|
|
|
|
|
|
by madsbuch
843 days ago
|
|
|
> They have (transitively) provided the company the original $125 to use in their operations. But that value already existed as an intrinsic property of the company (eg. NAV). What the market did was to unlock these money for the company to use - Ie. they provided liquidity. Example: I have a company that is worth $1000, but I need to spend $200 in R&D. I sell 20% of the company in the market for 200$. No value way produced, but the market transformed my 200$ from company to money - ie. liquidity. Value that only happens when people trade, and not when people hold. So back to my initial point: Long term investors does not provide value. |
|
|
Upon what is this based in a world where no long-term investors exist?
Even in the "DCF of dividends plus NPV of terminal enterprise value" model, the last is dependent on long-term investors. (For the high number of tech and high-growth companies who pay no dividends, the first term in the valuation is $0.)