vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Although I only cited product quality, I'm trying to think of examples of companies that incorporated and then immediately improved product quality, fostered good will, and treated its employees better than when they were private. None come to mind, can you think of any?  Perhaps ""almost always"" was a bit of hyperbole, but in matters of cost vs. quality I'd expect publicly traded companies to prioritize short-term shareholder profit (or be sued by said shareholders.) Private companies can have more of a vested interest in the good will of their employees, product quality, and can make decisions that benefit themselves and society long-term because they do not have this fiduciary responsibility.   Have you ever seen the documentary [*the Corporation*](http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=46)? They make a compelling case that if corporations were people they'd be sociopaths (according to the ASM.)"
I don't think you quite understand how the software services model works. Most software co utilizes the Amazon model for growth until they reached a critical point either by market size or squeezing out other players.    Your unit economic talks works only when bootstrapping and maybe debt financing. For companies that can grow using equity financing its certainly not the case. See: Tesla.
The answer is that other than a small number of applications (the approx. 10% of gold production that goes to 'industrial uses') gold does not have intrinsic value beyond being pretty and rare (and useful for making jewelry.) There are a number of 'industrial' applications and uses for gold (see other answers for a list) but the volume consumed this way is fairly small, especially relative to the capacity to mine new gold and reclaim existing gold. If you removed investment, and jewelry usage (especially culturally driven jewelry usage) then there's no way the remaining uses for industry and dentistry could sustain the price levels we currently see for gold. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the best data I can find for this shows the total number of tons consumed for industrial uses has been shrinking for several years now, and that was prior to recent price increases, so it is difficult to tie that reduced demand to increasing prices. And one might postulate in a 'collapsed society' you seem to be referring to in your question, that a lot of the recent industrial demand (e.g. the '50 cents of gold in each cellphone') could quite possibly disappear entirely. The argument many people use for gold having value is usually 'been used as money for thousands of years'. But this confuses gold having a value of its own with the reasons why something makes a useful currency. Gold has a large number of characteristics that make it an ideal currency, and of all the elements available it is perhaps the best physical element to serve as a currency. BUT just as with a dollar bill, just because it is a good currency, does NOT give it an intrinsic value. Any currency is only worth what someone will trade you for it. The value is set by the economy etc., not the medium used as a currency. So yes, people will probably always use gold as money, but that doesn't make the money worth anything, it's just a medium of exchange. Incidentally two other things should be noted. The first is that you have a problem when the medium itself used for a currency becomes worth more than the face value. Hence why we stopped using silver in coins, and there were concerns over pennies due to the price of copper.
Don't ever quantify a stock's preference/performance just based on the dividend it is paying out Volatility defined by movements in the the stock's price, affected by factors embedded in the stock e.g. the corporation, the business it is in, the economy, the management etc etc. Apple wasn't paying dividends but people were still buying into it. Same with Amazon, Berkshire, Google. These companies create value by investing their earnings back into their company and this is reflected in their share prices. Their earnings create more value in this way for the stockholders. The holding structures of these companies also help them in their motives. Supposedly $100 invested in either stocks. For keeping things easy, you invested at the same time in both, single annual dividend and prices more or less remain constant. Company A: $5/share at 20% annual dividend yield.  Dividend = $20 Company B: $10/share at 20% annual dividend yield  Dividend = $20 You receive the same dividend in both cases. Volatility willn't affect you unless you are trading, or the stock market tanks, or some very bad news comes out of either company or on the economy. Volatility in the long term averages out, except in specific outlier cases e.g. Lehman bankruptcy and the financial crash which are rare but do happen. In general case the %price movements in both stocks would more or less follow the markets (not exactly though) except when relevant news for either corporations come out.
if the consolidated joint venture/sub has a negative net worth, then it is backing out the minority owner's share.    if another entity is taking the hit, or responsible for a hit/liability instead of you, then it should improve your valuation.   do not confuse net worth with net income. BS vs IS.
"(Value of shares+Dividends received)/(Initial investment) would be the typical formula though this is more of a percentage where 1 would indicate that you broke even, assuming no inflation to be factored. No, you don't have to estimate the share price based on revenues as I would question how well did anyone estimate what kind of revenues Facebook, Apple, or Google have had and will have. To estimate the value of shares, I'd likely consider what does my investment strategy use as metrics: Is it discounted cash flow, is it based on earnings, is it something else? There are many ways to determine what a stock ""should be worth"" that depending on what you want to believe there are more than a few ways one could go."
Having all of the numbers you posted is a start. It's what you need to perform the calculation.  The final word, however, comes from the company itself, who are required to issue a determination on how the spin-off is valued. Say a company is split into two. Instead of some number of shares of each new company, imagine for this example it's one for one. i.e. One share of company A becomes a share each in company B and company C. This tell us nothing about relative valuation, right? Was B worth 1/2 of the original company A, or some other fraction? Say it is exactly a 50/50 split. Company A releases a statement that B and C each should have 1/2 the cost basis of your original A shares. Now, B and C may very well trade ahead of the stock splitting, as 'when issued' shares. At no point in time will B and C necessarily trade at exactly the same price, and the day that B and C are officially trading, with no more A shares, they may have already diverged in price. That is, there's nothing you can pull from the trading data to identify that the basis should have been assigned as 50% to each new share. This is my very long-winded was of explaining that the company must issue a notice through your broker, and on their investor section of their web site, to spell out the way you should assign your basis to each new stock.
Calculation. To calculate the DJIA, the sum of the prices of all 30 stocks is divided by a divisor, the Dow Divisor. The divisor is adjusted in case of stock splits, spinoffs or similar structural changes, to ensure that such events do not in themselves alter the numerical value of the DJIA.
Too calculate these values, information contained in the company's financial statements (income, balance, or cashflow) will be needed along with the price.  Google finance does not maintain this information for BME.  You will need to find another source for this information or analyze another another symbol's financial section (BAC for example).
There is no formula for calculating a stock price based on the financials of a company. A stock price is set by the market and always has a component built into it that is based on something outside of the current valuation of a company using its financials. Essentially, the stock price of a company per share is whatever the best price it can get on the open market. If you are looking at how to evaluate if a stock is a good value at the current price, then look at some of the answers, but I wanted to answer this based on the way you phrased the question.
To calculate you take the Price and divide it by the Earnings, or by the Sales, or by the Free Cash Flow. Most of these calculations are done for you on a lot of finance sites if the data is available. Such sites as Yahoo Finance and Google Finance as well as my personal favorite: Morningstar
The price-earnings ratio is calculated as the market value per share divided by the earnings per share over the past 12 months. In your example, you state that the company earned $0.35 over the past quarter. That is insufficient to calculate the price-earnings ratio, and probably why the PE is just given as 20. So, if you have transcribed the formula correctly, the calculation given the numbers in your example would be: 0.35 * 4 * 20 = $28.00 As to CVRR, I'm not sure your PE is correct. According to Yahoo, the PE for CVRR is 3.92 at the time of writing, not 10.54. Using the formula above, this would lead to: 2.3 * 4 * 3.92 = $36.06 That stock has a 52-week high of $35.98, so $36.06 is not laughably unrealistic. I'm more than a little dubious of the validity of that formula, however, and urge you not to base your investing decisions on it.
"A lot of financial software will calculate the value of operating leasess for you (bullet 2). E.g. Capital IQ, BB.   What a lot of professionals do is ""reverse"" out EBITDA/EBIT etc. for:  - non-recurring expenses (think big accounting changes, some impairments) - change operating expenses into capital leases to adjust the capital structure - occasionally change some operating expenses (e.g. options) because you are under the assumption if you take a company private that those expenses will not be relevant  The whole point is simply to see the operating revenues/expenses of the firm"
Have you actually read the Wikipedia article? To calculate the DJIA, the sum of the prices of all 30 stocks is divided by a divisor, the Dow Divisor. The divisor is adjusted in case of stock splits, spinoffs or similar structural changes, to ensure that such events do not in themselves alter the numerical value of the DJIA. Early on, the initial divisor was composed of the original number of component companies; which made the DJIA at first, a simple arithmetic average. The present divisor, after many adjustments, is less than one (meaning the index is larger than the sum of the prices of the components). That is: DJIA = sum(p) / d where p are the prices of the component stocks and d is the Dow Divisor. Events such as stock splits or changes in the list of the companies composing the index alter the sum of the component prices. In these cases, in order to avoid discontinuity in the index, the Dow Divisor is updated so that the quotations right before and after the event coincide: DJIA = sum(p_old) / d_old = sum(p_new) / d_new The Dow Divisor was 0.14602128057775 on December 24, 2015.[40] Presently, every $1 change in price in a particular stock within the average, equates to a 6.848 (or 1 ÷ 0.14602128057775) point movement. Knowing the old prices, new prices (e.g. following a split), and old divisor, you can easily compute the new divisor... Edit: Also, the detailed methodology is published by SP Indices (PDF). Edit #2: For simplicity's sake, assume the DJIA is an index that contains 4 stocks, with a price of $100.00 each. One of the stocks splits 2:1, meaning the new price/share is $50.00. Plugging the numbers into the above equation, we can determine the new Dow Divisor: 400 / 4 = 350 / d => d = 3.5
"In a rational market, the market caps (total value of all shares of the company) should be determined by the expected future profits of the company, plus the book value (that is the value of all assets that the company holds). The share price is then calculated as market caps divided by number of shares - a company worth a billion dollar could have a million shares at $1000 each or a billion shares at $1 each or anything in between.  When profits drop, every investor has to re-think what the expected future profits of the company are. If all the investors say ""I thought this company would make a billion profit in the next ten years, but based on the drop in profits I changed my mind and I think they will only make 500 million"", then the share price drops. On the other hand, if profits dropped because of some predictable event, then that drop was already priced into the share price. If the profits dropped less than expected, the share price might even go up.  You can see the opposite effect: Share price might be very high because everyone expects huge growth in profits over the next ten years. If profits grow less than expected, the share price will drop. Share price depends on predicted future profits, not on profits today."
However what actually appears to happen is that the 100k is invested into the company to fund some growth plan. So is it actually the case that E's company is worth 400k only AFTER the transaction? Is the 100k added to the balance sheet as cash and would the other 300k be listed as an IP asset? The investor gets 25% of the shares of the company and pays $100k for them, so Owner's Equity increases by $100k, and the company gets $100k more in cash. The $400k number is an implicit calculation: if 25% of the company is worth $100k, 100% of the company is worth $400k. It's not on the books: the investor is just commenting that they feel that they are being over-charged.
"Here's a link to an online calculator employing the Discounted Cash Flow method:  Discounted Cash Flows Calculator.  Description: This calculator finds the fair value   of a stock investment the   theoretically correct way, as the   present value of future earnings. You   can find company earnings via the box   below.   [...] They also provide a link to the following relevant article:  Investment Valuation: A Little Theory.  Excerpt: A company is valuable to stockholders   for the same reason that a bond is   valuable to bondholders: both are   expected to generate cash for years   into the future. Company profits are   more volatile than bond coupons, but   as an investor your task is the same   in both cases: make a reasonable   prediction about future earnings, and   then ""discount"" them by calculating   how much they are worth today. (And   then you don't buy unless you can get   a purchase price that's less than the   sum of these present values, to make   sure ownership will be worth the   headache.)   [...]"
The net worth is based on an estimate of how much he would get if he relinquished his stake.  The total funding is based on how much he has relinquished thus far. Suppose I have a candy jar with 100 candies.  I'm not sure how much these candies are worth, so I start off by selling 10% of the jar for $10.  Now I have 90 candies and $10, a total value of $100.  Then someone comes along offering $100 for another 10% (of the original jar, or 10 candies), which I accept.  Now I have 80 candies and $110.  Since I value each candy at $10 now, I calculate my worth as $910.  Then I do another deal selling 10% for $1000.  Now I have $1110 in cash and 70 candies valued at $100 each.  My total worth is now $8110 (cash + remaining candies), while the candy jar has only received $1110 in funding. Replace candies with equity in The Facebook, Inc. and you get the idea.
Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.
PEG is Price to Earnings Growth.  I've forgotten how it's calculated, I just remember that a PEG ratio of 1-2 is attractive by Graham & Dodd standards.
(I'm not really 100% sure of this calculation though.) I also found JCI's Form 8937 which states Fair market value generally is the price at which property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of the facts. U.S. federal income tax law does not specifically prescribe how former JCI shareholders should determine the fair market value of the Tyco ordinary shares received in the merger. One possible method of determining the fair market value of one Tyco ordinary share is to use the average of the high and low trading prices on the date of the merger, which was $45.69. Other methods for determining the fair market value of Tyco ordinary shares are possible. Former JCI shareholders are not bound by the approach described above and may, in consultation with their tax advisors, use another approach. as well as similar text on the IRS website: One possible method of determining the fair market value of one Tyco ordinary share is to use the average of the high and low trading prices on the date of the merger, which was $45.69. Using this figure, former JCI shareholders that elected to receive shares in the merger would receive cash and Tyco ordinary shares worth approximately $43.91 per share of JCI common stock exchanged in the merger (assuming no cash received in lieu of fractional shares)."
You could sum the P/E ratio of all the companies in the industry and divide it by the number of companies to find the average P/E ratio of the industry.  Average P/E ratio of industry  = Sum of P/E ratio of all companies in   Industry / Number of companies in industry
PEG is Price/Earnings to Growth.  It is calculated as Price/Earnings/Annual EPS Growth.  It represents how good a stock is to buy, factoring in growth of earnings, which P/E does not.  Obviously when PEG is lower, a stock is more undervalued, which means that it is a better buy, and more likely to go up. Additional References:
Since none of the factors that go into a share price are accurately measurable and many are subjective there is no ""right"" share price at any time, let alone at time of IPO. Each investor will estimate these values differently and so value the shares differently and their trading, based on their ever changing estimates, will move the share price to an indeterminable level. In comments to @keshlam's answer you ask if there is enough information to work out the share price if a company buys out the company before IPO. Dividing the price that this other company paid by the relative ownership structure of the firm would give you an idea of what that company thought that the company was worth at that moment in time and can be used as a surrogate for market price but it will not and cannot accurately represent the market price as other investors will value the firm differently by estimating the criteria above differently and so will move the share price based on their valuation."
"Here is how I would approach that problem: 1) Find the average ratios of the competitors: 2) Find the earnings and book value per share of Hawaiian 3) Multiply the EPB and BVPS by the average ratios. Note that you get two very different numbers.  This illustrates why pricing from ratios is inexact.  How you use those answers to estimate a ""price"" is up to you.  You can take the higher of the two, the average, the P/E result since you have more data points, or whatever other method you feel you can justify.   There is no ""right"" answer since no one can accurately predict the future price of any stock."
Fairly straightforward to match the result from the calculator soup link.  There is a formula to calculate n from the future value s (using natural logs) In Excel This was derived as shown  To calculate n from the inflation-adjusted future value si requires using a solver since an algebraic formula cannot be formulated.  As demonstrated  Calculations done using Mathematica 7.
Need help with a finance problem I'm currently facing in my business.  My company might be going through an acquisition and I need to understand how the dilution works out for shareholders.  They currently have large shareholder loans (debt), and will be converting to equity pre-transaction.  For this case, if the original company value = $1 MM and the SHL value = $1 MM, I'm assuming that'd dilute equity by 50% for all shareholders if converted to equity at original company value.  Correct?  However, what if the $1 MM in shareholder loans were converted at the market value of the company, say $4 MM?    I might be confusing myself, but just want to confirm.. thanks!
It took me a while to understand the concept, so I'll break it down as best as I can.  There are three parts to the accounting equation: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity We'll look at this in two ways   1. As a business owner you invest (say) 10,000 USD into your bank. The entry would be: Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000    Credit: Owner's Equity: Contributions for 10,000 In this case, you have assets of 10,000 from your deposit, but it is due to owner contributions and not business transactions. Another example (say a sale):  Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000    Credit: Owner's Equity: Sales for 10,000 Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000    Credit: Liabilities: Deposits for 10,000 Deposits are a banking term to reflect a bank's obligation to return the amount on demand (though the bank has free reign with it, see fractional banking)  You will NEVER debit or credit your bank as it is assumed you will be storing your money there, note bank reconciliation. Hope this helps, comment with any more questions.
If you mean the internal rate of return, then the quarterly rate of return which would make the net present value of these cash flows to be zero is 8.0535% (found by goal seek in Excel), or an equivalent compound annual rate of 36.3186% p.a. The net present value of the cash flows is: 10,000 + 4,000/(1+r) - 2,000/(1+r)^2 - 15,125/(1+r)^3, where r is the quarterly rate. If instead you mean Modified Dietz return, then the net gain over the period is: End value - start value - net flow = 15,125 - 10,000 - (4,000 - 2,000) = 3,125 The weighted average capital invested over the period is: 1 x 10,000 + 2/3 x 4,000 - 1/3 x 2,000 = 12,000 so the Modified Dietz return is 3,125 / 12,000 = 26.0417%, or 1.260417^(1/3)-1 = 8.0201% per quarter, or an equivalent compound annual rate of 1.260417^(4/3)-1 = 36.1504%. You are using an inappropriate formula, because we know for a fact that the flows take place at the beginning/end of the period. Instead, you should be combining the returns for the quarters (which have in fact been provided in the question). To calculate this, first calculate the growth factor over each quarter, then link them geometrically to get the overall growth factor. Subtracting 1 gives you the overall return for the 3-quarter period. Then convert the result to a quarterly rate of return.
The user who wrote the Zerohedge item: The CBS article: The Quora estimate is similar to the Zerohedge one (estimated a round value of 1000 PE and a price of 70-80). Note that it was 30 days after the first 2 items you quoted. You used the CBS numbers except you used the zerohedge price.  It depends on which earnings were for each calculation. Past or future. The CBS numbers make the most sense because you can trace where they come from based on the links in their article.  CBS based their price on the estimates made the day before the stock went on sale. The price in the zerohedge item was based on the early trading numbers.