vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"It's not either or.  Much of the time the value of the stock has some tangible relation to the financial prospects of the company. The value of Ford and GM stock rose when they were selling a lot of cars, and collapsed when their cars became unpopular. Other companies (Enron for example) frankly 'cook the books' to make it appear they are prospering, when they are actually drowning in debt and non-performing assets. So called ""penny stocks"" have both low prices and low volumes and are susceptible to ""pump and dump"" schemes, where a manipulator buys a bunch of the stock, touts the stock to the world, pointing to the recent increase in price. They then sell out to all the new buyers, and the price collapses.  If you are going to invest in the stock market it's up to you to figure out which companies are which."
"What benefit do I get from buying a share The value of any financial asset is its ability to generate cash in the future, and thus the ""value"" of a share is heavily influenced by the dividends it pays and the equity value.  The equity value can be calculated different ways. Two common ways are to just take ""book"" value, meaning assets - liabilities, or you can look at the projected free cash flows of the company discounted back to the present time. Voting rights don't typically influence a share price except in hostile takeover scenarios (meaning someone buys up a lot of shares to have more influence in company decisions)"
I think it's safe to say that Apple cannot grow in value in the next 20 years as fast as it did in the prior 20. It rose 100 fold to a current 730B valuation. 73 trillion dollars is nearly half the value of all wealth in the world.  Unfortunately, for every Apple, there are dozens of small companies that don't survive. Long term it appears the smaller cap stocks should beat large ones over the very long term if only for the fact that large companies can't maintain that level of growth indefinitely.  A non-tech example - Coke has a 174B market cap with 46B in annual sales. A small beverage company can have $10M in sales, and grow those sales 20-25%/year for 2 decades before hitting even $1B in sales. When you have zero percent of the pie, it's possible to grow your business at a fast pace those first years.
The value of an option has 2 components, the extrinsic or time value element and the intrinsic value from the difference in the strike price and the underlying asset price. With either an American or European option the intrinsic value of a call option can be 'locked in' any time by selling the same amount of the underlying asset (whether that be a stock, a future etc). Further, the time value of any option can be monitised by delta hedging the option, i.e. buying or selling an amount of the underlying asset weighted by the measure of certainty (delta) of the option being in the money at expiry. Instead, the extra value of the American option comes from the financial benefit of being able to realise the value of the underlying asset early. For a dividend paying stock this will predominantly be the dividend. But for non-dividend paying stocks or futures, the buyer of an in-the-money option can realise their intrinsic gains on the option early and earn interest on the profits today. But what they sacrifice is the timevalue of the option. However when an option becomes very in the money and the delta approaches 1 or -1, the discounting of the intrinsic value (i.e. the extra amount a future cash flow is worth each day as we draw closer to payment) becomes larger than the 'theta' or time value decay of the option. Then it becomes optimal to early exercise, abandon the optionality and realise the monetary gains upfront. For a non-dividend paying stock, the value of the American call option is actually the same as the European. The spot price of the stock will be lower than the forward price at expiry discounted by the risk free rate (or your cost of funding). This will exactly offset the monetary gain by exercising early and banking the proceeds. However for an option on a future, the value today of the underlying asset (the future) is the same as at expiry and its possible to fully realise the interest earned on the money received today. Hence the American call option is worth more. For both examples the American put option is worth more, slightly more so for the stock.
Some economist please ELI5 what I’m missing here. In the equities market, it is considered an economic benefit when exchanges settle trades in smaller increments. When we went from eighths to decimal, for example. How is that direction into smaller divisible units different from facilitating trade with pennies for economic goods?
The Kirk Kleckner is the best unique valuation expert’s company in the United states. Business valuation requires an understanding of the automotive industry’s fast-changing business experts opportunities and risks. The organization has particular expertise in identifying Business valuation expert and operational dangers and choose their impact on fee. Most dealership valuation professionals rely on their expert schooling and revel in in serving the private quarter from the outside.
Your question seems to be premised on your personal understanding of economics, and asking that people present to you an explanation of business transactions that is consistent with your own personal worldview. But your premises are flawed, so an accurate answer should not accept them. The basics of trade is that something is worth more to one person than another; a wheat farmer has more wheat that they could possibly eat, and so it has no value other than what they can get by selling it, while an accountant will starve if they do not have any food and thus is willing to pay what the market demands. The two parties can both be better off by having a transaction. The other motivation for transactions is that parties may disagree as to what something is worth; even if one party will lose from the transaction, they may both believe they will profit.
In the equity markets, the P/E is usually somewhere around 15.  The P/E can be viewed as the inverse of the rate of a perpetuity. Since the average is 15, and the E/P of that would be 6.7%, r should be 6.7% on average. If your business is growing, the growth rate can be incorporated like so: As you can see, a high g would make the price negative, in essence the seller should actually pay someone to take the business, but in reality, r is determined from the p and an estimated g. For a business of any growth rate, it's best to compare the multiple to the market, so for the average business in the market with your business's growth rate and industry, that P/E would be best applied to your company's income.
"Goods that are exchanged for financial value, which you can use to increase your own standard of living at the expense of the people importing your goods. What good's a toaster if you spent part of your nest egg to get it?  I've been ""emphasizing"" a bottom line this entire time!"
"That's a pretty good question for a six-year-old! In addition to the good answers which point out that expectations are priced in, let's deny the premises of the question: Sales do not increase the value of a company; a company could be, for example, losing money on every sale. Share prices are (at least in theory) correlated with profits.  So let's suppose that company X is unprofitable 320 days a year and is relying upon sales in late November and December to be in the black for the year. (Hence ""black Friday"".)  Carefully examine the supposition of this scenario: we have a company that is so unprofitable that it must gamble everything on successfully convincing bargain hunting consumers in a weak economy to buy stuff they don't actually need from them and not a competitor. Why would this inspire investor confidence? There are plenty of companies that fail to meet their sales targets at Christmas, for plenty of reasons."
It would be hard to say everything is overvalued when value is relative between any two items or services.  Most large corporate entities will hedge their positions, so even if a subset of securities or commodities moves negatively they preserve their value.    Most of the people that promote these types of ideas are selling something that has an inverse correlation with the market, so they hope to get others to buy in and drive up prices for them so they can cash out.  Or they are doomsday-conspiracy types.
Step 2 (idea worth nothing, traction everything) is about reducing risk for the person buying the company. But traction is a result, not an action. Your idea and your implementation are critical to your achieving traction. That does not mean you need the next industry destroying idea nor that all you need is an idea. But you do need a good idea of some sort for a new business.
In software sales. 90% of the time the purchaser bids out the sale to 4-8 vendors who then have to compete to win the business. One team eats, the rest go hungry. On large enterprise sales, the process can last over a year. It really hurts when you lose those.
"A bit strange but okay. The way I would think about this is again that you need to determine for what purpose you're computing this, in much the same way you would if you were to build out the model. The IPO valuation is not going to be relevant to the accretion/dilution analysis unless you're trying to determine whether the transaction was net accretive at exit. But that's a weird analysis to do. For longer holding periods like that you're more likely to look at IRR, not EPS. EPS is something investors look at over the short to medium term to get a sense of whether the company is making good acquisition decisions. And to do that short-to-medium term analysis, they look at earnings. Damodaran would say this is a shitty way of looking at things and that you should probably be looking at some measure of ROIC instead, and I tend to agree, but I don't get paid to think like an investor, I get paid to sell shit to them (if only in indirect fashion). The short answer to your question is that no, you should not incorporate what you are calling liquidation value when determining accretion/dilution, but only because the market typically computes accretion/dilution on a 3-year basis tops. I've never put together a book or seen a press release in my admittedly short time in finance that says ""the transaction is estimated to be X% accretive within 4 years"" - that just seems like an absurd timeline. Final point is just that from an accounting perspective, a gain on a sale of an asset is not going to get booked in either EBITDA or OCF, so just mechanically there's no way for the IPO value to flow into your accretion/dilution analysis there, even if you are looking at EBITDA/shares. You could figure the gain on sale into some kind of adjusted EBITDA/shares version of EPS, but this is neither something I've ever seen nor something that really makes sense in the context of using EPS as a standardized metric across the market. Typically we take OUT non-recurring shit in EPS, we don't add it in.
From an amateur: Prices aren't entirely rational - they float, and the day to day prices of stock are an excellent example of this.  So how would you assign an appropriate value to it?  There is a logical minimum, the scrap value of the assets and the cash on hand.  However, that doesn't take into account the expectations for growth people have for that company.  If everyone thought a $100 mil company was going to be worth $200 mil by the end of next year, they'd still be willing to pay at a $150 mil price point now. That said, the market is big enough that it's easy enough to find someone who has those growth expectations.  They still expect it to be worth more in the future, and they'll buy it now.  And if no one buys at that price point, that's when prices start to fall.
" Again, this ratio can be ""massaged"" by the company. Asset values have to be estimated based on current market values (think about trying to determine how much a company's building is worth) unless, of course, mark-to-market is suspended. This involves some estimating. Again, I don't use this value alone in determing whether or not a stock is cheap. I consider a price/book value under 10 a good number. Cash - I look at growth in the cash balance of a company as a way to grade a company's cash flow statement. Is the cash account growing or not? As they say, ""Cash is King"". This is one measurement that can not be ""massaged"" which is why I like it. The P/E and Price/Book can be ""tuned"" but in the end the company cannot hide a shrinking cash balance. Return Ratios - Return on Equity is a measure of the amount of earnings being generated for a given amount of equity (ROE = earnings/(assets - liabilities)). This attempts to measure how effective the company is at generating earnings with a given amount of equity. There is also Return on Assets which measures earnings returns based on the company's assets. I tend to think an ROE over 15% is a good number. These measurements rely on a company accurately reporting its financial condition. Remember, in the US companies are allowed to falsify accounting reports if approved by the government so be careful. There are others who simply don't follow the rules and report whatever numbers they like without penalty. There are many others. These are just a few of the more popular ones. There are many other considerations to take into account as other posters have pointed out."
You could also look at your growth in online subscribers as a metric for valuing your company. A progressive increase in subscribers is one of the signs of a healthy online business, and vice versa. Your subscriber growth, site visitations, returning customer percentages and other subscriber based metrics should not be ignored when valuing your company.
Day traders see a dip, buy stocks, then sell them 4 mins later when the value climbed to a small peak. What value is created? Is the company better off from that trade? The stocks were already outside of company hands, so the trade doesn't affect them at all. You've just received money from others for no contribution to society. A common scenario is a younger business having a great idea but not enough capital funds to actually get the business going. So, investors buy shares which they can sell later on at a higher value. The investor gets value from the shares increasing over time, but the business also gets value of receiving money to build the business.
As yet another explanation of why it does not really matter, you can look at this from the valuation point of view. Stock price is the present value of its future cash flows (be it free cash flow of the firm or dividends, depending on the model). Let's have a look at the dividends case. Imagine, the price of the stock is based on only three dividends streams $5 dollars each: dividend to be paid today, in year 1, and in year 2. Each should be discounted back to today (say, at 10%), except today's dividend, since today is now.  Once that dividend is paid, it is no longer in the stream of cash flows. So if we just delete that first $5 from the formula, the price will adjust itself down by the amount of the dividend to $8.68. NOTE that this is a very simple example, since in reality cash flows streams are arguably infinite and because there are many other factors affecting stock price. But simply for your understanding, this example should provide you with the reason simply from the valuation perspective.
And the kind folk at Yahoo Finance came to the same conclusion.  Keep in mind, book value for a company is like looking at my book value, all assets and liabilities, which is certainly important, but it ignores my earnings.  BAC (Bank of America) has a book value of $20, but trades at $8. Some High Tech companies have negative book values, but are turning an ongoing profit, and trade for real money.
There are mechanisms for determining how valuable a property is without resorting to artificial government valuations that can rise/drop in relation to the local economy.  The most interesting I'm aware of is to force a sale of a property for X times the tax the person is paying.  So for instance if I value my home/business property at 100K and the forced-sale-factor is 100x then I would pay at **least** 1k/year for taxes maybe a bit more just to be safe.  This also solves the imminent domain issue.  That is a bit science-fictiony though.  In reality using an average of similar recent sales, while imperfect, is good enough.   &gt;Diversification is important in all kinds of investments.  I agree but governments can always raise rates or cut services or borrow in hard times, in general the property values should track fairly closely other forms of economic activity.
Earnings per share are not directly correlated to share price. NV Energy, the company you cited as an example, is an electric utility. The growth patterns and characteristics of utilities are well-defined, so generally speaking the value of the stock is driven by the quality of the company's cash flow. A utility with a good history of dividend increases, a dividend that is appropriate given the company's fiscal condition, (ie. A dividend that is not more than 80% of earnings) and a good outlook will be priced competitively. For other types of companies cash flow or even profits do not matter -- the prospects of future earnings matter. If a growth stock (say Netflix as an example) misses its growth projections for a quarter, the stock value will be punished.
They're not going to look very hard at the asset value (except for actual cash in the bank), which doesn't bear much relationship to the real value of the company. More likely they will look at the last three years' earnings and choose a target P/E ratio based on that. The owner's share depends entirely on how much of the business they choose to sell. If the business is worth $60M and they want to raise $20M for themselves, then that means selling 33% of the company. If they want to raise $20M for the business as well, then that means selling half the company and retaining ownership of the other half, which is now worth $80M because of the cash infusion. But many stock exchanges will have minimum requirements for the percentage of the shares that are trading freely, so they will have to sell at least that much.
No.  Mark-to-market valuation relies on using a competitive market of public traders to determine the share price --- from free-market trading among independent traders who are not also insiders.   Any professional valuation would see through the promotional nature of the share offer. It is pretty obvious that the purchaser of a share could not turn around and sell their share for $10, unless the 'free hosting' that is worth most of the $10 follows it... and that's more of hybrid of stock and bond than pure stock.  It is also pretty obvious that selling a few shares for $10 does not mean one could sell 10,000,000 shares for $10, because of the well known decreasing marginal value effect from economics. While this question seems hypothetical, as a practical matter offering to sell share of unregistered securities in a startup for $10 to the general public,  is likely to run afoul of state or federal securities laws -- irregardless of the honesty of the business or any included promotional offers.   See http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm for more information about the SEC regulations for raising capital for small businesses.
"Gold had value because it could be stamped with a value.  The value is the number on the coin.   Gold really doesn't have intrinsic value and it's value during a actual famines is very very low.  For more info, see a very interesting digression in ""Wealth of Nations."""
"There is no general theory to support the notion that larger companies will be more profitable than smaller companies.  Economies of scale are not always positive, one can have diseconomies of scale too.   It is more common to talk about an optimal firm size, even going back to Stigler's (1958) ""The Economies of Scale.""  Intuitively, if economies of scale extended indefinitely, then natural monopolies would dominate all industries in the long run. A profit ratio, unfortunately, wouldn't quite get at scale economies.  Consider, for example, that the denominator of your metric would be profit+cost and that you are trying to get at the cost reduction that derives from scale.  Then, you are measuring the size of a company by the exact metric that should be reduced if scale economies exist, so the calculation would be a bit confounded. It is my understanding that such assessments are usually conducted at the industry level by determining whether the industry is becoming increasingly concentrated among fewer firms over time. (Again see Stigler).   If concentration is increasing, there is an implication that, at current firm sizes, there are economies of scale in the industry."
"This is typically referred to as the ""market value"" of your holdings--it is the revenue you would generate if you sold your holdings at that moment (less any transaction costs, of course)"
"In most cases, startups are growth companies. That's because they are founded with an idea and a little money. Outside investors are paying for a piece of the founders' ""idea,"" and the hope that the idea will make a little money grow into a lot of money. There are exceptions. Startups in hard assets companies such as real estate and oil and gas are value investments. That is, they take ""ideas"" that are solidly proven, so you are getting a lot of ""house"" or oil drilling equipment for your money. Unlike the standard startup, you're not paying for the ""idea."""
"Hi all, confused about how employee option pools interact with pre-money and post-money VC valuations.  From what I understand, the pool essentially dilutes pre-money valuation. A quote from [FastIgnite](http://fastignite.com/startup-tools/calculating-true-pre-money-valuation):   &gt; Say the VC wants 20%. If the company is valued at $10M then the VC would put in $2.5M for a post money of $12.5M ($2.5M / $12.5M = 20%). However, if a 30% option pool is added then the post money will be $20M (the pool will be $6M) and the VC will put in $4M ($1.5M or 60% more than before). The pre-money would have jumped to $16M.  I get that in both cases, the founder stays at a $10.0m ""true"" valuation, and a pool dilutes founder pre-money ownership from 100.0% to 62.5% in this case. But, it seems like the pool is adding value out of nowhere! The only additional money is coming from the VC, but somehow the pool is worth $6m?"
The biggest value driver we identified were staff costs. If Amazon implements their Amazon Go technology in Whole Foods' stores(which I assume is their current plan) they would be able to cut a large chunk of staff costs reducing COGS significantly. With Jana Partners buying up shares and an already large institutional share of ownership we saw the likelyhood of success of a deal to be quite high.   The new technology is exciting and we believe interest for shopping at Amazon will be high the first years which brings revenue synergies to the table.   I'm on mobile right now(at work) so maybe I can give a more detailed answer later.
He is worth $17.5 billion today Note that he is worth that dollar figure, but he doesn't have that many dollars. That's the worth of his stake in the company (number of shares he owns times the assumed value per share), i.e. assuming its total value being several hundreds of billions, as pundits assume. However, it is not a publicly traded company, so we don't really know much about its financials.