E
ENI S.p.A.
stock NYSE ADR

Oh boy here we go with the “MU at 6 P/E.. this is just the beginning “ crew

Spoken like somebody who sold at the bottom. They’ve increased profits every year and have an undeniable P/E ratio. But I don’t need to tell you that. I’ll just let the market do its job

Do we still care about P/E?

P O W E R H O U R

Hey there Apes!
When GameStop announced that they expect to generate Adjusted EBITDA in excess of $600M, I decided to revisit my old post from 7 months ago.
[My Final GME DD - Part 2 of 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/0Nerjkzvjv)
My post, linked above, only included data up until Q2 2025.
So, I decided to update it with our latest financials and Ryan Cohen's guidance.
Let's get into it.
**Contents**
I. Revisiting My Old Post
II. Updated TTM Figures
III. Updated Forward Estimates
IV. Updated Valuation
V. Summary and Side-by-Side Comparison
CAUTION: THE FOLLOWING MAY RESULT IN THE FOLLOWING FEELING
https://preview.redd.it/b7sp5scgvnah1.png?width=1071&format=png&auto=webp&s=23361301fc72fc347288a32372ba5fa30a172ef9
# I. Revisiting My Old Post
Below are some of the figures from my November post organized by Claude into an easy to read table.
At the end of this post I'll show another table that compares these old figures to our new figures.
If you want explanations for each of these metrics then I suggest you revisit my original post linked in the intro. But, I'll go over them again when we calculate our new figures.
I'm only going to revisit Sections III, IV, and VI from my previous post - TTM (Trailing 12 Months), Forward Multiples, and Valuation.
You can see in the image below what the TTM, Forward Multiple, and Valuation numbers were.
[Exhibit A](https://preview.redd.it/iuephqatvnah1.png?width=1174&format=png&auto=webp&s=daf7c2ac8eebba77bdf2d88bebf849c1eca01e1c)
From my November 23rd, 2025 post and the image above:
* EV / EBIT = 18.67x
* EV / Core Net Income (TTM) = 21x
* EV / Sales = 0.70x
* EV / Forward Core Net Income = 6.9x
* Valuation at a 14x Multiple = $35.27
* Valuation at a 20x Multiple = $43.71
These values were calculated using GameStop's financials up to and including Q2 2025.
You can see all my inputs listed under the first table. These inputs are taken directly from my post. So, if you want to know how I got those inputs then please revisit my old post.
The image below is also from my previous post and serves as a reminder about why we focus on these specific calculations and metrics.
[Exhibit B](https://preview.redd.it/tjh9vsyzvnah1.png?width=1449&format=png&auto=webp&s=24621565d7d674cf70c7e72d395b7120775437d2)
# II. Updated TTM Figures
Let me start by including the same updated table as my original post.
https://preview.redd.it/b325k6u5wnah1.png?width=2443&format=png&auto=webp&s=d97171c03f70a0c89509458f17d5a73425e9f83e
Here is what we're going to calculate using our updated financials:
* Enterprise Value
* EV / EBIT
* EV / Core Net Income (TTM)
* EV / Sales
See Exhibit B above for an explanation as to why I'm focusing on these metrics.
With that said, here is our updated TTM financials:
https://preview.redd.it/0ir3d3j9wnah1.png?width=1341&format=png&auto=webp&s=d7bbc8ea0a26de43969453ef7aada426619339cf
*We're going to use $22/share for our calculations. This reflects the share price as of 9:45am on 7/1/2026.*
**A. Enterprise Value**
>To get enterprise value we subtract non-operating assets, like cash and bitcoin, from the diluted market cap. So, enterprise value excludes cash, bitcoin, and derivative gains.
*Enterprise Value isolates the true value that the market is assigning to GameStop's core business.*
Diluted Share Count = 592,300,000
Share Price at the time of this writing = $22.00
Diluted Market Cap = $13,030.6M
Non-Operating Assets = $9,721.0M
Derivative Asset = $285.3M
Total Non-Operating Assets = $10,006.3M
Enterprise Value = Diluted Market Cap - Non-Operating Assets = $3,024.3M
* Enterprise Value = $3.02B ($3,024,300,000)
So, the market is assigning a value of roughly $3B to GameStop's core business.
*All the above figures are taken directly from GameStop's Q1 2026 earnings report.*
**B. EV / EBIT**
This is the most important metric when evaluation GameStop's business from a TTM perspective.
>EBIT strips out non-operating income, ignores tax distortions since it's before tax, ignores interest, and is comparable across companies so that you can measure it against peers.
For this calculation we're going to use our enterprise value and our operating income.
In other words, we're only using the income that comes from GameStop's core operations and we're comparing it to the enterprise value that the market is assigning to GameStop's core business.
EV / EBIT = $3,024,300,000 / $386,200,000
* EV / EBIT = 7.83x
This means that you're paying $7.83 for every $1 of **operating** profit on a TTM basis.
This shows how much you're paying solely for the core operating business, ignoring the $10B in non-operating assets and the income that it generates (treasury income, derivative gain, etc.).
**C. EV / Core Net Income (TTM)**
>This is very similar to EV / EBIT. The difference is that EBIT is pre-tax and Core Net Income is after-tax. These two multiples should be relatively consistent.
*EV / EBIT is the cleanest valuation of the core business and the one used by private equity.*
EV / Core Net Income = EV / (Net Income - Non-Operating Income)
* EV / Core Net Income = *$*3,024.3M / ($763.2M - $455.9M) = 9.84x
This means that you're paying $9.84 for every $1 of operating earnings after tax.
Core Net Income will always be lower than EBIT because it's after tax. This makes the ratio more conservative than the EBIT calculation that private equity uses.
**D. EV / Sales**
For this calculation we compare GameStop's enterprise value to their revenue.
Revenue is top-line sales from operations only. Like EBIT and Core Net Income, Revenue doesn't include non-operating income.
From Investopedia:
>"Revenue is the total amount of income a company generates from the sale of goods and services. It is the sum generated before deducting any expenses, such as those involved in running the business. Revenue is often called the top line because it’s located at the top of the income statement. When a company is said to have “top-line growth,” it means the company’s revenue—the money it’s taking in—is growing. Revenue or net sales refer only to business-related income (the equivalent of earned income for an individual). If a company has other sources of income, such as, for example, from investments, that income is not considered revenue because it didn't come from the primary income-generating activity. Any such additional income is accounted for separately on balance sheets and financial statements."
EV / Sales = *$*3,024.3M / $3,732.8M
* EV/Sales = 0.81x
This tells you how cheaply, or expensively, the businesses revenue stream is priced relative to the operating business value.
In other words, how much you're paying for every $1 of sales.
The market is valuing the entire business at just 0.81x annual revenues. You're paying $0.81 for every $1.00 of GameStop's revenue.
This is what you'd expect from a severely distressed retailer or a broken business. Businesses with this low of an EV/Sales ratio usually have negative margins, heavy debt, bankruptcy risk, and are in survival mode.
**E. Summary**
Enterprise Value = $3,024.3M
EV / EBIT = 7.83x
EV / Sales = 0.81x
These numbers are what you'd expect from a company headed towards bankruptcy.
GameStop has:
* Net Margins of 20.45% (TTM)
* Best Buy, Walmart, and Target operate at 2-6% Net Margin and trade well above 1x EV/Sales
* GameStop's TTM showed a Net Margin of 20.45% and yet they still have an EV/Sales of 0.81x
* Revenue Growth of 14.05% YoY (Q1'26 vs Q1'25)
* This doesn't reflect a distressed business. This is a business in the middle of an amazing turnaround/transformation.
* Businesses with double-digit revenue growth and margins don't trade below 1x EV/Sales. Especially one with a $10B safety net and no debt (remember we're using a diluted basis to remove the debt from the equation)
* Operating Income Growth
* EBIT is the truest reflection of the core business and GameStop has shown consistent YoY EBIT growth over the last 3 years, especially the most recent 5 quarters
* Q1 2026 showed a 461.54% YoY EBIT growth alone
* Businesses with growing YoY EBIT command premium multiples, no liquidation multiples
* Diluted EPS Growth
* GameStop's FY2025 Diluted EPS of $0.77 grew 133% compared to FY2024
* GameStop's Q1 2026 Diluted EPS of $0.66 grew 633% YoY
* Businesses with rising EPS typically trade between 1.2-2.5x EV/Sales
* Zero Debt
* Remember, this entire valuation uses a diluted share count of 592.3M shares in order to remove the debt from the equation. This is a conservative method since we're \~30% from the convertible bond thresholds
A company with 20% net margins, revenue growth, operating income growth, EPS growth, and $10B in cash should absolutely not be trading below 1x EV/Sales.
The market is still valuing GameStop as if it's dying, but our EV/EBIT and EV/Sales metrics, along with growing revenue, margins, and EPS all paint a different picture.
TTM Summary Table:
https://preview.redd.it/im4aitlkwnah1.png?width=1387&format=png&auto=webp&s=267bce5ec5f0e4f634aecb9f480808be0afc8c6a
# III. Updated Forward Estimates
**EV / Forward Core Net Income** is the metric I used in my November post to calculate the forward multiple that the market was pricing GameStop at.
This ratio values GameStop based on future earnings.
* *EV / Core Net Income (TTM) uses the financials from the last four quarters to show you how much you're paying for every $1 of after-tax earnings from core operations, excluding investment income. It's backwards-looking.*
* *EV / Core Net Income (Forward) uses projected future earnings to show you how much you're paying for every future $1 of after-tax earnings from core operations, excluding investment income. It's forward-looking.*
This is the perfect forward-looking metric to use for a company like GameStop since a substantial chunk of their income has come from treasuries, derivative gains, and bitcoin losses.
This metric removes all that noise and solely looks at the income coming from the core operating business.
In my November post I had to come up with projections for Q3 and Q4. I had to estimate because we didn't have guidance.
Well apes, now we do.
Ryan has finally provided us with guidance.
https://preview.redd.it/fxluocfownah1.png?width=997&format=png&auto=webp&s=7ca50cbc09fd9b03bed5e169c3c9bcdbfd3e4d8c
This seems to me more like an absolute floor rather than accurate guidance.
I believe this number to be very conservative.
Any trend extrapolation from looking at the past 3 years of financials would figure a larger number than $600M.
I think that's why it's worded as, "in excess of".
So, with that said, for this section I'll be giving two sets of estimates:
1. Guidance Case
2. Projected Case
The Guidance Case will be built from GameStop's $600M adjusted EBITDA outlook.
The Projected Case will take Q1'26's trend (+14.05% YoY revenue growth, 17.15% operating margin) and apply that to Q2-Q4.
From there we can calculate our Forward Core Net Income.
We'll also take advantage of GameStop's NOL's in both cases.
**A. Guidance Case**
We'll start with our Adjusted EBITDA Guidance of $600M.
Then we're going to subtract D&A and stock-based compensation, which together amount to $52M.
This gives us a Forward Core EBIT of $548M.
Next, we're going to add in our forward Treasury income of $334.8M. To get this figure I took the Q1'26 run-rate and multiplied it by 4 quarters.
This gives us our Total Forward Pre-Tax Income of $882.8M
>*We add the Treasury income back in because the $600M figure that GameStop provided us with represents Adjusted EBITDA. Adjusted EBITDA doesn't include investment income. Treasury income has been a recurring income stream for GameStop for a couple of years. We're purposely not adding back in the Derivative Asset because this is a much more volatile asset which is tied to eBay's stock price. It's not recurring income and it can go up or down. So it's better to leave it out of this analysis. However, if you wanted to add in the mark-to-market gains as of the latest earnings report than the Total Forward Pre-Tax income will be $285.3M greater than $882.8M.*
Now that we have our Total Forward Pre-Tax Income, we need to subtract the tax.
This is where the NOL's come into play and provide a huge boost.
The Q1'26 earnings showed an effective tax rate of 23.1%. But this is due to the new deferred tax liability created by the unrealized derivative gain on the eBay position.
That eBay derivative gain is unrealized for tax purposes, but GAAP requires booking a deferred tax liability on it temporarily.
So, the 23.1% effective rate for Q1'26 is actually a blended rate where the core retail and treasury income is still being shielded by NOL's, while the derivative gain is carrying it's own full deferred tax burden.
When you mix the two together you get the 23.1% effective tax rate.
But, since we're not including the Derivative Asset in this calculation, we can use the NOL-adjusted rate.
I generated a report back in March when the 10-K came out that analyzed the NOL's and came up with an effective rate based on the projected income over the next 4 years.
https://preview.redd.it/zmo6rjgvwnah1.png?width=1254&format=png&auto=webp&s=2d2210823c423d950e2797494908b0f9e8820342
So, we're going to use a 4.5% NOL-adjusted tax rate which results in -$39.7M in taxes.
When we subtract that tax from our Total Forward Pre-Tax Income we're left with $843.1M.
The Forward Core EBIT of $548M represents 62.1% of the Total $843.1M.
Using these percentages we're left with:
* Forward Core Net Income = $523.2M
* Total Forward Net Income = $843.0M
*Remember, the Total Forward Net Income includes Treasury income, but it doesn't include the Derivative Asset. And the Forward Core Net Income doesn't include any investment income at all.*
Now we have everything we need to come up with our forward multiples:
* **EV / Forward Core Net Income = 5.78x**
* **EV / Total Forward Net Income = 3.59x (Includes Treasury income)**
These multiples are remarkably low for a company with GameStop's current financials.
You're paying $5.78 for every $1 of projected after-tax **operating** earnings.
You're paying $3.59 for every $1 of projected after-tax **total** earnings. This includes operating earnings and Treasury income only!
These are extraordinarily cheap multiples by any standard measure. These multiples are reserved for businesses with heavy debt, bankruptcy risk, razor-thin margins, and no visible turnaround efforts.
However, GameStop has:
* 20.45% TTM Net Margin
* 14.05% YoY Revenue Growth
* 461% YoY EBIT Growth
* Zero Net Debt on a Diluted Basis
* $10B Cash Asset Base
* Recurring Treasury Income of $300M+ Annually
* Company-Issued Guidance of $600M+ Adjusted EBITDA
* Operating Income growing from -$26.2M in FY2024 to $232.1M in FY2025
* Net Income growing from $131.3M in FY2024 to $418.4M in FY2025
The market is pricing GameStop as if those negative operating income years are still the current reality. The market needs to realize that it's not 2023 anymore.
The fundamentals have changed in a major way, but the multiple hasn't caught up.
Going from a -$26.2M operating loss to $232.1M in operating income is a $258.3M turnaround in a single year!
Going from $131.3M Net Income in 2024 to $418.4M Net Income in 2025 is a 218.7% YoY increase.
The multiples we're looking at here remove treasury income from the equation and instead focus on core operations. When you combine that multiple with growing revenues and EPS, GameStop is the opposite of a distressed business.
Institutional investors have either been negligent, lazy, or have a financial interest in keeping GameStop suppressed. They refuse to take a honest look into GameStop and rewrite their story/narrative.
But eventually the rerating will happen. Repricing gaps like this don't stay open forever. They typically close either gradually as earnings continue to beat, or sharply when a catalyst forces a re-rating.
This is deep value territory.
**B. Projected Case**
The Guidance Case that we just covered is conservative. It's the Base Case.
The Projected Case uses trend analysis and looks at the past two years of financials, from Q1'24 onwards, to create realistic projections for future earnings.
You need to go back far enough to determine quarterly patterns across multiple years and to spot any anomalies, like a 1000% surge in Net Income.
This allows you to analyze broad patterns, like Q1 being GameStop's weakest quarter, while contextualizing unsustainable growth surges, like a quarter with 1000% Net Income growth.
For this projection, I extrapolated using Q1'26's YoY growth rate and margin.
This gives us a 14% YoY revenue growth and 17.15% operating margin.
We then apply those figures to the revenues of Q2-Q4 2025. This gives us:
* Q1'26 Revenue = $835.3M
* Q2'26 Revenue = $1,108.8M
* Q3'26 Revenue = $936.4M
* Q4'26 Revenue = $1,259.5M
* FY2026 Revenue = $4,140.0M
* Operating Margin = 17.15%
Could PowerPacks or GTA VI make these numbers larger? Sure. But this is what I decided to run with.
Using those figures above we get a Forward Core EBIT of $710.1M.
Compare that to the Forward Core EBIT of $548M in the Guidance Case.
From here, we add back in our Forward Treasury Income of $334.8M.
This gives us our Total Forward Pre-Tax Income of $1,044.9M.
Then subtract the tax using the 4.5% NOL-adjusted rate, which comes out to -$47M.
That leaves us with:
* Forward Core Net Income = $678.1M
* Total Forward Net Income = $997.9M
Compare these numbers to the $523.3 and $843.0M figures from our Guidance Case.
Now we have everything we need to come u with our forward multiples:
* **EV / Forward Core Net Income = 4.46x**
* **EV / Total Forward Core Net Income = 3.03x (Includes Treasury income)**
Using our projections, you can see that GameStop is trading much cheaper than the Guidance Case multiple.
As stated above, whether its a 4.46x multiple or a 5.78x multiple, a 3.03x multiple or a 3.59x multiple, these are all insanely cheap for a company with GameStop's financials and growth trends.
**C. Summary**
EV / Forward Core Net Income (Guidance Case) = 5.78x
EV / Total Forward Net Income (Guidance Case) = 3.59x
EV / Forward Core Net Income (Projected Case) = 4.46x
EV / Total Forward Net Income (Projected Case) = 3.03x
*\*The 3.59x and 3.03x figures include Treasury income.*
For a company with GameStop's financials and YoY growth trends, these multiples are borderline insanity.
I'm actually curious to see how these TTM and Forward metrics stack up against GameStop in 2019.
https://preview.redd.it/05zabdpbxnah1.png?width=1348&format=png&auto=webp&s=7ed4524aaff0843668ca078dadf82ec33eb86024
Again, the Total Net Income includes Treasury income and the Core Net income does not.
These multiples should make you feel extremely confident in your GameStop investment.
I don't want to sound like a broken record so I won't go over why these multiples are insane again. But just know that they don't make sense.
You have to ask yourself, how long does the light have to be Green before the traffic finally start going?
# IV. Valuation
My previous post included the following table:
https://preview.redd.it/0mkbzshixnah1.png?width=922&format=png&auto=webp&s=c62538470b447ec7c07a13b8c8769e4607571050
If GameStop can maintain their high margins then an EV/Forward Core Net Income of 4.46x - 5.78x will be impossible to justify.
The price simply cannot stay down here at $22 while earnings continue to exceed expectations quarter after quarter.
This is what you should expect based on different EV/Core Net Income ratios:
* 6-8x Distressed
* 12x Bare Minimum
* 15x Reasonable
* 18x Category Leader
* 20x Growth + Durability or Defensible Moat
At \~5x GameStop is being valued like Macy's before the restructuring, or Bed Bath & Beyond before bankruptcy.
I'm going to use two multiples based on GameStop's financials, growth patterns, and balance sheet - 14x and 20x.
When looking at their competitors, I think these are good multiples.
We're going to apply these multiples to GameStop's Total Forward Net Income.
If capital can generate recurring earnings with no reinvestment risk and no debt, it should be capitalized. You wouldn't value Berkshire, Alphabet, Meta, or Tesla without recognizing the earnings generated from retained cash and assets. Therefore, you need to treat GameStop the same way.
This is not an inflated or distorted valuation. The treasury yield is risk-free, recurring, contractual, and not dependent on GameStop selling a single product.
It's no different than Meta's interest yield, Apple's treasury, or Alphabet's securities portfolio.
We're also figuring in dilution of the convertible bonds, which means the cash stays, and the debt is converted to shares.
**A. Guidance Case**
The Guidance Case gave us a Total Forward Net Income of $843.0M.
Non-Operating Assets amount to $10,006.3M.
Using a 14x Multiple:
* 14 x $843.0M = $11,802M
* $11,802M + $10,006.3M = $21,808.3M
* $21,808.3M / 592.3M Shares = **$36.82/Share**
Using a 20x Multiple:
* 20 x $843.0M = $16,860.0M
* $16,860.0M + $10,006.3M = $26,866.3M
* $26,866.3M / 592.3M Shares = **$45.36/Share**
So, using GameStop's $600M adjusted EBITDA guidance, and assuming a multiple of 14-20x, we're left with a diluted share price of $36.82 - $45.36.
Remember, this is using GameStop's forward guidance, which in my opinion is a very conservative number.
**B. Projected Case**
The Projected Case gave us a Total Forward Net Income of $997.9M
Using a 14x Multiple:
* 14 x $997.9M = $13,970.6M
* $13,970.6M + $10,006.3M = $23,976.9M
* $23,976.9M / 592.3M Shares = **$40.48/Share**
Using a 20x Multiple:
* 20 x $997.9M = $19,958.0M
* $19,958.0M + $10,006.3M = $29,964.3M
* $29,964.3M / 592.3M Shares = **$50.60/Share**
When we use our projections, 14% YoY growth and 17% margins, we're able to figure a share price of $40 - $50 based on a 14-20x multiple.
**C. Summary**
EV/EBIT is a great metric to look at, arguably the best, to see how much you're paying for past earnings performance.
But, it's a backwards-looking metric.
Stocks trade on forward guidance. Businesses trade based on where they're going, not where they've been.
That's why EV/Forward Core Net Income and EV/Total Forward Net Income are the best metrics to use when considering future earnings.
The only difference between these two calculations that we made is that Total Forward Net income includes Treasury income.
That's it.
I would say that $36-$40 would be the absolute floor for GameStop's fair value.
And these numbers are purely based on the fundamentals and don't take into account any other catalysts.
The optionality that $10B in cash affords them could push the stock price closer to the 20x multiples.
I mean look at the gain they've been able to generate via their eBay derivative. The market is assigning virtually no premium to the optionality their cash provides.
This also doesn't figure in any repercussions that swaps and ETF creation/redemption cycles could have on the share price.
A squeeze outside of the fundamentals can happen at any time. We see it with countless stocks across the market like Avis and Wendy's.
https://preview.redd.it/a083g4aqxnah1.png?width=1354&format=png&auto=webp&s=8d53165399791807d2459c950f85e344fbd7548a
# V. Summary and Side-by-Side Comparison
Let's now take a look at the full picture.
The image below shows a summary of everything we covered.
First, you'll see the TTM analysis (backward-looking). This covers enterprise value, EV/EBIT, and EV/Sales.
Then we see our Forward multiples (forward-looking). Here we see our EV/Forward Core Net Income and EV/Total Forward Net Income figures. To come up with these figures we used GameStop's $600M Adjusted EBITDA guidance and our own Projections.
Finally, we have our Valuation multiples. Here we applied a 14x and 20x multiple to our Guidance Case and to our Projected Case to get our fair market value price.
https://preview.redd.it/nuvqo2dvxnah1.png?width=991&format=png&auto=webp&s=13640f024473dc5831c65f67773cfe6bcd6feac7
In summary, we have:
* Enterprise Value = $3,024.3M
* EV/EBIT = 7.83x
* EV/Sales = 0.81x
* EV/Forward Core Net Income (Guidance) = 5.78x
* EV/Forward Total Forward Net Income (Guidance) = 3.59x
* EV/Forward Core Net Income (Projected) = 4.46x
* EV/Forward Total Forward Net Income (Projected) = 3.03x
Using GameStop's Guidance, the fair market value using a 14x multiple is $36.82/diluted share.
Using GameStop's Guidance, the fair market value using a 20x multiple is $40.48/diluted share.
Using my Projections, the fair market value using a 14x multiple is $40.48/diluted share.
Using my Projections, the fair market value using a 20x multiple is $50.60/diluted share.
**This provides us with a fair market value range of $36.82 - $50.60 per diluted share.**
Lastly, let's take a look at how these new figures stack up against the figures from my November 23rd, 2025 post:
https://preview.redd.it/7ak7brhzxnah1.png?width=967&format=png&auto=webp&s=49bb2323651f109800633e760117e74d2e297568
As you can see in the image above, GameStop's share price has become even more disconnected from reality and is outright absurd.
*It's so absurd at this point, that I'm actually inclined to investigate how it compares to GameStop in 2019 when the company's financials looked much much worse and like it was destined for bankruptcy.*
You can see above how GameStop has become much cheaper than it was 7 months ago, on both a TTM and forward-looking basis.
GameStop's business and financials have transformed, while the stock price hasn't budged.
It's actually shocking to look at this comparison because every single one of GameStop's fundamental metrics have improved materially since my original post 7 months ago, yet GameStop has become even cheaper.
And these numbers are based on real earnings, real guidance, and competitor multiples. This is not some fantasy valuation.
To be honest, this should make you mad. This should make Ryan mad.
Many of us have been here for over 5 years now. It's time for us to be compensated for holding that long. And I believe Ryan will deliver that for us.
It's time.

Look at the lettering thickness. The B is so much thicker than then the E or T.
I'd call this a fake.

Its more like 18 P/E stop the cap

MU trading at damn near 10 P/E. This is diabolical

Siri, what is TSLA’s P/E.

They're leasing compute because they realized that companies of their magnitude can squeeze the upstream supply chain.
When the data center rebellion kicked into high gear, and projects started getting on hold or canceled, that directly *increased demand* and therefore profit incentive. It doesn't matter if you can source GPUs or not if you can't source usable land and utilities.
It's not that companies like Meta don't have an internal use for the resources. It's that with their positioning, it is *more* profitable to them to lease out the compute than it would be to use it internally. And by directly entering that line of business, they will further squeeze the supply of GPUs, land, and utilities, further increasing the profitability.
Some of y'all are too young to remember why Atari co-founder Nolan Bushnell founded Chuck E. Cheese, and it shows.

Naja, das wär so, als würde man Leute auslachen, weil sie für sauberes Wasser bezahlen, selbst wenn die Preise immer höher schießen. Sei froh. dass Wasser bei uns nicht privatisiert ist...
Ob du es glaubst oder nicht und es mag für manche lächerlich klingen aber: Sprit ist ein Grundbedürfniss. Und das nutzen die Ölkonzerne.
Und ich bezweifle, dass deine These stimmt. Seit die Preise wieder hoch sind, gibt es deutlich mehr Schleicher. Die Deutschen achten sehr wohl auf die Preise. Und weil die Ölkonzerne ständig so eine Scheiße abziehen, wird mein nächstes Auto definitiv E.
Das Ding ist, dass viele darauf angewiesen sind und nicht jeder mindestens 20k für ein E-Auto locker machen können. Ich würde lieber weniger fahren aber ich bin darauf angewiesen. Komm aus deiner Bubble raus.

This post is kind of an educational post. A lot of people are currently talking about WEN and JACK. I want to give you some advice on what to look for in such a turnaround / squeeze setup.
Normally, if you want to compare a company to another you will look into financials and P/E ratios and revenue growth etc. But for this comparison all of the named does not matter as much. So instead of looking at P/E ratios what am I looking at to see, if a stock is likely to squeeze or turnaround?
# 1. Squeeze setup
First of all I'm looking into the size of the float and the amount of short interest. The size of the float determines how easy it is to move the price of a stock and also if it's easy for shorts to find shares if they want to cover. The amount of short interest determines the amount of shorts being forced to cover during a sudden spike in price, which will result in buying, leading the price even higher.
more shorts -> more buying -> more squeeze
Now what mix of these metrics is a good setup for a shortsqueeze? Shorts have to cover and buy back their shares, if the price rises above a certain level. In order to squeeze shorts you want to get the price up to this level as easily and fast as possible. So the float (and also the MCap) of a company has to be very small if you want to push the price up with only little capital and volume. Now if you compare WEN and JACK you will see that the float of WEN is 10 times as big as JACKs float. Also the MCap of WEN is roughly 5 times bigger. This means that to move the price of WEN shares, you need way more buying volume and capital inflow than to move the price of JACK shares.
So in conclusion:
For a squeeze to happen you need high short interest and a big jump in price, which forces the shorts to cover. This jump in price can much easier be achieved with a company with low float and MCap than with a company which has larger float and MCap.
Short Interest WEN 29.83% < 40.17% short interest JACK
Float WEN 173.2m > 16.72m float JACK
MCap WEN 1.58b > 301.55m MCap JACK
If you look at these metrics, you can see that JACK has much better values in every metric. So it is much more likely to squeeze.
# 2. Turnaround case
A turnaround is even more complex. I try to break it down to the 2 main causes of a failing company.
The first one is debt. If a company is unable to pay its debt it goes bankrupt or has to take on more debt to pay the old debt, which will result in a downward spiral. To find out if a turnaround is in the realm of possibility, you should look at the debt of a company in relation to cash and cashflow. If a company has no cash and a negative cashflow it‘s always bad. If a company has lots of debt and only a small positive cashflow it‘s also bad. So for turnaround you either want to see if a company is able to turn profitable and reduce their cashburn (otherwise the will have to take on more debt) or if they are able to increase their cashflow and pay off debt. So what does this mean for both of the companies I mentioned?
WEN debt $4.8b > $2.58b JACK debt
WEN cash $299m > $43m JACK cash
WEN NCF $59.4m > 17.1m JACK NCF
Now if you compare these values, you can see that JACK has a way higher debt/cash ratio than WEN showing increased leverage. It‘s NCF to debt ratio is also much smaller which means, that it will be much harder/ take much longer to pay back the debt. Still both companies have a positive cashflow, what makes it possible to pay back the debt although it gets increasingly harder the more leveraged a company is. So here WEN seems to be more likely for a turnaround.
The second thing I think is important for the turnaround of the company is revenue and earnings. For a good company it is important to have positive earnings because thats the only way to sustainable scale it and increase value for the shareholders. In this particular case, revenue is also interesting because it shows if the business is failing in general or if the costs of the product are just to high. A reduction of these costs while having stable revenue can also turn earnings positive. But this only works if revenue is not in steady decline. If the latter is the case, sooner or later you won‘t be able to cut enough costs in order to keep earnings positive. So how are the numbers of our companies looking?
Revenue WEN $540.6m > $254.3m JACK revenue
Earnings WEN $22.7m > $10.2m JACK earnings
Net margin WEN 4.2% > 4% JACK net margin
You can see that both companies have positive earnings and nearly equal net margins of 4%. So they are not burning cash but also not generating that much. If a sudden decline in revenue or spike in cost happens, this could turn their margins negative. So apart from WEN being the bigger company, earnings- and marginwise they are on the same level. So for a turnaround they should both focus on increasing revenue growth and cutting costs to improve earnings and margins. But which of stock is more likely to achieve a turnaround?
In my opinion this mostly depends on the capabilities of the C-Suite. Good management is what makes a turnaround possible in the first place. The new CEO of JACK has proven his skills at scaling Taco Bell during challenging times. The CEO of WEN is also a known industry figure and had great success at Potbelly. So again both companies seem to be equal. You could now talk about brand recognition etc. but thats really subjective. So I would argue that a turnaround is possible for both companies, although it is more likely to happen to WEN because of their smaller debt and leverage ratio.
# My takes:
Better setup for a squeeze: $JACK
Better setup for a turnaround: $WEN
Numbers were taken from 10Qs of last quarter and MarketWatch.
Positions:
I own 1000shares of JACK with an average of $13.5
NFA

$crmd hat nen neuen Auditor. E&Y oder so.

Und genau deswegen quetschen die aus den verbleibenden Leuten noch mal so viel raus wie möglich solange es geht. Wer sich vor 5 Jahren ein Auto gekauft hat, kauft sich heute nicht direkt ein E Auto und zahlt zähneknirschend auch 2,50€/l. Das wissen die Konzerne auch.

Yeah, I'm gonna be that guy...
But wasn't there a famous emoji of the American flag with a microphone. I'm not an emoji timeline kinda guy but an announcement the week of July 4th very well might look like an American flag with a microphone emoji.
It's feeling awfully tinfoil-y around here with tee E dee dee why dot com now re-directing to the GameStop website too. GME is pumping today!!!!


<insert HYPE meme>

Intuit's stock price has fallen 66% year-on-year. Opportunity, or not?
Even before getting into nerdy financial analysis:
* Intuit trades at a trailing **P/E** of **16.1x**, despite growing revenue by **14% year-over-year** during the first nine months of fiscal 2026. I liked what I was looking at.
So I spent a week looking at their 10-Ks, 10-Qs and building a full DCF from the ground up.
**Current price:** $266
**My Base Case:** $669/share (60% margin of safety)
**My Best Case:** $866/share (69% margin of safety)
I also stress-tested the biggest fear I could think of, where **TurboTax (26% of revenue) disappears completely after two years** due to AI/IRS disruption in my Base Case. I still got an intrinsic value of **$548/share**, implying a **51% margin of safety**.
Main Takeaways I found:
* **QuickBooks** remains the core economic and cash printing engine, making up **59% of total revenue**. It **16% in FY2025** and **17% for the first nine months of FY2026**, with no evidence of structural deterioration.
* Management regularly attributes growth to **pricing power, customer growth and product mix**, not acquisitions alone.
* Despite all the AI fears, **TurboTax still grew \~7.5% year-over-year** in the first nine months of FY2026. Intuit appears to be navigating the market quite well.
* Debt is conservative (Debt/FCF ≈ **1.27x**).
* Buyback authorisation about roughly **13.5%** of market cap. Even after accounting for stock-based compensation, buybacks at today's price look value-creating for us shareholders.
Red Flags:
* Intuit **moved** a whole bunch of **product expenses** to **'Other Corporate Expenses'**. Removing these expenses **doubled operating margins**. Although they r**estated previous years**, I'd be careful calculating segment and product margins, as they seem artificially boosted, and lack some expenses that I think economically belong under their product segment.
* I got around this in my DCF by independently forecasting 'Other Corporate Expenses' in my valuation model.
**Market fears** appear to reflect **short-term problems**. Worries about 17% workforce cut. Broader tech-selloffs. Although growth did slow, analysis shows it may represent **normalisation** after unusually strong previous years and a string of acquisitions in the past. Furthermore, the current market price seems priced in far below any realistic growth stagnation scenario.
The market seems to be pricing Intuit as though its core business is entering **permanent decline**. But I found **no evidence** of that.
**My personal take:** SMEs will **always** need **accounting and tax software**. Intuit is the **market leader**. Intuit looks to be an exceptional business with conservative leverage that an idiot could run, although the **moat** of some of its products is **slowly degrading.** But the market has over-reacted as usual and presented a real deep-value opportunity.
At **current stabilised growth levels**, Intuit will keep **hitting record profits** and **generating record FCF**. In the long-term, Wall Street will have to take notice, turning this short-term loser into an long-term winner.

Dot com crash was different though. That bubble was mostly speculative IPOs with 50-60x P/E ratios.
AI is at least based on profit and real world technology.
There will undoubtably be a pullback correction, but the floor is much more stable.

Nearly the same TTM P/E as MSFT too. r/valueinvesting would lose their shit if they saw it.

That's my fav one.
If Sony saw business in that, they would... just do that by themselves. Anything involving Gamestop in that process would just complicate the user experience.
And then we have that ape pondering physical discs due to high storage prices. Welcome back "please insert disk 2 into drive E: to continue".

if you are looking for a gamble right now, you could buy some OTM $PCT options. I have a lot of those right now and I am hoping it goes back into the 11-12 area within a few months.
for me it is a total gamble though, I have no actual information or research on it. I just like the way the chart looks haha
also, after reading your comment about NOK, you inspired me to buy a lot of options on it too just for the hell of it. I took all my RKLB profits and bought OTM next January calls. we will see how it goes. its all funny munny anyways. none of it is R E A L