vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
like any share, valuing facebook requires a projection of earnings and earnings growth to arrive at a present value for the right to share in these future earnings.   there are economic arguments to be had for facebook to see either a negative or positive future long term net income growth. given the uncertainty we can establish a very rough baseline value by treating it as a perpetuity (zero growth) discounted at historical equity growth rate (8%) with some very simple math. An annual net income of 900 million discounted at 8 percent in perpetuity is worth 11.25 Billion.  Now, take into account the fact that tech stocks trade at an inflated PE multiple of around 3 times that of a mature company in an established industry (PE x10-20 for average stocks and anywhere between x30-60+ for tech stocks), and I would expect the market cap for this perpetuity to be around 34 Billion.  A market cap of 34 billion is a share value of around 15.5, which is the point where I would take up a long position with fair confidence. I do think that the share deserves a premium for potential income growth (despite the current and potential future revenue losses) simply due to the incredibly large user base and the potential to monetize this. Of course, it wasn't worth the 22 dollar premium that IPO buyers paid but its worth something.  I think there is simply too much uncertainty for me to go long in the next 6 months unless it hits 15/share which may never happen. If the company can monetize mobile and show quarterly results in the next year I would consider a long position for anywhere from 15-20 a share.
Lets say the hurdle rate for this company is 10% and the current return on assets is 8%. A linear increase in revenue and earnings would actually destroy some value as projects that have a 9% return are accepted even though they destroy value for the shareholder.  hope this helps!
It's based on potential. Things like market share, market size, competitive analysis and growth opportunity.    Ex: being as big as reddit is + the fact they are a large player = how they could leverage this to drive even more value than they currently have in the future  Also everything is inflated right now and the value factors in how much someone might (over) pay to acquire them.
"TL;DR: Because stocks represent added value from corporate profits, and not the price the goods themselves are sold at. This is actually a very complicated subject.  But here's the simplest answer I can come up with.  Stocks are a commodity, just like milk, eggs, and bread.  The government only tracks certain commodities (consumables) as part of the Consumer Price Index (CPI).  These are generally commodities that the typical person will consume on a daily or weekly basis, or need to survive (food, rent, etc.).  These are present values. Stock prices, on the other hand, represent an educated guess (or bet) on a company's future performance.  If Apple has historically performed well, and analysts expect it to continue to perform, then investors will pay more for a stock that they feel will continue pay good dividends in the future.  Compound this with the fact that there is usually limited a supply of stock for a particular company (unless they issue more stock). If we go back to Apple as an example, they can raise their price they charge on an iPhone from $400 to $450 over the course of say a couple years.  Some of this may be due to higher wage costs, but efficiencies in the marketplace actually tend to drive down costs to produce goods, so they will probably actually turn a higher profit by raising their price, even if they have to pay higher wages (or possibly even if they don't raise their price!).  This, in economics, is termed value added. Finally, @Hart is absolutely correct in his comment about the stocks in the S&P 500 not being static.  Additionally, the S&P 500 is a hand picked set of ""winners"", if you will.  These are not run-of-the-mill penny stocks for companies that will be out of business in a week.  These are companies that Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC thinks will perform well."
In scenario 3 (their product getting a large boost), the company still has all the things that allowed them to come up with, produce and sell Gadgets. They also have every opportunity to come up with, manufacture and sell Next Generation Gadgets, which implies that future profits, while far from guaranteed, are likely. In this case, the probability remains high that the company can actually maintain a higher level of profit. Hence, the value of the company should rise. Now apply this to a slightly more realistic scenario, and you can see why the value of a company can fall even if the company announces, for example, record profits. Hence, you are looking for news which indicate a present and sustained raised ability to turn a profit. This is the type of news that should drive any stock up in price, all else being equal. Obviously, buyer beware, your mileage may vary, all else is never equal, nothing ever hits the average, you are fighting people who do this type of analysis for a living and have every tool known available to them, etc etc. But that's the general idea.
There are many ways to value a business. Here is a simple method to get a ball park number on most businesses. This business is made of two parts. For the real estate: For the business:  I would consider this type of small business riskier than the stock market and so you should expect a higher return. Maybe 15 or 20%? If the rental business makes $50k profit (not revenue) and that is 20% return of your investment, the business is worth $250k. If the business makes no money or if they only make money because they don't take a salary then this is a hobby and not a business. There's no business to buy here and you are just bidding on the real estate to do with what you please. The assets worth $600k and the business worth $250k would be added together for a fair sale price of $850k. Adjust for your actual numbers and you should be able to get a ball park of what you think the business is worth. If you do the math and it works out that you'll make 1-3% on your business, compare that to investing in other places. If it works out that you'll make 40% on your money that's pretty awesome too.
"Gold can be thought of to have value in one of two ways; (1) as a means and (2) as an end.  Means takes the shape of currency. In this form, we value gold in the same way we value the dollar, it allows us to purchase things we want. As a medium of exchange, gold has no definitive value and is only assigned one during the process of an exchange. For example, I would be valuing one ingot of gold to be worth a dog if I traded a dog for one ingot of gold. The value of gold in this sense is subjective as each person decides for themselves what gold is worth during the transaction. Gold as an end is valued for its own sake. A good example of this is a jeweler who purchases gold directly because of the intrinsic property(s) gold possesses. This is closer to the ""true value"" of gold than using it as a means, but virtually no one in our society views gold in this manor because virtually no one can use gold in this manor. ""You know what I could use right now, a block of gold."" - said no one ever.  But even if you are one of the select few who value gold for its own sake, this is usually done because gold provides a function. For example, if people no longer want to ware jewelry, then a jeweler will likely have to find a new line of work where he would likely no longer view gold as valuable as an ends. To sum up, gold has a perceived value for most people and an ""intrinsic value"" to a select few (for the time being)."
"Since you have no sales, I'd likely question how well could you determine the value of the company's assets in a reasonable fashion. You may be better to estimate sales and discount that back to a current valuation. For example, insurance companies could determine that if you wanted to be paid $x/month for the rest of your life, the present day value of that is $y. There are similar mechanisms for businesses but this does get tricky as the estimates have to be somewhat conservative and you have to be prepared for some other scenarios. For example, if you got the $200,000 then would you really never have to ask for more external equity financing in the future or is it quite likely that you'd want another infusion down the road? While you can mark it at $1,000,000 there will be questions about why that value that you'd have to answer and saying, ""Cause I like big round numbers,"" may not go over well. My suggestion is to consider what kind of sales will the company have over the next 5 years that you could work back to determine a current price. If you believe the company can have $5,000,000 in sales over the 5 years then it may make sense to place the current valuation of $1,000,000 on it. I wouldn't look too much into the money and time you've invested as that isn't likely to go over well with investors that just because you've put in what is worth $x, the business may or may not be worth that. The challenge is that without sales, it is quite difficult to get an idea of what is the company worth. If it makes billions, then it is worth a lot more than a company that never turns a profit. Another way to consider this is the question of what kind of economic output do you think you could do working here for the next 5 years? Could you do thousands of dollars of work, millions of dollars or just a few bucks? Consider how you want this to be seen where if you want some help look up episodes of TV shows like ""Dragon's Den"" or ""Shark Tank"" as these give valuations often as part of the pitch which is what you are doing."
"I've tried looking for sources, and I've found a few, but none of them seem to nail the exact material of what I'm asking about.  I feel that these visceral questions about what is value in our world, and how we can redefine it outside the definitions from both governments and corporations, is an important zeitgeist to our modern era.    Nobody asked me to do this, I am just drawn instinctively drawn to wonder about not only the workings of the world but its possibilities; the same way Adam Smith, Nikola Tesla, F.A. Hayek, and a few others have been drawn to in their lifetimes, even though they were criticized.  They began asking questions and developing them over years in order to help others and build the world, and that is what I am and I was trying to do here.  Not just to get the old formulas from a referential book, but to get real opinions in real time, because that's what matters; how our own kind define revolution or reformation, because aren't revolutionaries and entrepreneurs the same thing?  The risk takers and idea makers that want to make a new world for everyone.  The problem is when the definition of value by one entity is made the definition of everyone by force, and its causes only obstruction.    “GIVE me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.”--Mayer Amschel Rothschild  ""It is not by augmenting the capital of the country, but by rendering a greater part of that capital active and productive than would otherwise be so, that the most judicious operations of banking can increase the industry of the country""--Adam Smith  Ironically, what both Adam Smith and Karl Marx agreed on was a fear that money would become an end to itself, which many people fear is true today.  Shouldn't we ask these questions more often?  I feel it's instinctive:  http://www.businessinsider.com/economy-of-the-future-2012-10"
"Gold may have some ""intrinsic value"" but it cannot be accurately determined by investors by any known valuation techniques. In fact, if you were to apply the dividend discount model of John Burr Williams - a variation of which is the basis of Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis and the basis of most valuation techniques - gold would have zero intrinsic value because it produces no cash flow. Legendary focus investor Warren Buffett argues that investing in gold is pure speculation because of the reason mentioned above. As others have mentioned, gold prices are affected by supply and demand, but the bigger influence on the price of gold is how the economy is. Gold is seen as a store of value because, according to some, it does not ""lose value"" unlike paper currency during inflation. In inflationary times, demand increases so gold prices do go up, which is why gold behaves similar to a commodity but has far less uses. It is difficult to argue whether or not gold gains or loses value because we can't determine the intrinsic value of gold, and anyone who attempts to justify any given price is pulling blinders over your eyes. It is indisputable that, over history, gold represents wealth and that in the past century and the last decade, gold prices rise in inflationary conditions as people dump dollars for gold, and it has fallen when the purchasing power of currency increases. Many investors have talked about a ""gold bubble"" by arguing that gold prices are inflated because of inflation and the Fed's money policy and that once interest rates rise, the money supply will contract and gold will fall, but again, nobody can say with any reasonable accuracy what the fair value of gold at any given point is. This article on seeking alpha: http://seekingalpha.com/article/112794-the-intrinsic-value-of-gold gives a quick overview, but it is also vague because gold can't be accurately priced. I wouldn't say that gold has zero intrinsic value because gold is not a business so traditional models are inappropriate, but I would say that gold *certainly * doesn't have a value of $1,500 and it's propped so high only because of investor expectation.
Let's say that you bought a share of Apple for $10. When (if ever) their stock sold for $10, it was a very small company with a very small net worth; that is, the excess of assets over liabilities. Your $10 share was perhaps a 1/10,000,000th share of a tiny company. Over the years, Apple has developed both software and hardware that have real value to the world. No-one knew they needed a smartphone and, particularly, an iPhone, until Apple showed it to us. The same is true of iPads, iPods, Apple watches, etc. Because of the sales of products and services, Apple is now a huge company with a huge net worth. Obviously, your 1/10,000,000th share of the company is now worth a lot more. Perhaps it is worth $399. Maybe you think Apples good days are behind it. After all, it is harder to grow a huge company 15% a year than it is a small company. So maybe you will go into the marketplace and offer to sell your 1/10,000,000th share of Apple. If someone offers you $399, would you take it?  The value of stocks in the market is not a Ponzi scheme, although it is a bit speculative. You might have a different conclusion and different research about the future value of Apple than I do. Your research might lead you to believe the stock is worth $399. Mine might suggest it's worth $375. Then I wouldn't buy. The value of stocks in the market is based on the present and estimated future value of living, breathing companies that are growing, shrinking and steady. The value of each company changes all the time. So, then, does the price of the stock. Real value is created in the stock market when real value is created in the underlying company.
Don't try because it's a moving target. A thriving economy on paper can be entirely valuation based. It tells you nothing about distribution of wealth in the economy. The majority would be destitute and we could still be talking of booming times if speculative markets can find creative ways of growing valuations of existing assets with credi growth. All that is needed is for two people to bid a painting to 100 million for the painting to have contributed positively to a growth in the value of goods and services in the economy. The same is done with intellectual property and corporate valuations. Good times are times when capital gains can be seized on account of expansionin of credit or government spending. Recessions are closer when governments try and pull in more than they spend and when lending can't expand. Government spending is increaasing these days despite talk of the contrary.
"You should distinguish between the price and the value of a company:  ""Price is what you pay, value is what you get"". Price is the share price you pay for one share of the company. Value is what a company is worth (based on fundamental analysis, one of the principles of value investing).  I would recommend selling the stock only if the company's value has deteriorated due to fundamental changes (e.g. better products from competitors, declining market) and its value is lower than the current share price."
A lot of these firms consist of ex-McKinsey consulting people that know how to evaluate operations, efficiency, etc.  Like any company, operating plans are presented by mgmt to the board and implemented by management.  The PE firm works with management to design the operating strategy, and that may be done in-house (PE firm) and/or with outside consults in the industry.  Operational performance is important, but unfortunately a lot of PE firms really only engage in financial engineering.  The more industry/sector specific the PE the firm, the more value they likely add (as a generalization).
Who can buy Uber for anything close to their current valuation? They're worth more on paper than Ford, GM, or Tesla. And founders and execs usually don't get the same seniority of shares and liquidation preferences as VCs.
Workers don't always create value, though. If a capitalist that owns a company has a vision for something and they piece together a team of marketers and salesman, engineers, managers, and workers, then the value that's being created is based on the initiative of the capitalist. The producers and others involved in the creation of the item or service are a part of that, sure. But the idea that each one of them is going to be given a portion of the margins on that item outside of what their pay is based on is simply ludicrous when the only one risking their actual money is a capitalist.
I think the key to intrinsic value is that if you have something with *intrinsic* value, you can derive some direct benefit from it without trading.  For example a house has intrinsic value because without trading it, you can use it to stay warm and dry, and use it to store your stuff. Money - whether it's federal currency or bitcoin - has a very low intrinsic value. What can you do with cash without trading it? Maybe make some paper art or patch a leaking boat, but a $20 bill has very little practical (intrinsic) value until you trade it for goods or services. The same with bitcoin - you can't play it like a video game or drink it if you're thirsty, all you can do is trade it for things that you can use directly.
There is a highly related question which is much easier to answer: what normally value-increasing news about a company would cause that company to fall in value in the public stock market? By answering that, we can answer your question by proxy. The answer to that question being: anything that makes investors believe that the company won't be able to maintain the level of profit. For example, let's say a company announces a 300% profit growth compared to the previous year. This should push the stock upwards; maybe not by 300%, but certainly by quite a bit. Let's also say that this company is in the business of designing, manufacturing and selling some highly useful gadget that lots of people want to buy. Now suppose that the company managed such an profit increase by one of: In scenario 1 (firing the engineering department), it is highly unlikely that the company will be able to come up with, manufacture and sell a Next Generation Gadget. Hence, while profit is up now, it is highly likely to go down in the months and years coming up. Because stock market investors are more interested in future profits than in past profits, this should push the value of the company down. In scenario 2 (selling off the machinery), the company may very well be able to come up with a Next Generation Gadget, and if they can manufacture it, they might very well be able to sell it. However, no matter how you slice it, the short-term costs for manufacturing either their current generation Gadget, or the Next Generation Gadget, are bound to go up because the company will either need to rent machinery, or buy new machinery. Neither is good for future profits, so the value of the company again should go down in response. In scenario 3 (their product getting a large boost), the company still has all the things that allowed them to come up with, produce and sell Gadgets. They also have every opportunity to come up with, manufacture and sell Next Generation Gadgets, which implies that future profits, while far from guaranteed, are likely. In this case, the probability remains high that the company can actually maintain a higher level of profit. Hence, the value of the company should rise.
Hi, apologize for my English. Extremely moronic question incoming (corporate finance, Modigliani&amp;Miller).  Let's say an unlevered company is valued at 1 bln: it issues 200 mln of debt and the corporate tax is at 40%.  What is its value now? The sum of unlevered value, fiscal shield (200*0.4) and debt or just the sum of unlevered value and fiscal shield?
"I think your question might be coming from a misunderstanding of how corporate structures work - specifically, that a corporation is a legal entity (sort of like a person) that can have its own assets and debts. To make it clear, let's look at your example. We have two founders, Albert and Brian, and they start a corporation called CorpTech. When they start the company, it has no assets - just like you would if you owned nothing and had no bank account. In order to do anything, CorpTech is going to need some money. So Albert and Brian give it some. They can give it as much as they want - they can give it property if they want, too. Usually, people don't just put money into a corporation without some sort of agreement in place, though. In most cases, the agreement says something like ""Each member will own a fraction of the company that is in proportion to this initial investment."" The way that is done varies depending on the type of corporation, but in general, if Albert ends up owning 75% and Brian ends up owning 25%, then they probably valued their contributions at 75% and 25% of the total value. These contributions don't have to be money or property, though. They could just be general ""know-how,"" or ""connections,"" or ""an expectation that they will do some work."" The important thing is that they agree on the value of these contributions and assign ownership of the company according to that agreement. If they don't have an agreement, then the laws of the state that the company is registered in will say how the ownership is assigned. Now, what ""ownership"" means can be different depending on the context. When it comes to decision-making, you could ""own"" one percentage of the company in terms of votes, but when it comes to shares of future profits, you could own a different amount. This is why you can have voting and non-voting versions of a company's stock, for example. So this is a critical point - the ownership of a company is independent of the individual contributions to the company. The next part of your question is related to this: what happens when CorpTech sees an opportunity to make an investment?