4 ms·
If we're really digging into it, the actual value of a company should be the amount of money you need in total to buy it. Including the parts that are not for s
by makeitdouble 3y ago
If we're really digging into it, the actual value of a company should be the amount of money you need in total to buy it. Including the parts that are not for sale (so not just the public shares)
That also means for instance convincing the US gov to let you have Tesla, and vice versa convincing the Japanese government and all Toyota's debt holders to not intervene in case of a Toyota buyout.
And that becomes a completely different story with undefinable numbers and so much more politics.
- gruez 3y ago>If we're really digging into it, the actual value of a company should be the amount of money you need in total to buy it. Including the parts that are not for sale (so not just the public shares) That doesn't make any sense. The "actual value" of something must include what people are willing to pay for it, not what the existing owners are willing to sell at. If I have a trinket that I'm not willing to let go for less than $1M, the "actual value" isn't suddenly $1M.
- edarchis 3y agoAgreed. Such a valuation would be different for a Japanese buyer, an American one or one that has a special project or affinity. A value should be an objective amount and the real amount paid varies depending on what you bring to the table.
- makeitdouble 3y agoBut then what does "actual value" means if you can never ever buy it at that price ? The same way you posit the vendor price can't be taken at face value, the buyer's price can't be the measure either (my wife's totally willing to buy my trinket for the sum of all of our possessions. That makes it quite a valuable thing right ?)