Stock valuation - Volkswagen
The prices dropped because the scandal could mean: This some people estimated that the company could lose money, or have smaller profit. Thus each share was worth less money going forward. The mechanism is that in order to sell their shares the current share owners had to settle for lower prices. (I live in the UK and along with my wife we both drive Volkswagen cars.) A few factors: VW is widely acknowledged as having some of the best diesel car engines.  -Now lot of people are questioning if diesel car will be outlawed. VM management has just said they don’t know what their workers are doing! The USA has made it clear they will create pollution law in a way that benefit their own car makers.   (E.g. they don’t care about CO2.) If not diesel cars, then it needs hybrid or electric cars to get good MPG – VM is not seen as a leader in these. Hybrid cars tend to be gas as diesel engines cost too much. VW is no longer looking like a nice safe investment!   I think VW will recover, but it may get worse for them before it gets better - trying to call the bottom of a stock is high risk. "The primary reason a scandal like this hurts the company is the ""bottom line.""  Any legal action means defense costs.  In this case the potential of massive fines became reality.  And a buyback program.   So, if any publicly traded company stacked up $10B in assets, doused it in diesel and set it on fire, their stock would take a dip too. Billions in revenue directed to the expense side of the ledger instead of the profit side.  That money should have gone to building the company and dividends."
Ok so I used Excel solver for this but it's on the right track.  Latest price = $77.19  Latest div = $1.50  3-yr div growth = 28%  g = ???  rs = 14%  So we'll grow out the dividend 3 years @ 28%, and then capitalize them into perpetuity using a cap rate of [rs - g], and take the NPV using the rs of 14%. We can set it up and then solve g assuming an NPV of the current share price of $77.19.  So it should be:  NPV = $77.19 =   [$1.50 / (1+0.14)^0 ] +  [$1.50 x (1+0.28)^1 / (1+0.14)^1 ] +  ... +  [$1.50 x (1+0.28)^3 / (1+0.14)^3 ] +  [$1.50 x (1+0.28)^3 x (1+g) / (0.14-g) / (1+0.14)^4 ]  Which gives an implied g of a little under 9%. Let me know if this makes sense, and definitely check the work... "Matt explains the study numbers in his answer, but those are the valuation of the brand, not the value of the company or how ""rich"" the company is.   Presuming that you're asking the value of the company, the usual way for a publicly traded company to be valued is by the market capitalization (1).  Market capitalization is a fairly simple measure, basically the total value of all the shares of stock in that company. You can find the market cap for any publicly traded company on any of the usual finance sites like Google Finance or Yahoo Finance. If by rich you mean the total value of assets (assets being all property, including cash, real property, equipment, and licenses) a company owns, that information is included in a publicly traded company's quarterly SEC filing and investor releases, but isn't usually listed on the popular finance sites. An example can be seen at Duke Energy's Investor Relation Site (the same information can be found for all companies on EDGAR, the SEC's search tool).  If you open the most recent 8-K (quarterly filing), and go to page 8, you can see that they have $33B+ in assets, and a high level breakdown of those. Note that the numbers are given in millions of dollars For a privately held company this information may or may not be available and you'd have to track it down if it is available. I picked Duke Energy because it's the first thing that popped into my mind.  I have no affiliation with Duke, and I don't directly own any of their stock." I really like Value Investing by Bruce Greenwald. It's not a textbook so you can probably pick it up for about $20. While it is dense, I think with some patience you might be able to understand it at the undergrad level. The process outlined in the VI book is very different from the conventional corp finance way of valuing a company.  A typical corp finance model would probably have you model cash flows 5 or 10 years out and then assume some sort of terminal growth. The VI book argues that it's nearly impossible to predict things that far out accurately so build your valuation on what we know. Start with the balance sheet. Then look at this year's earnings. Is that sustainable?  This is a simplification of course but I describe it only so you can get the idea. I think it's definitely a worthwhile read. "To my knowledge, there's no universal equation, so this could vary by individual/company.   The equation I use (outside of sentiment measurement) is the below - which carries its own risks: This equations assumes two key points: Anything over 1.2 is considered oversold if those two conditions apply.  The reason for the bear market is that that's the time stocks generally go on ""sale"" and if a company has a solid balance sheet, even in a downturn, while their profit may decrease some, a value over 1.2 could indicate the company is oversold. An example of this is Warren Buffett's investment in Wells Fargo in 2009 (around March) when WFC hit approximately 7-9 a share.  Although the banking world was experiencing a crisis, Buffett saw that WFC still had a solid balance sheet, even with a decrease in profit.  The missing logic with many investors was a decrease in profits - if you look at the per capita income figures, Americans lost some income, but not near enough to justify the stock falling 50%+ from its high when evaluating its business and balance sheet.  The market quickly caught this too - within two months, WFC was almost at $30 a share. As an interesting side note on this, WFC now pays $1.20 dividend a year.  A person who bought it at $7 a share is receiving a yield of 17%+ on their $7 a share investment. Still, this equation is not without its risks.  A company may have a solid balance sheet, but end up borrowing more money while losing a ton of profit, which the investor finds out about ad-hoc (seen this happen several times).  Suddenly, what ""appeared"" to be a good sale, turns into a person buying a penny with a dollar.  This is why, to my knowledge, no universal equation applies, as if one did exist, every hedge fund, mutual fund, etc would be using it. One final note: with robotraders becoming more common, I'm not sure we'll see this type of opportunity again.  2009 offered some great deals, but a robotrader could easily be built with the above equation (or a similar one), meaning that as soon as we had that type of environment, all stocks fitting that scenario would be bought, pushing up their PEs.  Some companies might be willing to take an ""all risk"" if they assess that this equation works for more than n% of companies (especially if that n% returns an m% that outweighs the loss).  The only advantage that a small investor might have is that these large companies with robotraders are over-leveraged in bad investments and with a decline, they can't make the good investments until its too late.  Remember, the equation ultimately assumes a person/company has free cash to use it (this was also a problem for many large investment firms in 2009 - they were over-leveraged in bad debt)." I have heard that people say the greater earning means greater   intrinsic value of the company. Then, the stock price is largely based   on the intrinsic value. So increasing intrinsic value due to   increasing earning will lead to increasing stock price. Does this make   sense ? Yes though it may be worth dissecting portions here. As a company generates earnings, it has various choices for what it can do with that money. It can distribute some to shareholders in the form of dividends or re-invest to generate more earnings. What you're discussing in the first part is those earnings that could be used to increase the perceived value of the company. However, there can be more than a few interpretations of how to compute a company's intrinsic value and this is how one can have opinions ranging from companies being overvalued to undervalued overall. Of Mines, Forests, and Impatience would be an article giving examples that make things a bit more complex. Consider how would you evaluate a mine, a forest or a farm where each gives a different structure to the cash flow? This could be useful in running the numbers here. I still can't understand why there is a price discrepancancy.  There isn't. It's the same stock and price differences between such major exchanges will always be minimal. I think you simply haven't paid attention to the date range. It seems Google finance only has data for FRA:BMW reaching back to 2011, so if you try to look at the development of your investment since 2009, you're not getting comparable data. It's a way to help normalize the meaning of the earnings report. Some companies like Google have a small number of publicly traded shares (322 Million). Others like Microsoft have much larger numbers of shares (8.3 Billion). The meaning depends on the stock. If it's a utility company that doesn't really grow, you don't want to see lots of changes -- the earnings per share should be stable. If it's a growth company, earnings should be growing quickly, and flat growth means that the stock is probably going down, especially if slow growth wasn't expected. To be fair, the analyst is talking about the book value of the firm. Basically, the value of all the stuff it owns now. There are plenty of companies with negative book value that can justify a positive share price. Ford, for instance, had negative book value but positive future earnings. There are two very large negative factors that affect Yahoo's valuation.   The first is that their search business is in decline and continues to lose ground to Google and even Bing.  There's no sign that they have any plan or product in the works to offset this decline, so there's tremendous uncertainty about the company's forward-looking revenues. The second is that the company can't seem to decide what to do with its stake in Alibaba, clearly the company's most valuable asset.  It they sell it, the question then becomes what they plan to do with the proceeds.  Will they do share buybacks or offer a special dividend to reward investors?  Will they use some or all of the money to make strategic acquisitions that are revenue-enhancing?  Will they use it to develop new products/services?   Keep in mind one other thing here, too.  There's a world of difference between what something is valued at and what someone's willing to actually pay for it.  A patent portfolio is great and perhaps holds good value, assuming the buyer can find a way to monetize it.  How exactly was the valuation of the patents arrived at, and are they worthwhile enough for someone to pay anywhere close to that valuation?   There's more to this than meets the eye by using a first-blush look at asset valuation, and that's where the professionals come in.  My bet is that they have it right and there's something the rest of the market doesn't see or understand about it, hence questions like yours. I hope this helps. Good luck! Thanks for your thorough reply.   Basically, I found a case study in one of my old finance workbooks from school and am trying to complete it.   So it's not entirely complicated in the sense of a full LBO or merger model.   That being said, the information that they provide is Year 1 EBITDA for TargetCo and BuyerCo and a Pro-Forma EBITDA for the consolidated company @ Year 1 and Year 4 (expected IPO). I was able to get the Pre-Money and Post-Money values and the Liquidation values (year 4 IPO), as well as the number of shares.   I can use EBITDA to get EPS (ebitda/share in this case) for both consolidated and stand-alone @ Year 1, but can only get EPS for consolidated for all other years. Given the information provided. One of the questions I have is do I do anything with my liquidation values for an accretion/dilution analysis or is it all EPS? Could be misunderstanding your context. But ev = equity + debt - cash. So don't think it makes sense for an equity holder to have an individual ev/ebitda different from the company's.   Are you asking in context of valuing equity and debt from an ev/ebitda multiple? No, it is the same as it has always been. The market gives a valuation of a company based off its expected discounted cash flow.   Only problem we see is that many growth companies ($TSLA!!!) are being given the benefit of the doubt in regards to their expected growth and future profitability. **IF** Tesla does grow as many expect, then current share prices are definitely justifiable. But since when do we price things based on their ideal scenario? This market has lost its grip on risk-reward and risk tolerance. Does even a Tesla bull think that the company even has a &gt;10% chance at ever exceeding expectations in regards to near-future growth or profitability? And even those who are invested in the company admit there is a serious chance that Tesla fails to reach expectations for growth/margins.  Either way the market will cool soon. And negative cash flow companies with ultra-aggressive growth targets will be punished.  ---  If I wasn't poor/saving up to buy a house. I'd love to purchase 100 [January 2019 $50 Put Leaps at a cost of $0.55 each](http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/option-chain/190118P00050000-tsla-put) (total cost $5,500).  A Tesla BK before January 18th 2019 would mean $50x100x100 - $5,500 = **$494,500** net profit WOW.  A reduction in market cap to $5 Billion and increase in outstanding shares to 200 million (currently at 167M) results in a net profit of **$244,500**  A reduction in market cap to $10 Billion with the same share dilution results in share price of $50 and thus a full loss of my $5,500. :( To figure this out, you need to know the price per share then vs the price per share now.  Google Finance will show you historical prices.  For GOOG, the closing price on January 5, 2015 was $513.87.  The price on December 31, 2015 was $758.88.  Return on Investment (ROI) is calculated with this formula: ROI = (Proceeds from Investment - Cost of Investment) / Cost of Investment Using this formula, your return on investment would be 47.7%.  Since the time period was one year, this number is already an annualized return.  If the time period was different than one year, you would normally convert it to an annualized rate of return in order to compare it to other investments. You need a source of delisted historical data.  Such data is typically only available from paid sources. According to my records 20 Feb 2006 was not a trading day - it was Preisdent's Day and the US exchanges were closed. The prior trading date to this was 17 Feb 2006 where the stock had the following data: Open: 14.40 High 14.46 Low 14.16 Close 14.32 Volume 1339800 (consolidated volume) Source: Symbol NVE-201312 within Premium Data US delisted stocks historical data set available from http://www.premiumdata.net/products/premiumdata/ushistorical.php Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate / Premium Data. In your own example of VW, it dropped from its peak price of $253 to $92. If you had invested $10,000 in VW in April 2015, by September of that year it would have gone down to $3,600. If you held on to your investment, you would now be getting back to $6,700 on that original $10,000 investment. Your own example demonstrates that it is possible to lose. I have a friend who put his fortune into a company called WorldCom (one of the examples D Stanley shared). He actually lost all of his retirement. Luckily he made some money back when the startup we both worked for was sold to a much larger company. Unsophisticated investors lose money all the time by investing in individual companies. Your best bet is to start searching this site for answers on how to invest your money so that you can see actual strategies that reduce your investment risk. Here's a starting point: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? If you want to better illustrate this principle to yourself, try this stock market simulation game.