’m sure we’ll find other opportunities as we turn over every rock.”AMC’s early gains on its Hycroft shares have already all but disappeared as the miner’s stock rally faded, though Aron has said he sees Hycroft as a longer-term investment, to net profits as the mine expands operations.So what exactly is AMC at this point? A legacy theater chain with a penchant for shiny objects? A precious-metals multiplex exhibitor venture fund? Or, as Bloomberg Opinion columnistMatt Levine described it this spring, “a merchant bank that helps small companies do meme-driven at-the-market offerings and takes equity for its fee”? Aron sticks with the most anodyne of explanations: “We are a movie theater company that is looking to diversify,” he says.In early August, with signs of Ape dissatisfaction still smoldering online, AMC reported second-quarter results that topped analysts’ estimates and revealed a plan to create a new class of preferred AMC equity, which will begin trading on the New York Stock Exchange on Aug. 22 under the new ticker “APE.” Aron promptly uncorked a tweetstorm, explaining the “game-changing” strategy, which he compared to playing “3-D chess.”For each share of AMC Class A common stock, shareholders would be given a preferred equity unit as a dividend. Once the trading commenced, investors would be able to buy and sell them normally. In the future, at Aron’s discretion, the company would be able to issue new APE shares to raise additional money for potential moves such as paying down debt or making acquisitions. Such issuance could, of course, reduce the value of the outstanding shares that Apes cling to. Using the all-caps style often seen in the Ape vernacular, Aron summed up the slightly byzantine proceedings in terms everyone in the community could easily understand. “TODAY … WE … POUNCE,” he wrote.While the reaction from professional analysts was mixed, the Reddit crowd went wild. By the following day, AMC gained 19%, to close at $22.18, a four-month high.In spite of all the grim news in the broader market, things were looking up. Historically, Aron says, movie theaters have weathered economic downturns better than more expensive forms of entertainment. “I’ve been selling tickets all my life,” he says. “I’ve sold cruise tickets, lift tickets, game tickets. I’m still selling tickets.”Over the summer he began selling something else—commemorative Thor hammersto promote Marvel’sThor: Love and Thunder. For $39.99, fans could buy their very own version of the powerful god’s favorite weapon, reimagined in a handy new form: a warlike popcorn container. Aron appears almost as excited about the popcorn hammer as the gold mine. “We’ve sold 40,000 of them already.”","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":459,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9991023851,"gmtCreate":1660751415275,"gmtModify":1676536392074,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Great ariticle, would you like to share it?","listText":"Great ariticle, would you like to share it?","text":"Great ariticle, would you like to share it?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9991023851","repostId":"1158955418","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":455,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9993871478,"gmtCreate":1660674311697,"gmtModify":1676536375621,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"OK","listText":"OK","text":"OK","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9993871478","repostId":"2259832442","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2259832442","kind":"highlight","pubTimestamp":1660663483,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2259832442?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-08-16 23:24","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Meme Stocks Show a Resurgence, Be Wary of Impulse Buying","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2259832442","media":"Zacks","summary":"Wall Street is yet to recover from the 2022 mayhem in spite of rallying from July. Year to date, all three major stock indexes — the Dow, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite — have dropped 6.7%, 9.8%","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>Wall Street is yet to recover from the 2022 mayhem in spite of rallying from July. Year to date, all three major stock indexes — the Dow, the S&amp;P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite — have dropped 6.7%, 9.8% and 16.1%, respectively.</p><p>Despite a marginal decline in July, various measures of inflation remained highly elevated. The Fed is set to continue its rigorous interest rate hike strategy from September. Yet a handful of stocks — widely known as meme stocks — skyrocketed recently.</p><p>The meme stock frenzy was a notable feature last year. A few meme stocks railed more than 200% in 2021 when the global economy, especially, the U.S. economy, was still to recover from pandemic-led restrictions fully. The craze for meme stocks was not visible in the first half of 2022. However, as U.S. stock markets showed initial signs of bottoming out, the meme stock mania regained momentum.</p><h2>Meme Stocks Skyrocket</h2><p>Meme stocks are those gaining massive popularity in a short period of time buoyed by a strong social media platform. This is a typical trading practice in which a few stocks heavily shorted by hedge fund giants were favored by a group of individual investors organized via Reddit’s wallstreetbets forum and similar other social media platforms.</p><p>Retail investors take a contra view on these stocks as their prices are at a trough due to heavy shorting. Lump sum buying of these cheap stocks by retail investors raises their share price to a great extent. As prices of these stocks start moving northward, institutional investors, especially hedge funds, start short covering in order to maintain the balance of their portfolios. Consequently, the prices of these stocks skyrocket.</p><p>Month to date, meme stocks like AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. (AMC), GameStop Corp. (GME) and Bed Bath &amp; Beyond Inc. (BBBY) have jumped 66.3%, 16.7% and 218.1%, respectively. AMC Entertainment carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see <b>the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here</b>.</p><h2>Highly Risky Investment</h2><p>Investment in meme stocks is highly risky. In fact, these companies do not have stable fundamentals. Most of these stocks have either a negative revenue growth estimate or a negative earnings growth estimate for 2022. Moreover, these stocks are likely to remain unprofitable this year.</p><p>These are some of the primary reasons why institutional investors have heavily shorted these stocks. However, taking a contra view of these basic financial features indicates speculation or gambling. The investment value of these stocks in the mid to long-term is practically zero.</p><p>Even as a short-term investor, you have to be very careful and may need to settle your position on a daily basis. That means one has to become an intraday trader to gain a good return from these stocks.</p><h2>A Brief Discussion 5 Meme Stocks</h2><p>Social media giant <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/SNAP\">Snap Inc</a>.</b> SNAP, the developer of the Snapchat platform, reported a highly disappointing second-quarter 2022 results. The current Zacks Consensus Estimate for 2022 earnings per share (EPS) growth is negative.</p><p>Our current projection indicates that the company will incur losses in 2022. The stock carries a Zacks Rank #4 (Sell). Yet the stock price of SNAP has appreciated 23.9% month to date.</p><p>Leisure tour cruse operator <b>Carnival Corp. &amp; plc </b>CCL failed to beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate for EPS and revenues for the seventh straight quarter. The company’s operations were affected by COVID-19 pandemic, inflationary pressures and higher fuel prices.</p><p>Our current projection i suggests that the company will continue to incur losses in 2022. Further, the earnings estimate for 2022 has declined in the last 30 days, depicting analysts&#39; concern over the stock’s growth potential. The stock carries a Zacks Rank #4. However, the stock price of CCL has advanced 18.3% month to date.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/MARA\">Marathon Digital Holdings Inc</a>.</b> MARA reported disappointing results for second-quarter 2022 wherein the top and bottom lines came in below the Zacks Consensus Estimate. Following the results, most of the analysts downgraded the stocks and the consensus EPS for 2022 is currently pegged at  a loss of $2.06 per share compared with earnings of $0.03 just 7 days ago.</p><p>The EPS for 2022 is currently estimated to plunge 221.2% year over year. Despite these negatives, the stock price of MARA has climbed 35.9% month to date. The stock carries a Zacks Rank #4.</p><p>The struggling fitness product developer <b>Peloton Interactive Inc.</b> PTON has decided to layoff nearly 800 jobs, raising prices for its Bike+ and Tread machines, and outsourcing functions such as equipment deliveries and customer service.</p><p>Our current projection indicates that the company to remain a loss-making one in 2022. Further, the earnings estimate for 2022 has declined in the last 30 days, depicting analysts&#39; concern over the stock’s growth potential. The stock carries a Zacks Rank #4. However, the stock price of PTON has jumped 42.6% month to date.</p><p>Leading worldwide provider of business intelligence software <b>MicroStrategy Inc.</b> MSTR reported a loss of $1.062 billion in the second quarter mostly due to impairment charges of $917 million related to its Bitcoin holdings.</p><p>Our current projection indicates that the company continue to incur losses in 2022. Further, the earnings estimate for 2022 has declined in the last 30 days, depicting analysts&#39; concern over the stock’s growth potential. Despite headwinds, the stock price of MSTR has surged 22.1% month to date. The stock carries a Zacks Rank #4.</p><p>The chart below shows the price performance of five above-mentioned stocks month to date.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d5569c4f0ef7db6a785c78eebcf7613d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"236\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Image Source: Zacks Investment Research</p></body></html>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Meme Stocks Show a Resurgence, Be Wary of Impulse Buying</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nMeme Stocks Show a Resurgence, Be Wary of Impulse Buying\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-08-16 23:24 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/meme-stocks-show-resurgence-wary-120812091.html><strong>Zacks</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Wall Street is yet to recover from the 2022 mayhem in spite of rallying from July. Year to date, all three major stock indexes — the Dow, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite — have dropped 6.7%, 9.8%...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/meme-stocks-show-resurgence-wary-120812091.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BK4548":"巴美列捷福持仓","PTON":"Peloton Interactive, Inc.","BK4190":"消闲用品","BK4539":"次新股","MSTR":"MicroStrategy","BK4023":"应用软件","MARA":"MARA Holdings","BK4554":"元宇宙及AR概念","BK4178":"家庭装饰零售","BK4532":"文艺复兴科技持仓","GME":"游戏驿站","BK4191":"家用电器","CCL":"嘉年华邮轮","BK4108":"电影和娱乐","AMC":"AMC院线","BK4139":"生物科技","BK4576":"AR","BOLT":"Bolt Biotherapeutics, Inc.","BK4566":"资本集团","BK4007":"制药","BK4508":"社交媒体","BK4577":"网络游戏","BBBY":"3B家居","BK4077":"互动媒体与服务","TERN":"Terns Pharmaceuticals, Inc.","BK4076":"电脑与电子产品零售","BK4517":"邮轮概念","BK4551":"寇图资本持仓","SNAP":"Snap Inc","BK4547":"WSB热门概念","CRCT":"Cricut, Inc.","BK4142":"酒店、度假村与豪华游轮"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/meme-stocks-show-resurgence-wary-120812091.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2259832442","content_text":"Wall Street is yet to recover from the 2022 mayhem in spite of rallying from July. Year to date, all three major stock indexes — the Dow, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite — have dropped 6.7%, 9.8% and 16.1%, respectively.Despite a marginal decline in July, various measures of inflation remained highly elevated. The Fed is set to continue its rigorous interest rate hike strategy from September. Yet a handful of stocks — widely known as meme stocks — skyrocketed recently.The meme stock frenzy was a notable feature last year. A few meme stocks railed more than 200% in 2021 when the global economy, especially, the U.S. economy, was still to recover from pandemic-led restrictions fully. The craze for meme stocks was not visible in the first half of 2022. However, as U.S. stock markets showed initial signs of bottoming out, the meme stock mania regained momentum.Meme Stocks SkyrocketMeme stocks are those gaining massive popularity in a short period of time buoyed by a strong social media platform. This is a typical trading practice in which a few stocks heavily shorted by hedge fund giants were favored by a group of individual investors organized via Reddit’s wallstreetbets forum and similar other social media platforms.Retail investors take a contra view on these stocks as their prices are at a trough due to heavy shorting. Lump sum buying of these cheap stocks by retail investors raises their share price to a great extent. As prices of these stocks start moving northward, institutional investors, especially hedge funds, start short covering in order to maintain the balance of their portfolios. Consequently, the prices of these stocks skyrocket.Month to date, meme stocks like AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. (AMC), GameStop Corp. (GME) and Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY) have jumped 66.3%, 16.7% and 218.1%, respectively. AMC Entertainment carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.Highly Risky InvestmentInvestment in meme stocks is highly risky. In fact, these companies do not have stable fundamentals. Most of these stocks have either a negative revenue growth estimate or a negative earnings growth estimate for 2022. Moreover, these stocks are likely to remain unprofitable this year.These are some of the primary reasons why institutional investors have heavily shorted these stocks. However, taking a contra view of these basic financial features indicates speculation or gambling. The investment value of these stocks in the mid to long-term is practically zero.Even as a short-term investor, you have to be very careful and may need to settle your position on a daily basis. That means one has to become an intraday trader to gain a good return from these stocks.A Brief Discussion 5 Meme StocksSocial media giant Snap Inc. SNAP, the developer of the Snapchat platform, reported a highly disappointing second-quarter 2022 results. The current Zacks Consensus Estimate for 2022 earnings per share (EPS) growth is negative.Our current projection indicates that the company will incur losses in 2022. The stock carries a Zacks Rank #4 (Sell). Yet the stock price of SNAP has appreciated 23.9% month to date.Leisure tour cruse operator Carnival Corp. & plc CCL failed to beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate for EPS and revenues for the seventh straight quarter. The company’s operations were affected by COVID-19 pandemic, inflationary pressures and higher fuel prices.Our current projection i suggests that the company will continue to incur losses in 2022. Further, the earnings estimate for 2022 has declined in the last 30 days, depicting analysts' concern over the stock’s growth potential. The stock carries a Zacks Rank #4. However, the stock price of CCL has advanced 18.3% month to date.Marathon Digital Holdings Inc. MARA reported disappointing results for second-quarter 2022 wherein the top and bottom lines came in below the Zacks Consensus Estimate. Following the results, most of the analysts downgraded the stocks and the consensus EPS for 2022 is currently pegged at  a loss of $2.06 per share compared with earnings of $0.03 just 7 days ago.The EPS for 2022 is currently estimated to plunge 221.2% year over year. Despite these negatives, the stock price of MARA has climbed 35.9% month to date. The stock carries a Zacks Rank #4.The struggling fitness product developer Peloton Interactive Inc. PTON has decided to layoff nearly 800 jobs, raising prices for its Bike+ and Tread machines, and outsourcing functions such as equipment deliveries and customer service.Our current projection indicates that the company to remain a loss-making one in 2022. Further, the earnings estimate for 2022 has declined in the last 30 days, depicting analysts' concern over the stock’s growth potential. The stock carries a Zacks Rank #4. However, the stock price of PTON has jumped 42.6% month to date.Leading worldwide provider of business intelligence software MicroStrategy Inc. MSTR reported a loss of $1.062 billion in the second quarter mostly due to impairment charges of $917 million related to its Bitcoin holdings.Our current projection indicates that the company continue to incur losses in 2022. Further, the earnings estimate for 2022 has declined in the last 30 days, depicting analysts' concern over the stock’s growth potential. Despite headwinds, the stock price of MSTR has surged 22.1% month to date. The stock carries a Zacks Rank #4.The chart below shows the price performance of five above-mentioned stocks month to date.Image Source: Zacks Investment Research","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":531,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9993871598,"gmtCreate":1660674286617,"gmtModify":1676536375616,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Thanks","listText":"Thanks","text":"Thanks","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9993871598","repostId":"1105779322","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1105779322","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1660662275,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1105779322?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-08-16 23:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Buying In ProShares TQQQ And SQQQ ETFs Appears To Confirm A New Bull Market","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1105779322","media":"seekingalpha","summary":"SummaryPurchase levels of the largest ProShares ETF (TQQQ) and the largest ProShares short ETF stron","content":"<html><head></head><body><h2>Summary</h2><ul><li>Purchase levels of the largest ProShares ETF (TQQQ) and the largest ProShares short ETF strongly indicate a new bull market.</li><li>We’ll show why it’s a positive indicator that outstanding shares of TQQQ are near record levels.</li><li>The Master Sentiment Index (MSI), made from seven classic sentiment indicators, is still bearish and continues to point to further price gains.</li></ul><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/70fadd4ce643884157664aa63f470430\" tg-width=\"750\" tg-height=\"422\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/><b>ProShares UltraPro QQQ ETF (</b><b>NASDAQ:TQQQ</b><b>) andProShares UltraPro Short QQQ ETF(</b><b>NASDAQ:SQQQ</b><b>)</b></p><p>These two ETFs, with assets of $16 billion and $4.5 billion respectively, account for almost a third of the value of the 137 funds in the ProShares family. They arehighly leveraged ETF’s, which try to return three times the performance of the NASDAQ QQQ. TQQQ is long theQQQand the SQQQ short, meaning it tries to go up three times the amount of a market decline in QQQ. Following investor buying in these two funds has provided insight in the past into where the stock market was about to go.</p><p>Let’s see what the current numbers are saying.</p><p><b>TQQQ</b></p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b93fa6ba1ee979b11a2d8ac20fb6ad1e\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"394\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/></p><p>TQQQ Shares Outstanding(Michael McDonald)</p><p>This chart plots the number of TQQQ shares outstanding against its price back to 2014. When more investors enter the fund then leave it, the number of shares increase. When more investors leave the fund then buy it, the number declines. In truth it’s more the amount of money going in and out of the ETF that’s important, not so much the number of investors, but these two correlate.</p><p>As the chart clearly shows, important stock market bottoms seem to occur when the greatest number of shares of TQQQ are outstanding. Three major market bottoms occurred since 2014 each accompanied by a surge in shares outstanding. The three include the COVID induced, 2020 March bottom. While this is opposite what one might expect using the theory of contrary opinion, one cannot deny the data.</p><p>June recorded a record number of shares at 450 million and at 430 million as of August 12, it has stayed near this high-level. We believe this fact is important confirmation that this stock market will move higher.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fbd42b030c1477b963f6ef4bc37709ff\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"399\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/></p><p>TQQQ Investors Cash Flow(Michael McDonald)</p><p>This graph plots the cash flow of TQQQ, which is the amount of money moving into or out of the fund. Points above the zero line represent money going into the fund, points below it represent net money going out. It is this cash flow accumulating over time that produces the number of shares outstanding shown in the previous chart. This chart clearly shows the huge amount of money that poured into the ETF on the first and second downward price waves.</p><p>The curve just went to a small net outflow late last week, but this in the past has been a normal occurrence as prices advanced off a major bottom.</p><p>This investor data on TQQQ confirms what investor data in SQQQ has also been saying. We presented this data on SQQQ inan SA articletwo weeks ago, which we’ll summarize and update here.</p><p><b>SQQQ</b></p><p>investor activity in SQQQ does validate and follow the theory of contrary opinion. Heavy buying in this fund, which goes short the QQQ in a highly leveraged fashion, almost always occurs at major stock market bottoms. The chart below shows this.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/12228e795c76d315bc47551428758af4\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"386\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/></p><p>Buying in SQQQ as % of Assets(Michael McDonald)</p><p>It plots the amount of buying in the fund as a percentage of the fund’s assets back to 2014. It’s graphed against the QQQ for comparison. The black arrows indicate high levels of investor buying in this fund. Each peak in buying occurred at a significant turning point in the market. The highest point of buying in this leveraged short ETF occurred in late May very close to the recent market bottom.</p><p>We believe investor activity in these two ETF’s are confirming what we been saying now for a month and a half - that the May-June Lows represented the start of a new bull market.</p><p><b>MSI</b></p><p>We presented the Master Sentiment Index (MSI) in aJuly 28th SA articlepointing to the belief it was indicating the start of a new bull market. The MSI is a composite sentiment index made from seven classic sentiment indicators including puts to calls ratios, commitment of trader’s data and AAII bull-bear surveys. The index goes from +10 to -10, with +10 representing the greatest amount of bullish sentiment and -10 the greatest amount bearish sentiment.</p><p>The chart below shows this composite back to 2006. The graph below it shows the composite in greater detail from 2018 to present (August 12th).</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/05a9b01318021a25e793757bc7e971a0\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"440\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/></p><p>Long Term MSI Index(Michael McDonald)</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/dc1fe927edc7a4d0d5340674bd2660c4\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"436\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/></p><p>MSI Shorter Term View(Michael McDonald)</p><p>Notice that the MSI went to greater bearish extremes in May and June than any time since 2006, including the great bear market of 2009. Remember, this is a contrary opinion indicator, which holds that major market bottoms occur when you get extreme levels of bearish sentiment. The table below shows the ranking of each one of the components that make up the composite.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/30db4209da219a60fcf28f2fc73766bc\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"458\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/></p><p>MSI Composite Indicator Table(Michael McDonald)</p><p>The latest reading of the MSI as of August 12th is -6.1, which is a very low level considering the size of the market rally that’s occurred since the May-June bottom.</p><p><b>Conclusion</b></p><p>We believe all these statistics continue to point to, and confirm, that we have started into a new bull market. While the possibility exists that extreme global events, both politically and militarily, might occur that would drive prices to new lows; in the absence of this, we think the market has made its lows.</p><p>This would once again confirm the well established fact that markets almost always bottom at the start of, or in the middle of, a recession.</p></body></html>","source":"seekingalpha","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Buying In ProShares TQQQ And SQQQ ETFs Appears To Confirm A New Bull Market</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nBuying In ProShares TQQQ And SQQQ ETFs Appears To Confirm A New Bull Market\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-08-16 23:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://seekingalpha.com/article/4534777-buying-in-proshares-tqqq-and-sqqq-etfs-appears-to-confirm-new-bull-market?source=apple_sign_in&source=apple_sign_in><strong>seekingalpha</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>SummaryPurchase levels of the largest ProShares ETF (TQQQ) and the largest ProShares short ETF strongly indicate a new bull market.We’ll show why it’s a positive indicator that outstanding shares of ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4534777-buying-in-proshares-tqqq-and-sqqq-etfs-appears-to-confirm-new-bull-market?source=apple_sign_in&source=apple_sign_in\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SQQQ":"纳指三倍做空ETF","TQQQ":"纳指三倍做多ETF"},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4534777-buying-in-proshares-tqqq-and-sqqq-etfs-appears-to-confirm-new-bull-market?source=apple_sign_in&source=apple_sign_in","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5a36db9d73b4222bc376d24ccc48c8a4","article_id":"1105779322","content_text":"SummaryPurchase levels of the largest ProShares ETF (TQQQ) and the largest ProShares short ETF strongly indicate a new bull market.We’ll show why it’s a positive indicator that outstanding shares of TQQQ are near record levels.The Master Sentiment Index (MSI), made from seven classic sentiment indicators, is still bearish and continues to point to further price gains.ProShares UltraPro QQQ ETF (NASDAQ:TQQQ) andProShares UltraPro Short QQQ ETF(NASDAQ:SQQQ)These two ETFs, with assets of $16 billion and $4.5 billion respectively, account for almost a third of the value of the 137 funds in the ProShares family. They arehighly leveraged ETF’s, which try to return three times the performance of the NASDAQ QQQ. TQQQ is long theQQQand the SQQQ short, meaning it tries to go up three times the amount of a market decline in QQQ. Following investor buying in these two funds has provided insight in the past into where the stock market was about to go.Let’s see what the current numbers are saying.TQQQTQQQ Shares Outstanding(Michael McDonald)This chart plots the number of TQQQ shares outstanding against its price back to 2014. When more investors enter the fund then leave it, the number of shares increase. When more investors leave the fund then buy it, the number declines. In truth it’s more the amount of money going in and out of the ETF that’s important, not so much the number of investors, but these two correlate.As the chart clearly shows, important stock market bottoms seem to occur when the greatest number of shares of TQQQ are outstanding. Three major market bottoms occurred since 2014 each accompanied by a surge in shares outstanding. The three include the COVID induced, 2020 March bottom. While this is opposite what one might expect using the theory of contrary opinion, one cannot deny the data.June recorded a record number of shares at 450 million and at 430 million as of August 12, it has stayed near this high-level. We believe this fact is important confirmation that this stock market will move higher.TQQQ Investors Cash Flow(Michael McDonald)This graph plots the cash flow of TQQQ, which is the amount of money moving into or out of the fund. Points above the zero line represent money going into the fund, points below it represent net money going out. It is this cash flow accumulating over time that produces the number of shares outstanding shown in the previous chart. This chart clearly shows the huge amount of money that poured into the ETF on the first and second downward price waves.The curve just went to a small net outflow late last week, but this in the past has been a normal occurrence as prices advanced off a major bottom.This investor data on TQQQ confirms what investor data in SQQQ has also been saying. We presented this data on SQQQ inan SA articletwo weeks ago, which we’ll summarize and update here.SQQQinvestor activity in SQQQ does validate and follow the theory of contrary opinion. Heavy buying in this fund, which goes short the QQQ in a highly leveraged fashion, almost always occurs at major stock market bottoms. The chart below shows this.Buying in SQQQ as % of Assets(Michael McDonald)It plots the amount of buying in the fund as a percentage of the fund’s assets back to 2014. It’s graphed against the QQQ for comparison. The black arrows indicate high levels of investor buying in this fund. Each peak in buying occurred at a significant turning point in the market. The highest point of buying in this leveraged short ETF occurred in late May very close to the recent market bottom.We believe investor activity in these two ETF’s are confirming what we been saying now for a month and a half - that the May-June Lows represented the start of a new bull market.MSIWe presented the Master Sentiment Index (MSI) in aJuly 28th SA articlepointing to the belief it was indicating the start of a new bull market. The MSI is a composite sentiment index made from seven classic sentiment indicators including puts to calls ratios, commitment of trader’s data and AAII bull-bear surveys. The index goes from +10 to -10, with +10 representing the greatest amount of bullish sentiment and -10 the greatest amount bearish sentiment.The chart below shows this composite back to 2006. The graph below it shows the composite in greater detail from 2018 to present (August 12th).Long Term MSI Index(Michael McDonald)MSI Shorter Term View(Michael McDonald)Notice that the MSI went to greater bearish extremes in May and June than any time since 2006, including the great bear market of 2009. Remember, this is a contrary opinion indicator, which holds that major market bottoms occur when you get extreme levels of bearish sentiment. The table below shows the ranking of each one of the components that make up the composite.MSI Composite Indicator Table(Michael McDonald)The latest reading of the MSI as of August 12th is -6.1, which is a very low level considering the size of the market rally that’s occurred since the May-June bottom.ConclusionWe believe all these statistics continue to point to, and confirm, that we have started into a new bull market. While the possibility exists that extreme global events, both politically and militarily, might occur that would drive prices to new lows; in the absence of this, we think the market has made its lows.This would once again confirm the well established fact that markets almost always bottom at the start of, or in the middle of, a recession.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":383,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9906374818,"gmtCreate":1659491161337,"gmtModify":1705980938004,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Great thanks","listText":"Great thanks","text":"Great thanks","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9906374818","repostId":"2256752916","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":534,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9079224649,"gmtCreate":1657207338481,"gmtModify":1676535969617,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9079224649","repostId":"1174350823","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1174350823","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Providing stock market headlines, business news, financials and earnings ","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Tiger Newspress","id":"1079075236","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1657201908,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1174350823?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-07-07 21:51","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Crypto Stocks Rose in Morning Trading","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1174350823","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"Crypto Stocks Rose in Morning Trading.Marathon Digital, Riot, Coinbase, Bit Digital, Block, and SOS ","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>Crypto Stocks Rose in Morning Trading.</p><p><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/MARA\">Marathon Digital</a>, Riot, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/COIN\">Coinbase</a>, Bit Digital, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/SQ\">Block</a>, and <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/SOS\">SOS Limited</a> rallied between 3% and 7%.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5e26e1df7abd0bca22bcc0839491c6e1\" tg-width=\"487\" tg-height=\"535\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p></body></html>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Crypto Stocks Rose in Morning Trading</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nCrypto Stocks Rose in Morning Trading\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1079075236\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Tiger Newspress </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2022-07-07 21:51</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p>Crypto Stocks Rose in Morning Trading.</p><p><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/MARA\">Marathon Digital</a>, Riot, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/COIN\">Coinbase</a>, Bit Digital, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/SQ\">Block</a>, and <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/SOS\">SOS Limited</a> rallied between 3% and 7%.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5e26e1df7abd0bca22bcc0839491c6e1\" tg-width=\"487\" tg-height=\"535\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BK4503":"景林资产持仓","MARA":"MARA Holdings","SOS":"SOS Limited","COIN":"Coinbase Global, Inc.","BK4551":"寇图资本持仓","BK4504":"桥水持仓","BK4084":"特种房地产投资信托","BK4547":"WSB热门概念","BK4139":"生物科技","BK4505":"高瓴资本持仓","BK4106":"数据处理与外包服务","BK4526":"热门中概股","BK4123":"调查和咨询服务","BK4566":"资本集团"},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1174350823","content_text":"Crypto Stocks Rose in Morning Trading.Marathon Digital, Riot, Coinbase, Bit Digital, Block, and SOS Limited rallied between 3% and 7%.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":615,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9045126840,"gmtCreate":1656581431280,"gmtModify":1676535857836,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Yeah","listText":"Yeah","text":"Yeah","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9045126840","repostId":"1121505043","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1121505043","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1656561665,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1121505043?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-06-30 12:01","market":"us","language":"en","title":"NIO: Questions And Challenges To The Grizzly Short-Seller Report","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1121505043","media":"seekingalpha","summary":"SummaryShort-seller Grizzly Research has released a report outlining findings of alleged fraud by NIO on Tuesday evening.The report attempted to outline how NIO, through an unconsolidated entity, is f","content":"<html><head></head><body><p><b>Summary</b></p><ul><li>Short-seller Grizzly Research has released a report outlining findings of alleged fraud by NIO on Tuesday evening.</li><li>The report attempted to outline how NIO, through an unconsolidated entity, is falsely inflating revenue and net income pertaining to its BaaS business.</li><li>The report also accused CEO Bin Li of association with fraudulent activities in the past. The information was largely used as support for Grizzly&#39;s claims of financial manipulation at NIO.</li><li>However, we believe some of the information reported by Grizzly have been exaggerated to support its short bias against NIO. We also question the validity of some of the quantified impacts that Grizzly is claiming against NIO&#39;s BaaS operations.</li></ul><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/346379c1e5a1a4087e614ef0b8a18caa\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"720\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Drew Angerer/Getty Images News</span></p><p>Grizzly Research (&#34;Grizzly&#34;) has released a short-seller report on NIO (NYSE:NIO) Tuesday morning, citing the Chinese electric vehicle (“EV”) company has engaged in the exaggeration of revenue and profitability via aggressive accounting methods and fraudulent means. In addition to outlining the allegedmeasures NIO has taken to falsely inflate its top- and bottom-line since 2020, Grizzly has also gathered extensive research in an attempt to character-assassinate NIO CEO Bin Li in order to “dot the i’s and cross the t’s” in its argument that the three core elements of fraud – opportunity, incentive and rationalization – exist in this situation for the EV maker.</p><p>While some of the findings raised in the short-seller report may raise questions that only NIO management can answer, there are also questionable and groundless arguments made by Grizzly that could significantly mislead and deceive existing and potential investors in the EV stock. The following analysis will focus on an overview of the short-seller’s core claim against NIO – namely, false inflation of revenue and net income via aggressive accounting and potentially fraudulent means – and provide a walkthrough of questions / challenges we have over the validity of some of those claims.</p><p><b>Accounting Crash Course: NIO’s BaaS Revenue Recognition Method</b></p><p>Through publicly disclosed information within NIO’s audited annual report, Grizzly had identified that NIO is frontloading and inflating revenue recognition pertaining to its battery-as-a-service (“BaaS”) sales via an unconsolidated related party.</p><p>In 2020, NIO, alongside an external consortium of investors that consist of EV battery maker CATL, Hubei Science Technology Investment Group, and a subsidiary of Fuotai Junan International Holdings Limited, have together created the joint venture “Wuhan Weineng Battery Asset Co., Ltd.,” (“Weineng”). Weineng was established in 2020, the same time when NIO’s battery lending service BaaS was introduced.</p><p>Under BaaS, NIO customers are eligible for a one-time discount of up to RMB 128,000 ($19,133) on the vehicle purchase if they opt for the battery lending subscription program instead of buying the battery with the vehicle upfront. This strategy has been an effective mean in fuelling the adoption of NIO EVs in China, especially with additional government subsidies for purchases that are compatible with battery swapping technology. All sales and costs pertaining to BaaS are managed by Weineng.</p><p>Now, the Weineng joint venture, in which NIO holds a 19.8% equity interest in, has been accounted for as an “equity-accounted investment” on the EV maker’s financial statements, given the definition of control under GAAP-based accounting has not been met (further discussed in later sections). Under GAAP-based accounting for related party transactions, “intragroup related party transactions and outstanding balances are eliminated, except for those between an investment entity and its subsidiaries measured at fair value through profit or loss, in the preparation of consolidated financial statements of the group”:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b533b2a1e657134b3b33f231c2b11f74\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"292\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>GAAP Rules on Related Party Disclosures (IAS)</span></p><p>Based on NIO’s disclosures within its audited annual report on its revenue recognition method pertaining to BaaS sales, the EV maker sells its battery packs to Weineng on a “back-to-back” basis when a vehicle is sold to a customer subscribed to BaaS:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d726db76c4884663e28c157208e5cd77\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"150\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>NIO Revenue Recognition Policy on BaaS Sales (NIO 2021 20F)</span></p><p>In compliance with GAAP-based accounting for revenue recognition, a sale is reported to the income statement when a performance obligation is satisfied. Under NIO’s affiliation with Weineng, NIO sells Weineng a battery pack when a customer buys a vehicle with BaaS subscription. The performance obligation here is that NIO needs to provide a battery pack to Weineng, and once this is satisfied, NIO is permitted to recognize revenue on the battery sale based on a pre-contracted transaction price for the performance obligation. For NIO, the battery sold would have been previously considered as inventory. Following the recognition of the battery sale, NIO would have also recorded cost of sales pertaining to removing the battery from its inventory balance on the balance sheet:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2203faf29e5b271342335935df358d86\" tg-width=\"389\" tg-height=\"208\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Journal Entries for Battery Sales Business Model (Author)</span></p><p>In Weineng’s case, however, its performance obligation to customers is the provision of battery lending services on a monthly or annual basis, depending on the subscription option. As such, Weineng can only recognize monthly / annual BaaS revenue over time when it satisfies its battery lending obligation to customers. Weineng would also have to record depreciation costs over the useful life of its batteries, which are considered property, plant and equipment used in facilitating its service business:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4bf30456c1ff78b902edfa34d719f150\" tg-width=\"598\" tg-height=\"175\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Journal Entries for BaaS Business Model (Author)</span></p><p>This arrangement essentially allows NIO to recognize 100% of revenues pertaining to the battery pack sold to Weineng upfront upon selling a vehicle booked on BaaS on a one-for-one basis, instead of recognizing BaaS revenue and related depreciation costs on the batteries used in the BaaS business over time. The disclosed BaaS revenue recognition method for NIO also infers that the number of battery packs sold to Weineng should be equivalent to the number of BaaS subscribers as of period-end. BaaS revenues and related costs of sales (e.g. depreciation costs on batteries) recognized over time are instead in the books of Weineng, in which NIO accounts for on its balance sheet as an equity-accounted investment.</p><p>Because Weineng is an equity-accounted investment and not a consolidated entity in which NIO controls under the definition set out by GAAP-based accounting, NIO is not required to perform intragroup eliminations pertaining to the related party transaction. Instead, it is required to disclose the relationship, as well as the related amounts if material. This information is disclosed in NIO’s 2021 20 Funder “Note 26. Related Party Balances and Transactions”. Revenue and income generated by Weineng are accounted for in NIO’s financial statements as “share of (loss) / income of equity investees” pro-rated for its non-controlling interest.</p><p><b>Grizzly’s Core Short Thesis</b></p><p>Grizzly alleges the move is a fraudulent measure taken by NIO to “exaggerate revenue and profitability”. The short-seller has accused NIO of using the accounting “loophole” to frontload battery revenues pertaining to BaaS that should have been recognized over a course of about seven years (i.e. battery discount on BaaS vehicle purchase, divided by annual BaaS subscription fee).</p><p>In addition to frontloading revenue recognition on BaaS sales, Grizzly has also identified a discrepancy between the number of active BaaS subscribers and battery packs owned by Weineng as of September 30, 2021. Grizzly found thatWeineng had ownership of 40,053 battery packs as of September 30, 2021, but only had 19,000 active BaaS subscribers during the period, which is inconsistent with NIO’s claims that it only records battery sales to Weineng on a back-to-back basis with BaaS vehicle sales. Grizzly has attributed the discrepancy as NIO’s way of artificially inflating revenues by selling more battery packs to Weineng than it needs to fulfil BaaS performance obligations.</p><p>In order to support its claim that NIO is defrauding investors via the unconsolidated related party, Grizzly has also gathered additional research in an attempt to support the three key elements of the fraudulent triangle:</p><p><b>Opportunity:</b>As mentioned in the accounting overview section, the ownership structure between NIO and Weineng is accounted for as an equity-accounted investment, which allows NIO to bypass related party transaction eliminations on its financial statements. This accordingly provides an opportunity for NIO to artificially inflate its revenues at the group level by recording sales to the equity-accounted subsidiary, without the need to back it out at period end. Under GAAP-based accounting rules on related party transactions, NIO is required to disclose material details to the relationship, in which it has complied with.</p><p>The organizational structure also provides NIO an ability to recognize BaaS revenues upfront, instead of over an extended period of time given the difference in performance obligation it owes toWeinengcompared to thoseWeineng owes to BaaS subscribers. Grizzly also claims the method has allowed NIO to bypass depreciation costs on battery assets to the tune of RMB 336 million per year.</p><p><b>Incentive:</b>Grizzly has gone through extensive measures to dig up evidence to support NIO has a valid incentive for exaggerating its revenue and profitability. Citing an agreement between NIO and a state-backed consortium which has invested in a wholly-owned subsidiary “NIO China”, which requires NIO to redeem the investment upon failure in meeting pre-established performance metrics, such as achieving revenues of RMB 120 billion by 2024. However, the publicly disclosed information per NIO’s regulatory filings does not specify whether the RMB 120 billion revenue performance metric is required on an annual basis or on a cumulative basis between the time at which the agreement was forged with the state-backed investment consortium and 2024.</p><p>Grizzly has also inferred incentive for NIO to exaggerate its top- and bottom-line as a mean to pretty its valuation prospects, and attract investors from the public market.</p><p><b>Rationalization:</b>The short-seller report lacks support for how NIO tried to rationalize the alleged fraudulent reporting behaviour. However, Grizzly has proceeded to gather evidence to bolster its claim of why the likelihood of fraud at NIO is high. These include findings about NIO CEO Li’s past association with personnel that have been previously linked to high-profile fraudulent financial reporting cases like Luckin Coffee(OTCPK:LKNCY). Grizzly has also alluded to questionable behaviour by NIO CEO Li, such as pledging a NIO-affiliated subsidiary, “NIO User Trust”, in which Li personally controls to UBS AG without directly addressing the matter to shareholders. While these findings may warrant clarification from management, there is insufficient ground to warrant a fraudulent sentence to the company.</p><p>NIO management has also refuted Grizzly’s claims, saying allegations outlined in the report are “without merit and contains numerous errors, unsupported speculations and misleading conclusions and interpretations”, and has committed to bolstering public disclosures going forward to protect shareholders’ interests. Nowhere has the company tried to outright rationalize fraudulent reporting.</p><p><b>Challenging Grizzly’s Conclusion on “Control” Established by NIO Over Weineng</b></p><p>In addition to character assassination on Li to support its claims for fraudulent reporting behaviour at NIO, Grizzly has also attempted to conclude NIO’s control over Weineng. As mentioned in earlier sections, if NIO effectively “controls” Weineng, it would have to consolidate the investment and eliminate any earnings recorded via related party transactions.</p><p>First, Grizzly has identified “conflicting disclosure” between NIO’s claim that it has “significant influence” over Weineng in one place, and NIO’s claim that it only has “limited control over the business operations” ofWeinengin another place within a same regulatory filing. However, the words “significant influence” and “control” used within NIO’s regulatory filings are defined differently under GAAP-based accounting rules from general definitions of power that everyday investors are familiar with.</p><p>Significant influence is defined as “the power to participate in the financial and operating policy decisions of the investee without the power to control or jointly control those policies” under GAAP-based accounting. Significantly influence is typically established when an “entity holds, directly or indirectly, 20% or more of voting power of the investee”. NIO’s 19.8% equity interest in Weineng is sufficient to presume its “significant influence” over the investment:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/505c64f7bc18c02131dd830e5f2a5462\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"260\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>GAAP Rules on Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures (IAS)</span></p><p>Pointing to our earlier reference to the definition of control established in GAAP-based accounting, the acquiring party only establishes “control” over the acquired party if it demonstrates three primary elements:</p><p>1. “<b>Power</b>” over the acquired entity, which is defined under GAAP as a substantive right exercised by an acquirer over the acquiree for non-protective benefits (e.g. exercising rights without the need for breach of contract or majority investor support). Based on publicly disclosed information in NIO’s regulatory filings, it only holds one of nine board seats on Weineng. There is also no mention of voting agreements that would pass on majority board and/or owner voting rights to NIO. With one of nine board seats, and a 19.8% equity interest, NIO does not exhibit power over Weineng to establish control.</p><p>2. Exposure to<i>variable returns</i>from the acquiree based on the acquirer’s involvement. NIO does not generate additional fees from Weineng based on Weineng’s performance. NIO is only exposed to Weineng’s earnings through its equity-accounted share of the investment.</p><p>As for the acquirer’s involvement in interfering with returns generated from the acquiree, Grizzly has pointed to the installation of two existing NIO executives to Weineng in management roles that include “Legal Representative and Chairman” and “General Manager and Director”. However, considering NIO’s significant influence over Weineng as defined under GAAP rules explained earlier, it is not unusual for the two parties to share employees or for NIO to “participate in the financial and operating policy decisions” of Weineng through the two shared employees. As such, NIO can account for its investment inWeinengas an equity-accounted investment, as long as “control” is not established even if it has installed employees at Weineng. Based on NIO’s failure to meet criterion 1 “power”, it already fails to establish control under GAAP rules over Weineng based on the existing ownership and voting structure disclosed in regulatory filings.</p><p>Grizzly has also alluded to the installation of two NIO executives in the daily operations of Weineng as a “major conflict of interest”. However, the auditor’s report per NIO’s audited 2021 20F states that “the company has maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021, based on criteria established in<i>Internal Control – Integrated Framework</i>(2013) issued by the COSO”. The COSO framework requires that internal controls address segregation of duty requirements to ensure fair presentation of financial information without material misstatements whether due to error or fraud. As such, it is reasonable to believe that segregation of duty controls in place pertaining to the two executives’ roles in both NIO and Weineng have been tested as effective as of the reporting date.</p><p>3. The acquiring party is a<i>principal</i>in the transaction, and not an agent. Under GAAP-based accounting, an agent is “primarily engaged to act on behalf and for the benefit of another party…[and] does not control an investee when it exercises decision-making rights delegated to it”. In determining whether NIO is an agent over Weineng, the i) scope of NIO’s decision-making authority over Weineng, ii) the rights held by other investors in Weineng, iii) the remuneration in which NIO is entitled to in its affiliation with Weineng, and iv) NIO’s exposure to variability of returns from its interest in Weineng must be considered:</p><ul><li>Based on the foregoing analysis, we know that NIO’s sole decision-making authority over Weineng is limited given it only holds 19.8% equity interest with one in nine board seats in the joint venture. The two NIO executives installed in the daily operations of Weineng also do not exhibit characteristics of sole control over the joint ventures’ business.</li><li>The remainder of the investment consortium over Weineng holds the remaining eight of nine board seats, and 80.2% equity interest in the joint venture. There have also been no mention of signed-over voting rights by the investment consortium to NIO in publicly disclosed information that would give NIO control over Weineng.</li><li>In addition to battery sales, NIO is also entitled to service revenue earned from Weineng through service agreements. NIO earns revenue for providing “battery packmonitoring, maintenance, upgrade, replacement, IT system support, etc.” to Weineng via monthly service charges. As of the reporting year ended December 31, 2021, service revenues pertaining to the service agreements between NIO and Weineng were immaterial according to disclosures in “Note 2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies”, section<i>(r) Revenue recognition</i>in the 2021 20F.</li><li>As discussed in the control assessment under criterion 2, NIO’s exposure to variability of returns in its investment in Weineng is insufficient to establish control under GAAP-based accounting.</li></ul><p><b>Challenging Grizzly’s Quantification of NIO’s Alleged Revenue and Profit Inflation</b></p><p>Grizzly believes NIO has inflated revenue and net income by “about 10% and 95%, respectively”, via its affiliation with Weineng. Grizzly’s calculations, as well as our skepticism, is outlined as follows:</p><p><b>1. Frontloaded Revenue via Battery Sales to Weineng</b></p><p><b>Grizzly’s accusation.</b>As discussed in the foregoing analysis, Grizzly identified that NIO has been recognizing battery revenues pertaining to BaaS upfront via its affiliation with Weineng. Instead of recognizing BaaS revenues over time when the service performance obligation is satisfied, NIO is able to recognize 100% of battery revenues sold to customers via BaaS subscriptions through the Weineng JV. Grizzly claims that this arrangement effectively allows NIO to pull forward seven years of BaaS revenue upfront.</p><p><b>Grizzly’s calculation of quantified impacts.</b>Considering vehicle purchase discounts ranging RMB 70,000 (70/75 kWh battery pack) to RMB 128,000 (100 kWh battery pack) upon buyer’s subscription to BaaS, Grizzly has taken the lower end of the range (i.e. RMB 70,000) as the proxy for battery pack revenues. Based on annual BaaS subscription fees at RMB 11,760 (RMB 980/mo.) for the 70 kWh battery pack, which yields a vehicle discount of RMB 70,000 with subscription to BaaS, Grizzly has assumed a BaaS revenue recognition timeline of about seven years (i.e. RMB 70,000 discount, divided by RMB 11,760 annual BaaS subscription fee, adjusted for inflation) – we consider this a reasonable assumption.</p><p>Now, as of September 30, 2021, a public regulatory filing by Weineng disclosed that it had 19,000 active BaaS subscribers. 18% of its subscription base were subscribed to the RMB 1,480/mo. 100 kWh battery pack, and 82% were subscribed to the RMB 980/mo. 70/75 kWh battery pack at the time.</p><p>Grizzly’s calculation of inflated revenues and income pertaining to NIO’s sale of 19,000 BaaS-related batteries to Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021 is as follows:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/21e7d58b24ac2bde6344b4206ef9be8e\" tg-width=\"592\" tg-height=\"395\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Grizzly&#39;s Computation of Inflated Revenue and Income Pertaining to Pulled Forward BaaS Sales (Grizzly Research)</span></p><p>As of the nine months ended September 30, 2021, NIO had generated RMB 2,796 million in revenues from the sale of batteries to Weineng (full year 2021 revenues generated from Weineng: RMB 4,138 million, 11% of total NIO 2021 revenue). Based on 19,000 active BaaS subscribers, and ownership of 40,053 battery packs owned as reported by Weineng as of September 30, 2021, Grizzly estimates that only 47% of the RMB 2,796 million in revenues generated from the sale of goods to Weineng are related to “real” BaaS sales. Essentially, Grizzly claims only RMB 1,326 million of RMB 2,796 million in sales of goods to Weineng recognized on NIO’s income statement in the nine months ended September 30, 2021 are related to real BaaS battery sales.</p><p>The RMB 1,326 million pertaining to 19,000 battery packs sold to Weineng for the number of active BaaS subscribers at the time is effectively the “upfront” revenue recognized by NIO, which should have been recognized over a course of seven years instead based on the estimated performance obligation timeline discussed in earlier sections. Without Weineng, NIO would have instead had to recognize BaaS revenues related to the 19,000 subscribers over time, which is equivalent to RMB 179 million in the nine month period ending September 30, 2021. This essentially means NIO had allegedly pulled forward RMB 1,147 million in revenues related to BaaS sales in the nine months ending September 30, 2021.</p><p>In the nine months ended September 30, 2021, NIO had reported total revenue of RMB 26,236 million and net losses of RMB 1,874 million. The RMB 1,147 million in pulled forward BaaS revenues represents 4% of total revenues recognized over the nine-month reporting period.</p><p>To generate the “adjusted” net income that NIO would have reported had Weineng never existed, Grizzly had removed RMB 1,147 million in pulled forward revenues pertaining to BaaS sales directly from actual reported net losses of RMB 1,874 million. This accordingly yields adjusted net losses of RMB 3,021 million for the nine months ending September 30, 2021 at NIO, or a variance of 61%.</p><p><b>Issue with Grizzly’s claim.</b>In Grizzly’s calculation of adjusted net losses had BaaS revenue never been pulled forward at NIO via its affiliation with Weineng, the short-seller did not add back costs of sales that NIO would have recognized when it sold the battery packs to Weineng and recorded the related revenue.</p><p>While profit margins on NIO’s battery pack sales to Weineng are not disclosed, Grizzly had used 20% as a proxy, which is “consistent with the margin of an entire vehicle [considering] batteries are a cost center for all vehicles”. Using the 20% profit margin proxy on 19,000 battery pack sales to Weineng totalling RMB 1,326 million in the nine months ending September 30, 2021, NIO would have recorded related cost of sales of RMB 1,060.9 million (i.e. 0.8% cost of revenues x RMB 1,326 million battery revenues recorded on the sale of 19,000 units to Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021).</p><p>When Grizzly removed/pulled forward BaaS revenues of RMB 1,147 million from NIO’s actual net losses of RMB 1,874 million reported in the nine months ending September 30, 2021, Grizzly should have also added back related cost of sales totalling RMB 917.6 million in determining the adjusted net income reported.</p><p><b>Livy’s revised calculation of quantified impacts.</b></p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/324a74d6eeeb60a4bd2da9251d4d6ed8\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"416\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Livy&#39;s Computation of Revenue and Income Variances Pertaining to NIO&#39;s Alleged Frontloading of BaaS Sales (Author)</span></p><p>The above revised net income adjustment backs out alleged pulled forward BaaS revenues by NIO through its affiliation with Weineng from actual net losses reported by NIO in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. The orange-highlighted cells represent the incremental cost of sales pertaining to pulled forward BaaS revenues that should have been added back to adjusted net income in order to represent a fair representation of NIO’s adjusted net losses for the nine months ending September 30, 2021 if Weineng never existed and the EV maker had to recognize BaaS revenues over time. This adjustment accordingly reduces the variance of 61% from Grizzly’s calculation of adjusted net losses, to 12% – a material difference that, like Grizzly is accusing NIO of doing, misleads investors on the matter discussed.</p><p><b>2. Revenues from Oversupplied Batteries to Weineng</b></p><p><b>Grizzly’s accusation.</b>Based on NIO’s revenue recognition method on BaaS sales, the number of battery packs sold to Weineng should be equivalent to the number of vehicle buyers that have subscribed to BaaS at the time of purchase. Based on 19,000 active BaaS subscribers reported by Weineng as of September 30, 2021, it is easy to assume that NIO should have only sold 19,000 battery packs to Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021 as well to comply with the EV maker’s revenue recognition method on BaaS sales outlined in its 2021 20F.</p><p>However, Weineng had reported ownership of 40,053 battery packs as of September 30, 2021, which exceeds its active subscriber base of 19,000 by 21,053 units. As such, Grizzly has accused NIO of intentionally overselling battery packs to Weineng to inflate revenues.</p><p>While the discrepancy is indeed a question for management, Grizzly had cited that there is no need for Weineng to hold that many additional battery packs, even for operational purposes. Grizzly had gone on to explain its field work done at NIO Power Swap stations to verify that there is no difference between BaaS battery packs owned by Weineng and battery packs used in swap stations owned by NIO. However, we believe the additional field work is a moot point, considering NIO Power Swap operations are not related to Weineng. Weineng only facilitates NIO’s BaaS battery lending business, and nothing else – Grizzly did not even have to go out of its way to check on NIO’s Power Swap stations and hold conversations with sales staff at NIO’s car centers.</p><p><b>Livy’s response.</b>While the number of battery packs owned by Weineng should essentially be equivalent to the number of active BaaS subscribers, there is a possibility that a total of 40,053 NIO vehicle sales between 2020 when BaaS was established and September 30, 2021 had subscribed to BaaS. Perhaps, as of reporting date on September 30, 2021, there were 21,053 BaaS subscribers that have halted monthly subscriptions, which is not surprising given the third quarter is not a typical driving season, and there is a possibility that these NIO vehicle owners did not need to use their vehicles during the period.</p><p>Grizzly has also supported its claim that NIO oversupplied battery packs to Weineng to intentionally inflate revenues by saying that Weineng has no storage facility to store its 21,053 excess battery packs as of September 30, 2021. However, we do not find this surprising, as BaaS subscribers that have halted monthly subscriptions might be holding onto the emptied battery packs on consignment or have returned them to a NIO servicing center where NIO has held onto these Weineng-owned battery packs on consignment. The lack of battery pack storage facility owned by Weineng does not conclude that its ownership of the excess battery packs is fraudulent and made up.</p><p>There can be many reasons why a discrepancy exists between the number of active BaaS subscribers and battery packs owned by Weineng at the end of a reporting period. The above are just two assumptions that could invalidate Grizzly’s accusation (which is also an assumption). The real answer to the discrepancy can only be explained by NIO and Weineng management.</p><p><b>Grizzly’s calculation of quantified impacts.</b>In determining the inflated revenue and earnings specific to the allegedly oversupplied battery packs from NIO to Weineng, Grizzly had performed the following calculations:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a2497da8272eec2b6020c07b7ee06b1f\" tg-width=\"580\" tg-height=\"420\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Grizzly&#39;s Computation of Revenue and Net Income Variances Pertaining to Oversupplied Batteries (Grizzly Research)</span></p><p>In deriving the inflated revenues related to the allegedly oversupplied battery packs, Grizzly had determined the percentage of battery packs owned by Weineng as of September 30, 2021 that were in excess to its active subscriber base as 53% (i.e. 21,053 excess battery packs, divided by 40,053 battery packs owned by Weineng as of September 30, 2021). The percentage was applied to total revenue recognized by NIO pertaining to the sale of battery packs to Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021, resulting in oversold battery revenues of RMB 1,470 million (i.e. 53% oversold batteries x RMB 2,796 million in related party revenues from Weineng recorded by NIO for the nine months ending September 30, 2021).</p><p>In the nine months ended September 30, 2021, NIO had reported total revenue of RMB 26,236 million and net losses of RMB 1,874 million. The RMB 1,470 million in oversold battery revenue represents 6% of total NIO revenues recognized over the nine-month reporting period.</p><p>Considering Grizzly’s 20% profit margin assumption on battery pack sales as discussed in earlier sections, the oversold battery packs to Weineng would have generated net income of RMB 294 million in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. As such, backing out RMB 294 million in overstated profits back to NIO’s actual reported net losses of RMB 1,874 million in the nine-month period ending September 30, 2021 would have yield adjusted net losses of RMB 2,168 million, representing a variance of 16%.</p><p>We have no issues with this calculation performed by Grizzly, other than concerns over the short-seller’s claims that these 20,053 battery packs were intentionally “oversold” by NIO to Weineng to artificially boost revenues.</p><p><b>3. Shifting Depreciation Costs</b></p><p><b>Grizzly’s Accusations.</b>Grizzly has accused NIO of indirectly shifting depreciation costs on the battery packs sold to Weineng, saving the EV maker north of RMB 336 million in depreciation expense on an annual basis.</p><p>Specifically, Grizzly has assumed a 20% profit margin on NIO’s battery sales totalling RMB 2,796 million generated from Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. This represents battery assets valued at a cost basis of RMB 2.25 billion (i.e. 80% cost x RMB 2,796 in battery sales to Weineng, adjusted for minor rounding differences) removed from the EV maker’s balance sheet over the same period.</p><p>Based on the five to eight years useful life attributable to equipment, including battery packs, used in NIO’s Power Swap business as disclosed in its 2021 20F, Grizzly has assumed an annual depreciation rate of about 15% on the battery packs sold to Weineng and removed from NIO’s balance sheet in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. This is consistent with the assumed BaaS revenue recognition timeline of about seven years as discussed in earlier sections. As such, Grizzly has accused NIO of avoiding depreciation costs of RMB 336 million (i.e. 15% battery depreciation rate x RMB 2,796 million in battery pack sales to Weineng) in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. The short-seller has also alluded to the RMB 336 million as a proxy for annual depreciation costs that NIO has avoided via its arrangement with Weineng.</p><p><b>Issue with Grizzly’s claim.</b>There are two folds to this situation:</p><p><b>1. BaaS Business Model:</b>Under the BaaS business model, the battery packs are considered equipment used in facilitating a service business. As such, the related battery packs would be subjected to depreciation over its useful life. In NIO’s case, if Weineng never existed and the EV maker consolidates its BaaS business, NIO would have had to recognized BaaS revenues pertaining to the 19,000 battery packs that Grizzly has attributed to the BaaS business over seven years, and accordingly record depreciation costs on these battery packs as well over their useful lives of about seven years. As mentioned in earlier sections, the related journal entries under the BaaS business model is as follows:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0e89611dda7a7e83881997628fe7aae3\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"187\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Journal Entries for BaaS Business Model (Author)</span></p><p><b>2. Battery Sales Business Model:</b>in the current situation where NIO has sold the battery packs to Weineng, the battery packs are considered inventory to NIO. There is no depreciation costs related to inventory under GAAP-based accounting. Instead, NIO needs to record the costs of this inventory when they are removed from its balance sheet once the sale is recognized. As mentioned in earlier sections, the related journal entries under the battery sale business model is as follows:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2203faf29e5b271342335935df358d86\" tg-width=\"389\" tg-height=\"208\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Journal Entries for Battery Sales Business Model (Author)</span></p><p>Now, in NIO’s current actual situation, it is engaged in a battery sales business model under its performance obligation to Weineng, while Weineng is engaged in a BaaS business model under its performance obligation to BaaS subscribers.</p><p>As discussed in our first challenge to Grizzly’s calculations pertaining to pulled forward revenue on BaaS battery sales to Weineng, NIO would have recorded costs of sales pertaining to the sold battery inventory when it recognized the related revenues. And this cost of sales number, based on a 20% profit margin assumption consistent with that used by Grizzly, would have accounted for the costs of battery inventory removed from NIO’s balance sheet upon completion of the sale to Weineng. This is consistent with Grizzly’s own calculation pertaining to profit margins on the battery packs that it alleges NIO had oversupplied to Weineng, which is inclusive of cost of sales related to written off inventory incurred by NIO upon recognition of related revenues.</p><p>If NIO was engaged in the BaaS business model itself, without the intervention of Weineng, it would have recognized depreciation at a rate of 15% per year on the battery packs. However, under the upfront sale of related battery packs to Weineng, NIO would have recorded related cost of sales at an upfront rate of 80% as well. So basically, instead of recording revenues and depreciation costs on battery packs over time, NIO essentially recorded revenues and battery inventory costs upfront under its current arrangement with Weineng.</p><p><b>Grizzly’s calculation of quantified impacts.</b>Grizzly’s accusation that NIO has overstated revenues and earnings by 10% and 95%, respectively, through its affiliation with Weineng is calculated as follows:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/96f972c8d488406cd690b0672265e62b\" tg-width=\"576\" tg-height=\"498\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Grizzly&#39;s Computation of Total Revenue and Income Inflation (Grizzly Research)</span></p><p>As discussed in earlier sections, NIO’s pulled forward BaaS revenues and inflated battery sales revenues via its affiliation with Weineng represent 4% and 6% of its total revenues, respectively, recognized in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. This represents the 10% in inflated NIO revenues as Grizzly has outlined in the above calculation.</p><p><b>Livy’s revised calculation of quantified impacts.</b>While we have yet to reconcile the RMB 1,777 million in total inflated net income that Grizzly has accused NIO of recognizing (please let us know in comments if you know), we believe the 95% variance identified by Grizzly is not a fair presentation of the quantified impact of its core short thesis.</p><p>Our calculation of the quantified impact pertaining to Grizzly’s accusations that NIO has inflated revenue and earnings through (1) pulling forward BaaS sales, and (2) oversupplying batteries to Weineng, is as follows:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1ffe9833bb562f66e5365e077d7741d4\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"396\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Livy&#39;s Computation of Alleged Overstatements Related to Alleged Frontloading of BaaS Revenue (Author)</span></p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/230a54833c34b3a9920a03524c28e960\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"361\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Livy&#39;s Computation of Alleged Overstatements Pertaining to Alleged Overselling of Battery Supplies (Author)</span></p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ccf9a3a0482b46cee102e66d5137113f\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"220\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Livy&#39;s Computation of Alleged Revenue Overstatement (Author)</span></p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0c7ec5a61d7fd491aec81d9a48a92020\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"188\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Livy&#39;s Computation of Alleged Overstatement in Net Income (Author)</span></p><p>Under Grizzly’s accusations of inflated revenue and earnings by NIO through its affiliation with Weineng, if found valid (which we remain skeptical of), NIO would have overstated net losses in the nine months ending September 30, 2021 by 28% instead of the 95% that Grizzly alleges – a material difference that again misleads investors on the estimated quantified impact pertaining to the accusations claimed by the short-seller. The net income variance of RMB 523 million ($78 million) found in our calculation is also immaterial (&lt; 1%) based on NIO’s market value of $58.38 billion as of September 30, 2021 and NIO’s market value of approximately $35 billion today.</p><p><b>Final Thoughts</b></p><p>As discussed in the introduction of this analysis, Grizzly had also touched on things like NIO CEO Li’s association with fraudulent personnel, the pledge of NIO User Trust to UBS AG, and conflict of interests to further support its argument that NIO is engaged in fraudulent financial reporting. However, these are groundless allegations that have yet to be substantiated to infer Li is committing fraud via NIO’s operations. While investors should always exercise professional skepticism on publicly disclosed information in regulatory filings when making investment decisions, the same skepticism should also be placed on external claims – such as those by the short-seller, commentary by external sources, and/or even commentary herein – especially if they argue that correlation = causation (e.g. Grizzly’s method in inferring that fraud at NIO is substantiated given “dirt” it has dug up on Li’s past).</p><p>While we agree that there are some good takeaways from the short-seller report that may require further clarification from management, it is important to recognize and acknowledge that a lot of it might also be misleading – or in the words of Grizzly, “exaggerated”. This is also consistent with NIO’s stock performance during Tuesday and Wednesday’s session following release of the short-seller report. The stock has largely moved in consistency with the ongoing market rout, and broad-based selloff across the EV sector, with no extreme deviation due to the negative headline from Grizzly, which indicates that market participants, especially significant shareholders in NIO, are still digesting the latest external allegations.</p><p>At the end of the day, NIO remains one of the most viable EV businesses in the emerging sector, with continued demand for its vehicles to support further growth over the long-run. Unlike some of the upstarts in the increasingly competitive EV landscape that have been accused of fraud, such as Nikola (NKLA), Lordstown Motors (RIDE), and Faraday Future (FFIE), NIO already operates a global business with a substantiated vehicle order book to support the bulk of its top- and bottom-line expansion, which continues to support its positive valuation prospects ahead.</p><p>This article was written by Livy Investment Research</p></body></html>","source":"seekingalpha","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>NIO: Questions And Challenges To The Grizzly Short-Seller Report</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nNIO: Questions And Challenges To The Grizzly Short-Seller Report\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-06-30 12:01 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://seekingalpha.com/article/4521053-nio-questions-and-challenges-to-the-grizzly-short-seller-report?source=content_type%3Areact%7Cfirst_level_url%3Ahome%7Csection%3Aportfolio%7Csection_asset%3Aheadlines%7Cline%3A2><strong>seekingalpha</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>SummaryShort-seller Grizzly Research has released a report outlining findings of alleged fraud by NIO on Tuesday evening.The report attempted to outline how NIO, through an unconsolidated entity, is ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4521053-nio-questions-and-challenges-to-the-grizzly-short-seller-report?source=content_type%3Areact%7Cfirst_level_url%3Ahome%7Csection%3Aportfolio%7Csection_asset%3Aheadlines%7Cline%3A2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4521053-nio-questions-and-challenges-to-the-grizzly-short-seller-report?source=content_type%3Areact%7Cfirst_level_url%3Ahome%7Csection%3Aportfolio%7Csection_asset%3Aheadlines%7Cline%3A2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5a36db9d73b4222bc376d24ccc48c8a4","article_id":"1121505043","content_text":"SummaryShort-seller Grizzly Research has released a report outlining findings of alleged fraud by NIO on Tuesday evening.The report attempted to outline how NIO, through an unconsolidated entity, is falsely inflating revenue and net income pertaining to its BaaS business.The report also accused CEO Bin Li of association with fraudulent activities in the past. The information was largely used as support for Grizzly's claims of financial manipulation at NIO.However, we believe some of the information reported by Grizzly have been exaggerated to support its short bias against NIO. We also question the validity of some of the quantified impacts that Grizzly is claiming against NIO's BaaS operations.Drew Angerer/Getty Images NewsGrizzly Research (\"Grizzly\") has released a short-seller report on NIO (NYSE:NIO) Tuesday morning, citing the Chinese electric vehicle (“EV”) company has engaged in the exaggeration of revenue and profitability via aggressive accounting methods and fraudulent means. In addition to outlining the allegedmeasures NIO has taken to falsely inflate its top- and bottom-line since 2020, Grizzly has also gathered extensive research in an attempt to character-assassinate NIO CEO Bin Li in order to “dot the i’s and cross the t’s” in its argument that the three core elements of fraud – opportunity, incentive and rationalization – exist in this situation for the EV maker.While some of the findings raised in the short-seller report may raise questions that only NIO management can answer, there are also questionable and groundless arguments made by Grizzly that could significantly mislead and deceive existing and potential investors in the EV stock. The following analysis will focus on an overview of the short-seller’s core claim against NIO – namely, false inflation of revenue and net income via aggressive accounting and potentially fraudulent means – and provide a walkthrough of questions / challenges we have over the validity of some of those claims.Accounting Crash Course: NIO’s BaaS Revenue Recognition MethodThrough publicly disclosed information within NIO’s audited annual report, Grizzly had identified that NIO is frontloading and inflating revenue recognition pertaining to its battery-as-a-service (“BaaS”) sales via an unconsolidated related party.In 2020, NIO, alongside an external consortium of investors that consist of EV battery maker CATL, Hubei Science Technology Investment Group, and a subsidiary of Fuotai Junan International Holdings Limited, have together created the joint venture “Wuhan Weineng Battery Asset Co., Ltd.,” (“Weineng”). Weineng was established in 2020, the same time when NIO’s battery lending service BaaS was introduced.Under BaaS, NIO customers are eligible for a one-time discount of up to RMB 128,000 ($19,133) on the vehicle purchase if they opt for the battery lending subscription program instead of buying the battery with the vehicle upfront. This strategy has been an effective mean in fuelling the adoption of NIO EVs in China, especially with additional government subsidies for purchases that are compatible with battery swapping technology. All sales and costs pertaining to BaaS are managed by Weineng.Now, the Weineng joint venture, in which NIO holds a 19.8% equity interest in, has been accounted for as an “equity-accounted investment” on the EV maker’s financial statements, given the definition of control under GAAP-based accounting has not been met (further discussed in later sections). Under GAAP-based accounting for related party transactions, “intragroup related party transactions and outstanding balances are eliminated, except for those between an investment entity and its subsidiaries measured at fair value through profit or loss, in the preparation of consolidated financial statements of the group”:GAAP Rules on Related Party Disclosures (IAS)Based on NIO’s disclosures within its audited annual report on its revenue recognition method pertaining to BaaS sales, the EV maker sells its battery packs to Weineng on a “back-to-back” basis when a vehicle is sold to a customer subscribed to BaaS:NIO Revenue Recognition Policy on BaaS Sales (NIO 2021 20F)In compliance with GAAP-based accounting for revenue recognition, a sale is reported to the income statement when a performance obligation is satisfied. Under NIO’s affiliation with Weineng, NIO sells Weineng a battery pack when a customer buys a vehicle with BaaS subscription. The performance obligation here is that NIO needs to provide a battery pack to Weineng, and once this is satisfied, NIO is permitted to recognize revenue on the battery sale based on a pre-contracted transaction price for the performance obligation. For NIO, the battery sold would have been previously considered as inventory. Following the recognition of the battery sale, NIO would have also recorded cost of sales pertaining to removing the battery from its inventory balance on the balance sheet:Journal Entries for Battery Sales Business Model (Author)In Weineng’s case, however, its performance obligation to customers is the provision of battery lending services on a monthly or annual basis, depending on the subscription option. As such, Weineng can only recognize monthly / annual BaaS revenue over time when it satisfies its battery lending obligation to customers. Weineng would also have to record depreciation costs over the useful life of its batteries, which are considered property, plant and equipment used in facilitating its service business:Journal Entries for BaaS Business Model (Author)This arrangement essentially allows NIO to recognize 100% of revenues pertaining to the battery pack sold to Weineng upfront upon selling a vehicle booked on BaaS on a one-for-one basis, instead of recognizing BaaS revenue and related depreciation costs on the batteries used in the BaaS business over time. The disclosed BaaS revenue recognition method for NIO also infers that the number of battery packs sold to Weineng should be equivalent to the number of BaaS subscribers as of period-end. BaaS revenues and related costs of sales (e.g. depreciation costs on batteries) recognized over time are instead in the books of Weineng, in which NIO accounts for on its balance sheet as an equity-accounted investment.Because Weineng is an equity-accounted investment and not a consolidated entity in which NIO controls under the definition set out by GAAP-based accounting, NIO is not required to perform intragroup eliminations pertaining to the related party transaction. Instead, it is required to disclose the relationship, as well as the related amounts if material. This information is disclosed in NIO’s 2021 20 Funder “Note 26. Related Party Balances and Transactions”. Revenue and income generated by Weineng are accounted for in NIO’s financial statements as “share of (loss) / income of equity investees” pro-rated for its non-controlling interest.Grizzly’s Core Short ThesisGrizzly alleges the move is a fraudulent measure taken by NIO to “exaggerate revenue and profitability”. The short-seller has accused NIO of using the accounting “loophole” to frontload battery revenues pertaining to BaaS that should have been recognized over a course of about seven years (i.e. battery discount on BaaS vehicle purchase, divided by annual BaaS subscription fee).In addition to frontloading revenue recognition on BaaS sales, Grizzly has also identified a discrepancy between the number of active BaaS subscribers and battery packs owned by Weineng as of September 30, 2021. Grizzly found thatWeineng had ownership of 40,053 battery packs as of September 30, 2021, but only had 19,000 active BaaS subscribers during the period, which is inconsistent with NIO’s claims that it only records battery sales to Weineng on a back-to-back basis with BaaS vehicle sales. Grizzly has attributed the discrepancy as NIO’s way of artificially inflating revenues by selling more battery packs to Weineng than it needs to fulfil BaaS performance obligations.In order to support its claim that NIO is defrauding investors via the unconsolidated related party, Grizzly has also gathered additional research in an attempt to support the three key elements of the fraudulent triangle:Opportunity:As mentioned in the accounting overview section, the ownership structure between NIO and Weineng is accounted for as an equity-accounted investment, which allows NIO to bypass related party transaction eliminations on its financial statements. This accordingly provides an opportunity for NIO to artificially inflate its revenues at the group level by recording sales to the equity-accounted subsidiary, without the need to back it out at period end. Under GAAP-based accounting rules on related party transactions, NIO is required to disclose material details to the relationship, in which it has complied with.The organizational structure also provides NIO an ability to recognize BaaS revenues upfront, instead of over an extended period of time given the difference in performance obligation it owes toWeinengcompared to thoseWeineng owes to BaaS subscribers. Grizzly also claims the method has allowed NIO to bypass depreciation costs on battery assets to the tune of RMB 336 million per year.Incentive:Grizzly has gone through extensive measures to dig up evidence to support NIO has a valid incentive for exaggerating its revenue and profitability. Citing an agreement between NIO and a state-backed consortium which has invested in a wholly-owned subsidiary “NIO China”, which requires NIO to redeem the investment upon failure in meeting pre-established performance metrics, such as achieving revenues of RMB 120 billion by 2024. However, the publicly disclosed information per NIO’s regulatory filings does not specify whether the RMB 120 billion revenue performance metric is required on an annual basis or on a cumulative basis between the time at which the agreement was forged with the state-backed investment consortium and 2024.Grizzly has also inferred incentive for NIO to exaggerate its top- and bottom-line as a mean to pretty its valuation prospects, and attract investors from the public market.Rationalization:The short-seller report lacks support for how NIO tried to rationalize the alleged fraudulent reporting behaviour. However, Grizzly has proceeded to gather evidence to bolster its claim of why the likelihood of fraud at NIO is high. These include findings about NIO CEO Li’s past association with personnel that have been previously linked to high-profile fraudulent financial reporting cases like Luckin Coffee(OTCPK:LKNCY). Grizzly has also alluded to questionable behaviour by NIO CEO Li, such as pledging a NIO-affiliated subsidiary, “NIO User Trust”, in which Li personally controls to UBS AG without directly addressing the matter to shareholders. While these findings may warrant clarification from management, there is insufficient ground to warrant a fraudulent sentence to the company.NIO management has also refuted Grizzly’s claims, saying allegations outlined in the report are “without merit and contains numerous errors, unsupported speculations and misleading conclusions and interpretations”, and has committed to bolstering public disclosures going forward to protect shareholders’ interests. Nowhere has the company tried to outright rationalize fraudulent reporting.Challenging Grizzly’s Conclusion on “Control” Established by NIO Over WeinengIn addition to character assassination on Li to support its claims for fraudulent reporting behaviour at NIO, Grizzly has also attempted to conclude NIO’s control over Weineng. As mentioned in earlier sections, if NIO effectively “controls” Weineng, it would have to consolidate the investment and eliminate any earnings recorded via related party transactions.First, Grizzly has identified “conflicting disclosure” between NIO’s claim that it has “significant influence” over Weineng in one place, and NIO’s claim that it only has “limited control over the business operations” ofWeinengin another place within a same regulatory filing. However, the words “significant influence” and “control” used within NIO’s regulatory filings are defined differently under GAAP-based accounting rules from general definitions of power that everyday investors are familiar with.Significant influence is defined as “the power to participate in the financial and operating policy decisions of the investee without the power to control or jointly control those policies” under GAAP-based accounting. Significantly influence is typically established when an “entity holds, directly or indirectly, 20% or more of voting power of the investee”. NIO’s 19.8% equity interest in Weineng is sufficient to presume its “significant influence” over the investment:GAAP Rules on Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures (IAS)Pointing to our earlier reference to the definition of control established in GAAP-based accounting, the acquiring party only establishes “control” over the acquired party if it demonstrates three primary elements:1. “Power” over the acquired entity, which is defined under GAAP as a substantive right exercised by an acquirer over the acquiree for non-protective benefits (e.g. exercising rights without the need for breach of contract or majority investor support). Based on publicly disclosed information in NIO’s regulatory filings, it only holds one of nine board seats on Weineng. There is also no mention of voting agreements that would pass on majority board and/or owner voting rights to NIO. With one of nine board seats, and a 19.8% equity interest, NIO does not exhibit power over Weineng to establish control.2. Exposure tovariable returnsfrom the acquiree based on the acquirer’s involvement. NIO does not generate additional fees from Weineng based on Weineng’s performance. NIO is only exposed to Weineng’s earnings through its equity-accounted share of the investment.As for the acquirer’s involvement in interfering with returns generated from the acquiree, Grizzly has pointed to the installation of two existing NIO executives to Weineng in management roles that include “Legal Representative and Chairman” and “General Manager and Director”. However, considering NIO’s significant influence over Weineng as defined under GAAP rules explained earlier, it is not unusual for the two parties to share employees or for NIO to “participate in the financial and operating policy decisions” of Weineng through the two shared employees. As such, NIO can account for its investment inWeinengas an equity-accounted investment, as long as “control” is not established even if it has installed employees at Weineng. Based on NIO’s failure to meet criterion 1 “power”, it already fails to establish control under GAAP rules over Weineng based on the existing ownership and voting structure disclosed in regulatory filings.Grizzly has also alluded to the installation of two NIO executives in the daily operations of Weineng as a “major conflict of interest”. However, the auditor’s report per NIO’s audited 2021 20F states that “the company has maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021, based on criteria established inInternal Control – Integrated Framework(2013) issued by the COSO”. The COSO framework requires that internal controls address segregation of duty requirements to ensure fair presentation of financial information without material misstatements whether due to error or fraud. As such, it is reasonable to believe that segregation of duty controls in place pertaining to the two executives’ roles in both NIO and Weineng have been tested as effective as of the reporting date.3. The acquiring party is aprincipalin the transaction, and not an agent. Under GAAP-based accounting, an agent is “primarily engaged to act on behalf and for the benefit of another party…[and] does not control an investee when it exercises decision-making rights delegated to it”. In determining whether NIO is an agent over Weineng, the i) scope of NIO’s decision-making authority over Weineng, ii) the rights held by other investors in Weineng, iii) the remuneration in which NIO is entitled to in its affiliation with Weineng, and iv) NIO’s exposure to variability of returns from its interest in Weineng must be considered:Based on the foregoing analysis, we know that NIO’s sole decision-making authority over Weineng is limited given it only holds 19.8% equity interest with one in nine board seats in the joint venture. The two NIO executives installed in the daily operations of Weineng also do not exhibit characteristics of sole control over the joint ventures’ business.The remainder of the investment consortium over Weineng holds the remaining eight of nine board seats, and 80.2% equity interest in the joint venture. There have also been no mention of signed-over voting rights by the investment consortium to NIO in publicly disclosed information that would give NIO control over Weineng.In addition to battery sales, NIO is also entitled to service revenue earned from Weineng through service agreements. NIO earns revenue for providing “battery packmonitoring, maintenance, upgrade, replacement, IT system support, etc.” to Weineng via monthly service charges. As of the reporting year ended December 31, 2021, service revenues pertaining to the service agreements between NIO and Weineng were immaterial according to disclosures in “Note 2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies”, section(r) Revenue recognitionin the 2021 20F.As discussed in the control assessment under criterion 2, NIO’s exposure to variability of returns in its investment in Weineng is insufficient to establish control under GAAP-based accounting.Challenging Grizzly’s Quantification of NIO’s Alleged Revenue and Profit InflationGrizzly believes NIO has inflated revenue and net income by “about 10% and 95%, respectively”, via its affiliation with Weineng. Grizzly’s calculations, as well as our skepticism, is outlined as follows:1. Frontloaded Revenue via Battery Sales to WeinengGrizzly’s accusation.As discussed in the foregoing analysis, Grizzly identified that NIO has been recognizing battery revenues pertaining to BaaS upfront via its affiliation with Weineng. Instead of recognizing BaaS revenues over time when the service performance obligation is satisfied, NIO is able to recognize 100% of battery revenues sold to customers via BaaS subscriptions through the Weineng JV. Grizzly claims that this arrangement effectively allows NIO to pull forward seven years of BaaS revenue upfront.Grizzly’s calculation of quantified impacts.Considering vehicle purchase discounts ranging RMB 70,000 (70/75 kWh battery pack) to RMB 128,000 (100 kWh battery pack) upon buyer’s subscription to BaaS, Grizzly has taken the lower end of the range (i.e. RMB 70,000) as the proxy for battery pack revenues. Based on annual BaaS subscription fees at RMB 11,760 (RMB 980/mo.) for the 70 kWh battery pack, which yields a vehicle discount of RMB 70,000 with subscription to BaaS, Grizzly has assumed a BaaS revenue recognition timeline of about seven years (i.e. RMB 70,000 discount, divided by RMB 11,760 annual BaaS subscription fee, adjusted for inflation) – we consider this a reasonable assumption.Now, as of September 30, 2021, a public regulatory filing by Weineng disclosed that it had 19,000 active BaaS subscribers. 18% of its subscription base were subscribed to the RMB 1,480/mo. 100 kWh battery pack, and 82% were subscribed to the RMB 980/mo. 70/75 kWh battery pack at the time.Grizzly’s calculation of inflated revenues and income pertaining to NIO’s sale of 19,000 BaaS-related batteries to Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021 is as follows:Grizzly's Computation of Inflated Revenue and Income Pertaining to Pulled Forward BaaS Sales (Grizzly Research)As of the nine months ended September 30, 2021, NIO had generated RMB 2,796 million in revenues from the sale of batteries to Weineng (full year 2021 revenues generated from Weineng: RMB 4,138 million, 11% of total NIO 2021 revenue). Based on 19,000 active BaaS subscribers, and ownership of 40,053 battery packs owned as reported by Weineng as of September 30, 2021, Grizzly estimates that only 47% of the RMB 2,796 million in revenues generated from the sale of goods to Weineng are related to “real” BaaS sales. Essentially, Grizzly claims only RMB 1,326 million of RMB 2,796 million in sales of goods to Weineng recognized on NIO’s income statement in the nine months ended September 30, 2021 are related to real BaaS battery sales.The RMB 1,326 million pertaining to 19,000 battery packs sold to Weineng for the number of active BaaS subscribers at the time is effectively the “upfront” revenue recognized by NIO, which should have been recognized over a course of seven years instead based on the estimated performance obligation timeline discussed in earlier sections. Without Weineng, NIO would have instead had to recognize BaaS revenues related to the 19,000 subscribers over time, which is equivalent to RMB 179 million in the nine month period ending September 30, 2021. This essentially means NIO had allegedly pulled forward RMB 1,147 million in revenues related to BaaS sales in the nine months ending September 30, 2021.In the nine months ended September 30, 2021, NIO had reported total revenue of RMB 26,236 million and net losses of RMB 1,874 million. The RMB 1,147 million in pulled forward BaaS revenues represents 4% of total revenues recognized over the nine-month reporting period.To generate the “adjusted” net income that NIO would have reported had Weineng never existed, Grizzly had removed RMB 1,147 million in pulled forward revenues pertaining to BaaS sales directly from actual reported net losses of RMB 1,874 million. This accordingly yields adjusted net losses of RMB 3,021 million for the nine months ending September 30, 2021 at NIO, or a variance of 61%.Issue with Grizzly’s claim.In Grizzly’s calculation of adjusted net losses had BaaS revenue never been pulled forward at NIO via its affiliation with Weineng, the short-seller did not add back costs of sales that NIO would have recognized when it sold the battery packs to Weineng and recorded the related revenue.While profit margins on NIO’s battery pack sales to Weineng are not disclosed, Grizzly had used 20% as a proxy, which is “consistent with the margin of an entire vehicle [considering] batteries are a cost center for all vehicles”. Using the 20% profit margin proxy on 19,000 battery pack sales to Weineng totalling RMB 1,326 million in the nine months ending September 30, 2021, NIO would have recorded related cost of sales of RMB 1,060.9 million (i.e. 0.8% cost of revenues x RMB 1,326 million battery revenues recorded on the sale of 19,000 units to Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021).When Grizzly removed/pulled forward BaaS revenues of RMB 1,147 million from NIO’s actual net losses of RMB 1,874 million reported in the nine months ending September 30, 2021, Grizzly should have also added back related cost of sales totalling RMB 917.6 million in determining the adjusted net income reported.Livy’s revised calculation of quantified impacts.Livy's Computation of Revenue and Income Variances Pertaining to NIO's Alleged Frontloading of BaaS Sales (Author)The above revised net income adjustment backs out alleged pulled forward BaaS revenues by NIO through its affiliation with Weineng from actual net losses reported by NIO in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. The orange-highlighted cells represent the incremental cost of sales pertaining to pulled forward BaaS revenues that should have been added back to adjusted net income in order to represent a fair representation of NIO’s adjusted net losses for the nine months ending September 30, 2021 if Weineng never existed and the EV maker had to recognize BaaS revenues over time. This adjustment accordingly reduces the variance of 61% from Grizzly’s calculation of adjusted net losses, to 12% – a material difference that, like Grizzly is accusing NIO of doing, misleads investors on the matter discussed.2. Revenues from Oversupplied Batteries to WeinengGrizzly’s accusation.Based on NIO’s revenue recognition method on BaaS sales, the number of battery packs sold to Weineng should be equivalent to the number of vehicle buyers that have subscribed to BaaS at the time of purchase. Based on 19,000 active BaaS subscribers reported by Weineng as of September 30, 2021, it is easy to assume that NIO should have only sold 19,000 battery packs to Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021 as well to comply with the EV maker’s revenue recognition method on BaaS sales outlined in its 2021 20F.However, Weineng had reported ownership of 40,053 battery packs as of September 30, 2021, which exceeds its active subscriber base of 19,000 by 21,053 units. As such, Grizzly has accused NIO of intentionally overselling battery packs to Weineng to inflate revenues.While the discrepancy is indeed a question for management, Grizzly had cited that there is no need for Weineng to hold that many additional battery packs, even for operational purposes. Grizzly had gone on to explain its field work done at NIO Power Swap stations to verify that there is no difference between BaaS battery packs owned by Weineng and battery packs used in swap stations owned by NIO. However, we believe the additional field work is a moot point, considering NIO Power Swap operations are not related to Weineng. Weineng only facilitates NIO’s BaaS battery lending business, and nothing else – Grizzly did not even have to go out of its way to check on NIO’s Power Swap stations and hold conversations with sales staff at NIO’s car centers.Livy’s response.While the number of battery packs owned by Weineng should essentially be equivalent to the number of active BaaS subscribers, there is a possibility that a total of 40,053 NIO vehicle sales between 2020 when BaaS was established and September 30, 2021 had subscribed to BaaS. Perhaps, as of reporting date on September 30, 2021, there were 21,053 BaaS subscribers that have halted monthly subscriptions, which is not surprising given the third quarter is not a typical driving season, and there is a possibility that these NIO vehicle owners did not need to use their vehicles during the period.Grizzly has also supported its claim that NIO oversupplied battery packs to Weineng to intentionally inflate revenues by saying that Weineng has no storage facility to store its 21,053 excess battery packs as of September 30, 2021. However, we do not find this surprising, as BaaS subscribers that have halted monthly subscriptions might be holding onto the emptied battery packs on consignment or have returned them to a NIO servicing center where NIO has held onto these Weineng-owned battery packs on consignment. The lack of battery pack storage facility owned by Weineng does not conclude that its ownership of the excess battery packs is fraudulent and made up.There can be many reasons why a discrepancy exists between the number of active BaaS subscribers and battery packs owned by Weineng at the end of a reporting period. The above are just two assumptions that could invalidate Grizzly’s accusation (which is also an assumption). The real answer to the discrepancy can only be explained by NIO and Weineng management.Grizzly’s calculation of quantified impacts.In determining the inflated revenue and earnings specific to the allegedly oversupplied battery packs from NIO to Weineng, Grizzly had performed the following calculations:Grizzly's Computation of Revenue and Net Income Variances Pertaining to Oversupplied Batteries (Grizzly Research)In deriving the inflated revenues related to the allegedly oversupplied battery packs, Grizzly had determined the percentage of battery packs owned by Weineng as of September 30, 2021 that were in excess to its active subscriber base as 53% (i.e. 21,053 excess battery packs, divided by 40,053 battery packs owned by Weineng as of September 30, 2021). The percentage was applied to total revenue recognized by NIO pertaining to the sale of battery packs to Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021, resulting in oversold battery revenues of RMB 1,470 million (i.e. 53% oversold batteries x RMB 2,796 million in related party revenues from Weineng recorded by NIO for the nine months ending September 30, 2021).In the nine months ended September 30, 2021, NIO had reported total revenue of RMB 26,236 million and net losses of RMB 1,874 million. The RMB 1,470 million in oversold battery revenue represents 6% of total NIO revenues recognized over the nine-month reporting period.Considering Grizzly’s 20% profit margin assumption on battery pack sales as discussed in earlier sections, the oversold battery packs to Weineng would have generated net income of RMB 294 million in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. As such, backing out RMB 294 million in overstated profits back to NIO’s actual reported net losses of RMB 1,874 million in the nine-month period ending September 30, 2021 would have yield adjusted net losses of RMB 2,168 million, representing a variance of 16%.We have no issues with this calculation performed by Grizzly, other than concerns over the short-seller’s claims that these 20,053 battery packs were intentionally “oversold” by NIO to Weineng to artificially boost revenues.3. Shifting Depreciation CostsGrizzly’s Accusations.Grizzly has accused NIO of indirectly shifting depreciation costs on the battery packs sold to Weineng, saving the EV maker north of RMB 336 million in depreciation expense on an annual basis.Specifically, Grizzly has assumed a 20% profit margin on NIO’s battery sales totalling RMB 2,796 million generated from Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. This represents battery assets valued at a cost basis of RMB 2.25 billion (i.e. 80% cost x RMB 2,796 in battery sales to Weineng, adjusted for minor rounding differences) removed from the EV maker’s balance sheet over the same period.Based on the five to eight years useful life attributable to equipment, including battery packs, used in NIO’s Power Swap business as disclosed in its 2021 20F, Grizzly has assumed an annual depreciation rate of about 15% on the battery packs sold to Weineng and removed from NIO’s balance sheet in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. This is consistent with the assumed BaaS revenue recognition timeline of about seven years as discussed in earlier sections. As such, Grizzly has accused NIO of avoiding depreciation costs of RMB 336 million (i.e. 15% battery depreciation rate x RMB 2,796 million in battery pack sales to Weineng) in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. The short-seller has also alluded to the RMB 336 million as a proxy for annual depreciation costs that NIO has avoided via its arrangement with Weineng.Issue with Grizzly’s claim.There are two folds to this situation:1. BaaS Business Model:Under the BaaS business model, the battery packs are considered equipment used in facilitating a service business. As such, the related battery packs would be subjected to depreciation over its useful life. In NIO’s case, if Weineng never existed and the EV maker consolidates its BaaS business, NIO would have had to recognized BaaS revenues pertaining to the 19,000 battery packs that Grizzly has attributed to the BaaS business over seven years, and accordingly record depreciation costs on these battery packs as well over their useful lives of about seven years. As mentioned in earlier sections, the related journal entries under the BaaS business model is as follows:Journal Entries for BaaS Business Model (Author)2. Battery Sales Business Model:in the current situation where NIO has sold the battery packs to Weineng, the battery packs are considered inventory to NIO. There is no depreciation costs related to inventory under GAAP-based accounting. Instead, NIO needs to record the costs of this inventory when they are removed from its balance sheet once the sale is recognized. As mentioned in earlier sections, the related journal entries under the battery sale business model is as follows:Journal Entries for Battery Sales Business Model (Author)Now, in NIO’s current actual situation, it is engaged in a battery sales business model under its performance obligation to Weineng, while Weineng is engaged in a BaaS business model under its performance obligation to BaaS subscribers.As discussed in our first challenge to Grizzly’s calculations pertaining to pulled forward revenue on BaaS battery sales to Weineng, NIO would have recorded costs of sales pertaining to the sold battery inventory when it recognized the related revenues. And this cost of sales number, based on a 20% profit margin assumption consistent with that used by Grizzly, would have accounted for the costs of battery inventory removed from NIO’s balance sheet upon completion of the sale to Weineng. This is consistent with Grizzly’s own calculation pertaining to profit margins on the battery packs that it alleges NIO had oversupplied to Weineng, which is inclusive of cost of sales related to written off inventory incurred by NIO upon recognition of related revenues.If NIO was engaged in the BaaS business model itself, without the intervention of Weineng, it would have recognized depreciation at a rate of 15% per year on the battery packs. However, under the upfront sale of related battery packs to Weineng, NIO would have recorded related cost of sales at an upfront rate of 80% as well. So basically, instead of recording revenues and depreciation costs on battery packs over time, NIO essentially recorded revenues and battery inventory costs upfront under its current arrangement with Weineng.Grizzly’s calculation of quantified impacts.Grizzly’s accusation that NIO has overstated revenues and earnings by 10% and 95%, respectively, through its affiliation with Weineng is calculated as follows:Grizzly's Computation of Total Revenue and Income Inflation (Grizzly Research)As discussed in earlier sections, NIO’s pulled forward BaaS revenues and inflated battery sales revenues via its affiliation with Weineng represent 4% and 6% of its total revenues, respectively, recognized in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. This represents the 10% in inflated NIO revenues as Grizzly has outlined in the above calculation.Livy’s revised calculation of quantified impacts.While we have yet to reconcile the RMB 1,777 million in total inflated net income that Grizzly has accused NIO of recognizing (please let us know in comments if you know), we believe the 95% variance identified by Grizzly is not a fair presentation of the quantified impact of its core short thesis.Our calculation of the quantified impact pertaining to Grizzly’s accusations that NIO has inflated revenue and earnings through (1) pulling forward BaaS sales, and (2) oversupplying batteries to Weineng, is as follows:Livy's Computation of Alleged Overstatements Related to Alleged Frontloading of BaaS Revenue (Author)Livy's Computation of Alleged Overstatements Pertaining to Alleged Overselling of Battery Supplies (Author)Livy's Computation of Alleged Revenue Overstatement (Author)Livy's Computation of Alleged Overstatement in Net Income (Author)Under Grizzly’s accusations of inflated revenue and earnings by NIO through its affiliation with Weineng, if found valid (which we remain skeptical of), NIO would have overstated net losses in the nine months ending September 30, 2021 by 28% instead of the 95% that Grizzly alleges – a material difference that again misleads investors on the estimated quantified impact pertaining to the accusations claimed by the short-seller. The net income variance of RMB 523 million ($78 million) found in our calculation is also immaterial (< 1%) based on NIO’s market value of $58.38 billion as of September 30, 2021 and NIO’s market value of approximately $35 billion today.Final ThoughtsAs discussed in the introduction of this analysis, Grizzly had also touched on things like NIO CEO Li’s association with fraudulent personnel, the pledge of NIO User Trust to UBS AG, and conflict of interests to further support its argument that NIO is engaged in fraudulent financial reporting. However, these are groundless allegations that have yet to be substantiated to infer Li is committing fraud via NIO’s operations. While investors should always exercise professional skepticism on publicly disclosed information in regulatory filings when making investment decisions, the same skepticism should also be placed on external claims – such as those by the short-seller, commentary by external sources, and/or even commentary herein – especially if they argue that correlation = causation (e.g. Grizzly’s method in inferring that fraud at NIO is substantiated given “dirt” it has dug up on Li’s past).While we agree that there are some good takeaways from the short-seller report that may require further clarification from management, it is important to recognize and acknowledge that a lot of it might also be misleading – or in the words of Grizzly, “exaggerated”. This is also consistent with NIO’s stock performance during Tuesday and Wednesday’s session following release of the short-seller report. The stock has largely moved in consistency with the ongoing market rout, and broad-based selloff across the EV sector, with no extreme deviation due to the negative headline from Grizzly, which indicates that market participants, especially significant shareholders in NIO, are still digesting the latest external allegations.At the end of the day, NIO remains one of the most viable EV businesses in the emerging sector, with continued demand for its vehicles to support further growth over the long-run. Unlike some of the upstarts in the increasingly competitive EV landscape that have been accused of fraud, such as Nikola (NKLA), Lordstown Motors (RIDE), and Faraday Future (FFIE), NIO already operates a global business with a substantiated vehicle order book to support the bulk of its top- and bottom-line expansion, which continues to support its positive valuation prospects ahead.This article was written by Livy Investment Research","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":743,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9046294025,"gmtCreate":1656349305967,"gmtModify":1676535811017,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9046294025","repostId":"1152321429","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":639,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9046295499,"gmtCreate":1656349265611,"gmtModify":1676535811001,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9046295499","repostId":"2246790640","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2246790640","kind":"highlight","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Reuters.com brings you the latest news from around the world, covering breaking news in markets, business, politics, entertainment and technology","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Reuters","id":"1036604489","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868"},"pubTimestamp":1656342785,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2246790640?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-06-27 23:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"U.S. Supreme Court Won't Hear Apple's Bid to Revive Qualcomm Patent Challenges","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2246790640","media":"Reuters","summary":"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Apple Inc's    bid to revive an effort to cancel t","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Apple Inc&#39;s    bid to revive an effort to cancel two Qualcomm Inc    smartphone patents despite the global settlement of the underlying dispute between the two tech giants.</p><p>The justices turned away Apple&#39;s appeal of a lower court&#39;s ruling that the Cupertino, California-based company lacked standing to pursue the matter because of the settlement. Apple had argued that it should be allowed to appeal because San Diego-based Qualcomm could sue again after the settlement ends.</p><p>Qualcomm sued Apple in San Diego federal court in 2017, arguing that its iPhones, iPads and Apple Watches infringed a variety of Qualcomm mobile-technology patents. That case was <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> element of a broader dispute between the rivals.</p><p>Apple challenged the validity of the two patents at issue at the Patent and Trademark Office&#39;s Patent Trial and Appeal Board.</p><p>The parties settled their litigation in 2019, signing an agreement worth billions of dollars that allowed Apple to continue using Qualcomm chips in iPhones. The settlement also featured a license to tens of thousands of Qualcomm patents, including the two at issue, but allowed the patent board case to continue.</p><p>The board ruled in favor of Qualcomm. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which specializes in patent law, dismissed Apple&#39;s appeal last year based on the settlement. The Federal Circuit rejected Apple&#39;s contention that its royalty payments and risk of being sued again justified hearing the case on the merits.</p><p>Apple told the Supreme Court that it still faced the risk of litigation after the agreement expires in 2025, or in 2027 if the settlement term is extended. Qualcomm already sued once, has &#34;not disclaimed its intention to do so again,&#34; and has a &#34;history of aggressively enforcing its patents,&#34; Apple said.</p><p>Qualcomm asked the justices to reject the appeal, arguing Apple had not shown any concrete injury that would give it proper legal standing.</p><p>President Joe Biden&#39;s administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal in a brief in May.</p></body></html>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>U.S. Supreme Court Won't Hear Apple's Bid to Revive Qualcomm Patent Challenges</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nU.S. Supreme Court Won't Hear Apple's Bid to Revive Qualcomm Patent Challenges\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1036604489\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Reuters </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2022-06-27 23:13</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p>The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Apple Inc&#39;s    bid to revive an effort to cancel two Qualcomm Inc    smartphone patents despite the global settlement of the underlying dispute between the two tech giants.</p><p>The justices turned away Apple&#39;s appeal of a lower court&#39;s ruling that the Cupertino, California-based company lacked standing to pursue the matter because of the settlement. Apple had argued that it should be allowed to appeal because San Diego-based Qualcomm could sue again after the settlement ends.</p><p>Qualcomm sued Apple in San Diego federal court in 2017, arguing that its iPhones, iPads and Apple Watches infringed a variety of Qualcomm mobile-technology patents. That case was <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> element of a broader dispute between the rivals.</p><p>Apple challenged the validity of the two patents at issue at the Patent and Trademark Office&#39;s Patent Trial and Appeal Board.</p><p>The parties settled their litigation in 2019, signing an agreement worth billions of dollars that allowed Apple to continue using Qualcomm chips in iPhones. The settlement also featured a license to tens of thousands of Qualcomm patents, including the two at issue, but allowed the patent board case to continue.</p><p>The board ruled in favor of Qualcomm. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which specializes in patent law, dismissed Apple&#39;s appeal last year based on the settlement. The Federal Circuit rejected Apple&#39;s contention that its royalty payments and risk of being sued again justified hearing the case on the merits.</p><p>Apple told the Supreme Court that it still faced the risk of litigation after the agreement expires in 2025, or in 2027 if the settlement term is extended. Qualcomm already sued once, has &#34;not disclaimed its intention to do so again,&#34; and has a &#34;history of aggressively enforcing its patents,&#34; Apple said.</p><p>Qualcomm asked the justices to reject the appeal, arguing Apple had not shown any concrete injury that would give it proper legal standing.</p><p>President Joe Biden&#39;s administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal in a brief in May.</p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2246790640","content_text":"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Apple Inc's    bid to revive an effort to cancel two Qualcomm Inc    smartphone patents despite the global settlement of the underlying dispute between the two tech giants.The justices turned away Apple's appeal of a lower court's ruling that the Cupertino, California-based company lacked standing to pursue the matter because of the settlement. Apple had argued that it should be allowed to appeal because San Diego-based Qualcomm could sue again after the settlement ends.Qualcomm sued Apple in San Diego federal court in 2017, arguing that its iPhones, iPads and Apple Watches infringed a variety of Qualcomm mobile-technology patents. That case was one element of a broader dispute between the rivals.Apple challenged the validity of the two patents at issue at the Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board.The parties settled their litigation in 2019, signing an agreement worth billions of dollars that allowed Apple to continue using Qualcomm chips in iPhones. The settlement also featured a license to tens of thousands of Qualcomm patents, including the two at issue, but allowed the patent board case to continue.The board ruled in favor of Qualcomm. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which specializes in patent law, dismissed Apple's appeal last year based on the settlement. The Federal Circuit rejected Apple's contention that its royalty payments and risk of being sued again justified hearing the case on the merits.Apple told the Supreme Court that it still faced the risk of litigation after the agreement expires in 2025, or in 2027 if the settlement term is extended. Qualcomm already sued once, has \"not disclaimed its intention to do so again,\" and has a \"history of aggressively enforcing its patents,\" Apple said.Qualcomm asked the justices to reject the appeal, arguing Apple had not shown any concrete injury that would give it proper legal standing.President Joe Biden's administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal in a brief in May.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":541,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9041338201,"gmtCreate":1656006743403,"gmtModify":1676535748961,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"OK","listText":"OK","text":"OK","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9041338201","repostId":"2245088225","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":526,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9041338698,"gmtCreate":1656006703714,"gmtModify":1676535748960,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"OK","listText":"OK","text":"OK","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9041338698","repostId":"1153523469","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1153523469","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Providing stock market headlines, business news, financials and earnings ","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Tiger Newspress","id":"1079075236","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1655995196,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1153523469?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-06-23 22:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Gaming Stocks Climbed in Morning Trading","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1153523469","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"Gaming Stocks climbed in morning trading. Unity Software, Roblox, Skillz, Applovin, Corsair Gaming, ","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>Gaming Stocks climbed in morning trading. Unity Software, Roblox, Skillz, Applovin, Corsair Gaming, Take-Two and Playtika climbed between 1% and 8%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3a634d8936b46f1e8b820e7ff357e0ee\" tg-width=\"380\" tg-height=\"421\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p></body></html>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Gaming Stocks Climbed in Morning Trading</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nGaming Stocks Climbed in Morning Trading\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1079075236\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Tiger Newspress </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2022-06-23 22:39</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p>Gaming Stocks climbed in morning trading. Unity Software, Roblox, Skillz, Applovin, Corsair Gaming, Take-Two and Playtika climbed between 1% and 8%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3a634d8936b46f1e8b820e7ff357e0ee\" tg-width=\"380\" tg-height=\"421\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"PLTK":"Playtika Holding Corp.","CRSR":"Corsair Gaming, Inc.","U":"Unity Software Inc.","RBLX":"Roblox Corporation","TTWO":"Take-Two Interactive Software","APP":"AppLovin Corporation","SKLZ":"Skillz Inc"},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1153523469","content_text":"Gaming Stocks climbed in morning trading. Unity Software, Roblox, Skillz, Applovin, Corsair Gaming, Take-Two and Playtika climbed between 1% and 8%.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":231,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9054599154,"gmtCreate":1655403570478,"gmtModify":1676535631167,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9054599154","repostId":"1138301646","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":196,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9054599391,"gmtCreate":1655403508113,"gmtModify":1676535631159,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9054599391","repostId":"1169504312","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1169504312","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1655389122,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1169504312?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-06-16 22:18","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The Recovery in Amazon Is Exaggerated","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1169504312","media":"InvestorPlace","summary":"Amazon(AMZN) stock surges amid its stock split.However, a gloomy outlook persists as key metrics are","content":"<html><head></head><body><ul><li><b>Amazon</b>(<b><u>AMZN</u></b>) stock surges amid its stock split.</li><li>However, a gloomy outlook persists as key metrics aren&#39;t aligned.</li><li>AMZN is an overvalued asset with growth prospects fading.</li></ul><p><b>Amazon</b>(NASDAQ:<b>AMZN</b>)stock has surged by more than 12% (on a relative basis) in the past month amid enthusiasm about its 20-for-1 stock split. Many investors seem over the moon about their gains, and rightly so. However, it’s time to think about matters prospectively. I sincerely doubt that Amazon stock will resume its upward trajectory as we move forward because it possesses clear fault lines.</p><p>I know many of you might disagree with me but just hear me out. First of all, Amazon’s recent retracement is likely artificial due to a technical price level bounce, which coalesced with its stock split event. Secondly, key metrics suggest that Amazon stock remains overbought. I’m thus exceptionally bearish; here’s why.</p><p><b>Stock Split Analysis</b></p><p>Amazon executed its20-for-1 stock split over the weekend in an attempt to make its stock more investable to the retail crowd. Although the split could add some value, it seems as though most of the benefits were already priced in leading up to the event, with AMZN stock rising by more than 12% in the last month.</p><p>It’s likely that institutional investors were the ones that speculated on the stock split and that actual post-split retail buying won’t suffice. I say this because retail market participation continues to wane, and AMZN’s stock split momentum peaked pre-event.</p><p>Even if we flip the scenario around and assume that AMZN’s stock split will result in a bullish trend, it’s still unlikely that it would make that big of a difference. According to a Cambridge University published study, the market underreacts to stock splits, which means that the stock split price anomaly remains a folk tale rather than objective theory.</p><p><b>Cyclical Headwinds</b></p><p>Although it remains open to debate, Amazon’s primary exposure is to the cyclical consumer goods market. The company’s e-commerce platform, which still accounts for roughly 44% of the business’ revenue, is inextricably linked to the real economy. Thus, the bulk of Amazon’s sales will likely fade if the yield curve’s implied interest rates materialize. The intuition here is that a series of increases in the benchmark interest rate would contract the economy, in turn reducing cyclical good spending.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/19fd989191761ed4f02868f215297844\" tg-width=\"1437\" tg-height=\"618\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/></p><p>Source: Gurufocus</p><p>On the upside, I see Amazon Web Services (around 16% of its total revenue mix) as a breadwinner due to its secular growth properties. However, AWS is a long-run valuation consideration and won’t significantly affect the stock until it takes up a larger part of AMZN’s total revenue.</p><p><b>Relative Valuation Concerns</b></p><p>Amazon stock is overvalued on a relative basis. Firstly, AMZN stock is trading at 1.98x its sales and 15.81x its cash flow, conveying that the stock’s overvalued on both an accrual and a cash basis. Furthermore, AMZN’s price-to-earnings ratio of 47.62x implies that the market overestimates the company’s earnings-per-share capabilities.</p><p>I don’t see Amazon’s overvalued price multiples justified by growth. Sure, the company holds a strong market position, but its growth is relatively disappointing if it’s considered that AMZN’s earnings-before-interest-and-tax (EBIT) growth is projected at only 13.86% for the next year. In addition, Amazon’s forward diluted earnings-per-share is forecasted to be 84.78% lower than its 5-year average, implying that its growth prospects aren’t bright at all.</p></body></html>","source":"lsy1606302653667","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>The Recovery in Amazon Is Exaggerated</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nThe Recovery in Amazon Is Exaggerated\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-06-16 22:18 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://investorplace.com/2022/06/the-recovery-in-amzn-stock-is-exaggerated/><strong>InvestorPlace</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Amazon(AMZN) stock surges amid its stock split.However, a gloomy outlook persists as key metrics aren't aligned.AMZN is an overvalued asset with growth prospects fading.Amazon(NASDAQ:AMZN)stock has ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://investorplace.com/2022/06/the-recovery-in-amzn-stock-is-exaggerated/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://investorplace.com/2022/06/the-recovery-in-amzn-stock-is-exaggerated/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1169504312","content_text":"Amazon(AMZN) stock surges amid its stock split.However, a gloomy outlook persists as key metrics aren't aligned.AMZN is an overvalued asset with growth prospects fading.Amazon(NASDAQ:AMZN)stock has surged by more than 12% (on a relative basis) in the past month amid enthusiasm about its 20-for-1 stock split. Many investors seem over the moon about their gains, and rightly so. However, it’s time to think about matters prospectively. I sincerely doubt that Amazon stock will resume its upward trajectory as we move forward because it possesses clear fault lines.I know many of you might disagree with me but just hear me out. First of all, Amazon’s recent retracement is likely artificial due to a technical price level bounce, which coalesced with its stock split event. Secondly, key metrics suggest that Amazon stock remains overbought. I’m thus exceptionally bearish; here’s why.Stock Split AnalysisAmazon executed its20-for-1 stock split over the weekend in an attempt to make its stock more investable to the retail crowd. Although the split could add some value, it seems as though most of the benefits were already priced in leading up to the event, with AMZN stock rising by more than 12% in the last month.It’s likely that institutional investors were the ones that speculated on the stock split and that actual post-split retail buying won’t suffice. I say this because retail market participation continues to wane, and AMZN’s stock split momentum peaked pre-event.Even if we flip the scenario around and assume that AMZN’s stock split will result in a bullish trend, it’s still unlikely that it would make that big of a difference. According to a Cambridge University published study, the market underreacts to stock splits, which means that the stock split price anomaly remains a folk tale rather than objective theory.Cyclical HeadwindsAlthough it remains open to debate, Amazon’s primary exposure is to the cyclical consumer goods market. The company’s e-commerce platform, which still accounts for roughly 44% of the business’ revenue, is inextricably linked to the real economy. Thus, the bulk of Amazon’s sales will likely fade if the yield curve’s implied interest rates materialize. The intuition here is that a series of increases in the benchmark interest rate would contract the economy, in turn reducing cyclical good spending.Source: GurufocusOn the upside, I see Amazon Web Services (around 16% of its total revenue mix) as a breadwinner due to its secular growth properties. However, AWS is a long-run valuation consideration and won’t significantly affect the stock until it takes up a larger part of AMZN’s total revenue.Relative Valuation ConcernsAmazon stock is overvalued on a relative basis. Firstly, AMZN stock is trading at 1.98x its sales and 15.81x its cash flow, conveying that the stock’s overvalued on both an accrual and a cash basis. Furthermore, AMZN’s price-to-earnings ratio of 47.62x implies that the market overestimates the company’s earnings-per-share capabilities.I don’t see Amazon’s overvalued price multiples justified by growth. Sure, the company holds a strong market position, but its growth is relatively disappointing if it’s considered that AMZN’s earnings-before-interest-and-tax (EBIT) growth is projected at only 13.86% for the next year. In addition, Amazon’s forward diluted earnings-per-share is forecasted to be 84.78% lower than its 5-year average, implying that its growth prospects aren’t bright at all.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":136,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9054599009,"gmtCreate":1655403419401,"gmtModify":1676535631152,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9054599009","repostId":"1100540630","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1100540630","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Providing stock market headlines, business news, financials and earnings ","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Tiger Newspress","id":"1079075236","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1655387377,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1100540630?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-06-16 21:49","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Crypto Stocks Plummeted in Morning Trading, With BIT Mining Sliding Over 8% and Block Falling Nearly 5%","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1100540630","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"Crypto stocks plummeted in morning trading, with BIT Mining sliding over 8% and Block falling nearly","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>Crypto stocks plummeted in morning trading, with BIT Mining sliding over 8% and Block falling nearly 5%.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/250b91df347b5ceeca9f27d469e0b6ff\" tg-width=\"322\" tg-height=\"434\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/></p></body></html>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Crypto Stocks Plummeted in Morning Trading, With BIT Mining Sliding Over 8% and Block Falling Nearly 5%</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nCrypto Stocks Plummeted in Morning Trading, With BIT Mining Sliding Over 8% and Block Falling Nearly 5%\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1079075236\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Tiger Newspress </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2022-06-16 21:49</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p>Crypto stocks plummeted in morning trading, with BIT Mining sliding over 8% and Block falling nearly 5%.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/250b91df347b5ceeca9f27d469e0b6ff\" tg-width=\"322\" tg-height=\"434\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/></p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BTCM":"BIT Mining"},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1100540630","content_text":"Crypto stocks plummeted in morning trading, with BIT Mining sliding over 8% and Block falling nearly 5%.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":207,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9054590453,"gmtCreate":1655403390372,"gmtModify":1676535631264,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9054590453","repostId":"1184789808","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1184789808","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Providing stock market headlines, business news, financials and earnings ","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Tiger Newspress","id":"1079075236","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1655387623,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1184789808?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-06-16 21:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Semiconductor Stocks Remained Low in Morning Trading, With Qualcomm Falling Over 5% and Nvidia Falling Over 4%","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1184789808","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"Semiconductor stocks remained low in morning trading, with Qualcomm falling over 5% and Nvidia falli","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>Semiconductor stocks remained low in morning trading, with Qualcomm falling over 5% and Nvidia falling over 4%.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/35eecb3b9e430fcc47ef4c1d6bd89b9b\" tg-width=\"323\" tg-height=\"359\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/></p></body></html>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Semiconductor Stocks Remained Low in Morning Trading, With Qualcomm Falling Over 5% and Nvidia Falling Over 4%</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nSemiconductor Stocks Remained Low in Morning Trading, With Qualcomm Falling Over 5% and Nvidia Falling Over 4%\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1079075236\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Tiger Newspress </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2022-06-16 21:53</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p>Semiconductor stocks remained low in morning trading, with Qualcomm falling over 5% and Nvidia falling over 4%.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/35eecb3b9e430fcc47ef4c1d6bd89b9b\" tg-width=\"323\" tg-height=\"359\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/></p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"NVDA":"英伟达","QCOM":"高通"},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1184789808","content_text":"Semiconductor stocks remained low in morning trading, with Qualcomm falling over 5% and Nvidia falling over 4%.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":148,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":9079224649,"gmtCreate":1657207338481,"gmtModify":1676535969617,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9079224649","repostId":"1174350823","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":615,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9906374818,"gmtCreate":1659491161337,"gmtModify":1705980938004,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Great thanks","listText":"Great thanks","text":"Great thanks","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9906374818","repostId":"2256752916","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2256752916","kind":"highlight","pubTimestamp":1659489987,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2256752916?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-08-03 09:26","market":"fut","language":"en","title":"HKD, AMTD Stock Alert: What to Know as AMTD Digital Thanks Investors","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2256752916","media":"InvestorPlace","summary":"AMTD Idea (AMTD) and AMTD Digital (HKD) are both jumping today.AMTD Digital is a subsidiary of AMTD ","content":"<html><head></head><body><ul><li><b>AMTD Idea</b> (<b><u>AMTD</u></b>) and <b>AMTD Digital</b> (<b><u>HKD</u></b>) are both jumping today.</li><li>AMTD Digital is a subsidiary of AMTD Idea.</li><li>HKD stock is being viewed by some as a metaverse play.</li></ul><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76edeb0ddfe3f3d00df60a48e1eefd7c\" tg-width=\"768\" tg-height=\"432\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/><b>AMTD Idea</b> (NYSE:<b><u>AMTD</u></b>) and <b>AMTD Digital</b> (NYSE:<b><u>HKD</u></b>) are both jumping on Tuesday regular trading hours, with AMTD stock soaring more than 236% to $7 and HKD stock advancing 126% to $1679. Hong Kong-based AMTD Idea is an investment bank, while its subsidiary, AMTD Digital, has created digital tools that perform functions related to financial services.</p><p>One of AMTD Digital’s tools, AMTD SpiderNet, is being labeled by some as a metaverse. <i>InvestorPlace</i>contributor Dana Blankenhorn reported that SpiderNet seeks “to connect all AMTD’s financial operations and intellectual property into a controlled digital ecosystem.”</p><p>Since AMTD Digital launched its initial public offering (IPO) on July 15, HKD stock has been one of the top movers in the market, rocketing from $27.80 on July 18 to $1679 yesterday.</p><p>AMTD Idea’s shares have previously undergone some volatility as well in recent weeks. On July 22, AMTD stock rallied more than 100%, climbing to $2.20 from its close of $1.08 on the previous trading day.</p><p>On July 15, AMTD IDEA announced that AMTD Digital had successfully priced an IPO of its American depositary shares on the <b>New York Stock Exchange</b>. The IPO price was $7.80 per share, and AMTD Digital’s gross proceeds came in at nearly $125 million, excluding underwriters’ options.</p><h2>AMTD Stock’s Letter to Investors</h2><p>In an open letter to its investors published today, AMTD Digital wrote that it was unable to offer an explanation for the wild gyrations in its share price. The firm added that it is “monitoring the market closely for any unusual trading activities or abnormalities.”</p><p>The headline of the note was “AMTD Digital Inc.: Thank you note to investors and our response to our latest ADS price performance.” The company explained that it wanted to show “its appreciation of support from the investor community for the successful completion of its [IPO.]”</p></body></html>","source":"investorplace","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>HKD, AMTD Stock Alert: What to Know as AMTD Digital Thanks Investors</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHKD, AMTD Stock Alert: What to Know as AMTD Digital Thanks Investors\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-08-03 09:26 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://investorplace.com/2022/08/hkd-amtd-stock-alert-what-to-know-as-amtd-digital-thanks-investors/><strong>InvestorPlace</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>AMTD Idea (AMTD) and AMTD Digital (HKD) are both jumping today.AMTD Digital is a subsidiary of AMTD Idea.HKD stock is being viewed by some as a metaverse play.AMTD Idea (NYSE:AMTD) and AMTD Digital (...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://investorplace.com/2022/08/hkd-amtd-stock-alert-what-to-know-as-amtd-digital-thanks-investors/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AMTD":"Amtd Idea","HKD":"尚乘数科"},"source_url":"https://investorplace.com/2022/08/hkd-amtd-stock-alert-what-to-know-as-amtd-digital-thanks-investors/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2256752916","content_text":"AMTD Idea (AMTD) and AMTD Digital (HKD) are both jumping today.AMTD Digital is a subsidiary of AMTD Idea.HKD stock is being viewed by some as a metaverse play.AMTD Idea (NYSE:AMTD) and AMTD Digital (NYSE:HKD) are both jumping on Tuesday regular trading hours, with AMTD stock soaring more than 236% to $7 and HKD stock advancing 126% to $1679. Hong Kong-based AMTD Idea is an investment bank, while its subsidiary, AMTD Digital, has created digital tools that perform functions related to financial services.One of AMTD Digital’s tools, AMTD SpiderNet, is being labeled by some as a metaverse. InvestorPlacecontributor Dana Blankenhorn reported that SpiderNet seeks “to connect all AMTD’s financial operations and intellectual property into a controlled digital ecosystem.”Since AMTD Digital launched its initial public offering (IPO) on July 15, HKD stock has been one of the top movers in the market, rocketing from $27.80 on July 18 to $1679 yesterday.AMTD Idea’s shares have previously undergone some volatility as well in recent weeks. On July 22, AMTD stock rallied more than 100%, climbing to $2.20 from its close of $1.08 on the previous trading day.On July 15, AMTD IDEA announced that AMTD Digital had successfully priced an IPO of its American depositary shares on the New York Stock Exchange. The IPO price was $7.80 per share, and AMTD Digital’s gross proceeds came in at nearly $125 million, excluding underwriters’ options.AMTD Stock’s Letter to InvestorsIn an open letter to its investors published today, AMTD Digital wrote that it was unable to offer an explanation for the wild gyrations in its share price. The firm added that it is “monitoring the market closely for any unusual trading activities or abnormalities.”The headline of the note was “AMTD Digital Inc.: Thank you note to investors and our response to our latest ADS price performance.” The company explained that it wanted to show “its appreciation of support from the investor community for the successful completion of its [IPO.]”","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":534,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9991023296,"gmtCreate":1660751447617,"gmtModify":1676536392085,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"OK","listText":"OK","text":"OK","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9991023296","repostId":"1145675545","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":459,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9991023851,"gmtCreate":1660751415275,"gmtModify":1676536392074,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Great ariticle, would you like to share it?","listText":"Great ariticle, would you like to share it?","text":"Great ariticle, would you like to share it?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9991023851","repostId":"1158955418","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1158955418","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Providing stock market headlines, business news, financials and earnings ","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Tiger Newspress","id":"1079075236","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1660743175,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1158955418?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-08-17 21:32","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Stocks Dip as Wall Street Rally Loses Steam, Investors Assess Fresh Retail Data","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1158955418","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"Stocks fell on Wednesday as a rally that has propelled equity prices higher since mid-June appeared ","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>Stocks fell on Wednesday as a rally that has propelled equity prices higher since mid-June appeared poised for a respite.</p><p>Futures tied to the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 232 points, or 0.68%. S&amp;P 500 futures and Nasdaq 100 futures slid 0.92% and 1.05%, respectively.</p><p>The Dow notched its fifth straight day of gains Tuesday. Meanwhile, the S&amp;P 500 is going for its fifth positive week in a row as investors continue to gauge how much strength this rally has. The broad market index is now up 18% from its June lows.</p><p>At the same time, further uncertainty remains in the market as the Federal Reserve plans to continue raising rates and shrinking the size of its balance sheet.</p><p>“We would caution investors against chasing this rally,” said Mark Haefele, chief investment officer at UBS Global Wealth Management in a note to clients Wednesday. “We expect renewed market volatility ahead, and we continue to recommend positioning portfolios for resilience under various scenarios.”</p><p>Data releasedby the Census Bureau on Wednesday showedretail sales remain unchanged in Julyamid declines in auto sales and gasoline prices, although consumers did increase spending online.</p><p>Traders on Wednesday continued to comb through corporate earnings from the retail sector. Walmart and Home Depot reported Tuesday, while Lowe’s and Target posted earnings Wednesday morning.</p><p>Wall Street also looked ahead to the release of minutes from the Fed’s most recent meeting.</p></body></html>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Stocks Dip as Wall Street Rally Loses Steam, Investors Assess Fresh Retail Data</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nStocks Dip as Wall Street Rally Loses Steam, Investors Assess Fresh Retail Data\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1079075236\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Tiger Newspress </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2022-08-17 21:32</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p>Stocks fell on Wednesday as a rally that has propelled equity prices higher since mid-June appeared poised for a respite.</p><p>Futures tied to the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 232 points, or 0.68%. S&amp;P 500 futures and Nasdaq 100 futures slid 0.92% and 1.05%, respectively.</p><p>The Dow notched its fifth straight day of gains Tuesday. Meanwhile, the S&amp;P 500 is going for its fifth positive week in a row as investors continue to gauge how much strength this rally has. The broad market index is now up 18% from its June lows.</p><p>At the same time, further uncertainty remains in the market as the Federal Reserve plans to continue raising rates and shrinking the size of its balance sheet.</p><p>“We would caution investors against chasing this rally,” said Mark Haefele, chief investment officer at UBS Global Wealth Management in a note to clients Wednesday. “We expect renewed market volatility ahead, and we continue to recommend positioning portfolios for resilience under various scenarios.”</p><p>Data releasedby the Census Bureau on Wednesday showedretail sales remain unchanged in Julyamid declines in auto sales and gasoline prices, although consumers did increase spending online.</p><p>Traders on Wednesday continued to comb through corporate earnings from the retail sector. Walmart and Home Depot reported Tuesday, while Lowe’s and Target posted earnings Wednesday morning.</p><p>Wall Street also looked ahead to the release of minutes from the Fed’s most recent meeting.</p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1158955418","content_text":"Stocks fell on Wednesday as a rally that has propelled equity prices higher since mid-June appeared poised for a respite.Futures tied to the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 232 points, or 0.68%. S&P 500 futures and Nasdaq 100 futures slid 0.92% and 1.05%, respectively.The Dow notched its fifth straight day of gains Tuesday. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 is going for its fifth positive week in a row as investors continue to gauge how much strength this rally has. The broad market index is now up 18% from its June lows.At the same time, further uncertainty remains in the market as the Federal Reserve plans to continue raising rates and shrinking the size of its balance sheet.“We would caution investors against chasing this rally,” said Mark Haefele, chief investment officer at UBS Global Wealth Management in a note to clients Wednesday. “We expect renewed market volatility ahead, and we continue to recommend positioning portfolios for resilience under various scenarios.”Data releasedby the Census Bureau on Wednesday showedretail sales remain unchanged in Julyamid declines in auto sales and gasoline prices, although consumers did increase spending online.Traders on Wednesday continued to comb through corporate earnings from the retail sector. Walmart and Home Depot reported Tuesday, while Lowe’s and Target posted earnings Wednesday morning.Wall Street also looked ahead to the release of minutes from the Fed’s most recent meeting.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":455,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9046294025,"gmtCreate":1656349305967,"gmtModify":1676535811017,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9046294025","repostId":"1152321429","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1152321429","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1656342633,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1152321429?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-06-27 23:10","market":"us","language":"en","title":"2 Oversold Stocks to Buy in the Nasdaq Bear Market","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1152321429","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"These household names offer phenomenal value to investors.","content":"<html><head></head><body><p><b>KEY POINTS</b></p><ul><li>Meta Platforms and Netflix are down 49% and 68%, respectively, year to date.</li><li>Both companies face near-term headwinds, but long-term investors may not have much to lose at this point.</li></ul><p>The tech-heavy <b>Nasdaq Composite</b> index is officially in abear market after dropping 26% year to date, but some investors are on the hunt for bargains that could spike in value once more optimism returns to the markets. Looking specifically at the 100 largest non-financial companies listed -- otherwise known as the <b>Nasdaq 100</b>-- Facebook parent <b>Meta Platforms</b> and <b>Netflix</b> rank toward the bottom of the list in year-to-date performance.</p><p>Both companies are facing their share of near-term headwinds. Revenue growth is decelerating at Meta due to weakening trends in the advertising market, while investors are wondering if Netflix can resume growing subscribers in a more competitive streaming market.</p><p>Still, if these ubiquitous brands recover, both stocks could rebound sharply once general market sentiment improves. Let&#39;s explore why it&#39;s a bet worth making.</p><p><b>Meta Platforms</b></p><p>Shares of the Facebook parent are down 56% from the 52-week high of $384 after the social media giant reported disappointing earnings results to start the year. Investors are worried about slowing growth amid a weak advertising environment, which is the primary revenue source for the company, but a slow ad market is only half of Wall Street&#39;s concern.</p><p>CEO Mark Zuckerberg has made a big bet on virtual reality (VR) with the company&#39;s Oculus brand of headsets. Management sees the metaverse as a major opportunity that creates a perfect pairing with Oculus VR. But the market doesn&#39;t like that these long-term bets are taking a bite out of the bottom line in the near term.</p><p>On top of weak single-digit revenue growth in the first quarter, Meta also reported a 25% year-over-year drop in operating profit. Total expenses increased 31% year over year, driven by technology infrastructure and hiring to support growth initiatives in the family of apps (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) and Reality Labs (virtual reality).</p><p>Zuckerberg and his team are confident these investments are going to lead to something promising as previous bets on mobile and the Stories feature eventually put Facebook on a solid growth trajectory years ago.</p><p>Meanwhile, the stock is a steal trading at a low price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 13. At this valuation, the market is basically saying Meta&#39;s days of growth are over, but is that expectation reasonable?</p><p>At this valuation level, investors don&#39;t need Meta to grow at high rates to earn a decent return on investment. Whether Zuckerberg is right about the metaverse doesn&#39;t matter at this point. The stock will likely rebound once advertising spending comes back, and that&#39;s a good bet given the 2.87 billion daily active users across Meta&#39;s family of apps.</p><p><b>Netflix</b></p><p>One of the most-followed Nasdaq stocks has taken a beating like no other in this bearish environment. Netflix reported its first subscriber decline in years last quarter, leading the stock to nosedive.</p><p>Buying shares of this top entertainment stock might take some guts at this point, especially with management guiding for another loss of two million subscribers for the second quarter. Like Meta Platforms, investors don&#39;t have much to lose by adding a small position in Netflix at these levels, while the upside could be big.</p><p>The global streaming market is still on an upward trajectory. In fact, the Motion Picture Association&#39;s 2021 Theatrical and Home Entertainment Market Environment (THEME) report mentioned that the digital streaming marketplace accounted for 72% of the combined theatrical and home entertainment market, representing a sharp increase from 46% in 2019.</p><p>As the largest streaming provider with a growing library of content, that is good for Netflix. The company is more profitable than it&#39;s ever been with an operating profit margin hovering around 20%. The stock&#39;s P/E is also a modest 17.3 -- the cheapest Netflix has traded on a P/E basis in nearly a decade.</p><p>Investors are underestimating how that improved profitability will provide management with more resources to invest in content and other initiatives to accelerate growth and win over more subscribers. The streamer&#39;s entry into video games only gives investors a hint of how Netflix might evolve over the long term.</p></body></html>","source":"fool_stock","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>2 Oversold Stocks to Buy in the Nasdaq Bear Market</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n2 Oversold Stocks to Buy in the Nasdaq Bear Market\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-06-27 23:10 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/06/26/2-oversold-stocks-to-buy-in-the-nasdaq-bear-market/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>KEY POINTSMeta Platforms and Netflix are down 49% and 68%, respectively, year to date.Both companies face near-term headwinds, but long-term investors may not have much to lose at this point.The tech-...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/06/26/2-oversold-stocks-to-buy-in-the-nasdaq-bear-market/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"NFLX":"奈飞","META":"Meta Platforms, Inc."},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/06/26/2-oversold-stocks-to-buy-in-the-nasdaq-bear-market/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1152321429","content_text":"KEY POINTSMeta Platforms and Netflix are down 49% and 68%, respectively, year to date.Both companies face near-term headwinds, but long-term investors may not have much to lose at this point.The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite index is officially in abear market after dropping 26% year to date, but some investors are on the hunt for bargains that could spike in value once more optimism returns to the markets. Looking specifically at the 100 largest non-financial companies listed -- otherwise known as the Nasdaq 100-- Facebook parent Meta Platforms and Netflix rank toward the bottom of the list in year-to-date performance.Both companies are facing their share of near-term headwinds. Revenue growth is decelerating at Meta due to weakening trends in the advertising market, while investors are wondering if Netflix can resume growing subscribers in a more competitive streaming market.Still, if these ubiquitous brands recover, both stocks could rebound sharply once general market sentiment improves. Let's explore why it's a bet worth making.Meta PlatformsShares of the Facebook parent are down 56% from the 52-week high of $384 after the social media giant reported disappointing earnings results to start the year. Investors are worried about slowing growth amid a weak advertising environment, which is the primary revenue source for the company, but a slow ad market is only half of Wall Street's concern.CEO Mark Zuckerberg has made a big bet on virtual reality (VR) with the company's Oculus brand of headsets. Management sees the metaverse as a major opportunity that creates a perfect pairing with Oculus VR. But the market doesn't like that these long-term bets are taking a bite out of the bottom line in the near term.On top of weak single-digit revenue growth in the first quarter, Meta also reported a 25% year-over-year drop in operating profit. Total expenses increased 31% year over year, driven by technology infrastructure and hiring to support growth initiatives in the family of apps (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) and Reality Labs (virtual reality).Zuckerberg and his team are confident these investments are going to lead to something promising as previous bets on mobile and the Stories feature eventually put Facebook on a solid growth trajectory years ago.Meanwhile, the stock is a steal trading at a low price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 13. At this valuation, the market is basically saying Meta's days of growth are over, but is that expectation reasonable?At this valuation level, investors don't need Meta to grow at high rates to earn a decent return on investment. Whether Zuckerberg is right about the metaverse doesn't matter at this point. The stock will likely rebound once advertising spending comes back, and that's a good bet given the 2.87 billion daily active users across Meta's family of apps.NetflixOne of the most-followed Nasdaq stocks has taken a beating like no other in this bearish environment. Netflix reported its first subscriber decline in years last quarter, leading the stock to nosedive.Buying shares of this top entertainment stock might take some guts at this point, especially with management guiding for another loss of two million subscribers for the second quarter. Like Meta Platforms, investors don't have much to lose by adding a small position in Netflix at these levels, while the upside could be big.The global streaming market is still on an upward trajectory. In fact, the Motion Picture Association's 2021 Theatrical and Home Entertainment Market Environment (THEME) report mentioned that the digital streaming marketplace accounted for 72% of the combined theatrical and home entertainment market, representing a sharp increase from 46% in 2019.As the largest streaming provider with a growing library of content, that is good for Netflix. The company is more profitable than it's ever been with an operating profit margin hovering around 20%. The stock's P/E is also a modest 17.3 -- the cheapest Netflix has traded on a P/E basis in nearly a decade.Investors are underestimating how that improved profitability will provide management with more resources to invest in content and other initiatives to accelerate growth and win over more subscribers. The streamer's entry into video games only gives investors a hint of how Netflix might evolve over the long term.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":639,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9041338201,"gmtCreate":1656006743403,"gmtModify":1676535748961,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"OK","listText":"OK","text":"OK","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9041338201","repostId":"2245088225","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2245088225","kind":"highlight","pubTimestamp":1655989722,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2245088225?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-06-23 21:08","market":"us","language":"en","title":"3 Warren Buffett Stocks You'll Wish You'd Bought 5 Years From Now","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2245088225","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Many of Buffett's software-related stocks appear poised to come back.","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>Amid the recent stock market sell-off, Warren Buffett has again proven the success of his investment formula. While the <b>S&amp;P 500 </b>has entered bear territory, his company <b>Berkshire Hathaway </b>sells near levels where it traded 12 months ago.</p><p>Although Buffett may have become better known for holdings outside of tech, he holds a few positions in the software sector. As technology stocks recover, companies such as <b>Apple</b>, <b>Mastercard</b>, and <b>Snowflake</b> could boost Buffett&#39;s returns as conditions improve.</p><h2>The free-cash-flow king that relies increasingly on software<b> </b></h2><p><b>Will Healy</b> <b>(Apple): </b>One cannot discuss Buffett&#39;s tech plays without mentioning Apple. His Apple holdings account for 39% of a portfolio that holds more than 50 publicly traded stocks.</p><p>The majority of revenue comes from the iPhone, a combined hardware and software offering. Additionally, software may have kept Apple strong during the downturn given the success of Apple Services. It includes software offerings such as iCloud, advertising, digital content, and payments.</p><p>The Apple Services segment generated $20 billion in revenue in the fiscal second quarter of 2022 (which ended March 26). This is a 17% surge year over year, taking this segment&#39;s revenue to an all-time high.</p><p>Its success also helped the company as rising prices and supply chain challenges weighed on Apple. Q2 revenue came in at $97 billion, a 9% increase from year-ago levels. Net income grew 6% over that period to $25 billion as a rising cost of sales, higher operating expenses, and increased income taxes reduced growth in the bottom line.</p><p>But despite the single-digit growth, Apple&#39;s $201 billion in liquidity should help it ride out any storm and keep it a crown jewel in the Buffett portfolio. Moreover, the stock has risen by 4% over the last 12 months. While not a stellar performance, it bodes well for the company considering that many tech growth stocks have lost more than three-fourths of their value in recent months.</p><p>Also, its price-to earnings (P/E) ratio of 22 is at its lowest level since the beginning of the pandemic. Such a valuation could attract more investment from Buffett and other prominent investors. Given its relative stability and massive liquidity position amid this sell-off, perhaps now is the time to buy.</p><h2>Mastercard gives investors the best of both worlds</h2><p><b>Justin Pope</b> <b>(Mastercard):</b> Mastercard is the world&#39;s second-largest payment processing network. It has just under 2.9 billion debit and credit cards in circulation worldwide.</p><p>Mastercard&#39;s network connects the merchants where you swipe your payment card to the financial institutions that handle the money. Think of the network as a highway that cars use to travel back and forth. You pay a toll when you use the highway; similarly, Mastercard charges a small percentage of each transaction its network processes.</p><p>The company&#39;s grown revenue by an average of 11% annually over the past decade, driven by a steady shift away from cash as a payment method. Additionally, Mastercard isn&#39;t impacted by inflation because its fee is a percentage of each transaction; in other words, Mastercard captures more revenue as the prices of goods and services increase.</p><p>Mastercard is a cash cow, turning 46% of its revenue into free cash flow. Management shares those cash profits with investors, having paid and raised its dividend for the past 11 years. Investors won&#39;t get a huge dividend yield at just 0.6%, but the payout grows quickly; its annual increase has averaged 18% over the past five years. The company also spends billions on share repurchases, shrinking the share count by 22% over the past decade.</p><p>The company&#39;s ability to grow cash and return it to investors simultaneously has powered market-beating returns, totaling more than 7,300% since Mastercard came public in 2006. Despite its success, there could still be more upside ahead. Earnings per share (EPS) have grown by an average of 16% over the past three years, only slightly dropping from its 10-year rate of 19%. Warren Buffett bought his first position in 2011, which remains a part of his portfolio today.</p><h2>Snowflake&#39;s business model makes it stand out from its cloud-computing peers</h2><p><b>Jake Lerch (Snowflake): </b>Snowflake doesn&#39;t fit the profile of a typical &#34;Buffett stock.&#34; In fact, Snowflake is the type of company Buffett may have derided several years ago. It&#39;s a recently founded technology company and its business model can be challenging to understand. Nevertheless, Buffett -- or more likely Berkshire Hathaway investment managers Todd Combs or Ted Weschler -- has accumulated over 6 million shares of Snowflake. </p><p>Snowflake is, at the most basic level, a cloud computing company. But what really differentiates the company is its business model. Snowflake doesn&#39;t focus on increasing its customers&#39; sales or streamlining their human resources workflow. Instead, it helps organizations gain a bird&#39;s eye view of all the data relevant to their operations. This perspective allows them to gain valuable insights into trends and improve their decision making.</p><p>For example, Snowflake can help retailers more accurately predict and manage their inventory. In the pharmaceutical industry, Snowflake can help companies research and develop new treatments by quickly compiling and sharing data from outside sources.</p><p>There&#39;s no doubt that Snowflake has secular tailwinds behind it. The company currently has 184 large customers (those generating more than $1 million in product revenue), and it plans to expand that number to 1,400 by 2029. Moreover, Snowflake hopes to grow its revenue almost tenfold over that same period. Over the last 12 months, Snowflake generated $1.4 billion of revenue -- its first time crossing the $1 billion mark. And by 2029, the company aims to exceed $10 billion in annual sales. </p><p>But owning shares of Snowflake isn&#39;t without risk. First of all, Snowflake lacks profits. The company has never turned a profit, and its net income actually sank deeper into the red over the last two years, mainly due to lucrative stock compensation for its employees. What&#39;s more, the company relies on would-be competitors like <b>Amazon</b> and <b>Microsoft</b> for the cloud infrastructure to run its software. </p><p>Nevertheless, Snowflake appears to have carved out a lucrative niche in the cloud-computing space. If you&#39;re willing to ride out short-term volatility, Snowflake looks like an outstanding Buffett stock -- albeit an unorthodox one.</p></body></html>","source":"fool_stock","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>3 Warren Buffett Stocks You'll Wish You'd Bought 5 Years From Now</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n3 Warren Buffett Stocks You'll Wish You'd Bought 5 Years From Now\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-06-23 21:08 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/06/23/3-warren-buffett-stocks-wish-bought-5-years/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Amid the recent stock market sell-off, Warren Buffett has again proven the success of his investment formula. While the S&P 500 has entered bear territory, his company Berkshire Hathaway sells near ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/06/23/3-warren-buffett-stocks-wish-bought-5-years/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/06/23/3-warren-buffett-stocks-wish-bought-5-years/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2245088225","content_text":"Amid the recent stock market sell-off, Warren Buffett has again proven the success of his investment formula. While the S&P 500 has entered bear territory, his company Berkshire Hathaway sells near levels where it traded 12 months ago.Although Buffett may have become better known for holdings outside of tech, he holds a few positions in the software sector. As technology stocks recover, companies such as Apple, Mastercard, and Snowflake could boost Buffett's returns as conditions improve.The free-cash-flow king that relies increasingly on software Will Healy (Apple): One cannot discuss Buffett's tech plays without mentioning Apple. His Apple holdings account for 39% of a portfolio that holds more than 50 publicly traded stocks.The majority of revenue comes from the iPhone, a combined hardware and software offering. Additionally, software may have kept Apple strong during the downturn given the success of Apple Services. It includes software offerings such as iCloud, advertising, digital content, and payments.The Apple Services segment generated $20 billion in revenue in the fiscal second quarter of 2022 (which ended March 26). This is a 17% surge year over year, taking this segment's revenue to an all-time high.Its success also helped the company as rising prices and supply chain challenges weighed on Apple. Q2 revenue came in at $97 billion, a 9% increase from year-ago levels. Net income grew 6% over that period to $25 billion as a rising cost of sales, higher operating expenses, and increased income taxes reduced growth in the bottom line.But despite the single-digit growth, Apple's $201 billion in liquidity should help it ride out any storm and keep it a crown jewel in the Buffett portfolio. Moreover, the stock has risen by 4% over the last 12 months. While not a stellar performance, it bodes well for the company considering that many tech growth stocks have lost more than three-fourths of their value in recent months.Also, its price-to earnings (P/E) ratio of 22 is at its lowest level since the beginning of the pandemic. Such a valuation could attract more investment from Buffett and other prominent investors. Given its relative stability and massive liquidity position amid this sell-off, perhaps now is the time to buy.Mastercard gives investors the best of both worldsJustin Pope (Mastercard): Mastercard is the world's second-largest payment processing network. It has just under 2.9 billion debit and credit cards in circulation worldwide.Mastercard's network connects the merchants where you swipe your payment card to the financial institutions that handle the money. Think of the network as a highway that cars use to travel back and forth. You pay a toll when you use the highway; similarly, Mastercard charges a small percentage of each transaction its network processes.The company's grown revenue by an average of 11% annually over the past decade, driven by a steady shift away from cash as a payment method. Additionally, Mastercard isn't impacted by inflation because its fee is a percentage of each transaction; in other words, Mastercard captures more revenue as the prices of goods and services increase.Mastercard is a cash cow, turning 46% of its revenue into free cash flow. Management shares those cash profits with investors, having paid and raised its dividend for the past 11 years. Investors won't get a huge dividend yield at just 0.6%, but the payout grows quickly; its annual increase has averaged 18% over the past five years. The company also spends billions on share repurchases, shrinking the share count by 22% over the past decade.The company's ability to grow cash and return it to investors simultaneously has powered market-beating returns, totaling more than 7,300% since Mastercard came public in 2006. Despite its success, there could still be more upside ahead. Earnings per share (EPS) have grown by an average of 16% over the past three years, only slightly dropping from its 10-year rate of 19%. Warren Buffett bought his first position in 2011, which remains a part of his portfolio today.Snowflake's business model makes it stand out from its cloud-computing peersJake Lerch (Snowflake): Snowflake doesn't fit the profile of a typical \"Buffett stock.\" In fact, Snowflake is the type of company Buffett may have derided several years ago. It's a recently founded technology company and its business model can be challenging to understand. Nevertheless, Buffett -- or more likely Berkshire Hathaway investment managers Todd Combs or Ted Weschler -- has accumulated over 6 million shares of Snowflake. Snowflake is, at the most basic level, a cloud computing company. But what really differentiates the company is its business model. Snowflake doesn't focus on increasing its customers' sales or streamlining their human resources workflow. Instead, it helps organizations gain a bird's eye view of all the data relevant to their operations. This perspective allows them to gain valuable insights into trends and improve their decision making.For example, Snowflake can help retailers more accurately predict and manage their inventory. In the pharmaceutical industry, Snowflake can help companies research and develop new treatments by quickly compiling and sharing data from outside sources.There's no doubt that Snowflake has secular tailwinds behind it. The company currently has 184 large customers (those generating more than $1 million in product revenue), and it plans to expand that number to 1,400 by 2029. Moreover, Snowflake hopes to grow its revenue almost tenfold over that same period. Over the last 12 months, Snowflake generated $1.4 billion of revenue -- its first time crossing the $1 billion mark. And by 2029, the company aims to exceed $10 billion in annual sales. But owning shares of Snowflake isn't without risk. First of all, Snowflake lacks profits. The company has never turned a profit, and its net income actually sank deeper into the red over the last two years, mainly due to lucrative stock compensation for its employees. What's more, the company relies on would-be competitors like Amazon and Microsoft for the cloud infrastructure to run its software. Nevertheless, Snowflake appears to have carved out a lucrative niche in the cloud-computing space. If you're willing to ride out short-term volatility, Snowflake looks like an outstanding Buffett stock -- albeit an unorthodox one.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":526,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9993871478,"gmtCreate":1660674311697,"gmtModify":1676536375621,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"OK","listText":"OK","text":"OK","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9993871478","repostId":"2259832442","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":531,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9993871598,"gmtCreate":1660674286617,"gmtModify":1676536375616,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Thanks","listText":"Thanks","text":"Thanks","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9993871598","repostId":"1105779322","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":383,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9046295499,"gmtCreate":1656349265611,"gmtModify":1676535811001,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9046295499","repostId":"2246790640","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2246790640","kind":"highlight","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Reuters.com brings you the latest news from around the world, covering breaking news in markets, business, politics, entertainment and technology","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Reuters","id":"1036604489","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868"},"pubTimestamp":1656342785,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2246790640?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-06-27 23:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"U.S. Supreme Court Won't Hear Apple's Bid to Revive Qualcomm Patent Challenges","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2246790640","media":"Reuters","summary":"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Apple Inc's    bid to revive an effort to cancel t","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Apple Inc&#39;s    bid to revive an effort to cancel two Qualcomm Inc    smartphone patents despite the global settlement of the underlying dispute between the two tech giants.</p><p>The justices turned away Apple&#39;s appeal of a lower court&#39;s ruling that the Cupertino, California-based company lacked standing to pursue the matter because of the settlement. Apple had argued that it should be allowed to appeal because San Diego-based Qualcomm could sue again after the settlement ends.</p><p>Qualcomm sued Apple in San Diego federal court in 2017, arguing that its iPhones, iPads and Apple Watches infringed a variety of Qualcomm mobile-technology patents. That case was <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> element of a broader dispute between the rivals.</p><p>Apple challenged the validity of the two patents at issue at the Patent and Trademark Office&#39;s Patent Trial and Appeal Board.</p><p>The parties settled their litigation in 2019, signing an agreement worth billions of dollars that allowed Apple to continue using Qualcomm chips in iPhones. The settlement also featured a license to tens of thousands of Qualcomm patents, including the two at issue, but allowed the patent board case to continue.</p><p>The board ruled in favor of Qualcomm. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which specializes in patent law, dismissed Apple&#39;s appeal last year based on the settlement. The Federal Circuit rejected Apple&#39;s contention that its royalty payments and risk of being sued again justified hearing the case on the merits.</p><p>Apple told the Supreme Court that it still faced the risk of litigation after the agreement expires in 2025, or in 2027 if the settlement term is extended. Qualcomm already sued once, has &#34;not disclaimed its intention to do so again,&#34; and has a &#34;history of aggressively enforcing its patents,&#34; Apple said.</p><p>Qualcomm asked the justices to reject the appeal, arguing Apple had not shown any concrete injury that would give it proper legal standing.</p><p>President Joe Biden&#39;s administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal in a brief in May.</p></body></html>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>U.S. Supreme Court Won't Hear Apple's Bid to Revive Qualcomm Patent Challenges</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nU.S. Supreme Court Won't Hear Apple's Bid to Revive Qualcomm Patent Challenges\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1036604489\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Reuters </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2022-06-27 23:13</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p>The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Apple Inc&#39;s    bid to revive an effort to cancel two Qualcomm Inc    smartphone patents despite the global settlement of the underlying dispute between the two tech giants.</p><p>The justices turned away Apple&#39;s appeal of a lower court&#39;s ruling that the Cupertino, California-based company lacked standing to pursue the matter because of the settlement. Apple had argued that it should be allowed to appeal because San Diego-based Qualcomm could sue again after the settlement ends.</p><p>Qualcomm sued Apple in San Diego federal court in 2017, arguing that its iPhones, iPads and Apple Watches infringed a variety of Qualcomm mobile-technology patents. That case was <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> element of a broader dispute between the rivals.</p><p>Apple challenged the validity of the two patents at issue at the Patent and Trademark Office&#39;s Patent Trial and Appeal Board.</p><p>The parties settled their litigation in 2019, signing an agreement worth billions of dollars that allowed Apple to continue using Qualcomm chips in iPhones. The settlement also featured a license to tens of thousands of Qualcomm patents, including the two at issue, but allowed the patent board case to continue.</p><p>The board ruled in favor of Qualcomm. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which specializes in patent law, dismissed Apple&#39;s appeal last year based on the settlement. The Federal Circuit rejected Apple&#39;s contention that its royalty payments and risk of being sued again justified hearing the case on the merits.</p><p>Apple told the Supreme Court that it still faced the risk of litigation after the agreement expires in 2025, or in 2027 if the settlement term is extended. Qualcomm already sued once, has &#34;not disclaimed its intention to do so again,&#34; and has a &#34;history of aggressively enforcing its patents,&#34; Apple said.</p><p>Qualcomm asked the justices to reject the appeal, arguing Apple had not shown any concrete injury that would give it proper legal standing.</p><p>President Joe Biden&#39;s administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal in a brief in May.</p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2246790640","content_text":"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Apple Inc's    bid to revive an effort to cancel two Qualcomm Inc    smartphone patents despite the global settlement of the underlying dispute between the two tech giants.The justices turned away Apple's appeal of a lower court's ruling that the Cupertino, California-based company lacked standing to pursue the matter because of the settlement. Apple had argued that it should be allowed to appeal because San Diego-based Qualcomm could sue again after the settlement ends.Qualcomm sued Apple in San Diego federal court in 2017, arguing that its iPhones, iPads and Apple Watches infringed a variety of Qualcomm mobile-technology patents. That case was one element of a broader dispute between the rivals.Apple challenged the validity of the two patents at issue at the Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board.The parties settled their litigation in 2019, signing an agreement worth billions of dollars that allowed Apple to continue using Qualcomm chips in iPhones. The settlement also featured a license to tens of thousands of Qualcomm patents, including the two at issue, but allowed the patent board case to continue.The board ruled in favor of Qualcomm. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which specializes in patent law, dismissed Apple's appeal last year based on the settlement. The Federal Circuit rejected Apple's contention that its royalty payments and risk of being sued again justified hearing the case on the merits.Apple told the Supreme Court that it still faced the risk of litigation after the agreement expires in 2025, or in 2027 if the settlement term is extended. Qualcomm already sued once, has \"not disclaimed its intention to do so again,\" and has a \"history of aggressively enforcing its patents,\" Apple said.Qualcomm asked the justices to reject the appeal, arguing Apple had not shown any concrete injury that would give it proper legal standing.President Joe Biden's administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal in a brief in May.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":541,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9041338698,"gmtCreate":1656006703714,"gmtModify":1676535748960,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"OK","listText":"OK","text":"OK","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9041338698","repostId":"1153523469","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1153523469","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Providing stock market headlines, business news, financials and earnings ","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Tiger Newspress","id":"1079075236","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1655995196,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1153523469?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-06-23 22:39","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Gaming Stocks Climbed in Morning Trading","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1153523469","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"Gaming Stocks climbed in morning trading. Unity Software, Roblox, Skillz, Applovin, Corsair Gaming, ","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>Gaming Stocks climbed in morning trading. Unity Software, Roblox, Skillz, Applovin, Corsair Gaming, Take-Two and Playtika climbed between 1% and 8%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3a634d8936b46f1e8b820e7ff357e0ee\" tg-width=\"380\" tg-height=\"421\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p></body></html>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Gaming Stocks Climbed in Morning Trading</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nGaming Stocks Climbed in Morning Trading\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1079075236\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Tiger Newspress </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2022-06-23 22:39</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p>Gaming Stocks climbed in morning trading. Unity Software, Roblox, Skillz, Applovin, Corsair Gaming, Take-Two and Playtika climbed between 1% and 8%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3a634d8936b46f1e8b820e7ff357e0ee\" tg-width=\"380\" tg-height=\"421\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"PLTK":"Playtika Holding Corp.","CRSR":"Corsair Gaming, Inc.","U":"Unity Software Inc.","RBLX":"Roblox Corporation","TTWO":"Take-Two Interactive Software","APP":"AppLovin Corporation","SKLZ":"Skillz Inc"},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1153523469","content_text":"Gaming Stocks climbed in morning trading. Unity Software, Roblox, Skillz, Applovin, Corsair Gaming, Take-Two and Playtika climbed between 1% and 8%.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":231,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9054599154,"gmtCreate":1655403570478,"gmtModify":1676535631167,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9054599154","repostId":"1138301646","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1138301646","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Providing stock market headlines, business news, financials and earnings ","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Tiger Newspress","id":"1079075236","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1655380468,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1138301646?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-06-16 19:54","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Pre-Bell｜Dow Futures Tumbled Over 500 Points; Tesla Slid Nearly 4%","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1138301646","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"U.S. stock index futures were under pressure Thursday, putting the major averages to give up the sol","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>U.S. stock index futures were under pressure Thursday, putting the major averages to give up the solid gains made in the previous session.</p><p><b>Market Snapshot</b></p><p>At 7:50 a.m. ET, Dow e-minis were down 527 points, or 1.72%, S&amp;P 500 e-minis were down 81.5 points, or 2.15%, and Nasdaq 100 e-minis were down 301.75 points, or 2.59%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c50dd43fbbaa701de68f242b4406e05f\" tg-width=\"312\" tg-height=\"126\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/></p><p><b>Pre-Market Movers</b></p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/JBL\">Jabil Circuit</a></b> – The contract electronics manufacturer saw its stock rise 1.2% in premarket trading after beating top and bottom-line estimates for its latest quarter. Jabil earned an adjusted $1.72 per share, 10 cents above estimates, and said it continued to see solid demand from its customers.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/CMC\">Commercial Metals</a></b> – The metal products manufacturer reported an adjusted quarterly profit of $2.61 per share, beating the $2.02 consensus estimate, and revenue also topped Wall Street forecasts. Commercial Metals also said it was anticipating upbeat financial performance for the current quarter amid a strong construction market. The stock rallied 4.6% in the premarket.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TSLA\">Tesla Motors</a></b> – Tesla fell 3.8% in premarket trading after Reuters reported that Tesla has increased prices on its U.S. models amid a jump in the price of raw materials and supply chain snags.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWTR\">Twitter</a></b> – Twitter gained 2.3% in premarket action following a Wall Street Journal report that Elon Musk will reiterate his desire to own Twitter at an all-hands meeting today. Musk has threatened to pull out of his Twitter buyout deal, accusing the company of withholding information on spam accounts.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/WBD\">Warner Bros. Discovery</a></b> – The media company’s stock slid 4% in the premarket after J.P. Morgan rated the stock “neutral,” citing a macroeconomic environment that could impact ad spending.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/KLAC\">KLA-Tencor</a></b> – The maker of semiconductors and electronics equipment said it expected an adjusted current-quarter profit of $4.93 to $6.03 per share, compared with the $5.50 consensus estimate. It also announced a $6 billion share repurchase program and a 24% dividend hike ahead of its 2022 Investor Day.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/REV\">Revlon</a></b> – Revlon filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as the cosmetics maker deals with a debt load of roughly $3.3 billion. Shares slid 4.4% in the premarket.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AMZN\">Amazon.com</a></b> – Amazon said its annual “Prime Day” shopping event would be held from July 12 to 13. Last year’s “Prime Day” event generated an estimated $3.5 billion in sales. Amazon fell 2.8% in premarket trading.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/ABT\">Abbott Laboratories</a></b> – Abbott said it was halting production of its EleCare specialty baby formula at its Sturgis, Michigan plant after severe storms flooded areas of the plant. Abbott said the flooding would likely delay production and distribution for a few weeks, and its stock fell 2% in the premarket.</p><p><b>Market News</b></p><p>Elon Musk on Wednesday appealed a judge&#39;s refusal to end his 2018 agreement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requiring a Tesla Inc lawyer to vet some of his posts on <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWTR\">Twitter</a></b>.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/SPOT\">Spotify Technology S.A.</a></b> Chief Executive Officer Daniel Ek informed the staff via email on Wednesday that the audio streaming company would reduce its hiring by 25%, according to a source familiar with the contents of the email. Ek said Spotify would continue hiring, though it would slow the pace &#34;and be a bit more prudent&#34; of over the next few quarters.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TSLA\">Tesla Motors</a></b> increased its Model Y long-range price to $65,990 from $62,990, its website showed on Thursday, after delaying the deliveries of some long-range models in the United States by up to a month. The price hike comes as costs of raw materials have surged, including aluminium that is used in cars.</p><p>The European Union&#39;s second-highest court scrapped a EUR997 million ($1.04 billion) fine that the bloc&#39;s antitrust regulator had levied on <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/QCOM\">Qualcomm</a></b>  over payments it made to Apple Inc. for the iPhone maker&#39;s exclusive use of Qualcomm chips.</p><p>Health experts advising U.S. health regulators backed giving Covid-19 vaccines from <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/PFE\">Pfizer</a></b> and <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/BNTX\">BioNTech SE</a></b> and from <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/MRNA\">Moderna, Inc.</a></b> to children as young as 6 months old. The panel voted 21 to 0 in a pair of votes on Wednesday in support of expanding access to the vaccines.</p><p>Top executives of <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/GM\">General Motors</a></b> and <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/F\">Ford</a></b> said on Wednesday U.S. consumer demand for cars and trucks remains strong, despite rising interest rates and record-high gas prices.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/DIS\">Walt Disney</a></b> has pushed back its original itinerary of moving around 2,000 workers at its Parks, Experience, and Product division to its new campus in the Orlando community of Lake Nona, from the end of this year to 2026, the Hollywood Reporter reported, citing a Disney spokesperson&#39;s statement.</p><p>Toshiba, <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/SONY\">Sony</a></b> and Samsung Electronics on Thursday lost their court fight against an EU cartel fine levied seven years ago for colluding in procurement tenders for optical disc drives.</p></body></html>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Pre-Bell｜Dow Futures Tumbled Over 500 Points; Tesla Slid Nearly 4%</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nPre-Bell｜Dow Futures Tumbled Over 500 Points; Tesla Slid Nearly 4%\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1079075236\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Tiger Newspress </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2022-06-16 19:54</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<html><head></head><body><p>U.S. stock index futures were under pressure Thursday, putting the major averages to give up the solid gains made in the previous session.</p><p><b>Market Snapshot</b></p><p>At 7:50 a.m. ET, Dow e-minis were down 527 points, or 1.72%, S&amp;P 500 e-minis were down 81.5 points, or 2.15%, and Nasdaq 100 e-minis were down 301.75 points, or 2.59%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c50dd43fbbaa701de68f242b4406e05f\" tg-width=\"312\" tg-height=\"126\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/></p><p><b>Pre-Market Movers</b></p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/JBL\">Jabil Circuit</a></b> – The contract electronics manufacturer saw its stock rise 1.2% in premarket trading after beating top and bottom-line estimates for its latest quarter. Jabil earned an adjusted $1.72 per share, 10 cents above estimates, and said it continued to see solid demand from its customers.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/CMC\">Commercial Metals</a></b> – The metal products manufacturer reported an adjusted quarterly profit of $2.61 per share, beating the $2.02 consensus estimate, and revenue also topped Wall Street forecasts. Commercial Metals also said it was anticipating upbeat financial performance for the current quarter amid a strong construction market. The stock rallied 4.6% in the premarket.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TSLA\">Tesla Motors</a></b> – Tesla fell 3.8% in premarket trading after Reuters reported that Tesla has increased prices on its U.S. models amid a jump in the price of raw materials and supply chain snags.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWTR\">Twitter</a></b> – Twitter gained 2.3% in premarket action following a Wall Street Journal report that Elon Musk will reiterate his desire to own Twitter at an all-hands meeting today. Musk has threatened to pull out of his Twitter buyout deal, accusing the company of withholding information on spam accounts.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/WBD\">Warner Bros. Discovery</a></b> – The media company’s stock slid 4% in the premarket after J.P. Morgan rated the stock “neutral,” citing a macroeconomic environment that could impact ad spending.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/KLAC\">KLA-Tencor</a></b> – The maker of semiconductors and electronics equipment said it expected an adjusted current-quarter profit of $4.93 to $6.03 per share, compared with the $5.50 consensus estimate. It also announced a $6 billion share repurchase program and a 24% dividend hike ahead of its 2022 Investor Day.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/REV\">Revlon</a></b> – Revlon filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as the cosmetics maker deals with a debt load of roughly $3.3 billion. Shares slid 4.4% in the premarket.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AMZN\">Amazon.com</a></b> – Amazon said its annual “Prime Day” shopping event would be held from July 12 to 13. Last year’s “Prime Day” event generated an estimated $3.5 billion in sales. Amazon fell 2.8% in premarket trading.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/ABT\">Abbott Laboratories</a></b> – Abbott said it was halting production of its EleCare specialty baby formula at its Sturgis, Michigan plant after severe storms flooded areas of the plant. Abbott said the flooding would likely delay production and distribution for a few weeks, and its stock fell 2% in the premarket.</p><p><b>Market News</b></p><p>Elon Musk on Wednesday appealed a judge&#39;s refusal to end his 2018 agreement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requiring a Tesla Inc lawyer to vet some of his posts on <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWTR\">Twitter</a></b>.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/SPOT\">Spotify Technology S.A.</a></b> Chief Executive Officer Daniel Ek informed the staff via email on Wednesday that the audio streaming company would reduce its hiring by 25%, according to a source familiar with the contents of the email. Ek said Spotify would continue hiring, though it would slow the pace &#34;and be a bit more prudent&#34; of over the next few quarters.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TSLA\">Tesla Motors</a></b> increased its Model Y long-range price to $65,990 from $62,990, its website showed on Thursday, after delaying the deliveries of some long-range models in the United States by up to a month. The price hike comes as costs of raw materials have surged, including aluminium that is used in cars.</p><p>The European Union&#39;s second-highest court scrapped a EUR997 million ($1.04 billion) fine that the bloc&#39;s antitrust regulator had levied on <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/QCOM\">Qualcomm</a></b>  over payments it made to Apple Inc. for the iPhone maker&#39;s exclusive use of Qualcomm chips.</p><p>Health experts advising U.S. health regulators backed giving Covid-19 vaccines from <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/PFE\">Pfizer</a></b> and <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/BNTX\">BioNTech SE</a></b> and from <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/MRNA\">Moderna, Inc.</a></b> to children as young as 6 months old. The panel voted 21 to 0 in a pair of votes on Wednesday in support of expanding access to the vaccines.</p><p>Top executives of <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/GM\">General Motors</a></b> and <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/F\">Ford</a></b> said on Wednesday U.S. consumer demand for cars and trucks remains strong, despite rising interest rates and record-high gas prices.</p><p><b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/DIS\">Walt Disney</a></b> has pushed back its original itinerary of moving around 2,000 workers at its Parks, Experience, and Product division to its new campus in the Orlando community of Lake Nona, from the end of this year to 2026, the Hollywood Reporter reported, citing a Disney spokesperson&#39;s statement.</p><p>Toshiba, <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/SONY\">Sony</a></b> and Samsung Electronics on Thursday lost their court fight against an EU cartel fine levied seven years ago for colluding in procurement tenders for optical disc drives.</p></body></html>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1138301646","content_text":"U.S. stock index futures were under pressure Thursday, putting the major averages to give up the solid gains made in the previous session.Market SnapshotAt 7:50 a.m. ET, Dow e-minis were down 527 points, or 1.72%, S&P 500 e-minis were down 81.5 points, or 2.15%, and Nasdaq 100 e-minis were down 301.75 points, or 2.59%.Pre-Market MoversJabil Circuit – The contract electronics manufacturer saw its stock rise 1.2% in premarket trading after beating top and bottom-line estimates for its latest quarter. Jabil earned an adjusted $1.72 per share, 10 cents above estimates, and said it continued to see solid demand from its customers.Commercial Metals – The metal products manufacturer reported an adjusted quarterly profit of $2.61 per share, beating the $2.02 consensus estimate, and revenue also topped Wall Street forecasts. Commercial Metals also said it was anticipating upbeat financial performance for the current quarter amid a strong construction market. The stock rallied 4.6% in the premarket.Tesla Motors – Tesla fell 3.8% in premarket trading after Reuters reported that Tesla has increased prices on its U.S. models amid a jump in the price of raw materials and supply chain snags.Twitter – Twitter gained 2.3% in premarket action following a Wall Street Journal report that Elon Musk will reiterate his desire to own Twitter at an all-hands meeting today. Musk has threatened to pull out of his Twitter buyout deal, accusing the company of withholding information on spam accounts.Warner Bros. Discovery – The media company’s stock slid 4% in the premarket after J.P. Morgan rated the stock “neutral,” citing a macroeconomic environment that could impact ad spending.KLA-Tencor – The maker of semiconductors and electronics equipment said it expected an adjusted current-quarter profit of $4.93 to $6.03 per share, compared with the $5.50 consensus estimate. It also announced a $6 billion share repurchase program and a 24% dividend hike ahead of its 2022 Investor Day.Revlon – Revlon filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as the cosmetics maker deals with a debt load of roughly $3.3 billion. Shares slid 4.4% in the premarket.Amazon.com – Amazon said its annual “Prime Day” shopping event would be held from July 12 to 13. Last year’s “Prime Day” event generated an estimated $3.5 billion in sales. Amazon fell 2.8% in premarket trading.Abbott Laboratories – Abbott said it was halting production of its EleCare specialty baby formula at its Sturgis, Michigan plant after severe storms flooded areas of the plant. Abbott said the flooding would likely delay production and distribution for a few weeks, and its stock fell 2% in the premarket.Market NewsElon Musk on Wednesday appealed a judge's refusal to end his 2018 agreement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requiring a Tesla Inc lawyer to vet some of his posts on Twitter.Spotify Technology S.A. Chief Executive Officer Daniel Ek informed the staff via email on Wednesday that the audio streaming company would reduce its hiring by 25%, according to a source familiar with the contents of the email. Ek said Spotify would continue hiring, though it would slow the pace \"and be a bit more prudent\" of over the next few quarters.Tesla Motors increased its Model Y long-range price to $65,990 from $62,990, its website showed on Thursday, after delaying the deliveries of some long-range models in the United States by up to a month. The price hike comes as costs of raw materials have surged, including aluminium that is used in cars.The European Union's second-highest court scrapped a EUR997 million ($1.04 billion) fine that the bloc's antitrust regulator had levied on Qualcomm  over payments it made to Apple Inc. for the iPhone maker's exclusive use of Qualcomm chips.Health experts advising U.S. health regulators backed giving Covid-19 vaccines from Pfizer and BioNTech SE and from Moderna, Inc. to children as young as 6 months old. The panel voted 21 to 0 in a pair of votes on Wednesday in support of expanding access to the vaccines.Top executives of General Motors and Ford said on Wednesday U.S. consumer demand for cars and trucks remains strong, despite rising interest rates and record-high gas prices.Walt Disney has pushed back its original itinerary of moving around 2,000 workers at its Parks, Experience, and Product division to its new campus in the Orlando community of Lake Nona, from the end of this year to 2026, the Hollywood Reporter reported, citing a Disney spokesperson's statement.Toshiba, Sony and Samsung Electronics on Thursday lost their court fight against an EU cartel fine levied seven years ago for colluding in procurement tenders for optical disc drives.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":196,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9054599391,"gmtCreate":1655403508113,"gmtModify":1676535631159,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9054599391","repostId":"1169504312","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1169504312","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1655389122,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1169504312?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-06-16 22:18","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The Recovery in Amazon Is Exaggerated","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1169504312","media":"InvestorPlace","summary":"Amazon(AMZN) stock surges amid its stock split.However, a gloomy outlook persists as key metrics are","content":"<html><head></head><body><ul><li><b>Amazon</b>(<b><u>AMZN</u></b>) stock surges amid its stock split.</li><li>However, a gloomy outlook persists as key metrics aren&#39;t aligned.</li><li>AMZN is an overvalued asset with growth prospects fading.</li></ul><p><b>Amazon</b>(NASDAQ:<b>AMZN</b>)stock has surged by more than 12% (on a relative basis) in the past month amid enthusiasm about its 20-for-1 stock split. Many investors seem over the moon about their gains, and rightly so. However, it’s time to think about matters prospectively. I sincerely doubt that Amazon stock will resume its upward trajectory as we move forward because it possesses clear fault lines.</p><p>I know many of you might disagree with me but just hear me out. First of all, Amazon’s recent retracement is likely artificial due to a technical price level bounce, which coalesced with its stock split event. Secondly, key metrics suggest that Amazon stock remains overbought. I’m thus exceptionally bearish; here’s why.</p><p><b>Stock Split Analysis</b></p><p>Amazon executed its20-for-1 stock split over the weekend in an attempt to make its stock more investable to the retail crowd. Although the split could add some value, it seems as though most of the benefits were already priced in leading up to the event, with AMZN stock rising by more than 12% in the last month.</p><p>It’s likely that institutional investors were the ones that speculated on the stock split and that actual post-split retail buying won’t suffice. I say this because retail market participation continues to wane, and AMZN’s stock split momentum peaked pre-event.</p><p>Even if we flip the scenario around and assume that AMZN’s stock split will result in a bullish trend, it’s still unlikely that it would make that big of a difference. According to a Cambridge University published study, the market underreacts to stock splits, which means that the stock split price anomaly remains a folk tale rather than objective theory.</p><p><b>Cyclical Headwinds</b></p><p>Although it remains open to debate, Amazon’s primary exposure is to the cyclical consumer goods market. The company’s e-commerce platform, which still accounts for roughly 44% of the business’ revenue, is inextricably linked to the real economy. Thus, the bulk of Amazon’s sales will likely fade if the yield curve’s implied interest rates materialize. The intuition here is that a series of increases in the benchmark interest rate would contract the economy, in turn reducing cyclical good spending.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/19fd989191761ed4f02868f215297844\" tg-width=\"1437\" tg-height=\"618\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"/></p><p>Source: Gurufocus</p><p>On the upside, I see Amazon Web Services (around 16% of its total revenue mix) as a breadwinner due to its secular growth properties. However, AWS is a long-run valuation consideration and won’t significantly affect the stock until it takes up a larger part of AMZN’s total revenue.</p><p><b>Relative Valuation Concerns</b></p><p>Amazon stock is overvalued on a relative basis. Firstly, AMZN stock is trading at 1.98x its sales and 15.81x its cash flow, conveying that the stock’s overvalued on both an accrual and a cash basis. Furthermore, AMZN’s price-to-earnings ratio of 47.62x implies that the market overestimates the company’s earnings-per-share capabilities.</p><p>I don’t see Amazon’s overvalued price multiples justified by growth. Sure, the company holds a strong market position, but its growth is relatively disappointing if it’s considered that AMZN’s earnings-before-interest-and-tax (EBIT) growth is projected at only 13.86% for the next year. In addition, Amazon’s forward diluted earnings-per-share is forecasted to be 84.78% lower than its 5-year average, implying that its growth prospects aren’t bright at all.</p></body></html>","source":"lsy1606302653667","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>The Recovery in Amazon Is Exaggerated</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nThe Recovery in Amazon Is Exaggerated\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-06-16 22:18 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://investorplace.com/2022/06/the-recovery-in-amzn-stock-is-exaggerated/><strong>InvestorPlace</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Amazon(AMZN) stock surges amid its stock split.However, a gloomy outlook persists as key metrics aren't aligned.AMZN is an overvalued asset with growth prospects fading.Amazon(NASDAQ:AMZN)stock has ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://investorplace.com/2022/06/the-recovery-in-amzn-stock-is-exaggerated/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://investorplace.com/2022/06/the-recovery-in-amzn-stock-is-exaggerated/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1169504312","content_text":"Amazon(AMZN) stock surges amid its stock split.However, a gloomy outlook persists as key metrics aren't aligned.AMZN is an overvalued asset with growth prospects fading.Amazon(NASDAQ:AMZN)stock has surged by more than 12% (on a relative basis) in the past month amid enthusiasm about its 20-for-1 stock split. Many investors seem over the moon about their gains, and rightly so. However, it’s time to think about matters prospectively. I sincerely doubt that Amazon stock will resume its upward trajectory as we move forward because it possesses clear fault lines.I know many of you might disagree with me but just hear me out. First of all, Amazon’s recent retracement is likely artificial due to a technical price level bounce, which coalesced with its stock split event. Secondly, key metrics suggest that Amazon stock remains overbought. I’m thus exceptionally bearish; here’s why.Stock Split AnalysisAmazon executed its20-for-1 stock split over the weekend in an attempt to make its stock more investable to the retail crowd. Although the split could add some value, it seems as though most of the benefits were already priced in leading up to the event, with AMZN stock rising by more than 12% in the last month.It’s likely that institutional investors were the ones that speculated on the stock split and that actual post-split retail buying won’t suffice. I say this because retail market participation continues to wane, and AMZN’s stock split momentum peaked pre-event.Even if we flip the scenario around and assume that AMZN’s stock split will result in a bullish trend, it’s still unlikely that it would make that big of a difference. According to a Cambridge University published study, the market underreacts to stock splits, which means that the stock split price anomaly remains a folk tale rather than objective theory.Cyclical HeadwindsAlthough it remains open to debate, Amazon’s primary exposure is to the cyclical consumer goods market. The company’s e-commerce platform, which still accounts for roughly 44% of the business’ revenue, is inextricably linked to the real economy. Thus, the bulk of Amazon’s sales will likely fade if the yield curve’s implied interest rates materialize. The intuition here is that a series of increases in the benchmark interest rate would contract the economy, in turn reducing cyclical good spending.Source: GurufocusOn the upside, I see Amazon Web Services (around 16% of its total revenue mix) as a breadwinner due to its secular growth properties. However, AWS is a long-run valuation consideration and won’t significantly affect the stock until it takes up a larger part of AMZN’s total revenue.Relative Valuation ConcernsAmazon stock is overvalued on a relative basis. Firstly, AMZN stock is trading at 1.98x its sales and 15.81x its cash flow, conveying that the stock’s overvalued on both an accrual and a cash basis. Furthermore, AMZN’s price-to-earnings ratio of 47.62x implies that the market overestimates the company’s earnings-per-share capabilities.I don’t see Amazon’s overvalued price multiples justified by growth. Sure, the company holds a strong market position, but its growth is relatively disappointing if it’s considered that AMZN’s earnings-before-interest-and-tax (EBIT) growth is projected at only 13.86% for the next year. In addition, Amazon’s forward diluted earnings-per-share is forecasted to be 84.78% lower than its 5-year average, implying that its growth prospects aren’t bright at all.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":136,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9054590453,"gmtCreate":1655403390372,"gmtModify":1676535631264,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9054590453","repostId":"1184789808","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":148,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9045126840,"gmtCreate":1656581431280,"gmtModify":1676535857836,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Yeah","listText":"Yeah","text":"Yeah","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9045126840","repostId":"1121505043","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1121505043","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1656561665,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1121505043?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-06-30 12:01","market":"us","language":"en","title":"NIO: Questions And Challenges To The Grizzly Short-Seller Report","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1121505043","media":"seekingalpha","summary":"SummaryShort-seller Grizzly Research has released a report outlining findings of alleged fraud by NIO on Tuesday evening.The report attempted to outline how NIO, through an unconsolidated entity, is f","content":"<html><head></head><body><p><b>Summary</b></p><ul><li>Short-seller Grizzly Research has released a report outlining findings of alleged fraud by NIO on Tuesday evening.</li><li>The report attempted to outline how NIO, through an unconsolidated entity, is falsely inflating revenue and net income pertaining to its BaaS business.</li><li>The report also accused CEO Bin Li of association with fraudulent activities in the past. The information was largely used as support for Grizzly&#39;s claims of financial manipulation at NIO.</li><li>However, we believe some of the information reported by Grizzly have been exaggerated to support its short bias against NIO. We also question the validity of some of the quantified impacts that Grizzly is claiming against NIO&#39;s BaaS operations.</li></ul><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/346379c1e5a1a4087e614ef0b8a18caa\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"720\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Drew Angerer/Getty Images News</span></p><p>Grizzly Research (&#34;Grizzly&#34;) has released a short-seller report on NIO (NYSE:NIO) Tuesday morning, citing the Chinese electric vehicle (“EV”) company has engaged in the exaggeration of revenue and profitability via aggressive accounting methods and fraudulent means. In addition to outlining the allegedmeasures NIO has taken to falsely inflate its top- and bottom-line since 2020, Grizzly has also gathered extensive research in an attempt to character-assassinate NIO CEO Bin Li in order to “dot the i’s and cross the t’s” in its argument that the three core elements of fraud – opportunity, incentive and rationalization – exist in this situation for the EV maker.</p><p>While some of the findings raised in the short-seller report may raise questions that only NIO management can answer, there are also questionable and groundless arguments made by Grizzly that could significantly mislead and deceive existing and potential investors in the EV stock. The following analysis will focus on an overview of the short-seller’s core claim against NIO – namely, false inflation of revenue and net income via aggressive accounting and potentially fraudulent means – and provide a walkthrough of questions / challenges we have over the validity of some of those claims.</p><p><b>Accounting Crash Course: NIO’s BaaS Revenue Recognition Method</b></p><p>Through publicly disclosed information within NIO’s audited annual report, Grizzly had identified that NIO is frontloading and inflating revenue recognition pertaining to its battery-as-a-service (“BaaS”) sales via an unconsolidated related party.</p><p>In 2020, NIO, alongside an external consortium of investors that consist of EV battery maker CATL, Hubei Science Technology Investment Group, and a subsidiary of Fuotai Junan International Holdings Limited, have together created the joint venture “Wuhan Weineng Battery Asset Co., Ltd.,” (“Weineng”). Weineng was established in 2020, the same time when NIO’s battery lending service BaaS was introduced.</p><p>Under BaaS, NIO customers are eligible for a one-time discount of up to RMB 128,000 ($19,133) on the vehicle purchase if they opt for the battery lending subscription program instead of buying the battery with the vehicle upfront. This strategy has been an effective mean in fuelling the adoption of NIO EVs in China, especially with additional government subsidies for purchases that are compatible with battery swapping technology. All sales and costs pertaining to BaaS are managed by Weineng.</p><p>Now, the Weineng joint venture, in which NIO holds a 19.8% equity interest in, has been accounted for as an “equity-accounted investment” on the EV maker’s financial statements, given the definition of control under GAAP-based accounting has not been met (further discussed in later sections). Under GAAP-based accounting for related party transactions, “intragroup related party transactions and outstanding balances are eliminated, except for those between an investment entity and its subsidiaries measured at fair value through profit or loss, in the preparation of consolidated financial statements of the group”:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b533b2a1e657134b3b33f231c2b11f74\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"292\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>GAAP Rules on Related Party Disclosures (IAS)</span></p><p>Based on NIO’s disclosures within its audited annual report on its revenue recognition method pertaining to BaaS sales, the EV maker sells its battery packs to Weineng on a “back-to-back” basis when a vehicle is sold to a customer subscribed to BaaS:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d726db76c4884663e28c157208e5cd77\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"150\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>NIO Revenue Recognition Policy on BaaS Sales (NIO 2021 20F)</span></p><p>In compliance with GAAP-based accounting for revenue recognition, a sale is reported to the income statement when a performance obligation is satisfied. Under NIO’s affiliation with Weineng, NIO sells Weineng a battery pack when a customer buys a vehicle with BaaS subscription. The performance obligation here is that NIO needs to provide a battery pack to Weineng, and once this is satisfied, NIO is permitted to recognize revenue on the battery sale based on a pre-contracted transaction price for the performance obligation. For NIO, the battery sold would have been previously considered as inventory. Following the recognition of the battery sale, NIO would have also recorded cost of sales pertaining to removing the battery from its inventory balance on the balance sheet:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2203faf29e5b271342335935df358d86\" tg-width=\"389\" tg-height=\"208\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Journal Entries for Battery Sales Business Model (Author)</span></p><p>In Weineng’s case, however, its performance obligation to customers is the provision of battery lending services on a monthly or annual basis, depending on the subscription option. As such, Weineng can only recognize monthly / annual BaaS revenue over time when it satisfies its battery lending obligation to customers. Weineng would also have to record depreciation costs over the useful life of its batteries, which are considered property, plant and equipment used in facilitating its service business:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4bf30456c1ff78b902edfa34d719f150\" tg-width=\"598\" tg-height=\"175\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Journal Entries for BaaS Business Model (Author)</span></p><p>This arrangement essentially allows NIO to recognize 100% of revenues pertaining to the battery pack sold to Weineng upfront upon selling a vehicle booked on BaaS on a one-for-one basis, instead of recognizing BaaS revenue and related depreciation costs on the batteries used in the BaaS business over time. The disclosed BaaS revenue recognition method for NIO also infers that the number of battery packs sold to Weineng should be equivalent to the number of BaaS subscribers as of period-end. BaaS revenues and related costs of sales (e.g. depreciation costs on batteries) recognized over time are instead in the books of Weineng, in which NIO accounts for on its balance sheet as an equity-accounted investment.</p><p>Because Weineng is an equity-accounted investment and not a consolidated entity in which NIO controls under the definition set out by GAAP-based accounting, NIO is not required to perform intragroup eliminations pertaining to the related party transaction. Instead, it is required to disclose the relationship, as well as the related amounts if material. This information is disclosed in NIO’s 2021 20 Funder “Note 26. Related Party Balances and Transactions”. Revenue and income generated by Weineng are accounted for in NIO’s financial statements as “share of (loss) / income of equity investees” pro-rated for its non-controlling interest.</p><p><b>Grizzly’s Core Short Thesis</b></p><p>Grizzly alleges the move is a fraudulent measure taken by NIO to “exaggerate revenue and profitability”. The short-seller has accused NIO of using the accounting “loophole” to frontload battery revenues pertaining to BaaS that should have been recognized over a course of about seven years (i.e. battery discount on BaaS vehicle purchase, divided by annual BaaS subscription fee).</p><p>In addition to frontloading revenue recognition on BaaS sales, Grizzly has also identified a discrepancy between the number of active BaaS subscribers and battery packs owned by Weineng as of September 30, 2021. Grizzly found thatWeineng had ownership of 40,053 battery packs as of September 30, 2021, but only had 19,000 active BaaS subscribers during the period, which is inconsistent with NIO’s claims that it only records battery sales to Weineng on a back-to-back basis with BaaS vehicle sales. Grizzly has attributed the discrepancy as NIO’s way of artificially inflating revenues by selling more battery packs to Weineng than it needs to fulfil BaaS performance obligations.</p><p>In order to support its claim that NIO is defrauding investors via the unconsolidated related party, Grizzly has also gathered additional research in an attempt to support the three key elements of the fraudulent triangle:</p><p><b>Opportunity:</b>As mentioned in the accounting overview section, the ownership structure between NIO and Weineng is accounted for as an equity-accounted investment, which allows NIO to bypass related party transaction eliminations on its financial statements. This accordingly provides an opportunity for NIO to artificially inflate its revenues at the group level by recording sales to the equity-accounted subsidiary, without the need to back it out at period end. Under GAAP-based accounting rules on related party transactions, NIO is required to disclose material details to the relationship, in which it has complied with.</p><p>The organizational structure also provides NIO an ability to recognize BaaS revenues upfront, instead of over an extended period of time given the difference in performance obligation it owes toWeinengcompared to thoseWeineng owes to BaaS subscribers. Grizzly also claims the method has allowed NIO to bypass depreciation costs on battery assets to the tune of RMB 336 million per year.</p><p><b>Incentive:</b>Grizzly has gone through extensive measures to dig up evidence to support NIO has a valid incentive for exaggerating its revenue and profitability. Citing an agreement between NIO and a state-backed consortium which has invested in a wholly-owned subsidiary “NIO China”, which requires NIO to redeem the investment upon failure in meeting pre-established performance metrics, such as achieving revenues of RMB 120 billion by 2024. However, the publicly disclosed information per NIO’s regulatory filings does not specify whether the RMB 120 billion revenue performance metric is required on an annual basis or on a cumulative basis between the time at which the agreement was forged with the state-backed investment consortium and 2024.</p><p>Grizzly has also inferred incentive for NIO to exaggerate its top- and bottom-line as a mean to pretty its valuation prospects, and attract investors from the public market.</p><p><b>Rationalization:</b>The short-seller report lacks support for how NIO tried to rationalize the alleged fraudulent reporting behaviour. However, Grizzly has proceeded to gather evidence to bolster its claim of why the likelihood of fraud at NIO is high. These include findings about NIO CEO Li’s past association with personnel that have been previously linked to high-profile fraudulent financial reporting cases like Luckin Coffee(OTCPK:LKNCY). Grizzly has also alluded to questionable behaviour by NIO CEO Li, such as pledging a NIO-affiliated subsidiary, “NIO User Trust”, in which Li personally controls to UBS AG without directly addressing the matter to shareholders. While these findings may warrant clarification from management, there is insufficient ground to warrant a fraudulent sentence to the company.</p><p>NIO management has also refuted Grizzly’s claims, saying allegations outlined in the report are “without merit and contains numerous errors, unsupported speculations and misleading conclusions and interpretations”, and has committed to bolstering public disclosures going forward to protect shareholders’ interests. Nowhere has the company tried to outright rationalize fraudulent reporting.</p><p><b>Challenging Grizzly’s Conclusion on “Control” Established by NIO Over Weineng</b></p><p>In addition to character assassination on Li to support its claims for fraudulent reporting behaviour at NIO, Grizzly has also attempted to conclude NIO’s control over Weineng. As mentioned in earlier sections, if NIO effectively “controls” Weineng, it would have to consolidate the investment and eliminate any earnings recorded via related party transactions.</p><p>First, Grizzly has identified “conflicting disclosure” between NIO’s claim that it has “significant influence” over Weineng in one place, and NIO’s claim that it only has “limited control over the business operations” ofWeinengin another place within a same regulatory filing. However, the words “significant influence” and “control” used within NIO’s regulatory filings are defined differently under GAAP-based accounting rules from general definitions of power that everyday investors are familiar with.</p><p>Significant influence is defined as “the power to participate in the financial and operating policy decisions of the investee without the power to control or jointly control those policies” under GAAP-based accounting. Significantly influence is typically established when an “entity holds, directly or indirectly, 20% or more of voting power of the investee”. NIO’s 19.8% equity interest in Weineng is sufficient to presume its “significant influence” over the investment:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/505c64f7bc18c02131dd830e5f2a5462\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"260\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>GAAP Rules on Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures (IAS)</span></p><p>Pointing to our earlier reference to the definition of control established in GAAP-based accounting, the acquiring party only establishes “control” over the acquired party if it demonstrates three primary elements:</p><p>1. “<b>Power</b>” over the acquired entity, which is defined under GAAP as a substantive right exercised by an acquirer over the acquiree for non-protective benefits (e.g. exercising rights without the need for breach of contract or majority investor support). Based on publicly disclosed information in NIO’s regulatory filings, it only holds one of nine board seats on Weineng. There is also no mention of voting agreements that would pass on majority board and/or owner voting rights to NIO. With one of nine board seats, and a 19.8% equity interest, NIO does not exhibit power over Weineng to establish control.</p><p>2. Exposure to<i>variable returns</i>from the acquiree based on the acquirer’s involvement. NIO does not generate additional fees from Weineng based on Weineng’s performance. NIO is only exposed to Weineng’s earnings through its equity-accounted share of the investment.</p><p>As for the acquirer’s involvement in interfering with returns generated from the acquiree, Grizzly has pointed to the installation of two existing NIO executives to Weineng in management roles that include “Legal Representative and Chairman” and “General Manager and Director”. However, considering NIO’s significant influence over Weineng as defined under GAAP rules explained earlier, it is not unusual for the two parties to share employees or for NIO to “participate in the financial and operating policy decisions” of Weineng through the two shared employees. As such, NIO can account for its investment inWeinengas an equity-accounted investment, as long as “control” is not established even if it has installed employees at Weineng. Based on NIO’s failure to meet criterion 1 “power”, it already fails to establish control under GAAP rules over Weineng based on the existing ownership and voting structure disclosed in regulatory filings.</p><p>Grizzly has also alluded to the installation of two NIO executives in the daily operations of Weineng as a “major conflict of interest”. However, the auditor’s report per NIO’s audited 2021 20F states that “the company has maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021, based on criteria established in<i>Internal Control – Integrated Framework</i>(2013) issued by the COSO”. The COSO framework requires that internal controls address segregation of duty requirements to ensure fair presentation of financial information without material misstatements whether due to error or fraud. As such, it is reasonable to believe that segregation of duty controls in place pertaining to the two executives’ roles in both NIO and Weineng have been tested as effective as of the reporting date.</p><p>3. The acquiring party is a<i>principal</i>in the transaction, and not an agent. Under GAAP-based accounting, an agent is “primarily engaged to act on behalf and for the benefit of another party…[and] does not control an investee when it exercises decision-making rights delegated to it”. In determining whether NIO is an agent over Weineng, the i) scope of NIO’s decision-making authority over Weineng, ii) the rights held by other investors in Weineng, iii) the remuneration in which NIO is entitled to in its affiliation with Weineng, and iv) NIO’s exposure to variability of returns from its interest in Weineng must be considered:</p><ul><li>Based on the foregoing analysis, we know that NIO’s sole decision-making authority over Weineng is limited given it only holds 19.8% equity interest with one in nine board seats in the joint venture. The two NIO executives installed in the daily operations of Weineng also do not exhibit characteristics of sole control over the joint ventures’ business.</li><li>The remainder of the investment consortium over Weineng holds the remaining eight of nine board seats, and 80.2% equity interest in the joint venture. There have also been no mention of signed-over voting rights by the investment consortium to NIO in publicly disclosed information that would give NIO control over Weineng.</li><li>In addition to battery sales, NIO is also entitled to service revenue earned from Weineng through service agreements. NIO earns revenue for providing “battery packmonitoring, maintenance, upgrade, replacement, IT system support, etc.” to Weineng via monthly service charges. As of the reporting year ended December 31, 2021, service revenues pertaining to the service agreements between NIO and Weineng were immaterial according to disclosures in “Note 2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies”, section<i>(r) Revenue recognition</i>in the 2021 20F.</li><li>As discussed in the control assessment under criterion 2, NIO’s exposure to variability of returns in its investment in Weineng is insufficient to establish control under GAAP-based accounting.</li></ul><p><b>Challenging Grizzly’s Quantification of NIO’s Alleged Revenue and Profit Inflation</b></p><p>Grizzly believes NIO has inflated revenue and net income by “about 10% and 95%, respectively”, via its affiliation with Weineng. Grizzly’s calculations, as well as our skepticism, is outlined as follows:</p><p><b>1. Frontloaded Revenue via Battery Sales to Weineng</b></p><p><b>Grizzly’s accusation.</b>As discussed in the foregoing analysis, Grizzly identified that NIO has been recognizing battery revenues pertaining to BaaS upfront via its affiliation with Weineng. Instead of recognizing BaaS revenues over time when the service performance obligation is satisfied, NIO is able to recognize 100% of battery revenues sold to customers via BaaS subscriptions through the Weineng JV. Grizzly claims that this arrangement effectively allows NIO to pull forward seven years of BaaS revenue upfront.</p><p><b>Grizzly’s calculation of quantified impacts.</b>Considering vehicle purchase discounts ranging RMB 70,000 (70/75 kWh battery pack) to RMB 128,000 (100 kWh battery pack) upon buyer’s subscription to BaaS, Grizzly has taken the lower end of the range (i.e. RMB 70,000) as the proxy for battery pack revenues. Based on annual BaaS subscription fees at RMB 11,760 (RMB 980/mo.) for the 70 kWh battery pack, which yields a vehicle discount of RMB 70,000 with subscription to BaaS, Grizzly has assumed a BaaS revenue recognition timeline of about seven years (i.e. RMB 70,000 discount, divided by RMB 11,760 annual BaaS subscription fee, adjusted for inflation) – we consider this a reasonable assumption.</p><p>Now, as of September 30, 2021, a public regulatory filing by Weineng disclosed that it had 19,000 active BaaS subscribers. 18% of its subscription base were subscribed to the RMB 1,480/mo. 100 kWh battery pack, and 82% were subscribed to the RMB 980/mo. 70/75 kWh battery pack at the time.</p><p>Grizzly’s calculation of inflated revenues and income pertaining to NIO’s sale of 19,000 BaaS-related batteries to Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021 is as follows:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/21e7d58b24ac2bde6344b4206ef9be8e\" tg-width=\"592\" tg-height=\"395\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Grizzly&#39;s Computation of Inflated Revenue and Income Pertaining to Pulled Forward BaaS Sales (Grizzly Research)</span></p><p>As of the nine months ended September 30, 2021, NIO had generated RMB 2,796 million in revenues from the sale of batteries to Weineng (full year 2021 revenues generated from Weineng: RMB 4,138 million, 11% of total NIO 2021 revenue). Based on 19,000 active BaaS subscribers, and ownership of 40,053 battery packs owned as reported by Weineng as of September 30, 2021, Grizzly estimates that only 47% of the RMB 2,796 million in revenues generated from the sale of goods to Weineng are related to “real” BaaS sales. Essentially, Grizzly claims only RMB 1,326 million of RMB 2,796 million in sales of goods to Weineng recognized on NIO’s income statement in the nine months ended September 30, 2021 are related to real BaaS battery sales.</p><p>The RMB 1,326 million pertaining to 19,000 battery packs sold to Weineng for the number of active BaaS subscribers at the time is effectively the “upfront” revenue recognized by NIO, which should have been recognized over a course of seven years instead based on the estimated performance obligation timeline discussed in earlier sections. Without Weineng, NIO would have instead had to recognize BaaS revenues related to the 19,000 subscribers over time, which is equivalent to RMB 179 million in the nine month period ending September 30, 2021. This essentially means NIO had allegedly pulled forward RMB 1,147 million in revenues related to BaaS sales in the nine months ending September 30, 2021.</p><p>In the nine months ended September 30, 2021, NIO had reported total revenue of RMB 26,236 million and net losses of RMB 1,874 million. The RMB 1,147 million in pulled forward BaaS revenues represents 4% of total revenues recognized over the nine-month reporting period.</p><p>To generate the “adjusted” net income that NIO would have reported had Weineng never existed, Grizzly had removed RMB 1,147 million in pulled forward revenues pertaining to BaaS sales directly from actual reported net losses of RMB 1,874 million. This accordingly yields adjusted net losses of RMB 3,021 million for the nine months ending September 30, 2021 at NIO, or a variance of 61%.</p><p><b>Issue with Grizzly’s claim.</b>In Grizzly’s calculation of adjusted net losses had BaaS revenue never been pulled forward at NIO via its affiliation with Weineng, the short-seller did not add back costs of sales that NIO would have recognized when it sold the battery packs to Weineng and recorded the related revenue.</p><p>While profit margins on NIO’s battery pack sales to Weineng are not disclosed, Grizzly had used 20% as a proxy, which is “consistent with the margin of an entire vehicle [considering] batteries are a cost center for all vehicles”. Using the 20% profit margin proxy on 19,000 battery pack sales to Weineng totalling RMB 1,326 million in the nine months ending September 30, 2021, NIO would have recorded related cost of sales of RMB 1,060.9 million (i.e. 0.8% cost of revenues x RMB 1,326 million battery revenues recorded on the sale of 19,000 units to Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021).</p><p>When Grizzly removed/pulled forward BaaS revenues of RMB 1,147 million from NIO’s actual net losses of RMB 1,874 million reported in the nine months ending September 30, 2021, Grizzly should have also added back related cost of sales totalling RMB 917.6 million in determining the adjusted net income reported.</p><p><b>Livy’s revised calculation of quantified impacts.</b></p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/324a74d6eeeb60a4bd2da9251d4d6ed8\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"416\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Livy&#39;s Computation of Revenue and Income Variances Pertaining to NIO&#39;s Alleged Frontloading of BaaS Sales (Author)</span></p><p>The above revised net income adjustment backs out alleged pulled forward BaaS revenues by NIO through its affiliation with Weineng from actual net losses reported by NIO in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. The orange-highlighted cells represent the incremental cost of sales pertaining to pulled forward BaaS revenues that should have been added back to adjusted net income in order to represent a fair representation of NIO’s adjusted net losses for the nine months ending September 30, 2021 if Weineng never existed and the EV maker had to recognize BaaS revenues over time. This adjustment accordingly reduces the variance of 61% from Grizzly’s calculation of adjusted net losses, to 12% – a material difference that, like Grizzly is accusing NIO of doing, misleads investors on the matter discussed.</p><p><b>2. Revenues from Oversupplied Batteries to Weineng</b></p><p><b>Grizzly’s accusation.</b>Based on NIO’s revenue recognition method on BaaS sales, the number of battery packs sold to Weineng should be equivalent to the number of vehicle buyers that have subscribed to BaaS at the time of purchase. Based on 19,000 active BaaS subscribers reported by Weineng as of September 30, 2021, it is easy to assume that NIO should have only sold 19,000 battery packs to Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021 as well to comply with the EV maker’s revenue recognition method on BaaS sales outlined in its 2021 20F.</p><p>However, Weineng had reported ownership of 40,053 battery packs as of September 30, 2021, which exceeds its active subscriber base of 19,000 by 21,053 units. As such, Grizzly has accused NIO of intentionally overselling battery packs to Weineng to inflate revenues.</p><p>While the discrepancy is indeed a question for management, Grizzly had cited that there is no need for Weineng to hold that many additional battery packs, even for operational purposes. Grizzly had gone on to explain its field work done at NIO Power Swap stations to verify that there is no difference between BaaS battery packs owned by Weineng and battery packs used in swap stations owned by NIO. However, we believe the additional field work is a moot point, considering NIO Power Swap operations are not related to Weineng. Weineng only facilitates NIO’s BaaS battery lending business, and nothing else – Grizzly did not even have to go out of its way to check on NIO’s Power Swap stations and hold conversations with sales staff at NIO’s car centers.</p><p><b>Livy’s response.</b>While the number of battery packs owned by Weineng should essentially be equivalent to the number of active BaaS subscribers, there is a possibility that a total of 40,053 NIO vehicle sales between 2020 when BaaS was established and September 30, 2021 had subscribed to BaaS. Perhaps, as of reporting date on September 30, 2021, there were 21,053 BaaS subscribers that have halted monthly subscriptions, which is not surprising given the third quarter is not a typical driving season, and there is a possibility that these NIO vehicle owners did not need to use their vehicles during the period.</p><p>Grizzly has also supported its claim that NIO oversupplied battery packs to Weineng to intentionally inflate revenues by saying that Weineng has no storage facility to store its 21,053 excess battery packs as of September 30, 2021. However, we do not find this surprising, as BaaS subscribers that have halted monthly subscriptions might be holding onto the emptied battery packs on consignment or have returned them to a NIO servicing center where NIO has held onto these Weineng-owned battery packs on consignment. The lack of battery pack storage facility owned by Weineng does not conclude that its ownership of the excess battery packs is fraudulent and made up.</p><p>There can be many reasons why a discrepancy exists between the number of active BaaS subscribers and battery packs owned by Weineng at the end of a reporting period. The above are just two assumptions that could invalidate Grizzly’s accusation (which is also an assumption). The real answer to the discrepancy can only be explained by NIO and Weineng management.</p><p><b>Grizzly’s calculation of quantified impacts.</b>In determining the inflated revenue and earnings specific to the allegedly oversupplied battery packs from NIO to Weineng, Grizzly had performed the following calculations:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a2497da8272eec2b6020c07b7ee06b1f\" tg-width=\"580\" tg-height=\"420\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Grizzly&#39;s Computation of Revenue and Net Income Variances Pertaining to Oversupplied Batteries (Grizzly Research)</span></p><p>In deriving the inflated revenues related to the allegedly oversupplied battery packs, Grizzly had determined the percentage of battery packs owned by Weineng as of September 30, 2021 that were in excess to its active subscriber base as 53% (i.e. 21,053 excess battery packs, divided by 40,053 battery packs owned by Weineng as of September 30, 2021). The percentage was applied to total revenue recognized by NIO pertaining to the sale of battery packs to Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021, resulting in oversold battery revenues of RMB 1,470 million (i.e. 53% oversold batteries x RMB 2,796 million in related party revenues from Weineng recorded by NIO for the nine months ending September 30, 2021).</p><p>In the nine months ended September 30, 2021, NIO had reported total revenue of RMB 26,236 million and net losses of RMB 1,874 million. The RMB 1,470 million in oversold battery revenue represents 6% of total NIO revenues recognized over the nine-month reporting period.</p><p>Considering Grizzly’s 20% profit margin assumption on battery pack sales as discussed in earlier sections, the oversold battery packs to Weineng would have generated net income of RMB 294 million in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. As such, backing out RMB 294 million in overstated profits back to NIO’s actual reported net losses of RMB 1,874 million in the nine-month period ending September 30, 2021 would have yield adjusted net losses of RMB 2,168 million, representing a variance of 16%.</p><p>We have no issues with this calculation performed by Grizzly, other than concerns over the short-seller’s claims that these 20,053 battery packs were intentionally “oversold” by NIO to Weineng to artificially boost revenues.</p><p><b>3. Shifting Depreciation Costs</b></p><p><b>Grizzly’s Accusations.</b>Grizzly has accused NIO of indirectly shifting depreciation costs on the battery packs sold to Weineng, saving the EV maker north of RMB 336 million in depreciation expense on an annual basis.</p><p>Specifically, Grizzly has assumed a 20% profit margin on NIO’s battery sales totalling RMB 2,796 million generated from Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. This represents battery assets valued at a cost basis of RMB 2.25 billion (i.e. 80% cost x RMB 2,796 in battery sales to Weineng, adjusted for minor rounding differences) removed from the EV maker’s balance sheet over the same period.</p><p>Based on the five to eight years useful life attributable to equipment, including battery packs, used in NIO’s Power Swap business as disclosed in its 2021 20F, Grizzly has assumed an annual depreciation rate of about 15% on the battery packs sold to Weineng and removed from NIO’s balance sheet in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. This is consistent with the assumed BaaS revenue recognition timeline of about seven years as discussed in earlier sections. As such, Grizzly has accused NIO of avoiding depreciation costs of RMB 336 million (i.e. 15% battery depreciation rate x RMB 2,796 million in battery pack sales to Weineng) in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. The short-seller has also alluded to the RMB 336 million as a proxy for annual depreciation costs that NIO has avoided via its arrangement with Weineng.</p><p><b>Issue with Grizzly’s claim.</b>There are two folds to this situation:</p><p><b>1. BaaS Business Model:</b>Under the BaaS business model, the battery packs are considered equipment used in facilitating a service business. As such, the related battery packs would be subjected to depreciation over its useful life. In NIO’s case, if Weineng never existed and the EV maker consolidates its BaaS business, NIO would have had to recognized BaaS revenues pertaining to the 19,000 battery packs that Grizzly has attributed to the BaaS business over seven years, and accordingly record depreciation costs on these battery packs as well over their useful lives of about seven years. As mentioned in earlier sections, the related journal entries under the BaaS business model is as follows:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0e89611dda7a7e83881997628fe7aae3\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"187\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Journal Entries for BaaS Business Model (Author)</span></p><p><b>2. Battery Sales Business Model:</b>in the current situation where NIO has sold the battery packs to Weineng, the battery packs are considered inventory to NIO. There is no depreciation costs related to inventory under GAAP-based accounting. Instead, NIO needs to record the costs of this inventory when they are removed from its balance sheet once the sale is recognized. As mentioned in earlier sections, the related journal entries under the battery sale business model is as follows:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2203faf29e5b271342335935df358d86\" tg-width=\"389\" tg-height=\"208\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Journal Entries for Battery Sales Business Model (Author)</span></p><p>Now, in NIO’s current actual situation, it is engaged in a battery sales business model under its performance obligation to Weineng, while Weineng is engaged in a BaaS business model under its performance obligation to BaaS subscribers.</p><p>As discussed in our first challenge to Grizzly’s calculations pertaining to pulled forward revenue on BaaS battery sales to Weineng, NIO would have recorded costs of sales pertaining to the sold battery inventory when it recognized the related revenues. And this cost of sales number, based on a 20% profit margin assumption consistent with that used by Grizzly, would have accounted for the costs of battery inventory removed from NIO’s balance sheet upon completion of the sale to Weineng. This is consistent with Grizzly’s own calculation pertaining to profit margins on the battery packs that it alleges NIO had oversupplied to Weineng, which is inclusive of cost of sales related to written off inventory incurred by NIO upon recognition of related revenues.</p><p>If NIO was engaged in the BaaS business model itself, without the intervention of Weineng, it would have recognized depreciation at a rate of 15% per year on the battery packs. However, under the upfront sale of related battery packs to Weineng, NIO would have recorded related cost of sales at an upfront rate of 80% as well. So basically, instead of recording revenues and depreciation costs on battery packs over time, NIO essentially recorded revenues and battery inventory costs upfront under its current arrangement with Weineng.</p><p><b>Grizzly’s calculation of quantified impacts.</b>Grizzly’s accusation that NIO has overstated revenues and earnings by 10% and 95%, respectively, through its affiliation with Weineng is calculated as follows:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/96f972c8d488406cd690b0672265e62b\" tg-width=\"576\" tg-height=\"498\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Grizzly&#39;s Computation of Total Revenue and Income Inflation (Grizzly Research)</span></p><p>As discussed in earlier sections, NIO’s pulled forward BaaS revenues and inflated battery sales revenues via its affiliation with Weineng represent 4% and 6% of its total revenues, respectively, recognized in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. This represents the 10% in inflated NIO revenues as Grizzly has outlined in the above calculation.</p><p><b>Livy’s revised calculation of quantified impacts.</b>While we have yet to reconcile the RMB 1,777 million in total inflated net income that Grizzly has accused NIO of recognizing (please let us know in comments if you know), we believe the 95% variance identified by Grizzly is not a fair presentation of the quantified impact of its core short thesis.</p><p>Our calculation of the quantified impact pertaining to Grizzly’s accusations that NIO has inflated revenue and earnings through (1) pulling forward BaaS sales, and (2) oversupplying batteries to Weineng, is as follows:</p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1ffe9833bb562f66e5365e077d7741d4\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"396\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Livy&#39;s Computation of Alleged Overstatements Related to Alleged Frontloading of BaaS Revenue (Author)</span></p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/230a54833c34b3a9920a03524c28e960\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"361\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Livy&#39;s Computation of Alleged Overstatements Pertaining to Alleged Overselling of Battery Supplies (Author)</span></p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ccf9a3a0482b46cee102e66d5137113f\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"220\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Livy&#39;s Computation of Alleged Revenue Overstatement (Author)</span></p><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0c7ec5a61d7fd491aec81d9a48a92020\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"188\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/><span>Livy&#39;s Computation of Alleged Overstatement in Net Income (Author)</span></p><p>Under Grizzly’s accusations of inflated revenue and earnings by NIO through its affiliation with Weineng, if found valid (which we remain skeptical of), NIO would have overstated net losses in the nine months ending September 30, 2021 by 28% instead of the 95% that Grizzly alleges – a material difference that again misleads investors on the estimated quantified impact pertaining to the accusations claimed by the short-seller. The net income variance of RMB 523 million ($78 million) found in our calculation is also immaterial (&lt; 1%) based on NIO’s market value of $58.38 billion as of September 30, 2021 and NIO’s market value of approximately $35 billion today.</p><p><b>Final Thoughts</b></p><p>As discussed in the introduction of this analysis, Grizzly had also touched on things like NIO CEO Li’s association with fraudulent personnel, the pledge of NIO User Trust to UBS AG, and conflict of interests to further support its argument that NIO is engaged in fraudulent financial reporting. However, these are groundless allegations that have yet to be substantiated to infer Li is committing fraud via NIO’s operations. While investors should always exercise professional skepticism on publicly disclosed information in regulatory filings when making investment decisions, the same skepticism should also be placed on external claims – such as those by the short-seller, commentary by external sources, and/or even commentary herein – especially if they argue that correlation = causation (e.g. Grizzly’s method in inferring that fraud at NIO is substantiated given “dirt” it has dug up on Li’s past).</p><p>While we agree that there are some good takeaways from the short-seller report that may require further clarification from management, it is important to recognize and acknowledge that a lot of it might also be misleading – or in the words of Grizzly, “exaggerated”. This is also consistent with NIO’s stock performance during Tuesday and Wednesday’s session following release of the short-seller report. The stock has largely moved in consistency with the ongoing market rout, and broad-based selloff across the EV sector, with no extreme deviation due to the negative headline from Grizzly, which indicates that market participants, especially significant shareholders in NIO, are still digesting the latest external allegations.</p><p>At the end of the day, NIO remains one of the most viable EV businesses in the emerging sector, with continued demand for its vehicles to support further growth over the long-run. Unlike some of the upstarts in the increasingly competitive EV landscape that have been accused of fraud, such as Nikola (NKLA), Lordstown Motors (RIDE), and Faraday Future (FFIE), NIO already operates a global business with a substantiated vehicle order book to support the bulk of its top- and bottom-line expansion, which continues to support its positive valuation prospects ahead.</p><p>This article was written by Livy Investment Research</p></body></html>","source":"seekingalpha","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>NIO: Questions And Challenges To The Grizzly Short-Seller Report</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nNIO: Questions And Challenges To The Grizzly Short-Seller Report\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-06-30 12:01 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://seekingalpha.com/article/4521053-nio-questions-and-challenges-to-the-grizzly-short-seller-report?source=content_type%3Areact%7Cfirst_level_url%3Ahome%7Csection%3Aportfolio%7Csection_asset%3Aheadlines%7Cline%3A2><strong>seekingalpha</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>SummaryShort-seller Grizzly Research has released a report outlining findings of alleged fraud by NIO on Tuesday evening.The report attempted to outline how NIO, through an unconsolidated entity, is ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4521053-nio-questions-and-challenges-to-the-grizzly-short-seller-report?source=content_type%3Areact%7Cfirst_level_url%3Ahome%7Csection%3Aportfolio%7Csection_asset%3Aheadlines%7Cline%3A2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4521053-nio-questions-and-challenges-to-the-grizzly-short-seller-report?source=content_type%3Areact%7Cfirst_level_url%3Ahome%7Csection%3Aportfolio%7Csection_asset%3Aheadlines%7Cline%3A2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5a36db9d73b4222bc376d24ccc48c8a4","article_id":"1121505043","content_text":"SummaryShort-seller Grizzly Research has released a report outlining findings of alleged fraud by NIO on Tuesday evening.The report attempted to outline how NIO, through an unconsolidated entity, is falsely inflating revenue and net income pertaining to its BaaS business.The report also accused CEO Bin Li of association with fraudulent activities in the past. The information was largely used as support for Grizzly's claims of financial manipulation at NIO.However, we believe some of the information reported by Grizzly have been exaggerated to support its short bias against NIO. We also question the validity of some of the quantified impacts that Grizzly is claiming against NIO's BaaS operations.Drew Angerer/Getty Images NewsGrizzly Research (\"Grizzly\") has released a short-seller report on NIO (NYSE:NIO) Tuesday morning, citing the Chinese electric vehicle (“EV”) company has engaged in the exaggeration of revenue and profitability via aggressive accounting methods and fraudulent means. In addition to outlining the allegedmeasures NIO has taken to falsely inflate its top- and bottom-line since 2020, Grizzly has also gathered extensive research in an attempt to character-assassinate NIO CEO Bin Li in order to “dot the i’s and cross the t’s” in its argument that the three core elements of fraud – opportunity, incentive and rationalization – exist in this situation for the EV maker.While some of the findings raised in the short-seller report may raise questions that only NIO management can answer, there are also questionable and groundless arguments made by Grizzly that could significantly mislead and deceive existing and potential investors in the EV stock. The following analysis will focus on an overview of the short-seller’s core claim against NIO – namely, false inflation of revenue and net income via aggressive accounting and potentially fraudulent means – and provide a walkthrough of questions / challenges we have over the validity of some of those claims.Accounting Crash Course: NIO’s BaaS Revenue Recognition MethodThrough publicly disclosed information within NIO’s audited annual report, Grizzly had identified that NIO is frontloading and inflating revenue recognition pertaining to its battery-as-a-service (“BaaS”) sales via an unconsolidated related party.In 2020, NIO, alongside an external consortium of investors that consist of EV battery maker CATL, Hubei Science Technology Investment Group, and a subsidiary of Fuotai Junan International Holdings Limited, have together created the joint venture “Wuhan Weineng Battery Asset Co., Ltd.,” (“Weineng”). Weineng was established in 2020, the same time when NIO’s battery lending service BaaS was introduced.Under BaaS, NIO customers are eligible for a one-time discount of up to RMB 128,000 ($19,133) on the vehicle purchase if they opt for the battery lending subscription program instead of buying the battery with the vehicle upfront. This strategy has been an effective mean in fuelling the adoption of NIO EVs in China, especially with additional government subsidies for purchases that are compatible with battery swapping technology. All sales and costs pertaining to BaaS are managed by Weineng.Now, the Weineng joint venture, in which NIO holds a 19.8% equity interest in, has been accounted for as an “equity-accounted investment” on the EV maker’s financial statements, given the definition of control under GAAP-based accounting has not been met (further discussed in later sections). Under GAAP-based accounting for related party transactions, “intragroup related party transactions and outstanding balances are eliminated, except for those between an investment entity and its subsidiaries measured at fair value through profit or loss, in the preparation of consolidated financial statements of the group”:GAAP Rules on Related Party Disclosures (IAS)Based on NIO’s disclosures within its audited annual report on its revenue recognition method pertaining to BaaS sales, the EV maker sells its battery packs to Weineng on a “back-to-back” basis when a vehicle is sold to a customer subscribed to BaaS:NIO Revenue Recognition Policy on BaaS Sales (NIO 2021 20F)In compliance with GAAP-based accounting for revenue recognition, a sale is reported to the income statement when a performance obligation is satisfied. Under NIO’s affiliation with Weineng, NIO sells Weineng a battery pack when a customer buys a vehicle with BaaS subscription. The performance obligation here is that NIO needs to provide a battery pack to Weineng, and once this is satisfied, NIO is permitted to recognize revenue on the battery sale based on a pre-contracted transaction price for the performance obligation. For NIO, the battery sold would have been previously considered as inventory. Following the recognition of the battery sale, NIO would have also recorded cost of sales pertaining to removing the battery from its inventory balance on the balance sheet:Journal Entries for Battery Sales Business Model (Author)In Weineng’s case, however, its performance obligation to customers is the provision of battery lending services on a monthly or annual basis, depending on the subscription option. As such, Weineng can only recognize monthly / annual BaaS revenue over time when it satisfies its battery lending obligation to customers. Weineng would also have to record depreciation costs over the useful life of its batteries, which are considered property, plant and equipment used in facilitating its service business:Journal Entries for BaaS Business Model (Author)This arrangement essentially allows NIO to recognize 100% of revenues pertaining to the battery pack sold to Weineng upfront upon selling a vehicle booked on BaaS on a one-for-one basis, instead of recognizing BaaS revenue and related depreciation costs on the batteries used in the BaaS business over time. The disclosed BaaS revenue recognition method for NIO also infers that the number of battery packs sold to Weineng should be equivalent to the number of BaaS subscribers as of period-end. BaaS revenues and related costs of sales (e.g. depreciation costs on batteries) recognized over time are instead in the books of Weineng, in which NIO accounts for on its balance sheet as an equity-accounted investment.Because Weineng is an equity-accounted investment and not a consolidated entity in which NIO controls under the definition set out by GAAP-based accounting, NIO is not required to perform intragroup eliminations pertaining to the related party transaction. Instead, it is required to disclose the relationship, as well as the related amounts if material. This information is disclosed in NIO’s 2021 20 Funder “Note 26. Related Party Balances and Transactions”. Revenue and income generated by Weineng are accounted for in NIO’s financial statements as “share of (loss) / income of equity investees” pro-rated for its non-controlling interest.Grizzly’s Core Short ThesisGrizzly alleges the move is a fraudulent measure taken by NIO to “exaggerate revenue and profitability”. The short-seller has accused NIO of using the accounting “loophole” to frontload battery revenues pertaining to BaaS that should have been recognized over a course of about seven years (i.e. battery discount on BaaS vehicle purchase, divided by annual BaaS subscription fee).In addition to frontloading revenue recognition on BaaS sales, Grizzly has also identified a discrepancy between the number of active BaaS subscribers and battery packs owned by Weineng as of September 30, 2021. Grizzly found thatWeineng had ownership of 40,053 battery packs as of September 30, 2021, but only had 19,000 active BaaS subscribers during the period, which is inconsistent with NIO’s claims that it only records battery sales to Weineng on a back-to-back basis with BaaS vehicle sales. Grizzly has attributed the discrepancy as NIO’s way of artificially inflating revenues by selling more battery packs to Weineng than it needs to fulfil BaaS performance obligations.In order to support its claim that NIO is defrauding investors via the unconsolidated related party, Grizzly has also gathered additional research in an attempt to support the three key elements of the fraudulent triangle:Opportunity:As mentioned in the accounting overview section, the ownership structure between NIO and Weineng is accounted for as an equity-accounted investment, which allows NIO to bypass related party transaction eliminations on its financial statements. This accordingly provides an opportunity for NIO to artificially inflate its revenues at the group level by recording sales to the equity-accounted subsidiary, without the need to back it out at period end. Under GAAP-based accounting rules on related party transactions, NIO is required to disclose material details to the relationship, in which it has complied with.The organizational structure also provides NIO an ability to recognize BaaS revenues upfront, instead of over an extended period of time given the difference in performance obligation it owes toWeinengcompared to thoseWeineng owes to BaaS subscribers. Grizzly also claims the method has allowed NIO to bypass depreciation costs on battery assets to the tune of RMB 336 million per year.Incentive:Grizzly has gone through extensive measures to dig up evidence to support NIO has a valid incentive for exaggerating its revenue and profitability. Citing an agreement between NIO and a state-backed consortium which has invested in a wholly-owned subsidiary “NIO China”, which requires NIO to redeem the investment upon failure in meeting pre-established performance metrics, such as achieving revenues of RMB 120 billion by 2024. However, the publicly disclosed information per NIO’s regulatory filings does not specify whether the RMB 120 billion revenue performance metric is required on an annual basis or on a cumulative basis between the time at which the agreement was forged with the state-backed investment consortium and 2024.Grizzly has also inferred incentive for NIO to exaggerate its top- and bottom-line as a mean to pretty its valuation prospects, and attract investors from the public market.Rationalization:The short-seller report lacks support for how NIO tried to rationalize the alleged fraudulent reporting behaviour. However, Grizzly has proceeded to gather evidence to bolster its claim of why the likelihood of fraud at NIO is high. These include findings about NIO CEO Li’s past association with personnel that have been previously linked to high-profile fraudulent financial reporting cases like Luckin Coffee(OTCPK:LKNCY). Grizzly has also alluded to questionable behaviour by NIO CEO Li, such as pledging a NIO-affiliated subsidiary, “NIO User Trust”, in which Li personally controls to UBS AG without directly addressing the matter to shareholders. While these findings may warrant clarification from management, there is insufficient ground to warrant a fraudulent sentence to the company.NIO management has also refuted Grizzly’s claims, saying allegations outlined in the report are “without merit and contains numerous errors, unsupported speculations and misleading conclusions and interpretations”, and has committed to bolstering public disclosures going forward to protect shareholders’ interests. Nowhere has the company tried to outright rationalize fraudulent reporting.Challenging Grizzly’s Conclusion on “Control” Established by NIO Over WeinengIn addition to character assassination on Li to support its claims for fraudulent reporting behaviour at NIO, Grizzly has also attempted to conclude NIO’s control over Weineng. As mentioned in earlier sections, if NIO effectively “controls” Weineng, it would have to consolidate the investment and eliminate any earnings recorded via related party transactions.First, Grizzly has identified “conflicting disclosure” between NIO’s claim that it has “significant influence” over Weineng in one place, and NIO’s claim that it only has “limited control over the business operations” ofWeinengin another place within a same regulatory filing. However, the words “significant influence” and “control” used within NIO’s regulatory filings are defined differently under GAAP-based accounting rules from general definitions of power that everyday investors are familiar with.Significant influence is defined as “the power to participate in the financial and operating policy decisions of the investee without the power to control or jointly control those policies” under GAAP-based accounting. Significantly influence is typically established when an “entity holds, directly or indirectly, 20% or more of voting power of the investee”. NIO’s 19.8% equity interest in Weineng is sufficient to presume its “significant influence” over the investment:GAAP Rules on Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures (IAS)Pointing to our earlier reference to the definition of control established in GAAP-based accounting, the acquiring party only establishes “control” over the acquired party if it demonstrates three primary elements:1. “Power” over the acquired entity, which is defined under GAAP as a substantive right exercised by an acquirer over the acquiree for non-protective benefits (e.g. exercising rights without the need for breach of contract or majority investor support). Based on publicly disclosed information in NIO’s regulatory filings, it only holds one of nine board seats on Weineng. There is also no mention of voting agreements that would pass on majority board and/or owner voting rights to NIO. With one of nine board seats, and a 19.8% equity interest, NIO does not exhibit power over Weineng to establish control.2. Exposure tovariable returnsfrom the acquiree based on the acquirer’s involvement. NIO does not generate additional fees from Weineng based on Weineng’s performance. NIO is only exposed to Weineng’s earnings through its equity-accounted share of the investment.As for the acquirer’s involvement in interfering with returns generated from the acquiree, Grizzly has pointed to the installation of two existing NIO executives to Weineng in management roles that include “Legal Representative and Chairman” and “General Manager and Director”. However, considering NIO’s significant influence over Weineng as defined under GAAP rules explained earlier, it is not unusual for the two parties to share employees or for NIO to “participate in the financial and operating policy decisions” of Weineng through the two shared employees. As such, NIO can account for its investment inWeinengas an equity-accounted investment, as long as “control” is not established even if it has installed employees at Weineng. Based on NIO’s failure to meet criterion 1 “power”, it already fails to establish control under GAAP rules over Weineng based on the existing ownership and voting structure disclosed in regulatory filings.Grizzly has also alluded to the installation of two NIO executives in the daily operations of Weineng as a “major conflict of interest”. However, the auditor’s report per NIO’s audited 2021 20F states that “the company has maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021, based on criteria established inInternal Control – Integrated Framework(2013) issued by the COSO”. The COSO framework requires that internal controls address segregation of duty requirements to ensure fair presentation of financial information without material misstatements whether due to error or fraud. As such, it is reasonable to believe that segregation of duty controls in place pertaining to the two executives’ roles in both NIO and Weineng have been tested as effective as of the reporting date.3. The acquiring party is aprincipalin the transaction, and not an agent. Under GAAP-based accounting, an agent is “primarily engaged to act on behalf and for the benefit of another party…[and] does not control an investee when it exercises decision-making rights delegated to it”. In determining whether NIO is an agent over Weineng, the i) scope of NIO’s decision-making authority over Weineng, ii) the rights held by other investors in Weineng, iii) the remuneration in which NIO is entitled to in its affiliation with Weineng, and iv) NIO’s exposure to variability of returns from its interest in Weineng must be considered:Based on the foregoing analysis, we know that NIO’s sole decision-making authority over Weineng is limited given it only holds 19.8% equity interest with one in nine board seats in the joint venture. The two NIO executives installed in the daily operations of Weineng also do not exhibit characteristics of sole control over the joint ventures’ business.The remainder of the investment consortium over Weineng holds the remaining eight of nine board seats, and 80.2% equity interest in the joint venture. There have also been no mention of signed-over voting rights by the investment consortium to NIO in publicly disclosed information that would give NIO control over Weineng.In addition to battery sales, NIO is also entitled to service revenue earned from Weineng through service agreements. NIO earns revenue for providing “battery packmonitoring, maintenance, upgrade, replacement, IT system support, etc.” to Weineng via monthly service charges. As of the reporting year ended December 31, 2021, service revenues pertaining to the service agreements between NIO and Weineng were immaterial according to disclosures in “Note 2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies”, section(r) Revenue recognitionin the 2021 20F.As discussed in the control assessment under criterion 2, NIO’s exposure to variability of returns in its investment in Weineng is insufficient to establish control under GAAP-based accounting.Challenging Grizzly’s Quantification of NIO’s Alleged Revenue and Profit InflationGrizzly believes NIO has inflated revenue and net income by “about 10% and 95%, respectively”, via its affiliation with Weineng. Grizzly’s calculations, as well as our skepticism, is outlined as follows:1. Frontloaded Revenue via Battery Sales to WeinengGrizzly’s accusation.As discussed in the foregoing analysis, Grizzly identified that NIO has been recognizing battery revenues pertaining to BaaS upfront via its affiliation with Weineng. Instead of recognizing BaaS revenues over time when the service performance obligation is satisfied, NIO is able to recognize 100% of battery revenues sold to customers via BaaS subscriptions through the Weineng JV. Grizzly claims that this arrangement effectively allows NIO to pull forward seven years of BaaS revenue upfront.Grizzly’s calculation of quantified impacts.Considering vehicle purchase discounts ranging RMB 70,000 (70/75 kWh battery pack) to RMB 128,000 (100 kWh battery pack) upon buyer’s subscription to BaaS, Grizzly has taken the lower end of the range (i.e. RMB 70,000) as the proxy for battery pack revenues. Based on annual BaaS subscription fees at RMB 11,760 (RMB 980/mo.) for the 70 kWh battery pack, which yields a vehicle discount of RMB 70,000 with subscription to BaaS, Grizzly has assumed a BaaS revenue recognition timeline of about seven years (i.e. RMB 70,000 discount, divided by RMB 11,760 annual BaaS subscription fee, adjusted for inflation) – we consider this a reasonable assumption.Now, as of September 30, 2021, a public regulatory filing by Weineng disclosed that it had 19,000 active BaaS subscribers. 18% of its subscription base were subscribed to the RMB 1,480/mo. 100 kWh battery pack, and 82% were subscribed to the RMB 980/mo. 70/75 kWh battery pack at the time.Grizzly’s calculation of inflated revenues and income pertaining to NIO’s sale of 19,000 BaaS-related batteries to Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021 is as follows:Grizzly's Computation of Inflated Revenue and Income Pertaining to Pulled Forward BaaS Sales (Grizzly Research)As of the nine months ended September 30, 2021, NIO had generated RMB 2,796 million in revenues from the sale of batteries to Weineng (full year 2021 revenues generated from Weineng: RMB 4,138 million, 11% of total NIO 2021 revenue). Based on 19,000 active BaaS subscribers, and ownership of 40,053 battery packs owned as reported by Weineng as of September 30, 2021, Grizzly estimates that only 47% of the RMB 2,796 million in revenues generated from the sale of goods to Weineng are related to “real” BaaS sales. Essentially, Grizzly claims only RMB 1,326 million of RMB 2,796 million in sales of goods to Weineng recognized on NIO’s income statement in the nine months ended September 30, 2021 are related to real BaaS battery sales.The RMB 1,326 million pertaining to 19,000 battery packs sold to Weineng for the number of active BaaS subscribers at the time is effectively the “upfront” revenue recognized by NIO, which should have been recognized over a course of seven years instead based on the estimated performance obligation timeline discussed in earlier sections. Without Weineng, NIO would have instead had to recognize BaaS revenues related to the 19,000 subscribers over time, which is equivalent to RMB 179 million in the nine month period ending September 30, 2021. This essentially means NIO had allegedly pulled forward RMB 1,147 million in revenues related to BaaS sales in the nine months ending September 30, 2021.In the nine months ended September 30, 2021, NIO had reported total revenue of RMB 26,236 million and net losses of RMB 1,874 million. The RMB 1,147 million in pulled forward BaaS revenues represents 4% of total revenues recognized over the nine-month reporting period.To generate the “adjusted” net income that NIO would have reported had Weineng never existed, Grizzly had removed RMB 1,147 million in pulled forward revenues pertaining to BaaS sales directly from actual reported net losses of RMB 1,874 million. This accordingly yields adjusted net losses of RMB 3,021 million for the nine months ending September 30, 2021 at NIO, or a variance of 61%.Issue with Grizzly’s claim.In Grizzly’s calculation of adjusted net losses had BaaS revenue never been pulled forward at NIO via its affiliation with Weineng, the short-seller did not add back costs of sales that NIO would have recognized when it sold the battery packs to Weineng and recorded the related revenue.While profit margins on NIO’s battery pack sales to Weineng are not disclosed, Grizzly had used 20% as a proxy, which is “consistent with the margin of an entire vehicle [considering] batteries are a cost center for all vehicles”. Using the 20% profit margin proxy on 19,000 battery pack sales to Weineng totalling RMB 1,326 million in the nine months ending September 30, 2021, NIO would have recorded related cost of sales of RMB 1,060.9 million (i.e. 0.8% cost of revenues x RMB 1,326 million battery revenues recorded on the sale of 19,000 units to Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021).When Grizzly removed/pulled forward BaaS revenues of RMB 1,147 million from NIO’s actual net losses of RMB 1,874 million reported in the nine months ending September 30, 2021, Grizzly should have also added back related cost of sales totalling RMB 917.6 million in determining the adjusted net income reported.Livy’s revised calculation of quantified impacts.Livy's Computation of Revenue and Income Variances Pertaining to NIO's Alleged Frontloading of BaaS Sales (Author)The above revised net income adjustment backs out alleged pulled forward BaaS revenues by NIO through its affiliation with Weineng from actual net losses reported by NIO in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. The orange-highlighted cells represent the incremental cost of sales pertaining to pulled forward BaaS revenues that should have been added back to adjusted net income in order to represent a fair representation of NIO’s adjusted net losses for the nine months ending September 30, 2021 if Weineng never existed and the EV maker had to recognize BaaS revenues over time. This adjustment accordingly reduces the variance of 61% from Grizzly’s calculation of adjusted net losses, to 12% – a material difference that, like Grizzly is accusing NIO of doing, misleads investors on the matter discussed.2. Revenues from Oversupplied Batteries to WeinengGrizzly’s accusation.Based on NIO’s revenue recognition method on BaaS sales, the number of battery packs sold to Weineng should be equivalent to the number of vehicle buyers that have subscribed to BaaS at the time of purchase. Based on 19,000 active BaaS subscribers reported by Weineng as of September 30, 2021, it is easy to assume that NIO should have only sold 19,000 battery packs to Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021 as well to comply with the EV maker’s revenue recognition method on BaaS sales outlined in its 2021 20F.However, Weineng had reported ownership of 40,053 battery packs as of September 30, 2021, which exceeds its active subscriber base of 19,000 by 21,053 units. As such, Grizzly has accused NIO of intentionally overselling battery packs to Weineng to inflate revenues.While the discrepancy is indeed a question for management, Grizzly had cited that there is no need for Weineng to hold that many additional battery packs, even for operational purposes. Grizzly had gone on to explain its field work done at NIO Power Swap stations to verify that there is no difference between BaaS battery packs owned by Weineng and battery packs used in swap stations owned by NIO. However, we believe the additional field work is a moot point, considering NIO Power Swap operations are not related to Weineng. Weineng only facilitates NIO’s BaaS battery lending business, and nothing else – Grizzly did not even have to go out of its way to check on NIO’s Power Swap stations and hold conversations with sales staff at NIO’s car centers.Livy’s response.While the number of battery packs owned by Weineng should essentially be equivalent to the number of active BaaS subscribers, there is a possibility that a total of 40,053 NIO vehicle sales between 2020 when BaaS was established and September 30, 2021 had subscribed to BaaS. Perhaps, as of reporting date on September 30, 2021, there were 21,053 BaaS subscribers that have halted monthly subscriptions, which is not surprising given the third quarter is not a typical driving season, and there is a possibility that these NIO vehicle owners did not need to use their vehicles during the period.Grizzly has also supported its claim that NIO oversupplied battery packs to Weineng to intentionally inflate revenues by saying that Weineng has no storage facility to store its 21,053 excess battery packs as of September 30, 2021. However, we do not find this surprising, as BaaS subscribers that have halted monthly subscriptions might be holding onto the emptied battery packs on consignment or have returned them to a NIO servicing center where NIO has held onto these Weineng-owned battery packs on consignment. The lack of battery pack storage facility owned by Weineng does not conclude that its ownership of the excess battery packs is fraudulent and made up.There can be many reasons why a discrepancy exists between the number of active BaaS subscribers and battery packs owned by Weineng at the end of a reporting period. The above are just two assumptions that could invalidate Grizzly’s accusation (which is also an assumption). The real answer to the discrepancy can only be explained by NIO and Weineng management.Grizzly’s calculation of quantified impacts.In determining the inflated revenue and earnings specific to the allegedly oversupplied battery packs from NIO to Weineng, Grizzly had performed the following calculations:Grizzly's Computation of Revenue and Net Income Variances Pertaining to Oversupplied Batteries (Grizzly Research)In deriving the inflated revenues related to the allegedly oversupplied battery packs, Grizzly had determined the percentage of battery packs owned by Weineng as of September 30, 2021 that were in excess to its active subscriber base as 53% (i.e. 21,053 excess battery packs, divided by 40,053 battery packs owned by Weineng as of September 30, 2021). The percentage was applied to total revenue recognized by NIO pertaining to the sale of battery packs to Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021, resulting in oversold battery revenues of RMB 1,470 million (i.e. 53% oversold batteries x RMB 2,796 million in related party revenues from Weineng recorded by NIO for the nine months ending September 30, 2021).In the nine months ended September 30, 2021, NIO had reported total revenue of RMB 26,236 million and net losses of RMB 1,874 million. The RMB 1,470 million in oversold battery revenue represents 6% of total NIO revenues recognized over the nine-month reporting period.Considering Grizzly’s 20% profit margin assumption on battery pack sales as discussed in earlier sections, the oversold battery packs to Weineng would have generated net income of RMB 294 million in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. As such, backing out RMB 294 million in overstated profits back to NIO’s actual reported net losses of RMB 1,874 million in the nine-month period ending September 30, 2021 would have yield adjusted net losses of RMB 2,168 million, representing a variance of 16%.We have no issues with this calculation performed by Grizzly, other than concerns over the short-seller’s claims that these 20,053 battery packs were intentionally “oversold” by NIO to Weineng to artificially boost revenues.3. Shifting Depreciation CostsGrizzly’s Accusations.Grizzly has accused NIO of indirectly shifting depreciation costs on the battery packs sold to Weineng, saving the EV maker north of RMB 336 million in depreciation expense on an annual basis.Specifically, Grizzly has assumed a 20% profit margin on NIO’s battery sales totalling RMB 2,796 million generated from Weineng in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. This represents battery assets valued at a cost basis of RMB 2.25 billion (i.e. 80% cost x RMB 2,796 in battery sales to Weineng, adjusted for minor rounding differences) removed from the EV maker’s balance sheet over the same period.Based on the five to eight years useful life attributable to equipment, including battery packs, used in NIO’s Power Swap business as disclosed in its 2021 20F, Grizzly has assumed an annual depreciation rate of about 15% on the battery packs sold to Weineng and removed from NIO’s balance sheet in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. This is consistent with the assumed BaaS revenue recognition timeline of about seven years as discussed in earlier sections. As such, Grizzly has accused NIO of avoiding depreciation costs of RMB 336 million (i.e. 15% battery depreciation rate x RMB 2,796 million in battery pack sales to Weineng) in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. The short-seller has also alluded to the RMB 336 million as a proxy for annual depreciation costs that NIO has avoided via its arrangement with Weineng.Issue with Grizzly’s claim.There are two folds to this situation:1. BaaS Business Model:Under the BaaS business model, the battery packs are considered equipment used in facilitating a service business. As such, the related battery packs would be subjected to depreciation over its useful life. In NIO’s case, if Weineng never existed and the EV maker consolidates its BaaS business, NIO would have had to recognized BaaS revenues pertaining to the 19,000 battery packs that Grizzly has attributed to the BaaS business over seven years, and accordingly record depreciation costs on these battery packs as well over their useful lives of about seven years. As mentioned in earlier sections, the related journal entries under the BaaS business model is as follows:Journal Entries for BaaS Business Model (Author)2. Battery Sales Business Model:in the current situation where NIO has sold the battery packs to Weineng, the battery packs are considered inventory to NIO. There is no depreciation costs related to inventory under GAAP-based accounting. Instead, NIO needs to record the costs of this inventory when they are removed from its balance sheet once the sale is recognized. As mentioned in earlier sections, the related journal entries under the battery sale business model is as follows:Journal Entries for Battery Sales Business Model (Author)Now, in NIO’s current actual situation, it is engaged in a battery sales business model under its performance obligation to Weineng, while Weineng is engaged in a BaaS business model under its performance obligation to BaaS subscribers.As discussed in our first challenge to Grizzly’s calculations pertaining to pulled forward revenue on BaaS battery sales to Weineng, NIO would have recorded costs of sales pertaining to the sold battery inventory when it recognized the related revenues. And this cost of sales number, based on a 20% profit margin assumption consistent with that used by Grizzly, would have accounted for the costs of battery inventory removed from NIO’s balance sheet upon completion of the sale to Weineng. This is consistent with Grizzly’s own calculation pertaining to profit margins on the battery packs that it alleges NIO had oversupplied to Weineng, which is inclusive of cost of sales related to written off inventory incurred by NIO upon recognition of related revenues.If NIO was engaged in the BaaS business model itself, without the intervention of Weineng, it would have recognized depreciation at a rate of 15% per year on the battery packs. However, under the upfront sale of related battery packs to Weineng, NIO would have recorded related cost of sales at an upfront rate of 80% as well. So basically, instead of recording revenues and depreciation costs on battery packs over time, NIO essentially recorded revenues and battery inventory costs upfront under its current arrangement with Weineng.Grizzly’s calculation of quantified impacts.Grizzly’s accusation that NIO has overstated revenues and earnings by 10% and 95%, respectively, through its affiliation with Weineng is calculated as follows:Grizzly's Computation of Total Revenue and Income Inflation (Grizzly Research)As discussed in earlier sections, NIO’s pulled forward BaaS revenues and inflated battery sales revenues via its affiliation with Weineng represent 4% and 6% of its total revenues, respectively, recognized in the nine months ending September 30, 2021. This represents the 10% in inflated NIO revenues as Grizzly has outlined in the above calculation.Livy’s revised calculation of quantified impacts.While we have yet to reconcile the RMB 1,777 million in total inflated net income that Grizzly has accused NIO of recognizing (please let us know in comments if you know), we believe the 95% variance identified by Grizzly is not a fair presentation of the quantified impact of its core short thesis.Our calculation of the quantified impact pertaining to Grizzly’s accusations that NIO has inflated revenue and earnings through (1) pulling forward BaaS sales, and (2) oversupplying batteries to Weineng, is as follows:Livy's Computation of Alleged Overstatements Related to Alleged Frontloading of BaaS Revenue (Author)Livy's Computation of Alleged Overstatements Pertaining to Alleged Overselling of Battery Supplies (Author)Livy's Computation of Alleged Revenue Overstatement (Author)Livy's Computation of Alleged Overstatement in Net Income (Author)Under Grizzly’s accusations of inflated revenue and earnings by NIO through its affiliation with Weineng, if found valid (which we remain skeptical of), NIO would have overstated net losses in the nine months ending September 30, 2021 by 28% instead of the 95% that Grizzly alleges – a material difference that again misleads investors on the estimated quantified impact pertaining to the accusations claimed by the short-seller. The net income variance of RMB 523 million ($78 million) found in our calculation is also immaterial (< 1%) based on NIO’s market value of $58.38 billion as of September 30, 2021 and NIO’s market value of approximately $35 billion today.Final ThoughtsAs discussed in the introduction of this analysis, Grizzly had also touched on things like NIO CEO Li’s association with fraudulent personnel, the pledge of NIO User Trust to UBS AG, and conflict of interests to further support its argument that NIO is engaged in fraudulent financial reporting. However, these are groundless allegations that have yet to be substantiated to infer Li is committing fraud via NIO’s operations. While investors should always exercise professional skepticism on publicly disclosed information in regulatory filings when making investment decisions, the same skepticism should also be placed on external claims – such as those by the short-seller, commentary by external sources, and/or even commentary herein – especially if they argue that correlation = causation (e.g. Grizzly’s method in inferring that fraud at NIO is substantiated given “dirt” it has dug up on Li’s past).While we agree that there are some good takeaways from the short-seller report that may require further clarification from management, it is important to recognize and acknowledge that a lot of it might also be misleading – or in the words of Grizzly, “exaggerated”. This is also consistent with NIO’s stock performance during Tuesday and Wednesday’s session following release of the short-seller report. The stock has largely moved in consistency with the ongoing market rout, and broad-based selloff across the EV sector, with no extreme deviation due to the negative headline from Grizzly, which indicates that market participants, especially significant shareholders in NIO, are still digesting the latest external allegations.At the end of the day, NIO remains one of the most viable EV businesses in the emerging sector, with continued demand for its vehicles to support further growth over the long-run. Unlike some of the upstarts in the increasingly competitive EV landscape that have been accused of fraud, such as Nikola (NKLA), Lordstown Motors (RIDE), and Faraday Future (FFIE), NIO already operates a global business with a substantiated vehicle order book to support the bulk of its top- and bottom-line expansion, which continues to support its positive valuation prospects ahead.This article was written by Livy Investment Research","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":743,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":9054599009,"gmtCreate":1655403419401,"gmtModify":1676535631152,"author":{"id":"4116732676543212","authorId":"4116732676543212","name":"lmlm","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/d3166d532f2f1d59ca29cd30e006aa2d","crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4116732676543212","authorIdStr":"4116732676543212"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9054599009","repostId":"1100540630","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":207,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}