+关注
Krishnan76
暂无个人介绍
IP属地：未知
7
关注
0
粉丝
0
主题
0
勋章
主贴
热门
Krishnan76
2021-09-25
Good
抱歉，原内容已删除
Krishnan76
2021-09-20
Insightful
抱歉，原内容已删除
去老虎APP查看更多动态
{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"4092398047561370","uuid":"4092398047561370","gmtCreate":1629382572415,"gmtModify":1629897648744,"name":"Krishnan76","pinyin":"krishnan76","introduction":"","introductionEn":"","signature":"","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/31fa8fd76ec086206260c57800ac85e7","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":0,"headSize":7,"tweetSize":2,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":0,"name":"","nameTw":"","represent":"","factor":"","iconColor":"","bgColor":""},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":0,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":null,"userBadges":[{"badgeId":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a-1","templateUuid":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a","name":"实盘交易者","description":"完成一笔实盘交易","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":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100}],"userBadgeCount":1,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":"未知","starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"post","tweets":[{"id":861588890,"gmtCreate":1632524249810,"gmtModify":1632713630975,"author":{"id":"4092398047561370","authorId":"4092398047561370","name":"Krishnan76","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/31fa8fd76ec086206260c57800ac85e7","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4092398047561370","authorIdStr":"4092398047561370"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/861588890","repostId":"1104085778","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":126,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"CN","totalScore":0},{"id":860044646,"gmtCreate":1632112024085,"gmtModify":1632802751036,"author":{"id":"4092398047561370","authorId":"4092398047561370","name":"Krishnan76","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/31fa8fd76ec086206260c57800ac85e7","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4092398047561370","authorIdStr":"4092398047561370"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Insightful","listText":"Insightful","text":"Insightful","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/860044646","repostId":"1165266849","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":215,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":861588890,"gmtCreate":1632524249810,"gmtModify":1632713630975,"author":{"id":"4092398047561370","authorId":"4092398047561370","name":"Krishnan76","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/31fa8fd76ec086206260c57800ac85e7","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4092398047561370","authorIdStr":"4092398047561370"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/861588890","repostId":"1104085778","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1104085778","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":1632498166,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1104085778?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-24 23:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"IPO opening reminder: Cue Health opens for trading at $19.2, up 20% from IPO price.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1104085778","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"(Sept 24) Cue Health Inc. opens for trading at $19.2, up 20% from IPO price.\n\nCompany & Technology\nS","content":"<p>(Sept 24) <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/HLTH\">Cue Health Inc.</a> opens for trading at $19.2, up 20% from IPO price.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c7270662a08ec3dac176aa52bf5cbd1a\" tg-width=\"902\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p><b>Company & Technology</b></p>\n<p>San Diego, California-based Cue was founded to first develop a COVID-19 test kit and integrated information platform for processing and communication.</p>\n<p>Management is headed by co-founder, Chairman and CEO Ayub Khattak, who has been with the firm since inception and holds a B.S. in mathematics from UCLA.</p>\n<p>The company’s primary offerings in its Cue Integrated Care Platform:</p>\n<ul>\n <li><p>Health monitoring system</p></li>\n <li><p>Rader</p></li>\n <li><p>Cartridge</p></li>\n <li><p>Wand</p></li>\n <li><p>Data</p></li>\n <li><p>Delivery apps</p></li>\n <li><p>Enterprise dashboard</p></li>\n <li><p>Ecosystem integrations</p></li>\n</ul>\n<p>Cue has received at least $176 million in equity investment from investors including ACME Capital, Cove Investors, Decheng Capital China Life Sciences, Madrone and NVGA I.</p>\n<p><b>Customer/User Acquisition</b></p>\n<p>The company pursues healthcare provider relationships through its in-house direct sales team focused on healthcare providers, large enterprises and public sector clients.</p>\n<p>Management expects 2021 customer demand for its COVID-19 test kits to exceed its manufacturing capacity.</p>\n<p>Sales and Marketing expenses as a percentage of total revenue have varied as revenues have increased sharply, as the figures below indicate:</p>\n<table>\n <tbody>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Sales and Marketing</b></p></td>\n <td><p><b>Expenses vs. Revenue</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Period</p></td>\n <td><p>Percentage</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Six Mos. Ended June 30, 2021</p></td>\n <td><p>1.0%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2020</p></td>\n <td><p>3.1%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2019</p></td>\n <td><p>1.3%</p></td>\n </tr>\n </tbody>\n</table>\n<p>The Sales and Marketing efficiency rate, defined as how many dollars of additional new revenue are generated by each dollar of Sales and Marketing spend, was 100.5x in the most recent reporting period, as shown in the table below:</p>\n<table>\n <tbody>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Sales and Marketing</b></p></td>\n <td><p><b>Efficiency Rate</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Period</p></td>\n <td><p>Multiple</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Six Mos. Ended June 30, 2021</p></td>\n <td><p>100.5</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2020</p></td>\n <td><p>22.9</p></td>\n </tr>\n </tbody>\n</table>\n<p><b>Market & Competition</b></p>\n<p>According to a 2020 marketresearch reportby Grand View Research, the global market for COVID-19 detection kits was an estimated $3.28 billion in 2020 and is expected to reach $5 billion by 2027.</p>\n<p>This represents a forecast CAGR of 5.05% from 2021 to 2027.</p>\n<p>The main drivers for this expected growth are a strong growth in demand for testing services of all types on a global basis.</p>\n<p>Also, below is a chart showing the market share of use of detection kits by end-user type:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b7fc60b336bae7685e08132f8176b57\" tg-width=\"1158\" tg-height=\"618\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>(Source)</p>\n<p>Major competitive or other industry participants include:</p>\n<ul>\n <li><p>Abbott Laboratories(NYSE:ABT)</p></li>\n <li><p>Becton, Dickinson(NYSE:BDX)</p></li>\n <li><p>bioMerieux(OTCPK:BMXMF)</p></li>\n <li><p>Bio-Rad Laboratories(NYSE:BIO)</p></li>\n <li><p>Danaher(NYSE:DHR)</p></li>\n <li><p>Ellume Limited</p></li>\n <li><p>Everly Health</p></li>\n <li><p>Roche(OTCQX:RHHBY)(OTCQX:RHHBF)</p></li>\n <li><p>Fluidigm(NASDAQ:FLDM)</p></li>\n <li><p>GenMark Diagnostics(NASDAQ:GNMK)</p></li>\n <li><p>Others</p></li>\n</ul>\n<p><b>Financial Performance</b></p>\n<p>Cue’s recent financial results can be summarized as follows:</p>\n<ul>\n <li><p>Sharply growing top line revenue</p></li>\n <li><p>Increasing gross profit and variable gross margin</p></li>\n <li><p>A swing to operating profit and net income</p></li>\n <li><p>Variable cash flow from operations</p></li>\n</ul>\n<p>Below are relevant financial results derived from the firm’s registration statement:</p>\n<table>\n <colgroup></colgroup>\n <tbody>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Total Revenue</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Period</p></td>\n <td><p>Total Revenue</p></td>\n <td><p>% Variance vs. Prior</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Six Mos. Ended June 30, 2021</p></td>\n <td><p>$ 201,922,000</p></td>\n <td><p>3971.0%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2020</p></td>\n <td><p>$ 22,953,000</p></td>\n <td><p>246.4%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2019</p></td>\n <td><p>$ 6,626,000</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr></tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Gross Profit (Loss)</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Period</p></td>\n <td><p>Gross Profit (Loss)</p></td>\n <td><p>% Variance vs. Prior</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Six Mos. Ended June 30, 2021</p></td>\n <td><p>$ 116,745,000</p></td>\n <td><p>2253.7%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2020</p></td>\n <td><p>$ 8,002,000</p></td>\n <td><p>20.8%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2019</p></td>\n <td><p>$ 6,626,000</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr></tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Gross Margin</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Period</p></td>\n <td><p>Gross Margin</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Six Mos. Ended June 30, 2021</p></td>\n <td><p>57.82%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2020</p></td>\n <td><p>34.86%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2019</p></td>\n <td><p>100.00%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr></tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Operating Profit (Loss)</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Period</p></td>\n <td><p>Operating Profit (Loss)</p></td>\n <td><p>Operating Margin</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Six Mos. Ended June 30, 2021</p></td>\n <td><p>$ 79,463,000</p></td>\n <td><p>39.4%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2020</p></td>\n <td><p>$ (45,126,000)</p></td>\n <td><p>-196.6%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2019</p></td>\n <td><p>$ (20,767,000)</p></td>\n <td><p>-313.4%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr></tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Net Income (Loss)</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Period</p></td>\n <td><p>Net Income (Loss)</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Six Mos. Ended June 30, 2021</p></td>\n <td><p>$ 32,840,000</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2020</p></td>\n <td><p>$ (47,352,000)</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2019</p></td>\n <td><p>$ (20,606,000)</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr></tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Cash Flow From Operations</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Period</p></td>\n <td><p>Cash Flow From Operations</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Six Mos. Ended June 30, 2021</p></td>\n <td><p>$ (37,812,000)</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2020</p></td>\n <td><p>$ 92,655,000</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2019</p></td>\n <td><p>$ (12,996,000)</p></td>\n </tr>\n </tbody>\n</table>\n<p>As of June 30, 2021, Cue had $246.3 million in cash and $516.3 million in total liabilities.</p>\n<p>Free cash flow during the twelve months ended June 30, 2021, was negative ($60 million).</p>\n<p><b>Valuation Metrics</b></p>\n<p>Below is a table of relevant capitalization and valuation figures for the company:</p>\n<table>\n <colgroup></colgroup>\n <tbody>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Measure [TTM]</b></p></td>\n <td><p><b>Amount</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Market Capitalization at IPO</p></td>\n <td><p>$2,299,981,232</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Enterprise Value</p></td>\n <td><p>$1,874,455,232</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Price / Sales</p></td>\n <td><p>10.46</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>EV / Revenue</p></td>\n <td><p>8.52</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>EV / EBITDA</p></td>\n <td><p>35.46</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Earnings Per Share</p></td>\n <td><p>$0.03</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Float To Outstanding Shares Ratio</p></td>\n <td><p>8.70%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Proposed IPO Midpoint Price per Share</p></td>\n <td><p>$16.00</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Net Free Cash Flow</p></td>\n <td><p>-$59,920,000</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Free Cash Flow Yield Per Share</p></td>\n <td><p>-2.61%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Revenue Growth Rate</p></td>\n <td><p>3971.01%</p></td>\n </tr>\n </tbody>\n</table>\n<p>As a reference, a potential partial and imperfect public comparable to Cue would be Bio-Rad (BIO); below is a comparison of their primary valuation metrics:</p>\n<table>\n <colgroup></colgroup>\n <tbody>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Metric</b></p></td>\n <td><p><b>Bio-Rad (BIO)</b></p></td>\n <td><p><b>Cue Health (HLTH)</b></p></td>\n <td><p><b>Variance</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Price / Sales</p></td>\n <td><p>8.15</p></td>\n <td><p>10.46</p></td>\n <td><p>28.3%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>EV / Revenue</p></td>\n <td><p>7.82</p></td>\n <td><p>8.52</p></td>\n <td><p>9.0%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>EV / EBITDA</p></td>\n <td><p>31.66</p></td>\n <td><p>35.46</p></td>\n <td><p>12.0%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Earnings Per Share</p></td>\n <td><p>$134.05</p></td>\n <td><p>$0.03</p></td>\n <td><p>-100.0%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Revenue Growth Rate</p></td>\n <td><p>25.6%</p></td>\n <td><p>3971.01%</p></td>\n <td><p>15436.03%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>(Glossary Of Terms)</p></td>\n </tr>\n </tbody>\n</table>\n<p><b>Commentary</b></p>\n<p>Cue is seeking public investment capital to further scale its commercialization operations as well as continue its R & D efforts.</p>\n<p>The company’s financials show sharply growing top line revenue, strong growth in gross profit and variable gross margin, a swing to operating profit and net income and highly fluctuating cash flow from or use in operations</p>\n<p>Free cash flow for the twelve months ended June 30, 2021, was an eye-popping negative ($60 million).</p>\n<p>Sales and Marketing expenses as a percentage of total revenue have fluctuated as revenues have increased dramatically; its Sales and Marketing efficiency rate was an extremely high 100.5x in the most recent reporting period.</p>\n<p>The market opportunity for COVID-19 and related test kit platforms is large and will likely grow at a high rate of growth over the coming years as countries around the world seek to bolster their testing capabilities in the wake of the recent global pandemic.</p>\n<p>Goldman Sachs is the lead left underwriter and IPOs led by the firm over the last 12-month period have generated an average return of 39.9% since their IPO. This is a mid-tier performance for all major underwriters during the period.</p>\n<p>The primary risk to the firm now is that it is essentially a one-product company, so its revenue base is heavily concentrated.</p>\n<p>As for valuation, compared to partial competitor Bio-Rad Laboratories, the IPO is reasonably valued on a revenue multiple, although Cue is growing at a much higher rate of growth from a much lower revenue base, so the comparison is strained at best.</p>\n<p>Given Cue’s growth trajectory, profitability and reasonable IPO valuation, the IPO is worth consideration.</p>","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>IPO opening reminder: Cue Health opens for trading at $19.2, up 20% from IPO price.</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\">\nIPO opening reminder: Cue Health opens for trading at $19.2, up 20% from IPO price.\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\">2021-09-24 23:42</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>(Sept 24) <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/HLTH\">Cue Health Inc.</a> opens for trading at $19.2, up 20% from IPO price.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c7270662a08ec3dac176aa52bf5cbd1a\" tg-width=\"902\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p><b>Company & Technology</b></p>\n<p>San Diego, California-based Cue was founded to first develop a COVID-19 test kit and integrated information platform for processing and communication.</p>\n<p>Management is headed by co-founder, Chairman and CEO Ayub Khattak, who has been with the firm since inception and holds a B.S. in mathematics from UCLA.</p>\n<p>The company’s primary offerings in its Cue Integrated Care Platform:</p>\n<ul>\n <li><p>Health monitoring system</p></li>\n <li><p>Rader</p></li>\n <li><p>Cartridge</p></li>\n <li><p>Wand</p></li>\n <li><p>Data</p></li>\n <li><p>Delivery apps</p></li>\n <li><p>Enterprise dashboard</p></li>\n <li><p>Ecosystem integrations</p></li>\n</ul>\n<p>Cue has received at least $176 million in equity investment from investors including ACME Capital, Cove Investors, Decheng Capital China Life Sciences, Madrone and NVGA I.</p>\n<p><b>Customer/User Acquisition</b></p>\n<p>The company pursues healthcare provider relationships through its in-house direct sales team focused on healthcare providers, large enterprises and public sector clients.</p>\n<p>Management expects 2021 customer demand for its COVID-19 test kits to exceed its manufacturing capacity.</p>\n<p>Sales and Marketing expenses as a percentage of total revenue have varied as revenues have increased sharply, as the figures below indicate:</p>\n<table>\n <tbody>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Sales and Marketing</b></p></td>\n <td><p><b>Expenses vs. Revenue</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Period</p></td>\n <td><p>Percentage</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Six Mos. Ended June 30, 2021</p></td>\n <td><p>1.0%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2020</p></td>\n <td><p>3.1%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2019</p></td>\n <td><p>1.3%</p></td>\n </tr>\n </tbody>\n</table>\n<p>The Sales and Marketing efficiency rate, defined as how many dollars of additional new revenue are generated by each dollar of Sales and Marketing spend, was 100.5x in the most recent reporting period, as shown in the table below:</p>\n<table>\n <tbody>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Sales and Marketing</b></p></td>\n <td><p><b>Efficiency Rate</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Period</p></td>\n <td><p>Multiple</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Six Mos. Ended June 30, 2021</p></td>\n <td><p>100.5</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2020</p></td>\n <td><p>22.9</p></td>\n </tr>\n </tbody>\n</table>\n<p><b>Market & Competition</b></p>\n<p>According to a 2020 marketresearch reportby Grand View Research, the global market for COVID-19 detection kits was an estimated $3.28 billion in 2020 and is expected to reach $5 billion by 2027.</p>\n<p>This represents a forecast CAGR of 5.05% from 2021 to 2027.</p>\n<p>The main drivers for this expected growth are a strong growth in demand for testing services of all types on a global basis.</p>\n<p>Also, below is a chart showing the market share of use of detection kits by end-user type:</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b7fc60b336bae7685e08132f8176b57\" tg-width=\"1158\" tg-height=\"618\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>(Source)</p>\n<p>Major competitive or other industry participants include:</p>\n<ul>\n <li><p>Abbott Laboratories(NYSE:ABT)</p></li>\n <li><p>Becton, Dickinson(NYSE:BDX)</p></li>\n <li><p>bioMerieux(OTCPK:BMXMF)</p></li>\n <li><p>Bio-Rad Laboratories(NYSE:BIO)</p></li>\n <li><p>Danaher(NYSE:DHR)</p></li>\n <li><p>Ellume Limited</p></li>\n <li><p>Everly Health</p></li>\n <li><p>Roche(OTCQX:RHHBY)(OTCQX:RHHBF)</p></li>\n <li><p>Fluidigm(NASDAQ:FLDM)</p></li>\n <li><p>GenMark Diagnostics(NASDAQ:GNMK)</p></li>\n <li><p>Others</p></li>\n</ul>\n<p><b>Financial Performance</b></p>\n<p>Cue’s recent financial results can be summarized as follows:</p>\n<ul>\n <li><p>Sharply growing top line revenue</p></li>\n <li><p>Increasing gross profit and variable gross margin</p></li>\n <li><p>A swing to operating profit and net income</p></li>\n <li><p>Variable cash flow from operations</p></li>\n</ul>\n<p>Below are relevant financial results derived from the firm’s registration statement:</p>\n<table>\n <colgroup></colgroup>\n <tbody>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Total Revenue</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Period</p></td>\n <td><p>Total Revenue</p></td>\n <td><p>% Variance vs. Prior</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Six Mos. Ended June 30, 2021</p></td>\n <td><p>$ 201,922,000</p></td>\n <td><p>3971.0%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2020</p></td>\n <td><p>$ 22,953,000</p></td>\n <td><p>246.4%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2019</p></td>\n <td><p>$ 6,626,000</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr></tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Gross Profit (Loss)</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Period</p></td>\n <td><p>Gross Profit (Loss)</p></td>\n <td><p>% Variance vs. Prior</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Six Mos. Ended June 30, 2021</p></td>\n <td><p>$ 116,745,000</p></td>\n <td><p>2253.7%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2020</p></td>\n <td><p>$ 8,002,000</p></td>\n <td><p>20.8%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2019</p></td>\n <td><p>$ 6,626,000</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr></tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Gross Margin</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Period</p></td>\n <td><p>Gross Margin</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Six Mos. Ended June 30, 2021</p></td>\n <td><p>57.82%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2020</p></td>\n <td><p>34.86%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2019</p></td>\n <td><p>100.00%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr></tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Operating Profit (Loss)</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Period</p></td>\n <td><p>Operating Profit (Loss)</p></td>\n <td><p>Operating Margin</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Six Mos. Ended June 30, 2021</p></td>\n <td><p>$ 79,463,000</p></td>\n <td><p>39.4%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2020</p></td>\n <td><p>$ (45,126,000)</p></td>\n <td><p>-196.6%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2019</p></td>\n <td><p>$ (20,767,000)</p></td>\n <td><p>-313.4%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr></tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Net Income (Loss)</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Period</p></td>\n <td><p>Net Income (Loss)</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Six Mos. Ended June 30, 2021</p></td>\n <td><p>$ 32,840,000</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2020</p></td>\n <td><p>$ (47,352,000)</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2019</p></td>\n <td><p>$ (20,606,000)</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr></tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Cash Flow From Operations</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Period</p></td>\n <td><p>Cash Flow From Operations</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Six Mos. Ended June 30, 2021</p></td>\n <td><p>$ (37,812,000)</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2020</p></td>\n <td><p>$ 92,655,000</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2019</p></td>\n <td><p>$ (12,996,000)</p></td>\n </tr>\n </tbody>\n</table>\n<p>As of June 30, 2021, Cue had $246.3 million in cash and $516.3 million in total liabilities.</p>\n<p>Free cash flow during the twelve months ended June 30, 2021, was negative ($60 million).</p>\n<p><b>Valuation Metrics</b></p>\n<p>Below is a table of relevant capitalization and valuation figures for the company:</p>\n<table>\n <colgroup></colgroup>\n <tbody>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Measure [TTM]</b></p></td>\n <td><p><b>Amount</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Market Capitalization at IPO</p></td>\n <td><p>$2,299,981,232</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Enterprise Value</p></td>\n <td><p>$1,874,455,232</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Price / Sales</p></td>\n <td><p>10.46</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>EV / Revenue</p></td>\n <td><p>8.52</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>EV / EBITDA</p></td>\n <td><p>35.46</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Earnings Per Share</p></td>\n <td><p>$0.03</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Float To Outstanding Shares Ratio</p></td>\n <td><p>8.70%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Proposed IPO Midpoint Price per Share</p></td>\n <td><p>$16.00</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Net Free Cash Flow</p></td>\n <td><p>-$59,920,000</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Free Cash Flow Yield Per Share</p></td>\n <td><p>-2.61%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Revenue Growth Rate</p></td>\n <td><p>3971.01%</p></td>\n </tr>\n </tbody>\n</table>\n<p>As a reference, a potential partial and imperfect public comparable to Cue would be Bio-Rad (BIO); below is a comparison of their primary valuation metrics:</p>\n<table>\n <colgroup></colgroup>\n <tbody>\n <tr>\n <td><p><b>Metric</b></p></td>\n <td><p><b>Bio-Rad (BIO)</b></p></td>\n <td><p><b>Cue Health (HLTH)</b></p></td>\n <td><p><b>Variance</b></p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Price / Sales</p></td>\n <td><p>8.15</p></td>\n <td><p>10.46</p></td>\n <td><p>28.3%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>EV / Revenue</p></td>\n <td><p>7.82</p></td>\n <td><p>8.52</p></td>\n <td><p>9.0%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>EV / EBITDA</p></td>\n <td><p>31.66</p></td>\n <td><p>35.46</p></td>\n <td><p>12.0%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Earnings Per Share</p></td>\n <td><p>$134.05</p></td>\n <td><p>$0.03</p></td>\n <td><p>-100.0%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>Revenue Growth Rate</p></td>\n <td><p>25.6%</p></td>\n <td><p>3971.01%</p></td>\n <td><p>15436.03%</p></td>\n </tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>(Glossary Of Terms)</p></td>\n </tr>\n </tbody>\n</table>\n<p><b>Commentary</b></p>\n<p>Cue is seeking public investment capital to further scale its commercialization operations as well as continue its R & D efforts.</p>\n<p>The company’s financials show sharply growing top line revenue, strong growth in gross profit and variable gross margin, a swing to operating profit and net income and highly fluctuating cash flow from or use in operations</p>\n<p>Free cash flow for the twelve months ended June 30, 2021, was an eye-popping negative ($60 million).</p>\n<p>Sales and Marketing expenses as a percentage of total revenue have fluctuated as revenues have increased dramatically; its Sales and Marketing efficiency rate was an extremely high 100.5x in the most recent reporting period.</p>\n<p>The market opportunity for COVID-19 and related test kit platforms is large and will likely grow at a high rate of growth over the coming years as countries around the world seek to bolster their testing capabilities in the wake of the recent global pandemic.</p>\n<p>Goldman Sachs is the lead left underwriter and IPOs led by the firm over the last 12-month period have generated an average return of 39.9% since their IPO. This is a mid-tier performance for all major underwriters during the period.</p>\n<p>The primary risk to the firm now is that it is essentially a one-product company, so its revenue base is heavily concentrated.</p>\n<p>As for valuation, compared to partial competitor Bio-Rad Laboratories, the IPO is reasonably valued on a revenue multiple, although Cue is growing at a much higher rate of growth from a much lower revenue base, so the comparison is strained at best.</p>\n<p>Given Cue’s growth trajectory, profitability and reasonable IPO valuation, the IPO is worth consideration.</p>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"HLTH":"Cue Health Inc."},"is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1104085778","content_text":"(Sept 24) Cue Health Inc. opens for trading at $19.2, up 20% from IPO price.\n\nCompany & Technology\nSan Diego, California-based Cue was founded to first develop a COVID-19 test kit and integrated information platform for processing and communication.\nManagement is headed by co-founder, Chairman and CEO Ayub Khattak, who has been with the firm since inception and holds a B.S. in mathematics from UCLA.\nThe company’s primary offerings in its Cue Integrated Care Platform:\n\nHealth monitoring system\nRader\nCartridge\nWand\nData\nDelivery apps\nEnterprise dashboard\nEcosystem integrations\n\nCue has received at least $176 million in equity investment from investors including ACME Capital, Cove Investors, Decheng Capital China Life Sciences, Madrone and NVGA I.\nCustomer/User Acquisition\nThe company pursues healthcare provider relationships through its in-house direct sales team focused on healthcare providers, large enterprises and public sector clients.\nManagement expects 2021 customer demand for its COVID-19 test kits to exceed its manufacturing capacity.\nSales and Marketing expenses as a percentage of total revenue have varied as revenues have increased sharply, as the figures below indicate:\n\n\n\nSales and Marketing\nExpenses vs. Revenue\n\n\nPeriod\nPercentage\n\n\nSix Mos. Ended June 30, 2021\n1.0%\n\n\n2020\n3.1%\n\n\n2019\n1.3%\n\n\n\nThe Sales and Marketing efficiency rate, defined as how many dollars of additional new revenue are generated by each dollar of Sales and Marketing spend, was 100.5x in the most recent reporting period, as shown in the table below:\n\n\n\nSales and Marketing\nEfficiency Rate\n\n\nPeriod\nMultiple\n\n\nSix Mos. Ended June 30, 2021\n100.5\n\n\n2020\n22.9\n\n\n\nMarket & Competition\nAccording to a 2020 marketresearch reportby Grand View Research, the global market for COVID-19 detection kits was an estimated $3.28 billion in 2020 and is expected to reach $5 billion by 2027.\nThis represents a forecast CAGR of 5.05% from 2021 to 2027.\nThe main drivers for this expected growth are a strong growth in demand for testing services of all types on a global basis.\nAlso, below is a chart showing the market share of use of detection kits by end-user type:\n\n(Source)\nMajor competitive or other industry participants include:\n\nAbbott Laboratories(NYSE:ABT)\nBecton, Dickinson(NYSE:BDX)\nbioMerieux(OTCPK:BMXMF)\nBio-Rad Laboratories(NYSE:BIO)\nDanaher(NYSE:DHR)\nEllume Limited\nEverly Health\nRoche(OTCQX:RHHBY)(OTCQX:RHHBF)\nFluidigm(NASDAQ:FLDM)\nGenMark Diagnostics(NASDAQ:GNMK)\nOthers\n\nFinancial Performance\nCue’s recent financial results can be summarized as follows:\n\nSharply growing top line revenue\nIncreasing gross profit and variable gross margin\nA swing to operating profit and net income\nVariable cash flow from operations\n\nBelow are relevant financial results derived from the firm’s registration statement:\n\n\n\n\nTotal Revenue\n\n\nPeriod\nTotal Revenue\n% Variance vs. Prior\n\n\nSix Mos. Ended June 30, 2021\n$ 201,922,000\n3971.0%\n\n\n2020\n$ 22,953,000\n246.4%\n\n\n2019\n$ 6,626,000\n\n\n\nGross Profit (Loss)\n\n\nPeriod\nGross Profit (Loss)\n% Variance vs. Prior\n\n\nSix Mos. Ended June 30, 2021\n$ 116,745,000\n2253.7%\n\n\n2020\n$ 8,002,000\n20.8%\n\n\n2019\n$ 6,626,000\n\n\n\nGross Margin\n\n\nPeriod\nGross Margin\n\n\nSix Mos. Ended June 30, 2021\n57.82%\n\n\n2020\n34.86%\n\n\n2019\n100.00%\n\n\n\nOperating Profit (Loss)\n\n\nPeriod\nOperating Profit (Loss)\nOperating Margin\n\n\nSix Mos. Ended June 30, 2021\n$ 79,463,000\n39.4%\n\n\n2020\n$ (45,126,000)\n-196.6%\n\n\n2019\n$ (20,767,000)\n-313.4%\n\n\n\nNet Income (Loss)\n\n\nPeriod\nNet Income (Loss)\n\n\nSix Mos. Ended June 30, 2021\n$ 32,840,000\n\n\n2020\n$ (47,352,000)\n\n\n2019\n$ (20,606,000)\n\n\n\nCash Flow From Operations\n\n\nPeriod\nCash Flow From Operations\n\n\nSix Mos. Ended June 30, 2021\n$ (37,812,000)\n\n\n2020\n$ 92,655,000\n\n\n2019\n$ (12,996,000)\n\n\n\nAs of June 30, 2021, Cue had $246.3 million in cash and $516.3 million in total liabilities.\nFree cash flow during the twelve months ended June 30, 2021, was negative ($60 million).\nValuation Metrics\nBelow is a table of relevant capitalization and valuation figures for the company:\n\n\n\n\nMeasure [TTM]\nAmount\n\n\nMarket Capitalization at IPO\n$2,299,981,232\n\n\nEnterprise Value\n$1,874,455,232\n\n\nPrice / Sales\n10.46\n\n\nEV / Revenue\n8.52\n\n\nEV / EBITDA\n35.46\n\n\nEarnings Per Share\n$0.03\n\n\nFloat To Outstanding Shares Ratio\n8.70%\n\n\nProposed IPO Midpoint Price per Share\n$16.00\n\n\nNet Free Cash Flow\n-$59,920,000\n\n\nFree Cash Flow Yield Per Share\n-2.61%\n\n\nRevenue Growth Rate\n3971.01%\n\n\n\nAs a reference, a potential partial and imperfect public comparable to Cue would be Bio-Rad (BIO); below is a comparison of their primary valuation metrics:\n\n\n\n\nMetric\nBio-Rad (BIO)\nCue Health (HLTH)\nVariance\n\n\nPrice / Sales\n8.15\n10.46\n28.3%\n\n\nEV / Revenue\n7.82\n8.52\n9.0%\n\n\nEV / EBITDA\n31.66\n35.46\n12.0%\n\n\nEarnings Per Share\n$134.05\n$0.03\n-100.0%\n\n\nRevenue Growth Rate\n25.6%\n3971.01%\n15436.03%\n\n\n(Glossary Of Terms)\n\n\n\nCommentary\nCue is seeking public investment capital to further scale its commercialization operations as well as continue its R & D efforts.\nThe company’s financials show sharply growing top line revenue, strong growth in gross profit and variable gross margin, a swing to operating profit and net income and highly fluctuating cash flow from or use in operations\nFree cash flow for the twelve months ended June 30, 2021, was an eye-popping negative ($60 million).\nSales and Marketing expenses as a percentage of total revenue have fluctuated as revenues have increased dramatically; its Sales and Marketing efficiency rate was an extremely high 100.5x in the most recent reporting period.\nThe market opportunity for COVID-19 and related test kit platforms is large and will likely grow at a high rate of growth over the coming years as countries around the world seek to bolster their testing capabilities in the wake of the recent global pandemic.\nGoldman Sachs is the lead left underwriter and IPOs led by the firm over the last 12-month period have generated an average return of 39.9% since their IPO. This is a mid-tier performance for all major underwriters during the period.\nThe primary risk to the firm now is that it is essentially a one-product company, so its revenue base is heavily concentrated.\nAs for valuation, compared to partial competitor Bio-Rad Laboratories, the IPO is reasonably valued on a revenue multiple, although Cue is growing at a much higher rate of growth from a much lower revenue base, so the comparison is strained at best.\nGiven Cue’s growth trajectory, profitability and reasonable IPO valuation, the IPO is worth consideration.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":126,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"CN","totalScore":0},{"id":860044646,"gmtCreate":1632112024085,"gmtModify":1632802751036,"author":{"id":"4092398047561370","authorId":"4092398047561370","name":"Krishnan76","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/31fa8fd76ec086206260c57800ac85e7","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4092398047561370","authorIdStr":"4092398047561370"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Insightful","listText":"Insightful","text":"Insightful","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/860044646","repostId":"1165266849","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1165266849","pubTimestamp":1632095568,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1165266849?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-20 07:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"If there were a ‘Big Three’ of electric vehicle makers, who would join Tesla?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1165266849","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Delays at young electric-vehicle companies suggest that large auto makers are best placed to challen","content":"<p>Delays at young electric-vehicle companies suggest that large auto makers are best placed to challenge Tesla in the future, but the smart money is chasing less glamorous names </p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bf4fe95f357a1ce8ef9aeefc9e1e62d0\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"487\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><span>MarketWatch photo illustration/Tesla, iStockphoto</span></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>When Henry Ford was reorganizing his Detroit Automobile Company into what would become the juggernaut of U.S. auto manufacturing, hundreds of other young auto makers were also starting up.</p>\n<p>One of them, the National Motor Vehicle Car Manufacturing Co, started out in Indianapolis, which boasted six automakers in 1906. National Motor even competed in and won the 1912 Indy 500. Sales boomed and it expanded production, but after a merger with Associated Motor Industries in 1922, the company ended up in receivership in 1924. Like hundreds of other early car companies, none of those six Indianapolis players survived.</p>\n<p>Investors eyeing the electric vehicle space today may have a sense of déjà vu. The huge number of companies, large and small, currently working on electric vehicles or their components is reminiscent of the turn of the 20th century, when companies like National and others experimented with body forms and engine types, from steam-powered to internal combustion to early versions of electric vehicles.</p>\n<p>By the 1929 stock market crash, there were only about 40 auto makers left, and that number eventually shrunk to where the top companies in the U.S. are referred to as the “Big Three.” Similar shakeouts occurred globally, with Big Threes emerging in other countries, like Japan and Germany.</p>\n<p>One major difference between then and now, said Brett Smith, director of technology research at the Center for Automotive Research, or CAR, is that 100 years ago, “everybody was starting from scratch—no one had an advantage,” while today, traditional auto makers already know how to build cars and create huge assembly lines.、</p>\n<p></p>\n<blockquote>\n ‘Over the next 5 years, there is going to be some remarkable growth for some of these companies. But there will be some that don’t grow and struggle. There is more to be optimistic about with these companies than there was five years ago, because the tech is getting closer to broader adoption. The problem is that the traditional car companies have been getting into it too now and competition is tougher.’”\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n — Brett Smith, director, technology research, Center for Automotive Research \n</blockquote>\n<p></p>\n<p>The question for investors then is which companies will become the big 3 of EVs?</p>\n<p>The company with the biggest advantage in electric vehicles today is Tesla Inc. which has finally proved to the world that EVs are the future. As rival startups and legacy automakers seek to emulate its success, investors must ponder which EV companies will succeed and which will disappear.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Globally, there are hundreds of startups working on some aspect of electric vehicles, from creating the car, to charging station infrastructure, improving the manufacturing process, developing new battery technologies and working on fuel cells. CB Insights of New York said it is tracking more than 700 startups around the world that are active in the space.</p>\n<p>“There seems to be a new one every day,” said Smith of CAR.</p>\n<p>Since February, the shares of many better known startups have lost much of their value because of serious issues, including regulatory inquiries or investigations, class action lawsuits, management tumult and abrupt executive departures. Piling onto these woes — which mainly stem from overpromising and under-delivering — is a semiconductor shortage hampering efforts to get first products out the door.</p>\n<p>Several publicly traded EV makers are still technically startup companies, with no revenue or much operational history. But because of the SPAC boom, and the de-SPAC process, they are now publicly traded companies, leaving investors making bets like venture capitalists on the next Tesla.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>“What they are doing is very hard,” said Smith. “Over the next 5 years, there is going to be some remarkable growth for some of these companies. But there will be some that don’t grow and struggle. There is more to be optimistic about with these companies than there was five years ago, because the tech is getting closer to broader adoption. The problem is that the traditional car companies have been getting into it too now and competition is tougher.”</p>\n<p>As a result of some of those issues, no revenue is expected for the rest of the year at Nikola Corp.,Lordstown Motors Corp. and Fisker Inc., with all three companies predicting their first vehicles sometime in 2022, if their current forecasts can be believed.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>“I know it sounds like a broken record and it’s boring, but I think in this case, the broken record is quite good to keep on saying that we are on time on the Ocean program and we are on budget,” Fisker co-founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Henrik Fisker told analysts in the company’s earnings call last month.</p>\n<p>Fisker said the company will start production on Nov. 17, 2022, which actually looks good compared with other startups. Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas said in a note that he believes Fisker “may be one of the only EV startups to actually launch on time and ramp efficaciously in late 2022.”</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>These companies, plus Faraday Future Electric Inc.,Canoo Inc.,Lucid Group and the soon to go public Rivian, are among the top funded EV makers in the U.S. But while many have received billions from investors through private funding rounds or SPAC deals – electric truck-maker Rivian has raised $10.5 billion — some are now encountering credibility problems.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>For example, Lordstown — an electric truck-maker which took over a former GM factory in an area of Ohio referred to as Voltage Valley — disclosed in July that its merger deal was being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department, for a variety of matters, including information provided to investors about its pre-orders. Lordstown added a “going concern” warning to regulatory filings and clarified that the orders it had were not binding.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>“To do what Tesla did, build a car company from the ground up and all the way through to distribution, that took a phenomenal amount of money,” Smith said. Tesla is now almost 18 years old. After raising $226 million in its 2010 IPO, it has gone back to the capital markets frequently, raising more than $20 billion through secondary stock sales and debt offerings.</p>\n<p>Workhorse Group Inc.,which makes electric “last mile” delivery vans and utility vehicles, also was reported to be the target of an SEC investigation, and Trevor Milton, the founder of Nikola Corp. has been charged with securities fraud in federal court in the Southern District of New York, allegedly for overinflating the developments at the electric truck maker. Milton has stated that he is innocent.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Since EV makers need the same hefty capital investment as other auto makers, investors might be more inclined to favor the established companies making a foray into electrification. Nearly every major auto maker around the globe has some sort of effort today to develop electric vehicles, but in the U.S., Ford Motor appears to be the furthest along, with plans to offer dozens of electrified vehicles, including a truck, sometime in 2022.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>If investors are looking to bet on one of Tesla’s upcoming rivals, the best course may be to pick one of the companies that is actually close to launching a car, like Fisker or Lucid, and then diversify bets on some traditional auto makers. Another option is to look for suppliers, instead of the much more capital-intensive car makers.</p>\n<p>Assad Hussain, mobility analyst at PitchBook, which tracks all aspects of the public and private equity markets, said professional investors are looking beyond the companies making cars to those that are supplying the automakers.</p>\n<p>“A lot of the smart VC money is going into the picks and shovels, not necessarily trying to trying to find the next Tesla,” Hussain said, making an analogy with the pioneers who got rich during the California gold rush of 1849 by providing the supplies, instead of joining the hordes panning for gold in the Sierra foothills.</p>\n<p>One example is a company called Redwood Materials, which is working on recycling lithium ion batteries in both devices and EVs. Redwood was co-founded by JB Straubel, a Tesla co-founder and its CTO for 15 years. Redwood recently raised $700 million from a group of investors, including T. Rowe Price, Amazon.com Inc. and others.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Recurrent, based in Seattle, was founded just last year and is offering third-party reports on used EV batteries, to help car buyers determine the life of the vehicle. It raised $3.5 million in seed funding late last year.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>“Maybe the smart thing to do is not look for the next Tesla, but to go out and find an enabling technology,” said Hussain.</p>\n<p>The past century shows that periods of innovation in automobiles eventually settled into a triumvirate of dominant companies.</p>\n<p>Whether that will happen again is anyone’s guess, but the strategies here should help find the safer bets, such as the companies the farthest along, the established auto makers, or look to the most interesting suppliers of this hot arena.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","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>If there were a ‘Big Three’ of electric vehicle makers, who would join Tesla?</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\">\nIf there were a ‘Big Three’ of electric vehicle makers, who would join Tesla?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-09-20 07:52 GMT+8 <a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/if-there-were-a-big-three-of-electric-vehicle-makers-who-would-join-tesla-11631902468?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Delays at young electric-vehicle companies suggest that large auto makers are best placed to challenge Tesla in the future, but the smart money is chasing less glamorous names \nMarketWatch photo ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/if-there-were-a-big-three-of-electric-vehicle-makers-who-would-join-tesla-11631902468?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"NKLA":"Nikola Corporation","FFIE":"Faraday Future","LCID":"Lucid Group Inc","TSLA":"特斯拉","AMZN":"亚马逊","NIO":"蔚来","XPEV":"小鹏汽车","GOEV":"Canoo Inc.","FSR":"菲斯克","WKHS":"Workhorse Group, Inc.","LI":"理想汽车"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/if-there-were-a-big-three-of-electric-vehicle-makers-who-would-join-tesla-11631902468?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1165266849","content_text":"Delays at young electric-vehicle companies suggest that large auto makers are best placed to challenge Tesla in the future, but the smart money is chasing less glamorous names \nMarketWatch photo illustration/Tesla, iStockphoto\n\n\nWhen Henry Ford was reorganizing his Detroit Automobile Company into what would become the juggernaut of U.S. auto manufacturing, hundreds of other young auto makers were also starting up.\nOne of them, the National Motor Vehicle Car Manufacturing Co, started out in Indianapolis, which boasted six automakers in 1906. National Motor even competed in and won the 1912 Indy 500. Sales boomed and it expanded production, but after a merger with Associated Motor Industries in 1922, the company ended up in receivership in 1924. Like hundreds of other early car companies, none of those six Indianapolis players survived.\nInvestors eyeing the electric vehicle space today may have a sense of déjà vu. The huge number of companies, large and small, currently working on electric vehicles or their components is reminiscent of the turn of the 20th century, when companies like National and others experimented with body forms and engine types, from steam-powered to internal combustion to early versions of electric vehicles.\nBy the 1929 stock market crash, there were only about 40 auto makers left, and that number eventually shrunk to where the top companies in the U.S. are referred to as the “Big Three.” Similar shakeouts occurred globally, with Big Threes emerging in other countries, like Japan and Germany.\nOne major difference between then and now, said Brett Smith, director of technology research at the Center for Automotive Research, or CAR, is that 100 years ago, “everybody was starting from scratch—no one had an advantage,” while today, traditional auto makers already know how to build cars and create huge assembly lines.、\n\n\n ‘Over the next 5 years, there is going to be some remarkable growth for some of these companies. But there will be some that don’t grow and struggle. There is more to be optimistic about with these companies than there was five years ago, because the tech is getting closer to broader adoption. The problem is that the traditional car companies have been getting into it too now and competition is tougher.’”\n\n\n — Brett Smith, director, technology research, Center for Automotive Research \n\n\nThe question for investors then is which companies will become the big 3 of EVs?\nThe company with the biggest advantage in electric vehicles today is Tesla Inc. which has finally proved to the world that EVs are the future. As rival startups and legacy automakers seek to emulate its success, investors must ponder which EV companies will succeed and which will disappear.\n\nGlobally, there are hundreds of startups working on some aspect of electric vehicles, from creating the car, to charging station infrastructure, improving the manufacturing process, developing new battery technologies and working on fuel cells. CB Insights of New York said it is tracking more than 700 startups around the world that are active in the space.\n“There seems to be a new one every day,” said Smith of CAR.\nSince February, the shares of many better known startups have lost much of their value because of serious issues, including regulatory inquiries or investigations, class action lawsuits, management tumult and abrupt executive departures. Piling onto these woes — which mainly stem from overpromising and under-delivering — is a semiconductor shortage hampering efforts to get first products out the door.\nSeveral publicly traded EV makers are still technically startup companies, with no revenue or much operational history. But because of the SPAC boom, and the de-SPAC process, they are now publicly traded companies, leaving investors making bets like venture capitalists on the next Tesla.\n\n\n\n“What they are doing is very hard,” said Smith. “Over the next 5 years, there is going to be some remarkable growth for some of these companies. But there will be some that don’t grow and struggle. There is more to be optimistic about with these companies than there was five years ago, because the tech is getting closer to broader adoption. The problem is that the traditional car companies have been getting into it too now and competition is tougher.”\nAs a result of some of those issues, no revenue is expected for the rest of the year at Nikola Corp.,Lordstown Motors Corp. and Fisker Inc., with all three companies predicting their first vehicles sometime in 2022, if their current forecasts can be believed.\n\n“I know it sounds like a broken record and it’s boring, but I think in this case, the broken record is quite good to keep on saying that we are on time on the Ocean program and we are on budget,” Fisker co-founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Henrik Fisker told analysts in the company’s earnings call last month.\nFisker said the company will start production on Nov. 17, 2022, which actually looks good compared with other startups. Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas said in a note that he believes Fisker “may be one of the only EV startups to actually launch on time and ramp efficaciously in late 2022.”\n\nThese companies, plus Faraday Future Electric Inc.,Canoo Inc.,Lucid Group and the soon to go public Rivian, are among the top funded EV makers in the U.S. But while many have received billions from investors through private funding rounds or SPAC deals – electric truck-maker Rivian has raised $10.5 billion — some are now encountering credibility problems.\n\nFor example, Lordstown — an electric truck-maker which took over a former GM factory in an area of Ohio referred to as Voltage Valley — disclosed in July that its merger deal was being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department, for a variety of matters, including information provided to investors about its pre-orders. Lordstown added a “going concern” warning to regulatory filings and clarified that the orders it had were not binding.\n\n“To do what Tesla did, build a car company from the ground up and all the way through to distribution, that took a phenomenal amount of money,” Smith said. Tesla is now almost 18 years old. After raising $226 million in its 2010 IPO, it has gone back to the capital markets frequently, raising more than $20 billion through secondary stock sales and debt offerings.\nWorkhorse Group Inc.,which makes electric “last mile” delivery vans and utility vehicles, also was reported to be the target of an SEC investigation, and Trevor Milton, the founder of Nikola Corp. has been charged with securities fraud in federal court in the Southern District of New York, allegedly for overinflating the developments at the electric truck maker. Milton has stated that he is innocent.\n\nSince EV makers need the same hefty capital investment as other auto makers, investors might be more inclined to favor the established companies making a foray into electrification. Nearly every major auto maker around the globe has some sort of effort today to develop electric vehicles, but in the U.S., Ford Motor appears to be the furthest along, with plans to offer dozens of electrified vehicles, including a truck, sometime in 2022.\n\nIf investors are looking to bet on one of Tesla’s upcoming rivals, the best course may be to pick one of the companies that is actually close to launching a car, like Fisker or Lucid, and then diversify bets on some traditional auto makers. Another option is to look for suppliers, instead of the much more capital-intensive car makers.\nAssad Hussain, mobility analyst at PitchBook, which tracks all aspects of the public and private equity markets, said professional investors are looking beyond the companies making cars to those that are supplying the automakers.\n“A lot of the smart VC money is going into the picks and shovels, not necessarily trying to trying to find the next Tesla,” Hussain said, making an analogy with the pioneers who got rich during the California gold rush of 1849 by providing the supplies, instead of joining the hordes panning for gold in the Sierra foothills.\nOne example is a company called Redwood Materials, which is working on recycling lithium ion batteries in both devices and EVs. Redwood was co-founded by JB Straubel, a Tesla co-founder and its CTO for 15 years. Redwood recently raised $700 million from a group of investors, including T. Rowe Price, Amazon.com Inc. and others.\n\nRecurrent, based in Seattle, was founded just last year and is offering third-party reports on used EV batteries, to help car buyers determine the life of the vehicle. It raised $3.5 million in seed funding late last year.\n\n“Maybe the smart thing to do is not look for the next Tesla, but to go out and find an enabling technology,” said Hussain.\nThe past century shows that periods of innovation in automobiles eventually settled into a triumvirate of dominant companies.\nWhether that will happen again is anyone’s guess, but the strategies here should help find the safer bets, such as the companies the farthest along, the established auto makers, or look to the most interesting suppliers of this hot arena.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":215,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}
