On Wednesday, my Foolish colleague Anders Bylund explained why he thinks that Netflix Inc. (NASDAQ:NFLX) may have an intrinsic value above $500 per share. Anders runs through three possible scenarios for Netflix, Inc. (NASDAQ:NFLX): One is perfection, one is disaster, and one is a middle-of-the-road “likely” case. According to his analysis, Netflix, Inc. (NASDAQ:NFLX) shares could be worth $126 even in a disaster scenario, providing shareholders with a significant cushion in case things go wrong in the future.
However, here at The Motley Fool, we like to indulge opposing opinions. As a Netflix, Inc. (NASDAQ:NFLX) bear, I’d like to explain why Netflix, Inc. (NASDAQ:NFLX) may be worth less than even Anders’ worst-case-scenario valuation of $126 per share. Netflix, Inc. (NASDAQ:NFLX) will face two main impediments in the next few years: growing saturation of the domestic streaming market, and rising competition, particularly from Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMZN)‘s Prime Instant Video service.
In the past, Netflix, Inc. (NASDAQ:NFLX) CEO Reed Hastings has said he believes the company ultimately has the opportunity to attract between 60 million and 90 million subscribers in the United States. There are around 115 million households in the U.S. today. Assuming only one subscription per household, Netflix has a long-term goal of achieving 50% to 75% household penetration. At the end of 2012, Netflix had more than 27.15 million domestic streaming subscribers, having added roughly 5.5 million subscribers in 2012. In Anders’ most pessimistic scenario, Netflix doubles its U.S. membership to 54 million by 2018, slightly below the low end of Netflix’s estimated long-term market opportunity.
However, Reed Hastings has admitted that Netflix doesn’t have a compelling enough offering today to reach its goal of 60 million to 90 million subscribers. Whereas Netflix’s legacy DVD-by-mail offering has a comprehensive catalog, Netflix has been selective when adding content to its online offering. As I wrote in January, the reason for this discrepancy is that the first-sale doctrine gives Netflix significant leverage against content owners in the DVD business. By contrast, streaming content is much more expensive, because Netflix has no alternative to get content aside from signing a licensing agreement. In light of Netflix’s limited streaming video selection, it may be unable to generate the universal appeal that would be necessary to penetrate more than 50% of U.S. households.
Eventually, Hastings hopes to overcome this obstacle through the “virtuous cycle.” According to this theory, as Netflix’s subscriber base grows, the company will be able to expand its content budget, which will allow Netflix to offer additional content and therefore attract new members. However, growing competition, particularly from Amazon, will drive up content prices, making it harder for Netflix to afford a comprehensive content library, even if its total content budget grows.
On the most recent earnings call, Netflix CFO David Wells said customers have become more satisfied with the Netflix streaming offering because consumers have lowered their expectations and now understand that Internet TV services won;t have a comprehensive library like Netflix’s DVD service. However, Netflix bulls (and management) need to lower their own expectations. With a less-than-comprehensive content library, Netflix shouldn’t expect to reach the same level of household penetration as cable/satellite TV. Time Warner Inc (NYSE:TWX)‘s HBO, along with its sister station Cinemax, reaches approximately 41 million U.S. subscribers. Netflix, which is moving to a very similar business model (a few original series and a strong but not comprehensive selection of movies), shouldn’t expect to grow much beyond that level. Netflix may seem inexpensive at $8 per month, but it also provides much less value than traditional cable or satellite TV, which includes much more content, including first-run TV shows and live sports.