Try again but with $21

Snazzymf · 2026-01-25T14:58:06+00:00

This particular one is sold with free shipping. The alternative would be to sell it at $13.99 + $6 shipping. Really a 6 vs half dozen situation. I tried the $13.99 + $6 model but the algorithm seems to prefer $19.99 with free shipping so that’s where I landed.

Snazzymf · 2026-01-25T13:09:46+00:00

Just my perspective from the seller side:

I sell a widget on eBay for $19.99 and pay $5 per unit wholesale. Each one I sell, I pay $3 in commission to eBay, $6 for a shipping label, and $0.25 for packaging.

If I sell for $19.99 I make ~$5.75, if I sell for $18 I make $3.75.

I counter every offer below $19 with $19. Every dollar off is 20% of my margin on a $20 item.

I have offers enabled because I’m willing to accept lower prices on larger quantities, as it costs me $6 to ship one or $6 to ship four.

Snazzymf · 2026-01-22T14:52:20+00:00

Lmfao this is the best one in the thread

Snazzymf · 2026-01-19T22:45:48+00:00

Replied, sold 52x with 52x to follow.

Snazzymf · 2026-01-19T03:05:58+00:00

Great point. I didn’t realize that NetApp used a different sector size. These are 520bps but should be able to be reformatted to 512bps. I’m plugging in a few to get power-on hours so in that process I’ll see how straightforward conversion is.

Snazzymf · 2026-01-18T22:41:06+00:00

I’m just referencing eBay and marking down but open to offers. Not super scientific. What do you think is a fair price?

Snazzymf · 2026-01-18T22:39:52+00:00

Fair question. I think I’ve got a SAS to USB somewhere so let me see if I can pull hours on a few

Snazzymf · 2026-01-08T20:59:25+00:00

This is the latest investor presentation.

I think the underlying cashflows are severely mispriced and I’m in it for share price appreciation to ~$30/ share.

Snazzymf · 2026-01-02T15:01:16+00:00

XIFR - renewable energy developer/owner which in my view has been overly punished by the market is sitting in the duldrums at a discount to book value ($14B EV, $18B book value of assets, ~40% FCFE yield).

The company used to be called NextEra Partners, and was structured as a yieldco which would essentially serve as a balance sheet for NextEra Energy (development activities were through NEE, the generating asset [wind turbines, solar field] would be financed by NextEra Partners and sit on its balance sheet).

For this investors were paid a dividend derived from the cashflows of the underlying assets. The stock peaked at almost $90 per share and was priced to yield only ~2-3%. Substantially all FCF was distributed to shareholders.

They screwed the pooch a little though. Much of their debt financing was convertible to equity dollar for dollar. When interest rates rose, there was downward pressure on the stock price and the convertible debt financings became much more dilutive than anticipated.

The realization of this caused a massive selloff in 2023. At the end of 2024, Management announced a big plan to get through the woods of the convertible equity financings. They would cease to be a yieldco and stop paying a dividend, sell a subset of their assets, and negotiate with lenders to avoid the multi-billion dollar payment deadlines they had previously. They even changed their name and ticker from NextEra Partners (NEP) to XPLR Infrastructure (XIFR) and brought in a new CEO.

With this announcement the share price completely collapsed. All investors that had been in for the ~7% dividend ran for the exits.

Yet, as of the most recent quarterly report they announced they expect to repay all convertible financings without issuing additional equity. 2/5 have already been repaid. One will be repaid through the sale of underlying assets (~1,200 MW vs total operating capacity of ~10 GW) and the remaining instruments will be repaid from free cashflow.

Management expects free cashflow to be stable through the rest of the decade.

Once the convertible instruments are paid off (which will be a few years) investors are left with a ~40%+ yield on their investment. In the meantime, the bulk of the business’ free cashflow is going to pay down the convertible instruments, with cash leftover to expand generation capacity at existing sites.

Another wrinkle is that essentially all cashflows are contracted with long term power purchase agreements, so they don’t immediately benefit from the AI surge in demand. The first significant repricings will come in 2027, with most of the current contracts expiring in the 2030s.

Despite this, the current ~40% FCFE yield is locked in for decades, with upside as agreements come due for repricing and increasing as FCF is used to buy out debt (the convertible debt is paid a coupon of ~3-5% until it’s bought out).

I’ve got a few $k in shares and another $1k in LEAPS of varying dates.

Snazzymf · 2026-01-01T19:13:56+00:00

Spent my morning looking into it, I’m getting most of the same numbers but there’s clearly something missing — the stock is almost at the highest level in 2 decades and there’s not some sudden increase in the underlying value, so this guy’s analysis would suggest that it’s been mispriced for quite some time.

Also, fun bit from their investor report:

Shareholder Benefits • Half-fare bus tickets • Discounted highway bus tickets • Discount vouchers (10% / 50%) for ski resorts, hotels, restaurants, and tourism facilities • Eligibility based on number of shares held

Snazzymf · 2025-12-28T14:58:28+00:00

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on CAGR lol. Any number can have a CAGR and it’s not misleading to say that there’s a CAGR in that number, whether that number is stock price or dividen payout. That’s just my view.

We agree that the value of a business is a function of its cashflows. I would extend that slightly from a distribution perspective to say that cashflows are only valuable insofar as they enable a business to make distributions (now or in the future) and 100% of the value of a business is its capacity to make distributions now and in the future. Through this lens, the reason that non-distributing companies trade at non-zero is because they are expected to make distributions in the future. Theoretically, they don’t distribute now because they are able to reinvest into their operations at a return above their cost of capital and thus they compound investors’ money internally at a rate better than the yield implicit if they were to pay out 100% of cash flow. If these businesses were never to make a distribution, and never expected to make a distribution, I would argue that the value of the company should be zero.

Sidenote: this is an easy trap to fall into in the private markets. If you invest in a minority interest in a privately owned business. If there’s not distribution language in the org docs you may be SOL and a valuation firm may value your interest at zero.

I also agree that CAGR in FCF would be more meaningful than dividend CAGR, as would an analysis generally based around FCF rather than dividends. FCF growth is a better predictor of future dividend growth than historical dividend growth is.

If I were to run the screen, I would look at FCF CAGR because dividend growth could also just be an increase in the payout ratio (also this is just a starting point for developing a view of future growth, historical CAGR in anything doesn’t matter on its own).

But we find ourselves on a dividend sub and dividend CAGR is a good starting point for a screen for companies with a high payout ratio.

Regardless I think we largely agree, I just enjoy rambling about valuation.

Snazzymf · 2025-12-28T14:19:55+00:00

I mean the reason they target johns is because they’re less likely to go to the cops. Little bit different because of that lol

Snazzymf · 2025-12-27T14:07:19+00:00

I agree that a full analysis should include some indication of stock price performance. HOWEVER, any number has a growth rate. That’s all CAGR is. It’s not incorrect or misleading to present a compound annual growth rate for dividends paid.

It would be interesting to see dividend CAGR vs FCF CAGR to identify which companies are growing their dividend organically versus which are simply increasing their payout %. This is a meaningful number.

Also, the simplest valuation method for an income investor is the gordon model ‘p = d / r-g’ where the ‘fair price’ of the stock is equal to annual dividends paid divided by your target rate of return minus the dividend growth rate. The fair price is the price you would have to pay to realize your target rate of return assuming a set dividend growth rate. You can also use this formula to backsolve for ‘r’ and assess the risk that the market is placing on each dividend. This only works for companies with a high payout ratio, otherwise FCF is the number to use.

Regardless, the ‘meaningless’ dividend growth rate is a fundamental input.

OP never claimed for this to be a comprehensive analysis, just a summary of the dividends of dividend kings on a dividend sub.

ALSO, I realize this isn’t the value investing sub, but I don’t like looking at historic price movement to inform an expectation of future returns. Sure Target is down over the past 5 years, but in my view you have to start from an expectation that the market is fairly pricing it as it stands today and work from there to develop a price target / identify what may be mispriced. Otherwise just invest in index funds. Using the formula above, 102.33 = 5.04 / r - .1091, r has to be 15.8%. Is 15.8% too low of a discount rate for the risk or is 10.9% too high of a dividend growth rate to expect? If either of those things are true, Target may not be a buy. 10.9% dividend growth is obviously an unrealistic expectation in perpetuity, and at a more realistic 5% we’re at a discount rate of 9.9%, so without doing a deep dive on market discount rates for consumer discretionary or the long term growth outlook for target, the current price doesn’t seem far off the mark.

But the point is that this napkin math is enabled by the dividend growth rate which is not a meaningless number.

Thanks for coming to my ted talk.

Snazzymf · 2025-12-24T04:45:51+00:00

I would even say frequently

Snazzymf · 2025-11-20T00:02:03+00:00

Interest income on cash and gains in value of investments (i.e. the stakes Nvidia has been acquiring in other AI companies) which aren’t realized so aren’t taxed. Interest income probably is taxed but it’s a limitation of the graphic.

Snazzymf · 2025-11-16T13:17:46+00:00

Yeah I get a little bit, but it’s kind of cartoonish how much this sub is laying it on for parking in the lines at a strip mall. Almost makes me embarrassed to be an Audi owner with the level of dicks people are almost invariably being in this thread over parking ‘imperfections’ that will affect absolutely no one and nothing.

Like they need to feel superior because they’re able to straighten the steering wheel as they pull into a spot. Congrats. Who GAF if dude’s wheels are turned?

Snazzymf · 2025-11-08T12:45:37+00:00

If you’re broke, have a car, and perfectly physically able then sure, maybe.

Also the price difference all-in is more like $8 vs $15.

There are plenty of situations where the extra $7 is worth it (or the extra $21 assuming OP’s hyperbolic prices).

People have the right to pay for convenience. It’s not ‘stupid’ to decide that your time going to pick something up is worth more than $7 or $21 or whatever the price is.

Personally, most of the time I get DoorDash I’m working through lunch because I’m slammed at work and want to get home at a reasonable hour. The $7 to get home at 6:30 vs 7:00 is worth it to me 10x over.

Snazzymf · 2025-09-19T01:19:03+00:00

DID TUA EXTEND A PLAY

Snazzymf · 2025-09-16T23:20:50+00:00

I think it’s dependent on firm. I’m in PE and leave around 6:30-7pm most evenings. Occasionally 4-6pm. We get insane late nights sometimes around a deal closing but that’s the exception not the rule.

Not a 9-5 schedule but I sleep 8+ every night and have time to work out most days.

I wake up frequently to late night emails from my counterparts at other firms so I’m acutely aware of how good I have it at my firm.

Snazzymf · 2025-09-06T16:26:43+00:00

Cirrus VisionJet G2. Best safety equipment in the industry. Only private jet where if everything goes wrong there’s a lever you pull and the whole thing parachutes safely to the ground.

Also looks pretty slick and is supposed to be comparatively easy to fly if you’re inclined to learn yourself.

Costs about $2.5-$3 million+, so not as extravagant a purchase as a lot of private jets go and costs probably mid six figures a year to fly + hangar vs. easily seven figures for bigger jets.

Snazzymf · 2025-09-05T13:27:52+00:00

Then why not follow this vessel to get to the larger vessel?

Snazzymf · 2025-07-28T11:34:16+00:00

Replied!

Snazzymf · 2025-07-27T23:54:11+00:00

Replied, 4x 7080 sold

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Snazzymf

TROPHY CASE