6 ms·

Revenue is the best indicator for value, not profit which is artificially driven down for tax purposes.

vikramkr 6y ago
Free cash flow is better than revenue - you can play around with accruals in unsavory ways that are harder to pull off with cash.
mywittyname 6y ago
Neither is a great indicator for companies that are experiencing significant growth. ARM Holdings has nearly tripled revenue over the past decade. So you have to weight future growth, as well as potential future market opportunities. ARM + nVidia can be a powerhouse combo, especially in the cloud/server market.
- giantrobot 6y ago
  NVidia is already an ARM licensee. What does owning ARM holdings give them besides a massive amount of debt? They could license everything ARM owns for decades for less than this buyout would cost.
- valuearb 6y ago
  ARMs growth has petered out, its market is large and mostly saturated. PCs and servers won’t ship a fraction of the CPUs mobile does.
BbzzbB 6y ago
That's just silly, Wal-Mart would be the most valuable company (while being far from the most profitable) if it held true.
- nightcracker 6y ago
  I don't think it's that silly to consider Wal-Mart the most valuable company.
  - vikramkr 6y ago
    But its definitely not in any financial metrics. If you own walmart for a year, you'll make around 4 billion, while if you own Google, you'll make around 7. And Google is likely going to be growing faster than Walmart.
  - BbzzbB 6y ago
    If I sell 100 lemonades per day and can't pay my rent, yet my neighbor sells 50 lemonades but manages the business in a way to pay his rent and a salary, how can my business possibly be more valuable? It's a silly example but I don't think it's far fetched. Similarly, Apple is worth far more than 20% of the phone market despite having a grasp on only 20% (give or take, I don't recall the exact number) market shares. There's a reason companies aren't valued based on revenue.
burnte 6y ago
Revenue is a terrible indicator, EBITDA is a good indicator.

Free cash flow is better than revenue - you can play around with accruals in unsavory ways that are harder to pull off with cash.

mywittyname 6y ago

Neither is a great indicator for companies that are experiencing significant growth. ARM Holdings has nearly tripled revenue over the past decade. So you have to weight future growth, as well as potential future market opportunities. ARM + nVidia can be a powerhouse combo, especially in the cloud/server market.

giantrobot 6y ago
NVidia is already an ARM licensee. What does owning ARM holdings give them besides a massive amount of debt? They could license everything ARM owns for decades for less than this buyout would cost.
valuearb 6y ago
ARMs growth has petered out, its market is large and mostly saturated. PCs and servers won’t ship a fraction of the CPUs mobile does.

BbzzbB 6y ago

That's just silly, Wal-Mart would be the most valuable company (while being far from the most profitable) if it held true.

nightcracker 6y ago
I don't think it's that silly to consider Wal-Mart the most valuable company.
- vikramkr 6y ago
  But its definitely not in any financial metrics. If you own walmart for a year, you'll make around 4 billion, while if you own Google, you'll make around 7. And Google is likely going to be growing faster than Walmart.
- BbzzbB 6y ago
  If I sell 100 lemonades per day and can't pay my rent, yet my neighbor sells 50 lemonades but manages the business in a way to pay his rent and a salary, how can my business possibly be more valuable? It's a silly example but I don't think it's far fetched. Similarly, Apple is worth far more than 20% of the phone market despite having a grasp on only 20% (give or take, I don't recall the exact number) market shares. There's a reason companies aren't valued based on revenue.

burnte 6y ago

Revenue is a terrible indicator, EBITDA is a good indicator.