It also seems like they didn't do their due diligence and talk...

First 105 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
upside_down

1,738 Posts.

879

16/10/19

16:49

Post #: 40914717
Share

Originally posted by Permabear: ↑

the biggest farce in UBS's analysis was suggesting that today's SP suggested 12.5% of the US/UK populations spending $3300 per annum in FY30.... that's right, they are looking at two existing geographies, ASSUMING no geographical expansion between now and FY30 and saying the price is stretched based on a believed up statement on a complete freeze in geographical expansions. well, obviously if you make these mistaken assumptions it looks streched??

also, the reasoning behind afterpay having no moat could be applied to paypal in the same way... but the fact is when a product is FREE to the consumer and has scale it is almost impossible to get them to switch to the same product from another provider that does the same thing

obviously im biased but i think it was a pretty poorly reasoned piece of analysis

Expand

It also seems like they didn't do their due diligence and talk to management. You'd think UBS would ask a few questions to APT management before commencing coverage.

"Mr Eisen refused to be drawn on the analysis, saying he did not know the UBS research team and told the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, "we leave it to the market to determine where we're at"."

https://www.watoday.com.au/business/small-business/leave-it-to-the-market-afterpay-dismisses-analyst-warnings-20191016-p5316u.html

Also can't understand how they consider Zip at fair value but APT to be double fair value.

"UBS initiated coverage report with a $17.25 price target, 47 per cent lower than the $36.56 the stock was trading at on Tuesday. It also has a sell recommendation on Zip and a $4.80 price target. Zip was trading down 4.4 per cent lower at $5.19 on Wednesday." - AFR

APT Price at posting: $33.92 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
5 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply