RE:RE:RE:RE:Valuation of SUmrbb wrote: Experienced wrote: I agree that the current valuation is related to discounted FUTURE cashflows. That is the classical MBA finance way to do it.
That said, the question then becomes, how do you measure the future cashflows. With all due respect my friend, my post is not useless blather as you suggest, it reflects on how the pros are assessing what those future cashflows are. Clearly, the sale of the Total gas stations refects the discounted cash future cashflows for the gas stations and this number is a fraction of what people were talking about when SU put the PCstations up for sale. The same goes for the price that SU paid for Fort Hills.
If you think my post was useless blather then show your basis for a calculation of future cashflows instead of taking potshots!!
In the meantime I will base my decisions on the evidence presented by people who are ponying up billions of dollars to buy these assets not some theoretical number based on wishful thinking.
sorry, MBA doesn't own the NPV calculaton method.
In the meantime I will base my decisions on the evidence presented by people who are ponying up billions of dollars to buy these assets not some theoretical number based on wishful thinking. so you gave your reason why couche-tard bought total's gas station because total energy wants out of gasoline sale business. Then what's your reason for exxon and chevron doubling down on having more oily assets? BTW, i see Husky gas stations are converted to Chevron gas station in my area. Is chevron stupidly dumb?
Contin'ed
Experienced "In the meantime I will base my decisions on the evidence presented by people who are ponying up billions of dollars to buy these assets not some theoretical number based on wishful thinking." So Mr Experienced, you know anyone else ponying up more billions for assets than Larry Fink? Keep them coming Mr. salesman
