> I am not sure I understand your point. How is that different from what I wrote. Yeah, we are on the same page, it was just a little nit as it seems weird to

> I am not sure I understand your point. How is that different from what I wrote. Yeah, we are on the same page, it was just a little nit as it seems weird to me to state that future revenues are the "pure" base for valuation when future is informed by current. Just semantics though. > You will pretty much always find a buyer for financial assets. Unless they are so rotten that no one thinks they are worth what you have them in your books At the right price you will find a buyer for anything. I was speaking to your point about liquidity, which is not about price of the asset, but about the quantity of interested buyers and the ease of structuring and executing a transaction with a buyer.