• Dave@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d guess that $19 billion is the value where if someone bought it and did their best to undo everything and get it back on track, that’s how much it would be worth.

    The problem with measuring value is you have to quantify what that $19 billion actually is. Like you could say it’s the share price times the number of shares, except now twitter is privately owned we don’t have a market share price anymore.

    • TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      Theoretically what someone would pay for it. The buyer always has plans to make it better.

      Or the textbook definition, the present value of the sum of all future profits.

      • Dave@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        The buyer always has plans to make it better.

        That’s an interesting claim to make, especially on this post 😄

        • assa123@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Indeed very interesting. It is a fundamental principle of finance: Investors seek to maximize utility, but this is under the axiom of complete rationality. And even if that condition is met (which I doubt), the utility function of money is not concave at all levels, for example leftmost of the graph, before the price of food. I think that after some point, utility becomes flat and Musk is way beyond that point. Additionally he seems to be a risk loving investor, not a risk averse.