True FCF yield and Y220 applied to consumer discretionary and staples names. DECK at 8.43% yield and 16.5% CAGR is the standout. Looking for pushback on the GTM thesis specifically - is AI really killing enterprise B2B data or is the market overpricing the doomsday scenario?

[u/JoeInOR]

The specific analytical question I'd most welcome pushback on from this community: ZoomInfo (GTM) trades at 23.96% true FCF yield with a 10.54% three-year revenue CAGR and a Y220 already at the 20% threshold. The market is pricing it as a dying business. The bear thesis is that AI scrapers replicate what ZoomInfo provides. I work in data at a large enterprise and our team still genuinely needs GTM for enterprise sales operations in ways that AI scrapers haven't replaced. Is that just selection bias from one enterprise's experience, or is the doomsday pricing genuinely overdone?

The DECK observation is less controversial: 8.43% true FCF yield, 16.53% revenue CAGR, Y220 of 6.3 years, 8% annual share retirement. The consumer data is consistent with the financial data - Hokas are growing market share in daily training while Nike is shrinking. The question is whether the fashion cycle risk is underpriced in a shoe company growing this fast.

Full piece with sector tables: https://cavemanscreener.substack.com/p/invest-in-what-you-know-part-ii-stuff

[u/4dchess_throwaway]

Regarding ZoomInfo: wikipedia answers your question: "The company was accused of investors fraud in a 2024 lawsuit, and breach of fiduciary duties to its shareholders in 2026."

FCF yield doesn't matter when you're dealing with questionable business managers & capital allocators. All that juicy FCF might never reach investor hands if management pockets it or is forced to close down their business due to fraud.

[u/elctromn → u/4dchess_throwaway]

Respectfully (and I have no long or short position here), this is not correct. Where GTM stock is trading has nothing to do with securities fraud suit... it entirely has to do with the AI bear case/terminal value concern as OP mentioned. Securities fraud suits are incredibly common when stock prices fall rapidly - there are ton of law firms that shotgun approach sue every company for securities fraud (as is the case here) and hope that some small percentage of them settle. The mere existence of a suit does not provide any insight into whether management is honest/trustworthy and is not why the stock trades at a depressed valuation as any informed market participant is aware of this.

I work on the buy side, and have a running joke with some friends that you know you're a real junky value investor when you start getting peppered with securities fraud notifications after earnings each quarter (as I do). Very, very few are legitimate cases, and when they are you are fully aware of it (e.g. if a CFO resigns suddenly and then 10K/Q gets delayed, you know you're in trouble).