저자: DanIves · 외국인
요약 보기
이번 영상의 결론: 과도하게 하락한 일부 대형 기술주(특히 소프트웨어·사이버보안, 마이크로소프트·아마존·애플 등)는 장기적으로 매수 기회지만, 거품이 낀 종목과 구분해야 한다는 주장. [시장 구분] 시장은 양극화(bifurcated) 상태이며 모든 기술주를 같은 잣대로 보면 안 된다고 주장. [밸류에이션 근거] 팬데믹 저점(2020년 3월) 대비 PER 변화: 애플 17→30, 마이크로소프트 23→34, 알파벳 22→25, 메타 18→24, 엔비디아 27→58. 연준의 유동성 공급이 이 상승을 주도했다고 분석. [연준 긴축 관련] 연준이 유동성을 회수하는 지금, 해당 종목들이 유동성 공급 이전 수준으로 돌아갈 수 있다는 질문을 제기하며 펀더멘털 기반 상승이 아니었다는 논리를 전개. [성장 전망] 향후 2~3년의 클라우드, 반도체, AI 트렌드가 긍정적이며, 이를 제4차 산업혁명으로 봄. 바이사이드는 이미 2023년 실적을 가정하고 있고, 경기침체(mild recession)를 가정한 보수적 전망이 반영되어 있다고 설명. [애플 분석] 서비스 사업(연매출 약 800억 달러 규모)이 과거와 달라졌고 재평가(re-rating)의 핵심이라고 주장. 애플은 합산 PER보다 사업부별 가치를 봐야 한다고 언급. [클라우드 가치] 구글 클라우드 등 일부 사업의 가치가 시장에서 최소한으로만 반영되어 있다고 진단. [리스크] 월가 증권사들의 추정치는 하향 조정될 가능성이 있으며, 시장은 경기침체를 가정할 것이라고 언급. 25개 기관과 면담한 결과 CIO와 제품 매니저들의 지출 스트레스 테스트에서 긍정적 분위기 확인. [종목 정리] 마이크로소프트, 아마존, 애플, 알파벳 등 대형 기술주 및 소프트웨어·사이버보안 관련주는 매수 관점. 엔비디아 등은 PER 급등 후 조정 가능성 시사.
다듬은 글
let's welcome the webbush analyst to post9 to make his case you really think this is a generational buying opportunity well i think for the right stocks but because our our viewpoint cover and tack since late 99 in these downturns you gotta separate the froth from what we believe are the names that are going to be able to navigate and valuations that we believe are way oversold so i look at software cyber security i look at names like microsoft you can name like amazon apple among others that's why to us we're not just going to sit here and say you paint them all with the same brush it's a bifurcated tape let's talk about the mega caps specific because who's to say that these stocks deserved to be deserved to be where they were before this recent sell-off i take a look and i raised this issue and i asked our team to put these numbers together because i wanted to raise this with with you if you look at where the the pes were for all of the mega cap all-stars right from the pandemic low let's call that march 2020.
okay apple's pe was 17. all-time high s p it got up to 30. microsoft 23 got to 34. alphabet 22 got to 25 meta from 18 to 24 nvidia from 27 to 58. the point being that a lot of these stocks if not the whole group got that burst because of all that the fed was doing from liquidity right now that the fed's pulling that liquidity away why shouldn't these stocks go back to where they were around the time that the fed injected this liquidity these stocks didn't run up in the manner which they did on fundamentals did they and that's a great question that that would be a big debate and ultimately i just view it as fundamentally when i look at the trends over the next call two three years when i look at the cloud trends i look at semis i look at ai i look at what i believe is a fourth industrial revolution you stress test these numbers look this is the fundamentally different the buy side they're already looking now 2023 numbers assume mild recession ahead of the sell side so my point is that numbers here relative i mean if you look at mfang from an ebitda perspective i mean 12 times you're starting to look toward what i do almost be market multiples for what i've used probably the best growth names across tech but like these stocks were used as in some respects bond proxies in i think a large respect defensive plays in an uncertain world during the pandemic can you make the argument to me today that apple deserves to be at a 30 pe or does it deserve to be closer to the 17 where it was before the fed put all of the the punch in the ball okay so that's a good example let's just look at apple yes the services business is a different business today and i believe going forward than it was two years ago so you're talking about an 80 billion dollar revenue stream that basically has been a big part of the re-rating in apple and it's always been my contention apple's a name when you look at it street pe instead of some of the parts in terms of looking services and hardware you ultimately what i believe is you know undershoot what should be the core valuation so my point here is that i'm not saying the froth the web vans the global crossings what we saw in 2000.com front and center that's not going to happen i'm just saying you have to separate the have and have nots and valuation here relative to when we go back to 0809 and even 0.102 relative to growth we view now is the time for the names that we've talked about in our tech playbook to own them but is is apple's services business 13 points of valuation better than it was two years ago well i think and and i think when you look at apple services business you look at the growth you look at ultimately the margin on the services piece i think it's something going into the pandemic the market was basically signed now it's worth three four hundred billion and at one point in the pandemic we're looking 1.5 trillion so i think a big difference with some of these names i'd argue the same with amazon some of the parts what's the cloud business worth with google i'd argue right here you're assigning minimal growth and minimal evaluation to the cloud you stress test numbers on the other side of this get every bear argument out there but it just comes down to like scott we've talked to 25 of our checks this week cios you know product manager trying to understand spending stress test these areas it's firm and that's why we'll cut you'll see numbers get cut because the street will ultimately assume a mile recession
Comments 0