As more and more investors worry about a reversal of massive market profits since mid-March, they first remove incredibly dangerous assets from their portfolios. Tesla (TSLA) is the most sensible on my list of incredibly difficult stocks sold by investors.
Since I put Tesla in the danger zone on July 29, 2019, inventory has increased by approximately 700%, while S.P.500 is more than just 12%. While this performance, coupled with the recent increase in value related to the inventory division, makes TSLA more excited for many dynamic/technical traders, the most cautious investors and trustees deserve to be more cautious and deserve to consider the unusually higher point of threat in the inventory since the basics are not worth it.
This report shows investors of all kinds how excessive the TSLA threat is:
The most valuable or overrated automotive company in the world?
In July 2020, Tesla became the world’s most valuable automaker by overshadowing the market capitalization of Toyota Motors (TM).
Figure 1 compares the place of the market in place according to the percentage and capitalization of the place at the place of the cordon in place according to the car sold for Tesla, Toyota, Honda Motors (HMC), General Motors (GM), Ford (F) and Fiat Chrysler (FCAU). Among existing automakers, Toyota’s market capitalization in place according to the car sold is the highest with $19.7K. Tesla’s market capitalization in the market according to the TTM sold according to the period is $880.2K, more than 44 times more than Toyota.
Does Tesla, with less than 1% of the global automotive market, value more than Toyota, with 12% of the market in 2019? Even if Tesla justifies this massive valuation premium now, what advantages will it get from here?
Figure 1: Market capitalization consistent with sales: Tesla vs. Pairs – TTM
Tesla benefits from promoting regulatory credits and vehicles
Tesla’s recently reported profits are based on sales of loose regulatory credits to gas car manufacturers, whose fleets, on average, do not meet the required regulatory emission levels.
Tesla has a 100 percent profit margin on those credits, as the company gets them as a loose by-product because it is an all-electric vehicle manufacturer. In 2-20, Tesla sold $428 million in regulatory credits to report a NET GAAP profit of $104 million. When I remove those credits, Tesla’s net GAAP revenue source would have been negative in each of the last 3 quarters, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: GAAP benefits with regulatory credits: 3Q18 – 2Q20
Selling credits is not a viable long-term strategy. While other corporations increase the production of electric vehicles and earn more credits, they buy less from Tesla. For example, Mike Manley, chief executive of Fiat Chrysler, noted in the company’s 1.19 earnings call that he hopes to meet without Tesla’s credits until 2022. Without the profits from selling loose regulatory credits, Tesla will struggle to build its already exaggerated profits.
The share of the market will decline rapidly as established operators enter the electric vehicle market
Tesla bulls have a tendency to slow, but planned and broad access that existing automakers will make in the electric vehicle market. By 2025, these corporations are expected to sell 3.1 million electric vehicles, which is much more than Tesla’s maximum positive sales estimates in 2025. By comparison, Tesla sold 368,000 cars in 2019 and plans to sell 500,000 cars by 2020.
Figure 3 shows how existing automakers will dominate the electric vehicle market until 2025 until Tesla. Tesla’s vehicle sales projections for 2025 vary widely: 2 million from the Trefis team, 1.3 million from Clean Technica, and 413,000 from LMC Automotive. I have not discovered a Tesla sales estimate that is much lower than expected electric vehicle sales through established operators of around 3.1 million electric cars in 2025.
Volkswagen and Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi are expected to sell more cars than Tesla until 2025.
Figure 3: Past and expected sales of cars through the manufacturer: 2018 and 2025
Sources: New Constructs, LLC and LMC Automotive, Clean Technica and Trefis Team
Unable to adapt to the investment of holders in VE
After making a large investment in its operations for years, Tesla has changed course, possibly to meet its profit targets and reduce its reliance on foreign capital. Tesla’s investments in 2019 ($1.3 billion) accounted for only 62% of its depreciation, depreciation and amortization ($2.2 billion). In other words, net investment – $827 million.
During the TTM period, depreciation, depreciation, and depreciation remain above capital expenditures and investment is -429 million, according to Figure 4.
Tesla is spending as its competition grows.
Figure 4: Tesla Capex less depreciation, depreciation and depreciation: 2014-TTM
Even if Tesla kept its capex investment above levels, this would constitute a small fraction of automakers’ electric vehicle spending over the next few years. Like what:
Consultancy AlixPartners estimates that the old overall investment in electric cars is even more than $255 billion by 2022.
Tesla’s capital expenditure during the TTM era is only $1.8 billion and long-term spending plans remain unclear.
During the company’s 4Q19 earnings call, when asked about the 2020 capital expenditure forecast, CEO Elon Musk said, “I don’t know if we wanted to tell you, I don’t think we’re talking about what our capital expenditure will be.” . “
Tesla wants to find a way to fund many capital-intensive projects to increase its production capacity and maintain its electric vehicle market percentage:
Perhaps Tesla’s lack of genuine profits is a real challenge because the company’s ability to sell shares at such high costs is declining and the company gets the capital it wants to grow its business.
Historic operators make larger and less expensive cars and their percentage gains on the market will persist
Investors deserve to highlight the competitive operational benefits of existing automakers. Specifically, they have incredible manufacturing, distribution and marketing benefits over Tesla. These benefits mean they can produce larger cars at a lower cost, as well as distribute and sell cars with greater scale and efficiency. As 2025 approaches, the economic benefits of these competitive benefits will materialize.
Meanwhile, as Tesla struggles to increase production, court cases about vehicle quality have also intensified. J.D. Power first noticed tesla’s car quality disorders in 2017. In the J.D. Power 2020 initial quality survey, Tesla cars, in their first year included in the study, would have ranked last among major automakers. The vehicles were found to have 250 disorders compatible with one hundred cars, well above the industry average of 166 disorders.
Dodge, owned by Fiat Chrysler, tied Kia in first place with an initial quality score of 136, and Chevrolet, owned by General Motors, was ranked at 141. Hyundai, General Motors, BMW, Ford, Nissan and Toyota have won the highest vehicle model awards, respectively. General Motors’ Yantai Dongyue 2 plant won the Platinum Quality Award for car production with the fewest defects or malfunctions.
Is there a greater competitive merit in the automotive sector than the ability to produce superior quality cars on a giant scale? Maybe marketing can offset some of that credit, and Elon Musk is a proper marketing specialist. However, I think licensees will reveal that Tesla is just a flashy automaker that can’t compete with them in the long run, which starts in 2025.
It’s not the (or best) independent generation in the city
Tesla has long boasted of your vehicle’s autonomous driving capabilities, even promoting an “autopilot” feature for $2,000 to $3,000 and a “full autonomous driving” feature for $7,000. The names of these functions are misleading.
Tesla’s deceptive marketing of these features has encountered problems with regulators, with a German court prohibiting the use of “full prospective for autonomous driving” and “autopilot included” in German marketing materials. In the United States, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) criticized Tesla for failing to take sufficient steps to prevent it from “predictable abuse” of its autopilot technology.
In addition, the Los Angeles Times reports that the NTSB made recommendations in 2017 for driving force assistance systems for inattention and misuse of driving force. Automakers, in addition to Volkswagen, Nissan and BMW, have reported their attempts to comply with recommendations, but not Tesla.com. On this subject, NTSB President Robert Sumwalt said: “Unfortunately, a manufacturer has ignored us, and this manufacturer is Tesla. We haven’t heard anything; we’re still waiting.”
Meanwhile, Tesla isn’t the only company with autonomous automotive aspirations. Audi, BMW, Daimler, Volvo, Ford, General Motors, Honda and Toyota have their own driving assistance and autonomous driving platforms. Other car manufacturers, such as Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan and Renault, are partnering with Waymo (owned by Alphabet (GOOGL) to help them with their self-driving capabilities.
Most importantly, Tesla is behind some of the existing brands and those that marry classic automotive corporations. For example, Consumer Reports ranked General Motors’ Super Cruise ahead of Tesla’s autopilot system. MES Insights, an industry research provider, ranks Waymo, GM Cruise and Ford’s Argo AI startup ahead of Tesla in terms of experience and autonomous driving capabilities. Finally, Guidehouse Insights ranked Waymo, Ford and General Motors first, in a time and third respectively in their automated driving vehicle rating. Tesla ranked last out of the 18 corporations included in the analysis.
Battery generation could possibly not save Tesla’s stock
Many Tesla bulls easily admit that inventory valuation is not based on the automotive industry. Instead, they say that the company’s incredible battery generation and its possible effect on power distribution and the garage are the real drivers of long-term gains.
I don’t think the existing facts see it. At one point, Tesla was well ahead of the festival in terms of quality and scale of its battery plants, but that merit has eroded in recent years.
The benefits of the cargo are fading. As I noted in my Long Idea report on General Motors, the company’s Ultium battery is expected to charge as little as $120/kilowatt hour (kWh), and the company estimates that the charge will soon fall below $100/kWh. Volkswagen expects the prices of its ID series to succeed at $152/kWh until 2020. Across the industry, the average battery charge is $161/kWh, below $236/kWh in 2017.
By comparison, Cairn Energy Research Advisors estimates that Tesla batteries cost $158/kWh in 2019.
The benefits of diversity are fading. General Motors recently announced that its new battery offers up to 400 miles of battery life (a feat Tesla recently achieved in June 2020, despite several years of initial lead) and will be used in several of its new all-electric models. adding the Cruise. Luxury SUV Origin and Cadillac.
Rivian, a Ford-backed electric vehicle start-up, will offer the ability to equip your 2021 R1T with a diversity of more than 400 miles. BMW expects its i4 to provide a 370-mile diversity, which is the most sensible finish of the expected diversity of the Ford Mach-E Mustang. In addition, Lion Smart, an engineering company based in Germany that aims to expand the responses of energy workshops for automakers, has unveiled a BMW i3 with a diversity of 435 miles as proof of concept.
The Tesla festival on this front is getting bigger and more complex every day. All electric vehicle brands focus on expanding the diversity of their vehicles and are successful.
Production’s over. It’s hard to argue bluntly that Tesla’s battery production has some merit on its competitors.
By comparison, Tesla’s Gigafactory in Nevada has a theoretical capacity of 35 gigawatts, but production disorders keep the plant below its total capacity. There is little evidence that the wisdom or delight of this original plant translates into good luck in other plants.
The Shanghai Gigafactory, which hosts the Production of the Model 3 (and Y-style in 2021), is expected to manufacture its own batteries. In mid-2019, Bloomberg reported that Tesla had agreed to purchase LG Chem batteries for use in Cars produced in China and “planned to use several battery suppliers for its Chinese-made cars.”
Battery production in the newly structured and expected Berlin Gigafactory is still uncertain. When the plant was first announced, Elon Musk said it would produce batteries on site. However, in July 2020, Tesla submitted an updated environmental approval application to the local government and battery production plans were removed from the app.
Finally, the main points of the recently announced Gigafactory in Austin remain minimal, in addition to the fact that it will host the production of Cybertruck, Semi, Model 3 and Model Y. Unless it produces batteries at a larger capacity than any existing plant, Tesla can no longer claim to have a scale merit in battery production.
More generally, Tesla’s battery strategy leaves industry experts skeptical. Michael Ramsey, senior director and analyst at Gartner’s CIO Research Group, said, “Tesla is more willing to threaten that its battery doesn’t last 8 to ten years and face the effect on the back end.” In addition, Tesla’s resolution of using aluminum, in addition to nickel and cobalt, leads to a maximum range, but a superior chimney threat and a shorter life cycle, as reported through the Washington Post.
The promise of a revolutionary battery generation is like many of Mr. Musk’s promises: a distraction from the true basics of Tesla’s business.
Battery day is just another distraction. As usual, rumors about what is expected for this occasion overwhelm all the autonomy: a battery that lasts a million miles, technological advances in design and/or manufacturing, or that Tesla will be a battery supplier for the entire automotive industry. I don’t buy this hype any more than I deserve to have bought the last bass drum. The fact is that the number of delays lost through Musk far exceeds the number of satisfied rumors.
Chances are the chances are to hand over much more data about pedestrians. Electrek believes the key announcement will be how “Tesla plans to stop relying absolutely on third-party [battery] manufacturers.” Nothing shocking to be sure. I do not expect there to be news that remotely justifies the expectations of money embedded in the existing percentage price.
The name can simply be overlooked regardless of the news because it manifests itself for non-fundamental reasons. I think investors with everyday fiduciary jobs would be better off promoting that strength.
Doing the calculations: unrealistic expectations of the opposing DCF investigation
We’ve described the competitive forces that will affect Tesla, and now I’ll illustrate how overrated inventory is against those forces.
I also need to take a moment to recognize that the functionality of this inventory has rarely, or never, been a valuation issue and that it has generated massive returns for many investors. However, I think the time has come for those with day-to-day fiduciary jobs to reach the degree of threat they are posing as they own TSLA at a point close to existing points.
With its current value of $1,900, Tesla’s value is as if not only was successful on the scale and production of a mass automaker and capturing most of the electric vehicle market, but did so by keeping its vehicle well above average. Vouchers. Next, I use my opposite DCF style to quantify the money expectations built into Tesla’s existing percentage value.
Already evaluated for market dominance:
To justify its current value of $1,900 according to the stake, Tesla must:
See the math in this opposite DCF scenario. In this scenario, Tesla would get $524 billion in 11-year earnings (equivalent to 65% of EV’s projected earnings in 2027) and the company’s NOPAT in 2030 would be equivalent to $36.1 billion (compared to TTM $1.5 billion). By comparison, Toyota, the world’s second-largest automaker (in terms of profit), generated a $19.4 billion NOPAT TTM.
During the TTM period, two corporations generated a noPAT greater than the NOPAT in Tesla’s valuation: Apple (AAPL) at $54.5 billion and Microsoft (MSFT) at $44.8 billion.
Figure five compares the company’s implicit long-term NOPAT in this situation with its former NOPAT. In the worst case, TSLA presents a significant problem risk, as we will show.
Figure 5: The current valuation implies a drastic growth in profits
Figure 6 illustrates Tesla’s percent value expectations for baked expectations in the following 3 largest automakers through market capitalization: Toyota, Honda Motors, and General Motors. As you can see, the market is lately evaluating the 3 established operators as if profits were falling sharply and permanently, while Tesla’s profits would skyrocket.
Figure 6: Current valuation implies that Tesla’s profits jump and competition falls
No one expects implied profits through Tesla’s percentage price
According to Figure 7, in its current ASP of approximately $57,000, the existing percentage value implies that the company will sell 9.2 million cars by 2030, representing 35% of the overall electric vehicle market and 1747% [2] more of the expected sales in 2020. .
Figure 7: Existing assessment implies a significant increase in the number of cars sold
Sources: New Constructs, LLC, company depots, LMC Automotive, Clean Technica, Trefis Team and Morgan Stanley.
If Tesla’s ASP drops to $37k, or the average value of U.S. cars in 2019, its implied sales volume in 2030 increases to 14.2 million cars in 2030, or 54% of revenues from electric vehicles projected that year and 2730% more than expected. 2020.
Even if Tesla meets the highest positive estimate and sells 2 million cars through 2025, can it make a leap forward in production from 2 million to 9.2 million, or 14.2 million, by 2030?
Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas expects Tesla to sell 3 million games a year by 2030, less than a quarter of the affected sales volume in its valuation. The implied price of inventory based on sales of 3 million games in 2030 to ASP – $57k is $533/share – a 72% drop.
I think it’s highly unlikely that Tesla will ever sell such a high volume of cars to its existing ASP because the luxury car market isn’t very giant [3] compared to the entire automotive market. The fact is that there aren’t many other people on earth rich enough for such an expensive car.
Investors should therefore take into account implicit car sales based on ASP’s decline:
Figure 8 provides another insight into TSLA overvaluation at existing levels. It shows how many Tesla cars will have to sell to decrease ASPs compared to actual Toyota and GM vehicle sales in 2019.
Tesla’s valuation means that the company will sell more cars to a higher ASP than buyers, or more cars to a lower ASP than the world’s largest automakers.
Figure 8: Implicit sales of Tesla vehicles versus Tesla. Toyota and General Motors in 2019
In other words, Tesla’s existing assessment means that by 2030, the company will produce and sell at least 33% more cars than Toyota and 84% more than GM produces in 2019. Such an increase in production is far beyond the scope of opportunity. for a company that has fought so hard and took so long to succeed in 368,000 cars sold.
Meanwhile, the percentage of older operators means that their vehicle production (measured from 2019 levels) will have declined by 19% by 2030.
Owning or recommending TSLA itself to customers in those degrees seems, in my opinion, to be an option of fiduciary responsibility.
Significant even in a positive scenario
While I guess Tesla can succeed with a NOPAT margin of 7%, equivalent to Toyota, and increase its annual compound profit by 26% (according to consensus estimates up to 2025) over the next decade, the inventory is worth only $813/percent. today – a 57% drop in the existing percentage price. See the math in this opposite DCF scenario.
Figure nine compares the company’s implicit long-term NOPAT in this situation with its former NOPAT. This situation implies that Tesla’s NOPAT in 10 years will exceed $17 billion. For reference, Toyota’s TTM NOPAT is only 13% higher, worth $1 billion.
Figure 9: Tesla presents problem risk: DCF valuation scenario
More inconveniences in a more likely scenario
I think it’s likely that Tesla will never generate more than $5 billion in NOPAT, providing you with a basic price of $144 consistent with the stake. The maximum likely situation is that investors realize Tesla’s competitive disadvantages and reduce inventory to $250-300/share, where a White Knight customer can recover it.
The inclusion of the S-P 500 would probably not be the blessing some expect
The great progression at the end of 2Q20 was that, due to its fourth consecutive quarter of GAAP net income, Tesla would now be eligible for inclusion in sp 500. Many of these inclusions would result in billions of capital inflows into TSLA, as a fund. administrators and ETFs indexed to SP 500 would be forced to buy Tesla shares.
However, the effects of the inclusion of indices may be short-lived and not as significant as some investors expect. A new discussion paper written through professors from Ohio State University, Tulane University and Lancaster University, “Joining the S-P 500 index hurts businesses?” studies the effect on the business club on the S-P 500 index from 1997 to 2017.
More importantly, on the subject of Tesla’s inclusion, the document reaches two key conclusions. First, the index club has a positive transition effect, but does not have a long-term effect on inventory costs during the first part of the sampling era (1997-2007). Second, the percentage costs of companies joining the index do not show any positive transition effects or risk-adjusted long-term negative returns at the time of the sampling era (2008-2017). In other words, the effect of adding to the S-P 500 has been negative in recent years.
Catalyst: The market will possibly remain irrational, but those occasions can also lead to a stock drop.
While Tesla has reported 4 consecutive quarters of GAAP earnings, it is transparent from research that those benefits are sustainable.
Regulatory credits not only trick investors into Tesla’s profitability, but also teach them to focus on GAAP earnings, which can lead the company to lose expectations in the coming quarters. Unlike many other companies, consensus expectations for Tesla have not declined due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, expectations for EPS 2020 are lately $8.66 consistent with participation. Meanwhile, expectations for 2021 are almost twice as high, at $14.54 in line with the fee. If Tesla fails to meet or exceeds those expectations, actions can go down particularly to a more rational level.
In addition, research on the percentage of places on the market shows that music will prevent Tesla from at some point in the coming years. The current valuation of stocks with a higher market percentage than Tesla expects or even its optimistic analysts is a matter of time before analysts and investors have to reconcile their unrealistic hopes with reality.
What noise inverters lack with TSLA
Today, fewer investors are paying attention to the basic and precautionary symptoms hidden in monetary deposits. In contrast, due to the proliferation of noisy traders, the concentrate has a tendency towards technical trade, while ignoring high quality basic studies. Here is a brief summary for TSLA studio noise traders:
Refund to executives adds more risk
Tesla made headlines in early 2018 with a new payment plan for Elon Musk, which The New York Times described as the “boldest payment plan in the company’s history.” Fat is a way of describing the plan, which includes 12 tranches of expanding equity options on market capitalization, revenue, and adjusted EBITDA levels. I’d call it reckless.
In many ways, Musk’s payment plan reminds us of the misaligned incentives that led to the Valeant Explosion (VRX). Like Valeant’s plan, Tesla’s payment plan uses “non-GAAP” adjusted measures and outrageous valuation targets that inspire superior risk-taking without any duty because of the company’s basic fundamentals. Tesla’s repayment plan can simply inspire acquisitions that destroy value, percent shareholder dilution, profit control, and focus on keeping percentage prices higher, rather than creating a profitable long-term business.
Without a significant replacement in his executive repayment, Elon Musk is encouraged to increase his turnover without heeding prudent capital management. We present that the company’s payments committee associates the payment with the improvement of ROIC, which is similar to creating shareholder value.
Privileged information and short interest
The use of inside information has been minimal over the last 12 months, with 15,000 shares purchased and 253,000 shares sold for an effect of 238,000 shares sold. These sales make up less than 1% of the stock in circulation.
Lately, 11.9 million shares have been sold in the open, equivalent to 6% of notable stocks and less than a day to cover. The number of short-lived shares has decreased by 6% since last month.
Main hotspots discovered in money deposits through my company’s Robo-Analyst technology
As investors focus more on core studies, the generation of study automation is needed to analyze all the major critical monetary points in monetary presentations, as noted in the Harvard Business School and MIT Sloan article, “Core Earnings: New Data and Evidence.”
Below are the main points of the changes I make to the robo-Analyst effects in Tesla’s 10-Q and 10-K:
Profit account: I made $1.5 billion in changes, with an effect of $1.3 billion in non-operating expenses (5% of revenue). You can view all changes made to tesla’s earnings account here.
Balance sheet: I made $9.7 billion in changes to calculate the invested capital with a net minimum of $412 million. One of the notable changes maximum $1.2 billion in asset repayments. This adjustment accounted for 5% of the published net assets. You can see all the changes to Tesla’s balance sheet here.
Valuation: I made $62.1 billion in changes with a minimum net shareholder price of $47.5 billion. The significant maximum adjustment in shareholder price $37.7 billion in inventory characteristics for notable employees. This adjustment represents 11% of Tesla’s market capitalization. See all Tesla rating changes here.
Unattractive budget that TSLA
The following budgets score unattractively or worse and are assigned to Tesla.
Disclosure: David Trainer, Kyle Guske II and Matt Shuler do not get any remuneration for writing about an action, sector, taste or express theme.
[1] Tesla is not officially included in the JD Power ranking because, according to Doug Betts, president of JD Power’s automotive division, “Unlike other manufacturers, Tesla does not allow us to investigate homeowners in 15 states where it is required.” However, we had to collect a sufficiently large pattern of homeowner surveys in the other 35 states and, from that base, calculate Tesla’s score. »
[2] Note that Tesla’s sales target in 2020 is 500,000 vehicles.
[3] See BMW vehicle statistics from 2007 to 2019, Lexus from 2018 to 2019, Audi from 2005 to 2019 and Mercedes from 2018 to 2019.
[4] ASP calculated as sales/number of cars sold.
New Constructs provides unheard-of data on the basics and valuation of public and personal companies. Combine human experience with NLP/ML/AI (feat) technologies
New Constructs provides unheard-of data on the basics and valuation of public and personal companies. By combining human experience with LNP/ML/AI technologies (presented through Harvard Business School), we eliminate darkness from the dark corners (e.g. footnotes) from thousands of monetary presentations to uncover critical details. As noted in HBS-MIT Sloan, Core Earnings: New Data and Evidence, our incredible knowledge generates unique and comprehensive qualifications, valuation models, and study teams for debt and equity investments.
This article compares our research from a megacapitalization company with other primary suppliers. The appendix indicates precisely how we compare ourselves.
See what HBS teachers – MIT Sloan say in the article:
Investigates:
«… NC’s dataset provides a new opportunity to study the homes of non-operating parts revealed in 10-K, and to read about the extent to which the market has its implications.” – page 19
Choose actions:
“Trading methods that take advantage of cross-cutting differences in the benefits of the business transition produce returns of 7 to 10% consistent with the year.” – Page 1
Avoid losses from knowledge of other companies:
«… Many quantitative data applicable to the account of effects collected through NC are easily identifiable in Compustat …” – page 13
Build models:
“Basic revenue [calculated using the new New Constructs dataset] provides predictive force for functionality measures from year to year… which is incremental compared to its opposite numbers in the existing period.” – page 3-4
Exploit market inefficiencies:
“These effects recommend that changes made through analysts to perceive greater perception of core benefits be incomplete and that secondary parts known through NC produce a measure of core profits that adds to other operational functionality measures to expect a long-running diversity of revenue measures.” – page 26
Comply with fiduciary obligations:
“An appropriate measure of accounting functionality to forecast long-term functionality requires detailed research of all quantitative functionality data detailed in the annual report, adding those presented only in footnotes and control reports.” – page 31
Fund managers, advisors and elite establishments have counted on us to reduce threats and improve functionality since 2004. See the testimonies of our visitors. The main media presents our investigation.
David is CEO of New Constructs (www.newconstructs.com). David is a leading investment strater and corporate finance expert. He was a member of FASB’s Investor Advisory Committee for five years. He is the bankruptcy “Modern Tools for Valuation” in The Valuation Handbook (Wiley Finance 2010).