Community Contributor
Member since 2022
Views
939 Total number of views
Fair Values Set
27 Total number of fair values set
Comments
1 Total number of comments
Followers
1 Total number of followers

Emergency Response Training Coordinator with a background in Business Analysis

No link added
NVDA logo
NVDA·NVIDIA: The Indispensable Backbone of the AI Revolution
A lot of people are circulating this NVIDIA analysis, but there are several major issues in the assumptions and math that make the conclusions unreliable. Here are the key problems anyone should understand before taking it seriously: 1. The Share Count Used Is Off by ~10× — This Breaks the Entire Valuation The write‑up uses 24.4 billion diluted shares to calculate EPS. But NVIDIA’s actual diluted share count (from SEC filings) is ~2.4–2.6 billion. 2. The Revenue and Margin Assumptions Are Extremely Aggressive The bull/base/bear cases assume: $138B–$215B revenue by FY2027 43%–56% net margins These margins are higher than almost any megacap company in history at that scale. 3. “Every Major AI Model Runs on NVIDIA” Is Not True This is factually incorrect. Google trains on TPUs Amazon uses Trainium/Inferentia Meta is developing custom silicon Many inference workloads run on ASICs NVIDIA is dominant, not exclusive. 4. “Competitors Cannot Replicate CUDA in Less Than a Decade” Is Opinion, Not Fact 5. Insider Selling Is Misrepresented-The write‑up frames insider selling as the “single biggest red flag.” Missing context: Many sales are pre‑scheduled 10b5‑1 plans Jensen still holds a massive stake After a parabolic move, diversification is normal Insider selling ≠ insider pessimism It’s a data point, not a smoking gun. 6. The “Non‑Cash Earnings” Argument Is Misleading Yes, NVIDIA uses stock‑based compensation — like every major tech company. But cash flow from operations is enormous free cash flow is real Write‑up implies earnings quality is questionable without showing any actual cash flow metrics. The analysis looks polished, but it relies on: a 10× inflated share count aggressive margin assumptions speculative claims stated as facts one‑sided risk framing misleading interpretations of insider selling and earnings quality It’s not that NVIDIA is risk‑free — it isn’t. But the methodology in this write‑up is flawed enough that the conclusions, in my opinion, don’t hold up.
0
|
0