[paganel]

> Clearly macro factors like rates and inflation

To quote from the latest Economist [1]:

> This logic has broader implications than most investors realise. Now imagine you will receive $100 a year, for ever. By the reasoning above, this has a finite present value, since compound interest means payments in the distant future are almost worthless. With interest rates at 1%, the payment stream is worth $10,000; at 5%, it is worth $2,000. But as well as reducing the value, the higher rate also changes the distribution of that value. With rates at 1%, less than a tenth of the stream’s value comes from payments made in the first ten years. At 5%, around two-fifths does.

and

> In other words, higher interest rates dramatically alter firms’ incentives when choosing which timeline to invest over. Sacrificing short-term profits for longer-term gains is one thing when you are trying to persuade investors that your superapp, machine-learning algorithm or gene-sequencing widget has the potential to up-end an industry. It is another when even the best-case scenario has its value so heavily skewed towards what can be done in the next decade. Startup founders are used to shaking off derision over implausible, Utopian dreams. It is more of a kick in the teeth to realise that even Utopia is not worth much unless it can be achieved in short order.

Sorry for the long quotes, it was the best I could do, I highly recommend that article in its entirety.

[1] https://archive.ph/9GbfH

[subsubzero]

Thanks for this, its confusing for many as to why growth companies(low/no-profit) are getting hit so hard due to rising interest rates and these quotes and the article linked explain the reasoning very well.

[robocat]

The NPV values didn’t look weird enough, but I got the same results from: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/financial/net-pre... — Values used: Interest Rate = %5, Compounding = 1 times per Period, Line 0 = $0, Line 1 = 5000 periods of $100.

However, I think the economist column/article misses some important points:

1: There is a stereotype that corporations only look at the next quarter’s earnings. The article argues the opposite, that corporations are long term focused. The article needs to address that point.

2: Stocks and dividends should be inflation proof (with some assumptions, such as revenues increase with inflation).

3. The article doesn’t seem to mention bonds, even though it talks about constant $ returns. What?

The most interesting part of the article for me was “The original marshmallow test, it turned out, had a flaw. Exclude some children from better-off families (which seems to make them both more willing to delay gratification and more likely to succeed in later life) and much of its predictive power suddenly disappears.” [Slight edits]