vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Inherent or intrinsic value. (Aside from the term's use with regards to options markets) Every time I tell someone I've invested in Bitcoin they tell me that it is silly because there is no inherent or intrinsic value in Bitcoin. But what is the intrinsic value of paper with a federal seal on it? What is the intrinsic value of a component that could be, but doesn't have to be used in computer parts (gold)? My favorite question of all to show the silliness of ""intrinsic value"" is to ask what is the intrinsic value of water? To someone parched and dying of thirst in a desert I'm quite certain that, faced with death, they'd be willing to part with an appendage for the water, if anything to simply survive. On the other hand, what is the value of water to someone drowning? I would think it actually has a quite negative value and they'd be more than happy to see the water gone, even going so far as to part with an appendage. To make an argument that water has an intrinsic value is to say that the word ""value"" isn't subjective when it very clearly is, in both cases where water is needed and not wanted, one would feasibly be willing to pay a very extreme cost (the removal of an appendage) in order to both have or be rid of water. All this said, it would appear that ""intrinsic value"" means ""I'm trying to make an objective point about a subjective value."" Even if you were to try to make the case that water had some sort of baseline or average value with regards to supporting mankind and that *this* was ""intrinsic"", it would additionally be irrelevant, because the definition of supporting mankind is subjective. Do we just use just enough water to keep men and women alive across the world, without regards to health? Do we count children as half men? Do we count a non-active 50 year old female's water needs as highly as an active 16 year old male's? What about with regards to evaporation and condensation?
"&gt; Value is entirely subjective to individuals. Nothing has ""intrinsic value"".  Question: *Water, oxygen -- caveats to intrinsic value because they are that which is consumed by virtue of one's being alive and staying alive and are of limited supply?*  Can we expand on ""value"" and how it operates on the barest of essentials to sustain life.   To rephrase: [1] That the tripartite nature of the system of money--token (countable), vehicle (exchangeable), and repository (valuable)--depends on life existing ergo exist as conditions necessary for the creation of an economy but yet will be necessarily valued by the economy because of the projected increases in population, that is, future demand rising as function of the earthly supply means that the value of these goods can or cannot be projected and, more broadly, [2] how do economists evaluate the role of money in relation to timing, especially when it pertains to these unproduced or ""given"" yet essential goods and especially coupled with the knowledge that the population will continue to proliferate?  Really, I'm not trying to undermine or debunk or be plain ridiculous; I'm curious as to how economic theory will (or has begun to) try to solve a ""singularity"" (threshold) problem that has yet to occur but no doubt will?   Maybe it's an unfair question but even so, I'm sure someone on this thread might steer us towards a starting point. And I only ask because the economic breakdown by otherwiseyep and the discussion in the thread herein are, say, quite as substantial as they are clear."
I'll give you my quick and dirty way to value a company: A quick and dirty valuation could be: equity + 10 times profit. This quick way protects you from investing in companies in debt, or losing money. To go more in-depth you need to assess future profit, etc. I recommend the book from Mary Buffett about Warren Buffett's investing style.
"Note that we do not comment on specific stocks here, and have no place doing so. If your question is only about that specific stock then it is off topic. I have not tried to answer that part below. The key to valuation is predicting the net present value of all of a company's cash flows; i.e. of their future profits and losses. Through a number of methods to long to explain here investment banks and hedge funds work out what they expect the company's cash flows to be and trade so that these future profits, losses etc. are priced into the stock price. Since future cash flows, profits or whatever you want to call them are priced in, the price of a stock shouldn't move at all on an earnings statement. This begs the question ""why do some stock prices move violently when they announce earnings?"" The models that the institutional investors use are not perfect and cannot take into account everything. An unexpected craze for a product or a supply chain agreement breaking down on not being as good as it seems will not be factored into this pricing and so the price will move based on the degree to which expectation is missed or exceeded. Since penny socks are speculative their value is based far more on the long term expected cash flows and less on the short run cash flows. This goes a long way to explaining why some of the highest market capitalisation penny stocks are those making consistent losses. This means that they can be far less susceptible to price movements after an earnings announcement even if it is well out of the consensus range. Higher (potential) future value comes with the higher risks of penny stocks which discounts current value. In the end if people's expectation of the company's performance reflects reality then the profitability is priced in and there will be no price movement. If the actuality is outside of the expected range then there will be a price movement."
Yes, sorry, I should have tried to be clearer. I mean the development appraisal related to construction. Such as residential developments, mixed-use developments etc - what makes these profitable, costs, residual valuation etc.. if this is in the right ballpark
"Putting a dollar amount on the valuation of a start up business is an art form that often has very little at all to do with any real numbers and more to do with your ""salesman"" abilities when talking with the VC. That said, there are a few starting points: First is past sales, the cost of those sales and a (hopefully) realistic growth curve. However, you don't have that so this gets harder. Do you have any actual assets? Machinery, computers, desks, patents, etc. Things that you actually own. If so, then add those in. If this is a software start-up, ""code"" is an asset, but without sales it's incredibly hard to put a value on it. The best I've come up with is ""How much would it cost for someone else to build it .. after they've seen yours"". Yes, you may have spent 5,000 hours building something but could someone else duplicate it, or at least the major parts, in 200 hours after seeing a demo? Use the lower number. If I was you, I'd look hard at my business plan. Hopefully you were as honest as you can be when writing it (and that it is as researched as possible). What is it going to take to get that first sale? What do you actually need to get there? (hint: your logo on the side of a building is NOT a necessary expense. Nor is really nice office space.) Once you have that first sale, what is the second going to take? Can you extrapolate out to 3 years? How many key members are there? How much is their contribution worth? At what point will you be profitable? Next is to look at risks. You haven't done this before, that's huge - I'm assuming simply because you asked this question. Another is competitors - hopefully they already exist because opening a new market is incredibly hard and expensive; on the flip side, hopefully there aren't that many because entering a crowded market is equally hard and expensive.
The value of a business without proven profits is really just a guess.  But to determine what % ownership the VC takes some measure must be used.  He is asking the OP to start the negotiations.  So you start high - higher than you will settle for. The value of the business should always be WAY more the $$ you have put into it ... because you have also invested your time (which has an opportunity cost) and assumed huge risk that you will never get those $$ back.   When you need the cash and only one person will give it to you, you are over a barrel.  You either take the terms they offer, or you let the business collapse.  So keep a show of strength and invent other funders. Or create a business plan showing that you can continue without their $$ (just at a smaller volume).
I have my own top 10 list, coming straight from the management of Semco. 1 - Values I write a lot on this blog about the importance of values, and I feel there is no exception here. Ricardo fundamentally believes in human equality and the importance of each individual, otherwise there is no way he could commit to such a mission. These values originated from him, but they've now permeated throughout the organization and every individual believes in them. 2 - Consistency This is an extension of values, because when your values are solid and clear, your behaviors and actions will flow from that. There are no contradictory policies that would confuse employees. Everyone is equal and all aspects of the organization from salary, profit sharing, job titles, power, working hours, leadership, and vacations reflect that. 3 - Peer Pressure There is nothing more effective for keeping order than peer pressure. All the rules in the world can’t replace the power of your friends and colleagues holding you accountable. It’s much more meaningful than a top down approach. The pressure is real, it has teeth since peers can come together and fire employees that aren’t doing their job. 4 - Profit Sharing Touchy feely open management is nothing without something real to back it up, and 23% pre-tax profit sharing is as real as it gets. Everyone is motivated because they know they will get rewarded for their hard work, and it also ensures that peer pressure is working well. They also get creative with this, giving employees the option of deferring 25% of their salary until the end of the year, at which time they might get a bonus resulting in a 150% of their original salary depending on the business unit’s performance. 5 - Empowerment Giving people freedom and responsibility without the tools to get things done is a recipe for disaster. All opinions are heard and there is value in the work of every employee.Nobody has an excuse for why they can’t get things done. 6 - Small Business Units Each business unit is small enough so that everyone involved understands everything that is going on and the outcomes.No way people can self organize if a unit is hundreds of people large.The magic number for the maximum effective size for a group is 150 and Semco will not allow a business unit to go beyond that.
That value differs between a starving man and a man who never fears lack of food.  Let's take, instead, the value of your mother's affection.  Were you to have to pay for that affection, for her hugs, they would lose value.  Offering a price makes her affection worth LESS.  Therefore value is not tied to currency, nor is value indelibly tied to Capitalism.  Trading capital for your mother's affection negates the value of the affection.
The book value is Total Assets minus Total Liabilities and so if you increase the Total Assets without changing the Total Liabilities the difference gets bigger and thus higher. Consider if a company had total assets of $4 and total liabilities of $3 so the book value is $1. Now, if the company adds $2 to the assets, then the difference would be 4+2-3=6-3=3 and last time I checked 3 is greater than 1. On definitions, here are a couple of links to clarify that side of things. From Investopedia: Equity = Assets - Liabilities From Ready Ratios: Shareholders Equity = Total Assets – Total Liabilities OR Shareholders Equity = Share Capital + Retained Earnings – Treasury   Shares Depending on what the reinvestment bought, there could be several possible outcomes. If the company bought assets that appreciated in value then that would increase the equity. If the company used that money to increase sales by expanding the marketing department then the future calculations could be a bit trickier and depend on what assumptions one wants to make really. If you need an example of the latter, imagine playing a game where I get to make up the rules and change them at will. Do you think you'd win at some point? It would depend on how I want the game to go and thus isn't something that you could definitively say one way or the other.
You can find this in the annual report. Preferred value is not the same as common value.
Who determines company value at IPO? The Owners based on the advice from Lead Bankers and other Independent auditors who would determine the value of the company at the time of listing. At times instead of determining a fixed price a range is given [lower side and higher side]. The Market participants [FI / Institutional Investor Segments] then decide the price by bidding at an amount. There are multiple aspects in play that help stabalize the IPO and roles of various parties. A quick read of question with IPO tag is recommended Edits: Generally at a very broad level, one of the key purpose of the IPO is to either encash Owner equity [Owner wants some profits immediately] or Raise additional Capital. More often it is a mix of both. If the price is too low, one loose out on getting the true value, this would go to someone else. If the price is too high, then it may not attract enough buyers or even there are buyers, there is substantial -ve sentiment. This is not good for the company. Read the question From Facebook's perspective, was the fall in price after IPO actually an indication that it went well?  This puts determining the price of IPO more in the realm of art than science. There are various mechanism [Lead bankers, Institutional Investors, Underwriters] the a company would put in place to ensure the IPO is success and that itself would moderate the price to realistic level. More often the price is kept slightly lower to create a positive buzz about the stock.
"Extrinsic value is not a factor with respect to gold.  Intrinsic value by definition is the natural value of a commodity set by the market -- extrinsic value is externally set. The ""extrinsic"" value of gold in the United States is $50/oz. If the market value of gold fell below $50/oz, a US American Eagle coin would be worth $50 in the US. If you take away the attributes that make a commodity valuable, the value drops. Substitutes of equal or better quality for most industrial or other uses of gold exist, so if if the popularity of gold declines, or if the hoarders of gold have to liquidate, it's value will diminish. I have no idea what that value would be, but it would set by the market demand for gold jewelry and other valuable industrial uses."
There is no such thing as intrinsic value. Gold has value because it is rare and has a market. If any of those things decline, the value plunges. The question of whether gold is overvalued or not is complicated and depends on a lot of factors.  The key question in my mind is: Is gold more valuable in terms of US dollars because it is becoming more valuable, or because the value of US dollars, the prevailing medium of exchange, is declining?
"&gt;How does ""doing business in"" something increase its value? By this logic, all businesses should be successful.  When you work, you are creating value. Even if your business fails within the first year, there's still all the value you have created such as: hiring handypeople to fix up your businessplace, hiring people to work at your business, buying office supplies, etc. Just because you didn't profit off of your business doesn't mean that other people didn't.   &gt;you're basically saying ""Things are currently like X, therefore things should (and would) be like X under a different legal structure.""  How do you think the concept of money came about?   &gt;I can't take this line of argument seriously, I'm sorry.  Why not? This is the reason that hedge fund managers and CEOs pay so little in taxes...most / all of their compensation is in stocks and bonds, taxed as investment income. If you were paid in gold, i'm sure you could claim the same.   &gt;You're emotionally invested in a fiat paper standard.  That's sillie: i'm emotionally invested in a gift economy. I *accept* a fiat paper standard."
None of the above. The fair value is a term used to describe an analytical result of projecting the company's future dividends and profits into a present value.  Such estimates are published by the likes of Morningstar, S&P and Value Line.  It is quite common for a stock to trade well above or below such estimated fair values.
"I'd agree with maybe a concept of ""situational value"" being negative while accepting ""intrinsic value"" means ""what use a person can expect to get out of it"", but again, both ultimately are subjective. That said, there can be benefits from drawing a distinction between the two.  Going back to Bitcoin, it does have an ""intrinsic value"", because the value of Bitcoin itself is that it can be divided up easily, transferred easily, and etc, all the things that make a currency valuable. Traditionally, we value things as money if they meet many of the following criteria:  1. Medium of exchange 2. Unit of account 3. Store of value 4. Standard of deferred payment 5. Measure of Value  Gold meets some of these better than others, dollars meet some of these better than others, and so on, but Bitcoin meets all of these very well, which means (at least to me) that Bitcoin has intrinsic value in that it meets the definition of what we value the most in a *currency*.  So maybe as long as we agree that there is a difference between subjective value and intrinsic value, and agree that subjective value can, in fact, be negative, there may be something to go on here."
&gt;actual overall change in value  What is ‘actual’ value? The value of a thing in economics is what someone will pay for it. If ‘actual’ value didn’t change for months, why are people willing to buy and sell at different prices?  &gt;the only possible returns come from “taking” someone else’s value  Can you explain in clear economic terms what you mean by this? Who is taking what value and how?  &gt;there’s no net benefits to society  You say you’re not making a value judgment, but I see no other way to interpret this statement.
There are several existing questions that discuss what gives a stock value besides a dividend: The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. In particular, if no one puts money in the stock market, it doesn't matter how good the businesses do. The value of a stock is simply what a buyer is willing to pay for it. You are correct that there is not always a correlation between the price of a stock and how well the company is doing. But let's look at another hypothetical scenario. Let's say that I started and run a publicly-held company that sells widgets. The company is doing very well; I'm selling lots of widgets. In fact, the company is making incredible amounts of money. However, the stock price is not going up as fast as our revenues. This could be due to a number of reasons: investors might not be aware of our success, or investors might not think our success is sustainable. I, as the founder, own lots of shares myself, and if I want a return on my investment, I can do a couple of things with the large revenues of the company: I can either continue to reinvest revenue in the company, growing the company even more (in the hopes that investors will start to notice and the stock price will rise), or I can start paying a dividend. Either way, all the current stock holders benefit from the success of the company."
"Well, this relates to how you interpret something's value. We can use that magazine and restaurant as an example. For you the extra $10-$30 more on a decent meal or wine is worth it while $5 for a magazine entertainment on a train ride might not be. This is how all markets work, people make decisions about how they value something and hence choose to spend or not. If you're asking ""should I value certain things the way I do?"" well that's a different story  e.g. should I keep that picture frame for years in the attic to sell it for $3 on eBay later. (probably not worth it) But again you are making that decision based on how YOU choose to value it. So to answer your question: How can I possibly care about this when my stock portfolio is losing (or gaining) $1000 a day? and is it normal? Yes it is normal and we all care. Everyone makes these decisions throughout each day, people will vary as to what they value something to be, but all in all everyone does just what you explained. Here is something that you may find interesting it is about how we value money: What color is your money? if the pdf doesn't work for you then try this link: What color is your money alt link"
Value investing is an investment approach that relies on buying securities below their intrinsic values. There are two main concepts; one is the Intrinsic Value and the other is Margin of Safety.  Intrinsic value is the value of the underlying business - if we are talking about stocks - that can be calculated through carefully analyzing the business looking at all aspects of it. If there is an intrinsic value exists for a company then there is a price tag we can put on its shares as well. Value investing is looking to buy shares well below its intrinsic value.  It is important to know that there is no correct intrinsic value exists for a company and two people can come up with different figures, if they were presented the same data. Calculating the intrinsic value for a business is the hardest part of value investing.  Margin of Safety is the difference between the buying price of a stock and its intrinsic value. Value investors are insisting on buying stocks well below their intrinsic value, where the margin of safety is 20%-30% or even more. This concepts is protecting them from poor decisions and market downturns. It is also providing a room for error, when calculating the intrinsic value.  The approach was introduced by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd in a book called Security Analysis in 1934. Other famous investor using this approach is Warren Buffet Books to read:  I would start to read the first two book first.