Ferrari N.V. (RACE): A Bull Case Theory
We came across a bullish thesis on Ferrari N.V. (RACE) on Hidden Market Gems' Substack. In this article, we will summarize the bulls' thesis on RACE. Ferrari N.V. (RACE)'s share was trading at $482.61 as of 6th June. RACE's trailing and forward P/E were 47.96 and 46.51 respectively according to Yahoo Finance.
Photo by M on Unsplash
Porsche and Ferrari both build high-performance, high-prestige cars, but only one commands mythological status in the eyes of the market. While Porsche is undeniably profitable and respected, with a backlog of eager buyers, it still grapples with convincing investors it's a luxury brand. Ferrari, on the other hand, exudes effortless exclusivity — its brand is its moat, requiring no explanation, no reinvention, and certainly no scaling to justify its premium.
When Porsche went public in 2022, it did so amid much fanfare, billed as the German Ferrari and achieving a €75 billion market cap, briefly even eclipsing its parent, Volkswagen. Yet the structure of the IPO revealed the reality: Porsche AG remains 75% owned by VW, which is controlled by Porsche SE, the family holding of the Porsche-Piëch dynasty that itself owns a stake in VW. The supposed 'unlock' of value is tangled in circular ownership, leaving the equity story diluted by complexity. In contrast, Ferrari's 2015 spin-off from Fiat Chrysler was clean and surgical. Investors bought direct access to the brand, without holding company baggage or operational entanglements.
One share equated one vote, one slice of the legend. Ferrari doesn't have to chase scale, electrification, or strategic pivots to remain compelling — its very identity as Ferrari is self-sustaining. That clarity and purity are what the market rewards: Ferrari trades as a luxury icon; Porsche, despite all its engineering prowess, still trades as a car company. The distinction isn't performance — it's perception, and Ferrari owns it.
Previously, we covered a on Axon (AXON) by the same author, emphasizing its AI-driven ecosystem for law enforcement, strong recurring revenue, and ambitious vision to become the global public safety OS. Despite a premium valuation, Axon's high-margin TASER segment, scalable cloud offerings, and clean balance sheet position it as a long-term compounder and has appreciated by approximately 5% since our recent coverage. Ferrari (RACE) offers a contrasting angle, less about growth mechanics and more about brand purity.
Ferrari N.V. (RACE) is not on our list of the 30 Most Popular Stocks Among Hedge Funds. As per our database, 51 hedge fund portfolios held RACE at the end of the first quarter which was 37 in the previous quarter. While we acknowledge the risk and potential of RACE as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock.
READ NEXT: 8 Best Wide Moat Stocks to Buy Now and 30 Most Important AI Stocks According to BlackRock.
Disclosure: None. This article was originally published at Insider Monkey.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
13 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Massive Tech Layoffs May Be the Fault of a 2017 Trump Tax Cut
The good times in Silicon Valley are over—at least as far as the current generation of coders is concerned. The software industry is shrinking and, since 2023, the tech industry has been hemorrhaging jobs at an astounding rate. Workers who would've been secure several years ago are now out on their asses. While the reasons for this are diverse (AI is often discussed as a potential culprit and the overall economy has had its ups and downs over the past several years), one potential driver could also be the tax cuts that Trump passed in 2017. It turns out that a little-known provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 altered a longstanding loophole, known as Section 174, that allowed the tech industry to offload the cost of its research and development operations onto the federal government. Prior to the TCJA, tech companies could deduct 100 percent of the costs of R&D, allowing tech businesses the freedom to commit significant resources towards innovation. Bloomberg reports that, as Congress sought to find a way to offset the cost of giving big tax cuts to billionaires, one place where they discovered fat to trim was the tech industry's R&D funding. 2017's bill shifted the deduction from a full write-off to funding that would have to be parsed out over a period of several years. The provision that pared back the funding did not kick in until 2022, however. Not long after it went into effect, the tech industry began shedding jobs like nobody's business. Indeed, 2023 and 2024 were historically bad years for the tech industry, with major companies like Meta, Amazon, and Google booting workers by the thousands. Quartz took a deeper look at the ties between this policy shift and the tech industry's troubles and now speculates that there is a positive correlation: …the delayed change to a decades-old tax provision — buried deep in the 2017 tax law — has contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying, white-collar jobs. That's the picture that emerges from a review of corporate filings, public financial data, analysis of timelines, and interviews with industry insiders. One accountant, working in-house at a tech company, described it as a 'niche issue with broad impact,' echoing sentiments from venture capital investors also interviewed for this article. Some spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive political matters. Quartz also notes that the policy change would have translated into a loss of income for a variety of positions: The tax benefits of salaries for engineers, product and project managers, data scientists, and even some user experience and marketing staff — all of which had previously reduced taxable income in year one — now had to be spread out over five- or 15-year periods. The reality of the government's subsidization of Silicon Valley is particularly ironic given the rabid anti-government sentiment currently circulating in the industry. People like Marc Andreessen would have you believe that tech's R&D can be funded through private money alone, despite no reputable track record of it happening. Elon Musk's DOGE, meanwhile, recently attacked the very parts of the government that have been responsible for helping companies like his own (Tesla) flourish. It's yet another sign that America's billionaires are so greed-addled that they're willing to shoot a gift horse in the mouth and call it victory. Not everybody in the tech industry is an idiot, however. There is currently a concerted effort to reestablish the government's R&D subsidy. The American Innovation and R&D Competitiveness Act, which was introduced by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, would restore the full flow of federal dollars for tech's development needs. Last month, representatives from major tech firms reportedly signaled to the Trump administration that they might pull back from previous pledges of U.S. investment if the full tax subsidy didn't return.
Politico
14 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump may have to choose: Making trade deals or keeping his car tariffs
President Donald Trump is telling domestic audiences he won't cut his 25 percent tariffs on foreign cars as part of any trade deals he negotiates. But other countries — who collectively send millions of vehicles to the U.S. each year — haven't gotten that message. Trading partners like the EU, Japan and South Korea are laboring under the impression that the auto tariffs, which Trump imposed in April, are still on the table, according to two people familiar with the talks between Trump officials and those countries, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. If Trump is really unwilling to lower or eliminate his tariffs on foreign cars, it could prove to be a major hurdle to securing meaningful trade deals with some of the country's top trading partners. Japan, South Korea and Germany sold more than $121 billion in cars and car parts in the U.S. in 2024. The White House did not answer when asked if auto tariffs were on the table for negotiations and instead reiterated the goal of the tariffs. 'No president has taken a greater interest in reviving America's once-dominant auto industry than President Trump, and the auto industry is a key focus of the Trump administration's trade and economic policies,' said Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson. 'Discussions with our major trading partners continue, and the Trump administration continues to seek better trade deals for American industries and workers.' A decision to lift the tariffs for more countries, particularly those whose companies compete most fiercely with American carmakers, risks alienating a powerful manufacturing bloc and undercutting a central tenet of Trump's trade agenda — forcing companies to build more products in the U.S. The Trump administration has assured American automakers that when it comes to auto tariffs being used as a bargaining chip, they have 'nothing to worry about,' according to a person familiar with discussions between the administration and Detroit's 'Big Three' auto companies, granted anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the talks. Trump has said a deal to lower the tariff on a small number of British cars, announced last month, was an exception. 'I won't do that deal with cars' for other countries, Trump said when announcing the terms of negotiation with the U.K. on May 8. The British auto brand Rolls-Royce is 'a very special car and it's a very limited number too. It's not one of the monster car companies that makes millions of cars,' he noted. Even that agreement, which lowered the tariff on 100,000 cars, less than 1 percent of total U.S. annual car sales, drew a sharp rebuke from U.S. automakers. 'This hurts American automakers, suppliers, and auto workers,' the American Automotive Policy Council, which represents General Motors, Ford and Stellantis, said at the time, saying they hoped it 'does not set a precedent for future negotiations with Asian and European competitors.' The tension between the two goals — boosting domestic auto production while also negotiating delicate agreements to lower trade barriers — highlights the challenge facing the administration as it races to secure deals with dozens of countries before the president's double-digit 'reciprocal' tariffs are slated to kick back in next month. 'To ease the sting of those tariffs on the auto sectors for Korea and Japan is of course a high priority for them,' said Michael Beeman, a former assistant U.S. trade representative who focused on Japan and South Korea. 'I think for those countries, to be able to declare success from the talks at home, they would expect some sort of consideration.' The auto tariffs have already been a sticking point in negotiations with Japan and South Korea, both of which are invested in maintaining a high level of domestic auto manufacturing. Auto exports from South Korea to the U.S. have exploded over the past 20 years, from $8.7 billion in 2005 to $37.3 billion in 2024, according to data collected by the Census Bureau. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has said publicly that any trade deal with Japan would have to result in lower auto tariffs. Now, as the two countries are on their fifth round of talks, with a planned meeting between Ishiba and Trump at the G7 in Canada in two weekends, both countries are projecting optimism about a deal. 'I think we'll also need to address, at a minimum, the auto [Section] 232 tariffs,' said Wendy Cutler, a former negotiator with the U.S. trade representative's office and the vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said when asked what it would take to get a deal with Japan. Cutler said any deal with Japan or South Korea could have a lower tariff for a certain number of vehicles, similar to the deal with the U.K. Or, 'they could also just be very vague and say that the U.S. notes Japan's concern on the auto tariffs, and both sides agree to negotiate possible lowering of the tariffs in this detailed negotiation to follow,' she said. Trump has already agreed to lower tariffs on automobiles once. In his first trade agreement since imposing a global 10 percent tariff on nearly every U.S. trading partner and potentially higher rates on more than 60 countries, Trump struck an agreement with the U.K. that would allow the country to ship 100,000 vehicles into the country at a 10 percent tariff — lower than the current 25 percent tariff on automobiles and auto parts. The deal drew condemnation from American automakers, who noted that it meant a lower tariff on cars imported from the U.K. than on North American-made cars that include U.S.-made parts. They expressed concern that lowering tariffs with major auto manufacturing countries like Japan, South Korea and Germany would make it more expensive to build cars with parts from North America — creating an unfair playing field and effectively undercutting the administration's effort to boost domestic auto manufacturing. Vehicles made across the integrated North American supply chain still face a 25 percent tariff on non-U.S. made content, even if the vehicle is compliant with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that Trump negotiated in his first term. The Trump administration has continued to press foreign automakers to move production to the U.S. Last week, Trump met with German automakers, who offered $100 billion in investment in the U.S., according to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Trump — and Republicans on Capitol Hill — say those commitments are a sign that tariffs are working. 'They make BMWs in South Carolina, Volvo. They make Mercedes in Alabama,' Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) pointed out during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing Wednesday. Under Trump, 'They're talking about making the engine now in South Carolina. They're talking about more content in South Carolina.' There has yet to be an uptick in U.S. auto manufacturing, however, a reminder that the investment pledges will take years to fully develop. Auto manufacturing jobs held steady between April and May, though there were 2,240 fewer auto manufacturing jobs in May, compared to 2024, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While welcoming the announcements, the Trump White House has given no indication the investment pledges will convince the president to lower auto tariffs on foreign countries. 'I mean, unless somebody shows me that there's another kind of a car that's comparable to a Rolls-Royce,' Trump said in May, 'and there aren't too many.'
Axios
16 minutes ago
- Axios
President promotes "Trump accounts" for newborns as part of "big beautiful bill"
Infants may soon be the newest stock market investors if President Trump gets his way. Why it matters: The president Monday gathered a roomful of high-profile CEOs to tout his proposal to place $1,000 into an investment account for every U.S. baby. The program would deliver a one-time $1,000 government contribution for every U.S. citizen born between Jan. 1, 2024, and Dec. 31, 2028. The accounts would be privately held, tax deferred, and set up to track a U.S. stock index fund. They would be open to additional private contributions from sources including families, employers and religious institutions. The big picture: The so-called "Trump accounts" proposal is part of the president's " One Big Beautiful Bill." The White House says it would help newborns start their lives on the right track. "This is a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy, to lift up the next generation and they'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers," Trump said at the roundtable. Inside the room: Supporters in attendance at the White House roundtable Monday included Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, Dell CEO Michael Dell, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. By the numbers: The power of compounding interest varies considerably based on when you started invested. For example, $1,000 invested in the S&P 500 five decades ago would be worth nearly $350,000 today, according to Bespoke Investment Group. But $1,000 invested in August 2000 after the Dot Com bubble burst would be worth only $6,200 today.
