vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
A company's stock value is indicative of the market's collective belief of the future of the company. The relationship of between price and book value will vary according to the quality of the company, the category of stock, etc. In extreme cases, say Bank of America, the stock trades at a fraction of book, because BOA's books are a fantasy by most people's reckoning.
"It's not my industry so I may be wrong, but I don't believe there are any transactions or companies that would provide a worthwhile comparable, hence my problem with the valuation attempt. For the same reasons you wouldn't use a P/E multiple or DDM model on a startup, you don't just pick tangential comparables and slap a value on it. If you're seriously advising companies, that shit will land you in court defending your valuation.  It's not a ""floor"" just because you know it's inaccurate.. it's irrelevant. Quite frankly, I don't think they released any value, let alone $1bn.  It's merely a PR move, with the hope that Tesla's technology will become the standard for all EVs.  At best, major companies decide to use some of their patents ""in good faith"" and leverage the infrastructure that Tesla has already put in place.   At worst, Tesla still did not give away $1bn in value. How much have they made off of licensing their patents? How much have others offered for their patents? How many companies are infringing, and how many lawsuits have they won from going after them? If you can't put a hard figure on any of those, or a solid rationale on how the patents are the only reason they'll be able to gain market share, then I don't see how we can conclude on $1bn given away."
No shit, Sherlock.  Let's see:  - Valuation down like 80% since last year...  - Massive competition from categorically better products with infinitely deep pockets (Android, iPhone)...  - Only customers are a rapidly-eroding base of legacy enterprise customers with aggressive cost/feature requirements and bulk-purchase negotiating power.   Sounds like a winner!
If it's a low margin business and you can get value for it that's higher than the leadership values it, and they have some opportunity in a better margin business but for some reason couldn't acquire debt funding or more investors to fund the new business; then it might be feasible, but unusual and probably not ideal.
But because your textbook question does not seem to be asking this - you probably don't have to bother too much about it yet. Intrinsic Value: Just in case someone reading this is unclear - the Value of an option on maturity is the difference between the exercise (strike) price and the value of a share at the time of the option maturity. This is also called an intrinsic value. Note that American Option can be exercised prior to it's maturity in this case the intrinsic value it simply the diference between strike price and the underlying share price at the time of an exercise. But the Value of an option at period 0 (also called option price) is a price you would normally pay in order to buy it. So, say, with a strike of $60 and Share Price of $70 the intrinsic value is $10, whereas if Share Price was $50 the intrinsic value would be $0. The option price or the value of a call option in both cases would be fixed. So we also need to find intrinsic option values when price falls to the lowest probable and rises to the maximum probable (Vcd and Vcu respectively) (Vcd) = $65-$60 = $5 (remember if Strike was $70 then Vcd would be $0 because nobody would exercise an option that is out of the money) (Vcu) = $75.38-$60 = $15.38 1. Setting up a hedge ratio: h = Vs*(u-d)/(Vcu-Vcd) h = 70*(1.076923077-0.928571429)/(15.38-5) = 1 That means we have to write (sell) 1 option for each share purchased in order to hedge the risks. You can make a simple calculation to check this, but I'm not going to go into too much detail here as the equestion is not about hedging. Because this position is risk-free in equilibrium it should pay a risk-free rate (5.5%).
Let me answer with an extreme example - I own the one single share of a company, and it's worth $1M. I issue 9 more shares, and find 9 people willing to pay $1M for each share. I know find my ownership dropped by 90%, and I am now a 10% owner of a business that was valued at $1M but with an additional $9M in the bank for expansion. (Total value now $10M) Obviously, this is a simplistic view, but no simpler than the suggestion that your company would dilute its shares 90% in one transaction.
"I'm not an economist, but I understand the idea of value or ""price"" is purely ""what people agree it to be"".  The quants and analysts I've worked with always talk about ""discovering the price"" - it's an unknown until someone says ""I will pay X"".  Are my 2nd hand Nikes worth $20?  Put em on ebay to find out.  If someone buys them, then yes, 2nd hand Nikes are worth $20.  If they don't sell then they're not worth $20.    Obviously ebay is not the most efficient market out there.  The exchanges attempt to be that with prices varying by fractions of cent in fractions of seconds (milliseconds).  EDIT*   Perhaps another way to look at it is ""What is the 'correct' value of a computer game, say 'Skyrim'?""  Your idea of the value of labour and production costs produces some figure.  But in the real world, what actually happens?  On release day the game is priced at, say, $60.  And lots of people say ""I will pay $60"".  Many people don't, but many people do.  Months later, Steam has a sale and they suggest Skyrim is now worth $30.  Lot's of people who didn't think it was worth $60 do think it is worth $30.  The amount of labour that went into is hasn't changed.  So what it the true or 'correct' value/price of the game?  What is the correct value/price of *amything*? It is *what people will pay for it*."
Erisa laws protect your retirement just like something should mandate what minimum ownership should be to classify yourself as exempt from labor laws.    I like this idea a lot....however how does 1 employee present enough value to actually effect the price of their company stock?  This would only work for top brass positions....which is probably the way it should be.
"This falls under value investing, and value investing has only recently picked up study by academia, say, at the turn of the millennium; therefore, there isn't much rigorous on value investing in academia, but it has started. However, we can describe valuations: In short, valuations are randomly distributed in a log-Variance Gamma fashion with some reason & nonsense mixed in. You can check for yourself on finviz. You can basically download the entire US market and then some, with many financial and technical characteristics all in one spreadsheet. Re Fisher: He was tied for the best monetary economist of the 20th century and created the best price index, but as for stocks, he said this famous quote 12 days before the 1929 crash: ""Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months."" - Irving Fisher, Ph.D. in economics, Oct. 17, 1929 EDIT Value investing has almost always been ignored by academia. Irving Fisher and other proponents of it before it was codified by Graham in the mid 20th century certainly didn't help with comments like the above. It was almost always believed that it was a sucker's game, ""the bigger sucker"" game to be more precise because value investors get destroyed during recession/collapses. So even though a recessionless economy would allow value investors and everyone never to suffer spontaneous collapses, value investors are looked down upon by academia because of the inevitable yet nearly always transitory collapse. This expresses that sentiment perfectly. It didn't help that Benjamin Graham didn't care about money so never reached the heights of Buffett who frequently alternates with Bill Gates as the richest person on the planet. Buffett has given much credibility, and academia finally caught on around in 2000 or so after he was proven right about a pending tech collapse that nearly no one believed would happen; at least, that's where I begin seeing papers being published delving into value concepts. If one looks harder, academia's even taken the torch and discovered some very useful tools. Yes, investment firms and fellow value investors kept up the information publishing, but they are not academics.
"You can think of the situation as a kind of Nash equilibrium.  If ""the market"" values stock based on the value of the company, then from an individual point of view it makes sense to value stock the same way. As an illustration, imagine that stock prices were associated with the amount of precipitation at the company's location, rather than the assets of the company.  In this imaginary stock market, it would not benefit you to buy and sell stock according to the company's value.  Instead, you would profit most from buying and selling according to the weather, like everyone else.  (Whether this system — or the current one — would be stable in the long-term is another matter entirely.)"
This is a good reminder for investors to be skeptical of M&amp;A with respect to shareholder value creation.  &gt; S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence Quantamental Research, a research arm of the ratings agency, has updated a study on the impact of deals on the acquiring company’s share price. The study looked at M&amp;A deals done by listed companies in America’s Russell 3000 index between January 2001 and August 2017; deals were only included if they cost more than 5% of the total enterprise value of the acquirer (5% of the equity value, for financial companies). The acquirers’ shares underperformed the market ([see chart](https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/images/print-edition/20171007_FNC817_1.png)) and those of rival firms in the same industry.
Could be misunderstanding your context. But ev = equity + debt - cash. So don't think it makes sense for an equity holder to have an individual ev/ebitda different from the company's.   Are you asking in context of valuing equity and debt from an ev/ebitda multiple?
Your analysis is correct.  The income statement from Google states that LinkedIn made $3.4 million in 2010 - the same number you backed into by using the P/E ratio.  As you point out, the company seems overvalued compared to other mature companies.  There are companies, however, that posts losses and still trade on exchanges for years.  How should these companies be valued?  As other posters have pointed out there are many different ways to value a company.  Some investors may be speculating on substantial growth.  Others may be speculating on IPO hype. Amazon did not make a profit until 2003.  Its stock had been around for years before that and even split many times.  If you bought the stock in 1998 and still have it you would be doing quite well.
"I am a healthcare compliance consultant making good money. I understand the logic behind ROI and education. I was trying to raise the point that choosing what to study is more than what you make when you're done with college or what the ""value"" of your degree is. Can't we value education intrinsically? Why does it have to be tied to ROI? Maybe the business sub isnt the best place for this debate, but I think its important."
Some buyer might decide that the company's assets are worth something to them as a whole; and buy the whole enterprise; rather than risk it being destroyed piecemeal in bankruptcy proceedings. In that case, the proceeds from the sale will be used to fund the liabilities as discussed above. This option is one of the possible reasons people might consider investing in distressed equity. For example, if the company is in bankruptcy because it can't get enough financing right now, but is likely to have good profits in the future. The chances are, some buyer will buy it for a premium that includes those future profits; and that sale amount might possibly exceed the liabilities. Bankruptcy. The assets are sold and liabilities are covered according to priorities. In that case, the investors in distressed equity might be hoping that there are un-obvious assets whose value would also put the total assets above claimed liabilities. Additional possible beneficial factor is that unsecured debtors must file with the court in order to be paid; and the claim must be validated. Some might fail on either count; so total amount of liabilities might lessen once the bankruptcy process goes through. Assets Now, here's where things get interesting. Of course, companies have usual assets. Real estate, inventory, plants, cash, etc... These are all able to be sold to cover liabilities, and at first glance are possibly not enough to cover liabilities, leaving equity holders with nothing (and even that's not a certainty - bankruptcy is simply inability to service debt payments; and while it correlates to assetsliquid assets, not full asset valuation). But some assets are less sure, and are thus rarely included in such calculations. These may include: Chances of winning appeals if specific existing liabilities are results of litigation, e.g. tax appeals, court judgement appeals etc... Clawbacks and lawsuits against former executives, especially in cases where the company's financial distress resulted from executive malfeasance. I was personally involved in one such case as an equity holder, where the company assets were valued at $X; had liabilities of $X*2; but had a real possibility of winning about $X*3 in a lawsuit against former CEO accused of various malfeasance including fraud and insider trading.
First read mhoran's answer, Then this -  If the company sold nothing but refrigerators, and had 40% market share, that's $4M/yr in sales. If they have a 30% profit margin, $1.2M in profit each year. A P/E of 10 would give a stock value totaling $12M, more than the market size. The numbers are related, of course, but one isn't the maximum of the other.
It's important to remember what a share is. It's a tiny portion of ownership of a company. Let's pretend we're talking about shares in a manufacturing company. The company has one million shares on its register. You own one thousand of them. That means that you own 1/1000th of the company. These shares are valued by the market at $10 per share. The company has machinery and land worth $1M. That means that for every dollar of the company you own, 10c of that value is backed by the physical assets of the company. If the company closed shop tomorrow, you could, in theory at least, get $1 back per share. The other $9 of the share value is value based on speculation about the future and current ability of the company to grow and earn income. The company is using its $1M in assets and land to produce goods which cost the company $1M in ongoing costs (wages, marketing, raw cost of goods etc...) to produce and make $2M per year in sales. That means the company is making a profit of $1M per annum (let's assume for the sake of simplicity that this profit is after tax). Now what can the company do with its $1M profit? It can hand it out to the owners of the company (which means you would get a $1 dividend each year for each share that you own) or it can re-invest that money into additional equipment, product lines or something which will grow the business. The dividend would be nice, but if the owners bought $500k worth of new machinery and land and spent another $500k on ongoing costs and next year we would end up with a profit of $1.5M. So in ten years time, if the company paid out everything in dividends, you would have doubled your money, but they would have machines which are ten years older and would not have grown in value for that entire time. However, if they reinvested their profits, the compounding growth will have resulted in a company many times larger than it started. Eventually in practice there is a limit to the growth of most companies and it is at this limit where dividends should be being paid out.
Let's use an example: You buy 10 machines for 100k, and those machines produce products sold for a total of 10k/year in profit (ignoring labor/electricity/sales costs etc). If the typical investor requires a rate of return of 10% on this business, your company would be worth 100k.  In investing terms, you would have a PE ratio of 10.  The immediately-required return will be lower if substantially greater returns are expected in the future (expected growth), and the immediately required return will be higher if your business is expected to shrink. If at the end of the year you take your 10k and purchase another machine, your valuation will rise to 110k, because you can now produce 11k in earnings per year.  If your business has issued 10,000 shares, your share price will rise from $10 to $11.  Note that you did not just put cash in the bank, and that you now have a higher share price. At the end of year 2, with 11 machines, lets imagine that customer demand has fallen and you are forced to cut prices.  You somehow produce only 10k in profit, instead of the anticipated 11k.  Investors believe this 10k in annual profit will continue into the forseable future.  The investor who requires 10% return would then only value your company at 100k, and your share price would fall back from $11 to $10.  If your earnings had fallen even further to 9k, they might value you at 90k (9k/0.1=$90k).  You still have the same machines, but the market has changed in a way that make those machines less valuable. If you've gone from earning 10k in year one with 10 machines to 9k in year two with 11 machines, an investor might assume you'll make even less in year three, potentially only 8k, so the value of your company might even fall to 80k or lower.  Once it is assumed that your earnings will continue to shrink, an investor might value your business based on a higher required rate of return (e.g. maybe 20% instead of 10%), which would cause your share price to fall even further.
Your observation is mostly right, that 1 is a the number around which this varies.  You are actually referencing PEG, P/E to Growth ratio, which is a common benchmark to use to evaluate a stock. The article I link to provides more discussion.
In simplest terms, when a company creates new shares and sells them, it's true that existing shareholders now own a smaller percentage of the company.  However, as the company is now more valuable (since it made money by selling the new shares), the real dollar value of the previous shares is unchanged. That said, the decision to issue new shares can be interpreted by investors as a signal of the company's strategy and thereby alter the market price;  this may well affect the real dollar value of the previous shares.  But the simple act of creating new shares does not alter the value in and of itself.
One of the guys that started Rovio got investment from his wealthy uncle's company. They surely want to sell some of their 60% ownership, but claim they will be sticking around. With Rovio's pitch to re-emerge as a film studio (or that was one idea I read and Angry Birds was a hit), I wonder if this valuation matches what other film studios would be valued or are they just riding the wave of ridiculous tech valuations.
Would bond holders differentiate in their EV/EBITDA calcs when compared to equity holders when valuing a private company?  For e.g. when it comes to a company that has built a power plant, generally equity holders would take an additional haircut/discount for the lack of marketability.   Would debt holders do the same? Would there be a higher valuation otherwise?
The (assets - liabilities)/#shares of a company is its book value, and that number is included in their reports. It's easy for a fund to release the net asset value on a daily basis because all of its assets (stocks, bonds, and cash) are given values every day by the market.  It's  also necessary to have a real time value for a fund as it will be bought and sold every day. A company can't really do the same thing as it will have much more diverse assets - real estate, cars, inventory, goodwill, etc.  The real time value of those assets doesn't have the same meaning as a fund; those assets are used to earn cash, while a fund's business is only to maximize its net asset value.
"This kind of investment is called ""sweat equity"".  It is sometimes taken into account by lenders and other investors.  Such investors look at the alleged value of the input labor with a very skeptical eye, but they often appreciate that the entrepreneur has ""skin in the game"". The sort of analysis described by the original poster is useful for estimating ""economic profit"" -- how much better off was the entrepreneur than if he had done something else with his time.  But this sort of analysis is not applicable for tax purposes for most small businesses in the United States. It is usually not in the entrepreneur's interest to use this method of accounting for tax purposes, for three reasons: It requires setting up the business in such a way that it can pay him wages or salaries for his time.  The business might not have enough cash resources to do so.  Furthermore, setting up the business in this way requires legal and accounting expertise, which is expensive. If the entrepreneur does set up the business like this, the wages and salaries will be subject to tax.  Wage and salary tax rates are often much higher than capital gains tax rates, especially when one considers taxes like Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, and Business & Occupation taxes. If the entrepreneur does set up the business like this, the taxes on the wages and salaries would be due long before the hoped-for sale of the company.  The sale of the company might never happen.  This results in a time-value-of-money penalty, an optionality penalty, and a risk penalty."
The economic utility of markets results from price discovery (and the corresponding capital allocation.) Information which changes the material value of a business can come to light, be processed by sentient beings capable of rational thought, and conveyed to the market in the form of a price in an hour. That can't happen in a millisecond.  And don't try to argue about liquidity, because HFT liquidity evaporates in milliseconds in adverse conditions (i.e. when liquidity matters.)
The Dutch Financial Times published an article about how intangible assets are the most important value-determining factor of an organization, however investments, innovation and attention to these assets lack. This is contradicting but shows the challenge as well, because more than 75 percent of the average market value is from intangible assets. The challenge is that these aren’t quantified in financial metrics. Intangible assets consists of human-, organizational- and information capital.