PV

FTRFNK

Is that kinda like PV = nRT.... wait that's the universal gas law and yours is... made up and not a fundamental law of nature or civilization.

AstockcollapseNow

They're running the same algos they used in 2008-2009 [https://i.imgur.com/PV47rPO.png](https://i.imgur.com/PV47rPO.png)

yazalama

Inflation is caused by the debasement of the currency, which is caused by creating more of it, nothing else. HIgh prices are simply a consequence. Unless of course you don't believe that MV=PV

HawkEy3

PV panels aren't expensive anymore too. Make your own electricity

omac4552

Hanwha is just the means to get to the icing on the cake, batteries. OneD, Group14 and Sila Nanotechnologies are opening factories for battery materials in Moses Lake and guess why? REC is the sole producer of Silane that goes into their siliconbatteries and the agreement with Hanwha is just PV silicon. The factoeries are ramping up and have investors as Porsche, Microsoft and many others and they ned Silane in 2024. With this deal the case is de-risced Strap in gentlemen!

Unusual_Start_3661

A reverse split indifferently impacts the PV of HLBZ’s current value.

peekitup

Math. That's it really. Let's assume continuously compounded interest for simplicity. Say a bond pays R dollars per year for T years and the current Fed/risk free rate is r. Then the present value of the bond is PV=(R/r)(1-e^(-rT)) Going from r=.04 to .03 gives a bigger increase than the drop from .04 to .05

One_Watch_8406

​ >A question back to you is, would you rather trade a strategy where the risk of loss is so low that you can feel comfortable making a trade for $1 when risking $100 instead of spreads where you are almost guaranteed to have losses? No. I consider cost-to-transact so if I am not making a profit above and beyond the costs associated with the trade initiation and closure discounted to PV I have no interest. >As we all know, the max risk is absurd as it would require the stock to got to zero, which AAPL is not going to do. BTW, I've made substantial profits trading AAPL over the years, and cannot recall ever having to take an overall net loss using the wheel. History shows that many of the companies everyone said would never go to zero ... That aside, I have no way of commenting on your successes or failures as one ticker is not really a portfolio, albeit it could be your entire portfolio (and if it is, that's fine) but that's not really a track record. AAPL has seen growth consistently for a very long time, I agree, but that's a historical statement and again history does not support the idea that growth never stops.

sameteam

Yes a PV video. You deserve to be poor forever.

wealth4good

They've been sued for defamation many, many times. They haven't lost a court battle ever. Like them or hate them, PV gets people to say the quiet things out loud.

IAlwaysLoveThatOne

I'm surprised PFE Pfizer is not mooning today after the PV video

Tsquare1984

Remember when people were upset about getting the vax by blow dart? Lol PV is trash.

ScottyBTrades

OP are you talking about this video from PV? https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0SvawzhnBBPqxkVYyj3ia9EWeWWvS5NMPT69bVNZgCzfj68sCX6fMTtASJQXhvqrWl&id=100064492159908&eav=AfaI-sun3pGC83K1w5PGpCsre_MQHqa5umMUX4LmMN7VKh0RUAjSwFaVne8Ip2IQOD4&m_entstream_source=timeline&paipv=0

Arsonist_Of_Madras

modi is the least dictatorial dude we had after vajpayee and manmohan . he is in cahoots with capitalists but he is ay better than folks like rajiv or straight up tyrants like indra or a buffon / dunce like nehru . the only person who is better than modi can be vajpai or PV Narsimha rao

Ehralur

I think as soon as someone says we'll "run out" of something, they've completely invalidated anything they say. Prices may go up, but we won't run out for hundreds of years. As for the projections, those tend to be off by miles. [Just an example of projections for PV adoption.](https://steinbuch.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/iea-vs-reality-photovoltaics-2018.png) These kinds of institutions tend to not understand any kind of exponentials. That said, perhaps Copper will become (even) more scarce and prices go up, but eventually the more expensive it becomes to more companies will start mining it. People like making money.

leapinleopard

Solar and wind are being installed at a rate that is three times faster than all other new electricity sources combined. This offers compelling market-based evidence that PV and wind are now the most competitive and practical methods for deploying new generating capacity. [https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/01/25/the-fastest-energy-change-in-history/](https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/01/25/the-fastest-energy-change-in-history/)

leapinleopard

copper might be an outlier in the recession because of the EV and Clean energy boom driven by policy and incentives like IRA act... Going Forward: " – equivalent to the current total global power capacity of fossil fuels and nuclear combined. RE is set to account for \~95% of the increase in global power capacity through 2026, with PV to provide more than half" [https://www.iea.org/news/renewable-electricity-growth-is-accelerating-faster-than-ever-worldwide-supporting-the-emergence-of-the-new-global-energy-economy](https://www.iea.org/news/renewable-electricity-growth-is-accelerating-faster-than-ever-worldwide-supporting-the-emergence-of-the-new-global-energy-economy)

Spenmiami

$SPRU Spruce Power - Bullish! Has a lot of room to continue growing and acquire additional solar portfolios. They have guaranteed money coming in for many years. Financially stable company. \-52,000 subscribers residential rooftop solar systems. Upselling existing customer base with EV Charging, EV Bi-directional power flow and Energy storage \-Positive news: Solar Investment Tax Credits by Government \-Q3 Earnings Beat top & bottom line. Completed acquisition of Spruce Power, leader residential solar. PV5 $821 million GCV \-EPS beat +43.94% & Revenue beat $8.4M +44.14% (+161.25% YoY)

Land_Value_Taxation

Sources: According to Bloomberg, the average cost of a lithium-ion battery is about $137 per kilowatt hour and is forecasted to drop as low as $100 kilowatt-hour by 2023. However, these are the cost of the cells only; a complete Li-ion battery system for grid-scale stationary storage currently costs approximately $350 to $400 per kWh. It has been estimated that the overall cost for VFRB Systems are $500/kWh, but that will fall significantly over time as production volumes increase. Adoption of VFRB batteries is still in the early stages, leaving significant room for scale-driven cost declines. [https://capital10x.com/battery-tech-report-lithium-ion-vs-vrfbs/#:\~:text=However%2C%20these%20are%20the%20cost,time%20as%20production%20volumes%20increase](https://capital10x.com/battery-tech-report-lithium-ion-vs-vrfbs/#:~:text=However%2C%20these%20are%20the%20cost,time%20as%20production%20volumes%20increase) The cost of providing near 24-7-365 power from solar panels at a commercial facility in South California was modelled to be similar for vanadium flow batteries (VFB) and lithium ion batteries (LIB) at around $0:20/kWh. In hotter locations, LIB economics suffer due to accelerated background cell ageing. Even within South California there was enough variation to affect the economic comparison. In this work, the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) achievable by optimal combinations of PV and batteries is determined for a large food retailer at a range of self-sufficiency ratios (SSR). Both lithium ion batteries (LIB), vanadium redox flow batteries (VFB) and hybrid systems of the two technologies are modelled. In combination with an over-sized PV array, both systems are capable of providing a SSR of 0.95 for a LCOE of less than $0.22/kWh. The optimal LCOE values overlap across the SSR range for both technologies depending on cost and ambient temperature assumptions. A VFB is more likely to give the lower LCOE at lower SSR, and a LIB is favoured at high SSR as the cycle rate drops as SSR increases. It is also shown that a state of charge (SOC) minimisation strategy has a significant impact on the LIB economics by reducing calendar ageing. Lastly, hybrid systems combining LIB and VFB were modelled, but in no cases showed an improvement over the optimal single choice. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1557/s43581-022-00028-w](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1557/s43581-022-00028-w) Stockhead took that question to vanadium expert David Gillam, the principal and CEO of financial consultancy Mastermines, who reckons while a lithium or Elon-Musk-style moment will come for vanadium redox flow batteries (VRFB) in the next two years, there are several reasons why this battery technology hasn’t taken off yet. Vanadium cost drives up the cost of VRFBs The initial investment for vanadium batteries is considerably more expensive compared to lithium, Gillam says, and while the price of lithium is increasing, VRFBs face a bigger issue. Vanadium is an expensive metal and significantly drives up the cost of a VRFB system compared with other battery types. If the uptake of VRFBs increases dramatically, so does the price of vanadium pentoxide (V205) – the material used in the electrolyte solutions. “We believe anything under $10/lb is viable but let’s say there is a huge uptake in vanadium batteries – what happens when the price goes to $20?” Gillam asks. “It has happened before, and it happens very quickly. “You’ve got this very volatile price of the major component, so you can imagine battery companies would be worried about the cost because it could add 30% overnight to the batteries. “At the same time, the financiers and miners would also be worried about the volatility of V205 – it’s great when it’s going up but what happens when a major starts up and there’s 10% additional capacity?” he explains. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) reports installation costs for both vanadium redox flow and zinc bromine flow in 2016 ranged between US$315 and US$1680 per kWh as compared with lithium iron phosphate at US$200 to US$840 per kWh. By 2030, IRENA says the installation cost for VRFBs is expected drop to between US$108 and US$576/kWh. “Although they presently indicate high upfront investment costs compared to other technologies, these batteries often exceed 10,000 full cycles, enabling them to make up for the high initial cost through very high lifetime energy throughputs,” IRENA points out. “Their long-term electrolyte stability, however, is key to this longevity and is the focus of an important avenue of research effort.” Mine development In 2019, China was the world’s top vanadium producing country with output totalling 40,000Mt followed by Russia at 18,000Mt and South Africa at 8,000Mt where major players include LSE listed Bushveld Minerals and Glencore. China is also a large spot market, which makes everything more difficult for ASX vanadium stocks, Gillam says. “While off-take agreements will not be difficult, getting the funding from China to move towards mining is another matter that would take considerable effort. “All investors want to see is new mine development outside China, but the problems are many.” Around 90% of vanadium production is used to strengthen steel, making it economically vulnerable owing to its sensitivity to market demand by developing countries. As Geoscience Australia notes, the vanadium price surged from US$5.70 in 2004 to US$16.89 in 2005 due to the growth of global steel production that caused an increase in vanadium consumption and a commensurate depletion of stockpiles. Over the years, Australia’s reserves and resources of vanadium have also fluctuated in response to the volatile nature of the vanadium market but of the few main contenders in the space, Gillam believes we are beginning to see real effort from management. “Investors will need to be patient and hope for a massive uptake that forces a market development outside China that can attract finance,” he says. [https://stockhead.com.au/resources/three-reasons-why-vanadium-redox-flow-battery-technology-has-not-hit-the-mainstream-yet/](https://stockhead.com.au/resources/three-reasons-why-vanadium-redox-flow-battery-technology-has-not-hit-the-mainstream-yet/)

AP9384629344432

I have a somewhat technical question on the math of share buybacks versus drilling using the PV-10 valuation of oil and gas firms in [a post on ValueInvesting](https://www.reddit.com/r/ValueInvesting/comments/10e2wk7/question_on_an_otherwise_excellent_writeup_on_oil/?) in case someone has any input.

alcate

several idea: 1 hydrocarbon company: energy is required in manufacturing solar panel and wind turbine - natural gas for flat glass panel in PV - petrochemical is needed for bonding solar cell to glass, making windmill blade, coating and lubricant to prevent corrosion in wind turbine. - metalurgical coal for steel because its needed for frame to hang the PV panel, wind turbine post, metal bearing. - coal to make concrete for wind turbine base. (this is a big problem and a lot of research is on how to reduce concrete use). Just look at youtube video on how big is the foundation of windmill. A lot of big oil company are just a big energy company, so they will be able to join green energy project as well. They have the capital and know how around project management, and how to navigating red tape to delivery green energy infrastructure on time, on budget per specification. 2 Big electrical company like ABB, Emerson, Siemens, Phiips for grid infrastructure, they might become dominant player in inverter as well.

this_guy_fks

i love it, each post you get more qualified to argue, im a maths master! now im a physics phD! but i love to engage! surly then you understand that precalc is just discrete math and setting the fundamental basis for calc in determining the continuous area under the curve and then moving forward through general calculus. algebra (at least depending on where youre from) is the next level off geometry ,where hs kids are doing basic proofs and understanding the fundamental building blocks for the logic behind how a proof works, using the simple bs of triangle math. and in general the point of algebra is to teach kids now to re-arrange and solve equations through equality, not any practical use, so you can think of the progression of geom, arithmetic, pre-calc as not really teaching anything other the baseline steps for how to think and solve advanced calculus problems. none of these are teaching anything that move into the wrold of engineering so called "real world application" thats where stats in highschool differs. in stats youre not only learning about generic mathematic models (how to think about mean, stddev, variance of different distros and ways to describe them kurtosis, skew, etc. but it also interjects closer to engineering concepts liek the null hypothesis and how to sample populations accurately. in that vein its generally the first time you learn about the concept of compounding, and all PV/FV calculations are is an extension of that. that's how its taught in hs, and it makes logical sense to teach it that way.

RichTannins

No they are not. Mean and standard deviation describe a population of data. High school stats classes dont teach FV or PV

helena_eagan

I hadn't planned on commenting on this subject further. However, I appreciate the fact that you took some time to think this through, so I will respond to your argument. My example was merely to show people the impact that interest has on the monthly cash out of pocket. As interest rates rise, the amount of debt the same monthly outlay can service reduces dramatically. Below are the exact calculations to my original scenario (of which I never intended to spend so much time explaining.. BTW). Amount Financed: $225,000; Interest rate: 5%; Term: 360 months; Monthly Payment: $1,207.85 If you increase the interest rate to 14% with a term of 360 month and keep paying $1,207.85 per month, the amount you can now finance is reduced to $101,939.19. I want to emphasize that you are paying the same thing every month in both cases. Here's a counterpoint to your argument: If you only make you monthly payments, which is what the vast majority of American middle class families do, you will reduce the principal amount by $27,123.72 during the first 84 months of ownership (which is approximately the average length of a home mortgage loan). With the higher rate scenario, you only pay down principal by $2,623.67 over the same period of time. One might argue that they still would rather have the lower priced home at the higher rate because they'd still owe far less on it, but what if you die after 84 months? Your children sell the house... pay off the loan... now they get a back a larger share of the monthly payments that you made over that 84 months. You've basically banked $27,123.72 in the lower rate scenario, but you've only banked $2,623.67 in the higher rate scenario. And I know you could make additional payments, inherit a large sum, get in early on the next meme stock, etc., but I'm talking about the average outcome for the average home buyer. Of course no one thinks they're going to die... that's not the point either... my point is just to illustrate the amount of wealth you are generating through homeownership... which is kind of the point of homeownership. And you generate more personal wealth in the lower interest rate scenario. If you don't know how home equity feeds into consumer sentiment and consumer spend and they impact this has on the economy... I'm surely wasting time here. I posted this in response to the general sentiment that I'm seeing in these discussions about housing prices and interest rates. I am saying that all the people cheerleading the rate increases as a means to drive down the price of housing in this country are woefully misinformed. The same is true of people claiming that people in the 80's paid less for housing. My point was that people who say: in the 80's average home prices were 2 times the average income and now they are 5 times the average income (or some variation of the same) fail to see that back then you paid so much more in interest that it offset the lower prices to an extent that the average out of pocket monthly expense to service the debt has not changed as dramatically as that seems (it has gone up; I concede that). I've now gone on to further make the argument that you build wealth faster when you have lower rates and higher home prices... the payment being the same. The truth is that you'll never get to choose between those two scenarios, so I am going to tweak my numbers for you to illustrate the current environment. Let's say you again finance $225,000 at 5% for 30 years, and you could have locked that rate in at 3% one year earlier, that same payment would have financed $286,488.87 at that lower rate. Therefore, housing prices had to come down 27% to make up for the 2% increase in interest rates (this isn't considering the difference in down payment, so you can cut that 27% figure down a little but not enough to detract from my point, so call it 20% if you like). If housing prices have to come down 20% to make up for a 2% increase in interest rates just to break even, then how much do they need to come down if rates increase by 3.5%, which is basically where we are today? Take the same $225,000 at 3% for 360 month, solve for PMT and you get: $948.61, Now increase the interest rate to 6.5%; solve for PV and you get $150.080.22. Subtract that amount from $225,000 and the divide the difference ($74,919.78) by $225,000 and you get 33%. That's roughly what housing prices need to come down to break even with your previous out of pocket monthly housing expense (P&I). Now, how much would housing prices have to fall to make this worthwhile? Because you honestly don't want to buy a house while prices are falling... is that number 40%? When have housing prices nationally ever fallen 40%? They didn't during the Great Recession. I'm not sure they did during the Great Depression. So my point is that cheering interest rate hikes as a means to lower home prices is foolish. There are so many macroeconomic forces that put a floor under real estate values that even when they fall, they will always lag in response to increased interest rates. For one, if people stay employed they won't move, and they'll wait until they pay down the principal for a while or for the value of their home to increase again before they sell; they will do their best to avoid taking a loss. Also, banks will avoid selling homes they take back on foreclosure below the amount of the outstanding balance on debt against a home; they will do their best to avoid taking a loss. Rising interest rates aren't going to help anyone. They don't even help banks because their cost of capital increases (they have to pay more for deposits through CD rates, for example. Nobody should be cheerleading higher rates, and what we're going to see in the markets over the next 2 quarters will likely confirm this. It could be a painful recession.

bcaw1

Meyer burger tech photovoltaik roofs like tesla manufactured in germany. The PV stuff will be tax free in EU isnt it?

leapinleopard

Extrapolate these Trends... Solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind costs have dropped an extraordinary 88% and 69% since 2009, respectively. Meanwhile, coal and nuclear costs have increased by 9% and 23%, respectively. https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plunging-prices-mean-building-new-renewable-energy-is-cheaper-than-running-existing-coal/#e87796231f31

guachi01

If you have access to a PV calculator you can have it do the math for you. But here's the math. I'll assume the price of the bond with a 4% yield is $1000 (because it makes math easier). I'll also assume 13 semi-annual payments of $20. $20/(1.015\^1)+ $20/(1.015\^2)+….+$20/(1.015\^13)+$1000/(1.015\^13)= $1058.66 So the value of the bond will increase from $1000 to 1058.66 or +5.866%.

bananastock

You can calculate this using TVM calculators. Y= yield N= duration PMT = coupon payment FV = 100 PV = ? To determine what would happen if the yield on your portfolio moves from (as an example) 4 to 2, change Y from 4 to 2 and solve again for PV. Read the investopedia article on inverse relationship between interest rates and bonds.

iqisoverrated

BYD, CATL, LG Chem, Panasonic, ... ...basically anyone who can build batteries and supply large scale grid and home storage systems en masse will have a field day for the next 10 years (this very likely includes Tesla's energy sector). Manufactures of PV and windfarms. If you look how rapidly the number of installed capacity year over year - exponential for PV; almost exponential for wind - then it's hard to see how they cannot make a mint if they are profitable at all. Food. Anyone who has a solution for securing food supplies in a world with increasing droughts and other extreme weather phenomena will be in a good position to capitalize on that. This may not be as noticeable in the next 5 years, but I'm thinking within the 5-10 year timeline we'll see some big players emerge in the vertical farming space (and there will be subsidies aplenty. Losing food security is a fast track to losing political power).

bappypawedotter

How is Gemerac doing so poorly? PV and battery sales are really strong. Back up generators are sold out everywhere.

Ok-Train4958

Bonds dropping in value is a result of interest rates going up, which also results in stock prices dropping. As a company’s future earnings are present valued at the prevailing interest rate, the interest rate going up causes the future earnings to be worth less in PV terms. Basically if you invested in long stock funds in 2022 you lost money, and if you invested in long bond funds you lost money.

PutCallParody

In that case, what exactly is a long call by itself. Leverage that costs more the the risk free rate? << It might come down to semantics. My definition of "leverage" involves funding, risk transfer or both. The way I look at the world, an option involves **both** funding and risk transfer. Rearranging the terms of the put call parity equation: Call = Shares + Put - PV of the strike The PV of the strike is the riskless debt you owe. The Put is the risk transfer. So if you ask me, yes, the cost of the leverage is the risk-free rate plus the cost of the put. >> &#x200B; What's a short put by itself? Leverage that costs more than the risk free rate? << This is just the call in reverse. A put is a levered short position in the stock. Short the stock, lend money at the risk free rate and buy protection against the stock going up. Rearranging the terms of the put call parity equation: Put = Call - Shares + PV of the strike >> &#x200B; Are they all just leverage at the risk-free rate? << The way I look at the world no. Again, it might come down to semantics. What's important to me is the concept. I "leverage" just funding, or does "leverage" also involve risk transfer. To me leverage involves both. An option involves funding and risk transfer. You always pay for the risk transfer. So by my definition of "leverage", the leverage in an option costs more than the risk-free rate.>> &#x200B; In that case; would there even be an expected return difference between long calls, short puts, and the combination of the 2 (synthetic stock)? Assuming leverage is kept the same. Just different return profiles that have the same expected return? << In the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing world, options are priced **as if** all assets have an expected return equal to the risk-free rate. In this world, therefore, the options also have an expected return equal to the risk-free rate. This is called risk-neutral pricing and it's a central tenet of **all** derivatives pricing - options, forwards, futures, swaps, etc. In the real world, risky assets tend to have higher expected returns, so in the real world, the expected return on calls and puts are not the same. >>

PutCallParody

A call option is basically shares + ATM put right? <<You're missing one thing. Call + PV of the strike = Shares + Put. Strike and maturity must be the same. We call this put / call parity. It only strictly holds for European style options. Exchange traded options are American style so put / call parity does not strictly hold. That said, for low volatility not-hard-to-borrow stocks, shorter maturity options and zero or low dividends, it's close enough. >> Does that mean that you're paying the risk-free rate (the ATM put) in order to get leverage? Is that how it works? <<Yes and no. Let's say we're talking about using a call option to get leverage on a long stock position. The "funding" component of the leverage is at or around the risk-free rate. The rate used by dealers is SOFR, maybe with a modest spread. But there's also a "risk transfer" component of the leverage - i.e., the right to walk away from the stock if it ends below the strike. You pay for this too. This component of the cost of leverage is often referred to as the time value of the option. I refer to it as paying for vol.>>

SirGlass

>It was a continuous beat-down for no reason. If I can guess there was a reason, did the company have shrinking earnings while also posting losses through out the year? You realize investors might prefer to invest in a company that is profitable especially when recession expectations are rising and some people may fear a recession so there is a flight to value firms, companies with strong cash flows and strong profits. Also if the company is losing money its priced based on theoretical future earnings , those earnings get discounted as interest rates rise making the PV of these future earnings less. Why buy a company and hope for $100 of earnings in 10 years when you could just say buy a 5-10 year bond and get 100% predictable earnings , when interest rates were zero $100 in ten years, the present value was almost still $100 (or like 95) well now that interest rates are up that $100 in ten years is now being discounted to $60 present value. A simple example but I am sure its part of the reason some stock is down .

Fanace5

I assumed a WACC of 10% instead of calculating it because I couldn't be arsed and I wanted to be as generous to this guy's case as possible to show how ridiculous it is. I then assumed a terminal growth rate of 9% which is again unreasonably high so I can be as generous as possible. From there, just use the equation for a growing annuity of PV=Pmt/(r-g) where PV is present value, Pmt is the first annual payment (in the form of free cash flow when valuing a company), r is the discount rate (the WACC when valuing a company, usually), and g is the expected growth rate of the payments.

leapinleopard

Extrapolate these Trends... Solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind costs have dropped an extraordinary 88% and 69% since 2009, respectively. Meanwhile, coal and nuclear costs have increased by 9% and 23%, respectively. https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plunging-prices-mean-building-new-renewable-energy-is-cheaper-than-running-existing-coal/#e87796231f31 Solar, Wind, Storage Becoming ‘Default Choice’ for U.S. Utilities https://www.energycentral.com/c/cp/solar-wind-storage-becoming-%E2%80%98default-choice%E2%80%99-us-utilities#comment-70742 Solar and/or wind are said to already be the cheapest source of new energy generation in all major economies, apart from Japan, finds BloombergNEF. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/11/19/solar-wind-cheapest-source-of-new-generation-in-major-economies-report/

sergeantpickle

Tesla is not just a car company. This is not apples to apples. You need to add at least BESS and PV/solar companies.

KalSereousz

I just read about [Porsche](https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/20/porsche-pumps-first-synthetic-fuel-as-chilean-plant-finally-starts-producing/amp/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK_0e_13WbzbIos0EItu2-8QZfbtUTlEXtwcxL_PV_QuL2c9hHmmvnvgL6G8DxRTAWhYET4h2PLa9_mB_biqrG4YdaN1aHilT0coqwgMqJGkFfRcWA0sBk7I8xVz-RzRFRgsypJombDK0OsSqp7LnOOmpxW4EuXzJ8RXDKSyeL8b) developing a new fuel called eFuel. Do you think this could be a big deal and make Porsche AG a good investment?

torokunai

California's grid today had 11GW of natgas power and 11GW of PV/wind/geothermal power 9AM - 4PM so people charging their cars then had ~50% electric cars, not counting the millions of people with solar roofs now of course.

Black_magic_money

This rule only applies to new PV systems. People that already have solar get to keep it and the crazy good money matching program already in place (people move into new places and get paid by SDGE) You can still get this program in California if you get solar before April this year. You get paid $3500 just to get solar if you live in NY on top of the tax credits and everything else Solar is the move

Jin-Sakti

Me opening my old finance books and looking at …. PV being >>> FV. Stonks don’t always go up. Time value of money work in mysterious ways.

Leoza0

joined too. any thoughts on PV? trash but memable

leapinleopard

The world installed 174GW of solar in 2021 and is on track to deploy 260GW by end of 2022 - IEA - by 2025 we be installing a nuke plant per day of solar... 1000 GW per year. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/10/28/annual-added-pv-capacity-will-more-than-quadruple-to-650-gw-in-2030-says-iea/ " – equivalent to the current total global power capacity of fossil fuels and nuclear combined. RE is set to account for ~95% of the increase in global power capacity through 2026, with PV to provide more than half" https://iea.org/news/renewable-electricity-growth-is-accelerating-faster-than-ever-worldwide-supporting-the-emergence-of-the-new-global-energy-economy Wind and solar production outputs are expected to double during the next five years. https://news.yahoo.com/renewable-energy-production-expected-jump-224710755.html

thri54

They are fine, though they are technically a product created by brokers; the coupon payments and maturity payment of a treasury security are separated by a broker, re-securitized, and sold to investors. A strip is the maturity payment of a treasury security sold at its PV by a broker. On insurance: FDIC insures commercial bank deposits and CDs. Treasury securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. These are different concepts, but both effectively create a “risk free rate”: the rate of return for an investment with the no risk of non-payment. One can think of returns on a debt instrument above the rate that a treasury security would pay as the “default spread”, which is the premium demanded by the implied probability of non-payment. As a rule of thumb, anything that pays more than a treasury security of equivalent time is not fdic insured or backed by the credit of the US government.

andymcd_

My math appears to be slightly off though. $1000/(1 + 0.04537 / 3) = $985.10. But the PV is $985.42. I wonder where the $0.32 went.

SlayZomb1

Yeah I dropped out after a bit. Went with $PV after and made a tidy 7% profit.

SlayZomb1

Good bounce for $PV today. Snagged some shares at $9.30!

sidvicc

>Seems like the industrial boom that China got is happening to India just 10 years removed or so. Not quite. India is more service oriented, with large English speaking population. India's route to prosperity is in exporting services rather than goods. Below is a good video that explains more thoroughly: [India will not be the next China - Economics Explained](https://youtu.be/mtvmqI0PV2M)

tjn50351

Parity is C-P = S - PV(K). So I think it’s actually the SPY puts that violate parity as the puts are pricier. What exactly do you mean by “cost of carry”? Are you referring to the opportunity cost of using the cash to buy a put instead of collecting interest?

remylebeau12

BPTRX, Barron Partners. they have around 7% last i checked in SpaceX. Space is opening back up. What’s happening over the last 10 years and the next 20-40 years? world transitioning _from_ fossil fuels _to_ renewables, Solar, Wind, Batteries. Solar & Wind is “virtually zero marginal cost energy” in that the fuel is free, wind and sun, but collectors cost, wind turbines and PV panels. PV cost $1,600/watt (appx) in 1956, $101/watt 1974, now maybe 50cents per watt or less. Wind is less expensive batteries buffer the peaks and valleys of demand way less expensive than peaked plants and don’t pollute by burning fossil fuels. humans are going back to space, the moon, Mars, solar system. SpaceX is the only company that has 100% _reuseable_ rockets. the only way to invest in them is indirectly. Ron Barron of Barron Funds believes in SpaceX and Tesla and his funds have become filthy rich. you can get a tiny slice. I personally own ENPH and TSLA. Enphase has inverters for PV systems that will microgrid and aggregated can form VPP’s , Virtual Power Plants, basically distributed generation loosely aggregated into megawatt and gigawatt size power plants with little to no losses in T&D, transmission and distribution (2-4 cents a kilowatt) cheaper to send electrons a few hundred feet from your roof etc that 20-30 miles. (centralized fossil fuel plants will go away, as will their revenue streams.) whatever you do, HODL, (hold on for dear life) don’t trade or you will buy high sell low and lose _everything_. if i had just bought and held, not traded, i would be at least 20x richer, i lost 95% of present and future wealth by needing “action” of the trades, that’s not investing. VOO is the S&P500 and moderately safe. i’m 100% in ENPH and TSLA since around 2016 or i would have BPTRX Ron Baron Partners fund solely for SpaceX and (also for TSLA which is presently at a low) You might also investigate Tony Seba’s videos and RethinkX and his predictions, he has been way correct very often. there are a lot of changes coming in transportation, food, energy, space exploration look up cultured meat. If you could grow meat in a factory far cheaper than a farm that tastes exactly the same and same texture as a simple idea, that is becoming reality. hope this gives you ideas (oh, and the market is rigged against you)

Upper-Equivalent3651

We are fine. This winter. And I have enough wood for three winters. And gasoline. ANd next year PV. Fuckit. I will survive you all during the winter.

whoreblaster420

I run a solar energy company so I can comment relevant info! Pretty much every single home Solar PV installation in the US uses either enphase or Solar Edge inverters. Enphase are widely considered to be superior and I can only imagine the demand for their products increasing as more homeowners go Solar. Idk what it will do to the stock price but enphase is doing well

mathmagician9

I was actually at Bearsgiving in PV when it happened.

Fun_Corgi_4685

In the next two years the Inflation Reduction Act will be kicking in, pumping even more money, solar PV, heat pumps.

leapinleopard

I will throw out a bear case... Uranium is the ultimate pump and dumb by the nuclear industry. This industry is facing some serious disruption. They are the ultimate bagholder. Energy is a highly polarized and ideological topic and is full of misinformation.. “Why is China slowing its nuclear rollout so drastically? Because nuclear is turning out to be more expensive than expected, new nuclear designs are proving to be uneconomical, and new wind and solar are dirt cheap and much easier to build.” [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wind-solar-in-china-generating-2x-nuclear-today-will-be-4x-by-2030/amp/](https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wind-solar-in-china-generating-2x-nuclear-today-will-be-4x-by-2030/amp/) Renewables to be “the new baseload” by 2030, says McKinsey "Solar & wind power are on track to become the new baseload electricity supply for global energy markets as early as 2030, and to relegate thermal generation from coal and gas to the role of back-up, a major new report has found." [https://reneweconomy.com.au/renewables-to-be-the-new-baseload-by-2030-says-mckinsey/](https://reneweconomy.com.au/renewables-to-be-the-new-baseload-by-2030-says-mckinsey/) "(LCOE) analysis reports solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind costs have dropped an extraordinary 88% and 69% since 2009, respectively. Meanwhile, coal and nuclear costs have increased by 9% and by 23%, respectively." [https://www.irena.org/news/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost](https://www.irena.org/news/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost) The IEA: " – equivalent to the current total global power capacity of fossil fuels and nuclear combined. RE is set to account for \~95% of the increase in global power capacity through 2026, with PV to provide more than half" https://iea.org/news/renewable-electricity-growth-is-accelerating-faster-than-ever-worldwide-supporting-the-emergence-of-the-new-global-energy-economy

Jasonmilo911

Caste in the air narrative: Tesla will be a $10T stock. Counter castle in the air narrative: Tesla is overvalued at 10, 100, 1000, 10000. The point is, overvalued according to what? compared to what? Downward pressure: * multiples are suffering from higher rates + long maturity payoff. * PV of future cash flows is lower. * Shares diluter Upward pressure: * it's said to grow at 50% for the next 5 years. Forget that. Use a 25% growth rate and you get to 10 at the end of the period. Is a P/E of 45 this year too much? Is 18 in 5 years too much? You be the judge of that, not the analysts nor the armageddonists.

14dM24d

therefore C/r does not give the NPV of a perpetuity. C/r gives the PV of the perpetuity.

14dM24d

$100 is the PV of receiving $5 in perpetuity when the discount rate is 5%. NPV is PV of CF less cash outlay. if you paid $110 for the above perpetuity then your NPV is -10; 100-110. if you paid $90 for it then your NPV is +10; 100-90.

leapinleopard

IT IS HAPPENING! The solar PV industry will produce 310GW of modules in 2022, representing an incredible 45% yoy increase compared to 2021! https://www.pv-tech.org/pv-industry-production-hits-310gw-of-modules-in-2022-what-about-2023/

kiwimancy

T-Bills are always sold with no coupon. All of the yield is from price. The formula for the yield of a zero coupon bond with more than a year to maturity: (*price* / *face_value*)^(1/*years*) - 1 However yields under a year are quoted as simple interest rather than compounded: (*price* / *face_value* - 1)/*years* In this case, it looks like Bloomberg is reporting the yield as the price for the tbills. I am not sure why the price does not equal the yield in that case. It may be from different times or something. There is no analytic formula for the price/yield of a finite maturity bond with non-zero coupons. You need to use a calculator, such as Excel's PV function.

krvdave

Discount it back to PV - it's closer to $800 million if you take the lump sum. Taxes on that $800 mil are like 50%, so your left with $400 million. Plus, it will take a couple months at least and you'll need a lawyer.

MayorAnthonyWeiner

This is right. You literally get the PV. The only consideration is if you can get a better rate elsewhere.

dwinps

The PV is equal, thru buy an annuity with the cash award if you select the $1.6B over time award Todays higher interest rates is why the $1.6B is higher than it would have been s year ago for the same cash amount

leapinleopard

Solar is the strongest Industry in Finwiz for the 1 Week relative performance and the half year, no other industry comes close. And, it is going to explode up. Go with Solar, ENPH, the stuff in the ETF TAN for longs, forget about google, amazon, etc. tech,.. The next few earnings seasons will highlight these trends even more and money will pour in... [https://finviz.com/groups.ashx?g=industry&v=210&o=name](https://finviz.com/groups.ashx?g=industry&v=210&o=name) "It would be 10 times more expensive to operate gas-fired power plants in the long term than to build new solar PV capacity in Europe, according to a new study from Oslo-based energy research company Rystad Energy. " [https://electrek.co/2022/11/01/solar-will-become-10-times-cheaper-than-gas-in-europe-study/](https://electrek.co/2022/11/01/solar-will-become-10-times-cheaper-than-gas-in-europe-study/)

iiconanii

So... Whats the best page to see petite stocks get blasted with dividents ? While they beg for more? The bigger dividents, the better. And maybe some hot TVM action, or Some PV. Intrest just pileing up. Any one got a good site?

augustus331

I work in the renewable industry and stating that ***any*** fossil-fuel is more profitable than solar-PV or wind for that matter is not true. The cost for renewables has come down from $380/MWh for solar in 2009 to around $40 in 2019, which is steadily dropping due to compound innovation and accelerated adoption. I can't stress enough to conclude, that oil, gas, coal, lignite, wood, are **not** more profitable or economically sound (even when disregarding environmental damage, which we shouldn't), and they never again will be more profitable.

krvdave

Closer to $250 million after discounting to PV and factoring in taxes. Just sayin. Are you sure this will be enough? - Sincerely, Jesus

miata_only

A company's valuation decreasing doesn't mean that company is going to go out of business or is failing. This is the cyclical nature of the market. PV is dropping as the risk free rate rises, you guys.

leapinleopard

Bullish on Chinese companies BYD and CATL.. They will own these markets globally. "BYD Produces Over 2 Million Solar Modules In Brazil" facility and has just reached a significant milestone in the cumulative production of photovoltaic (PV) modules. The BYD Energy facility has produced two million photovoltaic modules in Brazil. This is according to a press release issued by the company on October 21." [https://cleantechnica.com/2022/10/26/byd-produces-over-2-million-solar-modules-in-brazil/](https://cleantechnica.com/2022/10/26/byd-produces-over-2-million-solar-modules-in-brazil/)I know there is concerns about child labor. But being unemployed is worse there. /S

NoctRob

Thanks for editing. You seemed very mad in your last post. And the name-calling wasn't necesary. And it would be great if you posted those sources, because what you're saying is inaccurate. Mizuho, Piper Sandler, Wells Fargo, Oppenheimer, Roth Capital, Morningstar, Guggenheim, KGI, Truist, and multiple other research analysts don't align anywhere close to your "source" above. So...keep trying. And PV of Growth Opportunities is basic as hell. And "it's the most accurate valuation model next to DCA?" Please explain the DCA valuation model to me. Wow. Presuming you mean DCF, I can literally make that model say whatever I want. The number of levers you can pull on that model -- comp set, RFR, market premium, size premium, DtE, overall cost of capital, terminal value assumptions...the list goes on. But I'm sure you knew all that already, and just got confused.

leapinleopard

Solar bull Case, this growth is absolutely being hidden the media narrative. IEA: "Renewables to account for \~95% of growth in global power-generation capacity up to the end of 2026. – equivalent to the current total global power capacity of fossil fuels and nuclear combined." W\\ PV more than 1\\2 that growth." [https://iea.org/news/renewable-electricity-growth-is-accelerating-faster-than-ever-worldwide-supporting-the-emergence-of-the-new-global-energy-economy](https://iea.org/news/renewable-electricity-growth-is-accelerating-faster-than-ever-worldwide-supporting-the-emergence-of-the-new-global-energy-economy) Nuclear share in energy generation falls to lowest in four decades-report [https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuclear-share-energy-generation-falls-lowest-four-decades-report-2022-10-05/](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuclear-share-energy-generation-falls-lowest-four-decades-report-2022-10-05/) FinFiz shows solar sector strongest sector when sorted by half year. TAN is one of the TOP ETF. HALF YEAR RELATIVE PERFORMANCE Solar 38.4 [https://finviz.com/groups.ashx?g=industry&v=210&o=name](https://finviz.com/groups.ashx?g=industry&v=210&o=name) China’s solar cell capacity doubled in 2021, is projected to double again in 2022, and again in 2023. China's manufacturing capacity could break 1 terawatt per year by 2024 [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/10/24/chinas-solar-cell-production-capacity-may-reach-600-gw-by-year-end/](https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/10/24/chinas-solar-cell-production-capacity-may-reach-600-gw-by-year-end/)

MindMugging

To illustrate the point I assumed a new issue so it started at 1000. Standard 10 year maturity. Paying 8% (assuming market rate yield is at 8). Then interest rate raises to 9.5 in 12 month. I realized I made a minor error of not carrying over to y1 but stayed at now. The PV of the bond in 1 year math would be Coupons: 470.02 - n=9 - r=.095 - pmt=-80 - FFM15=0 Principal : - n=9 - r=.095 - pmt=0 - fv=-1000 Bond itself ~91,187 Got 1 coupon worth of 8,000

Outrageous-Cycle-841

What are your free cash flow expectations over the next several years? After that? What discount rate did you use in your dcf model to calculate PV?

_TH3BAND1T_

Btw, I did this in a couple minutes just to show u how insane u are. PV = -1424 FV = 3692 N = 23 (cuz its basically 2023 anyways) Interest = 4.23% per year So actually ur whole 9% figure is totally bs if those are true numbers of the s & p i don't have time to check if ur right not not. I did look up the dividend ratio tho and its like 1.14% so even with dividends your return is still lower than 5.5% in the market (s&p) per year.

bobandus69

One of the ramifications being a higher risk free rate for equities which in turn raises the discount rate used to value distant CFs, lowering the PV/enterprise value

gundawg300

Alex jones [mocks his verdict live on his show](https://youtu.be/9PV9qRfhCeQ?t=5m20s) as it reaches almost 1 billion thinking it wont be enforcable 

InvestRecklessly

The equation is flawed for 2n and 3n growth stage companies unless he did the equation 2 or 3 times over using the appropriate time to PV

Cumfortable_Ad_466

[Bears who didn’t sell this morning (me)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV3_UHG73oQ&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ)

leopardfaceeat

Carbon taxes are the most optimal way to tax carbon. The fact that the costs are passed on to consumers is a good thing. People need to understand the real costs of their consumption habits. I disagree with hydrogen cars being the future. Converting electricity to hydrogen, then converting it back to electricity is super inefficient and would only make sense for large vehicles that need to haul loads over long distances. EVs are about 3x more efficient in terms of getting the generated electric power to the motor. For personal transportation, EVs are the answer hands down. As far as lithium, the mining can be done in an environmentally conscious way, just like any other type of mining. The US currently only has one mine, but will have new ones coming online in the near future. China is not the leader in lithium production, Australia produces the most, by far. China is the leader in creating lithium batteries, which I do think is a problem, but one that we can address. The issue here is that this problem is not unique to lithium batteries, but everything else China dominates, solar PV being the main one.

Beouf_Wellington

Lol, yeah, at least in PV. At the end of the day you tie up your garbage bag and just throw it on the street corner with everyone else's

metalibro

I'm working a fully remote job right now and really want to work from PV but banks are so strict on working outside your home country, I'm just gonna find another job at a tech company next year who are more flexible

Beouf_Wellington

I'm in Puerto Vallarta so it may be different on the Caribbean side. I can't stress enough how awesome the people are though. Everyone is super friendly and helpful, and they speak broken english to match my broken Spanish. It all works fine. Its a collection of little things that have a cumulative effect of just making everything harder because there are more steps. You can't get water from the tap, you have to have a cooler, which needs replacing, so you have to call the water guy every week and make sure you have enough on hand to last. Half the restaurants on google maps dont exist and the other half are open/closed at different hours than advertised. There's not a garbage day, but rather every night you take your trash to the street corner and leave it in a pile. There are stray dogs and cats that roam the streets, but they are all friendly, at least in PV. I just don't like to see them. There are bugs everywhere and its humid AF. You cant have leftover food int he trash can at home or ants will come from everywhere to get it, so I eat a bananna and throw the peel in the freezer. All that being said, it beats the fuck out of working 40 hours a week and sitting in traffic everywhere I go because I was in Seattle. PV might not be the place for me but I do enjoy travelling, so I will keep going around the world until I find a spot or just give up and go to Vegas sooner than planned.

Frontside_skibum

The irony of using that photo to provide a bullish case for renewables. “Concentrated solar power deployment has slowed down considerably as most of the above-mentioned markets have cancelled their support as the technology turned out to be more expensive on a per kWH basis than solar PV and wind power.” -Wikipedia

thePasiego

That's even counting the majority of the PV and solar roofs installers had the "day off" to just deliver cars. Some of the guys I know were delivering 7 to 8 cars a day for the last 3 days of the quarter.

joebenson17

In theory, you get the PV of the final payment of the bond. Depends on the term. You may have paid a premium or a discount for the bond. If there is interest due that would get included in the final payment. Since it is one day it will be very close to the final payment as the time value is very small but you won’t get the final payment exactly. If you were to sell the bond with 1 day left there may not be much liquidity so getting a fair price (theoretical price) may be tough.

SirGlass

Its just because interest rates have been rising . They really act no different than actual bonds, their present value may fluctuate as interest rates increase or decrease. If you look at their distributions you will see their interest payouts are probably staying steady or ticking up slightly month-to-month so in that way their income is somewhat guaranteed, however they are really more like a bond latter as well , so every month some bonds reach maturity and they roll over and buy new bonds But as interest rates rise bonds fall in value. Say I buy a 10 year bond today , it pays 1.5% interest rate the going rate for government bonds for $1000. So yes the guaranteed part is I get my 1k back in 10 years and I collect 1.5% per year. So what is the present value of the bond, well as long as interest rates basically stay the same the PV is $1000 Now lets say I am really unlucky I buy this 10 year bond in the morning for 1.5%; lets say later in the day the federal open market committee meets and they signal they are aggressively raising rate for a long time and they take an unprecedented move and raises rates. Well after the meeting the market realizes interest rates are going higher and higher. Now guess what, the going rate for 10 year bonds is 3.5%!!! (Note rates do not move this fast and its an absurd scenario but usfull for illustration) But remember bonds do not have a floating rate, I have a 10 year bond that will pay me 1.5% for 10 years . So what is the PV of my bond now rates have moved? Or put it another way, I say "Hey meandmyself , I have this 10 year bond, 1k principal that pays 1.5% interest want to buy it from by for 1k" Would you buy my bond paying 1.5% for 1k, or would you "Umm no thanks I can buy these new bonds and they pay 3.5%" Now what if I make poor decisions and forgot I need to buy my kids a birthday gift so I really need to sell the bond, what could I do to make you buy my bond vs buy new issue bond paying more? Well I basically would have to discount my bond to make it return as much as current bonds So my bond pays 1k + (15\*10) or 1000+150 or 1150 total return current bonds pay 1k +(35\*10) or 1000+350 or 1350 total return. This is a $200 difference So if I really wanted to sell my bond I could not for 1k...no logical person would buy it However if I discounted it and said I would sell it for 800 now it has the same total return as new bonds This is what you are seeing in bond funds or even if you held a single bond

Kaliasluke

They’re not hedging an asset, they’re hedging a liability. These are defined benefit pension schemes, so they have an obligation to provide a fixed benefit in the future. They therefore have a liability on balance sheet, which is equal to present value of future payments. A PV needs a discount rate, so what discount rate do pension funds use? - **the yield on long term gilts** Thanks to accounting standards, they effectively have a huge short position against long term government bonds. How do hedge a short position? - leveraged long position. In accounting / solvency terms, they’re fine - massive losses on the hedge offset by the reduced PV of the pension liabilities. However, you’ve still got a massive negative MtM balance that you need to collateralise.

skviki

Stopoing the renewable craze would get EU on track. Renewables lije wind and solar cannot be used in large scales. They should be supplemental personal addition to hoysehold/company power, obligatorily complemented by a electricity storage in capacity of the installed potential daily power priduction of the PV or wind generator. NEVER a systematic ekectricity producer. Unless we want to destroy something as basic for our civilisation as reliable ekectric power.

skviki

If europe pulls its head out of uts ass and stops acting holier than thou abd taps into its iwn energy reserves instead of relying on outsourced pollution in autocratic countries in the south and east, if biggest economies in europe stop with antimodern and anti-rational green movements where nuclear is being dismissed, if irrational european vehicle transition into the suboptimal (and again outsourced pollution) electric vehicles is stopped - as it us resource demanding, electric network dusrupting and extremely earth polluting factor that would demand enormous public investments (taken from people), would make mobility less accessible to all wealth groups and would do a net negative for environment and again put europe at the mercy of dodgy regimes. In short - europe should rationally reasses its energy policies as the russian extortion with their energy is clearly demonstrating how important energy is. And no, renewables are not the answer, they should be part of the mix, but a small non grid dusruptive one and always paired with equivalent installed power storage (but not in form of batteries of course, unless a small household PV or wind generator) and never be directly plugged into the grid. If energy is sorted out, other stuff is easy. If not, we’re going to have social factors to dral with rise of extremes like form of neocommunism and neofascism. We’re going to seriously regress. The energy policy on EU and some member state level has been completely wrong but this udiocy has been enabled by cheap gas that made being an idiot possible as it covered the stupidity and made it seem to work. Hope we learn from it. For niw they are signaling evrn more of the same, which is kind of incredible. But I am optimistic that brains will prevail at some point.

devereaux

&gt;Cars and houses are unaffordable because of inflated interest rates That means the asset prices / PV needs to be significantly lower. That's the pain that needs to be felt

jsboutin

It's a bit different than that. You need to find the PV of a the coupons and principal repayment - coupons are paid through the life of the bond and not at the end. The duration of the cash flows will be less than 30 years in this case so the yield to maturity would have to be 7.12% The value of the bond at that yield will be 100/(1.0712^30)=12.70$ from the PV of the principal repayment and (1-1.0712^(-30))/0.0712*1$=12.26$ from the PV of upcoming coupon payments.

sanyasea

In the UK they still have defined benefit pensions. Pension managers are the only ones who invest in this crud. Higher long term interest rates actually help with lowering the PV of their liabilities. You couldn't make it up but the only people who hold this bond will probably be celebrating right now because though they're down MtM, the PV of their liabilities is probably down more.

JLARGE53

The only thing preventing you from getting your principal back on a single bond is a default or you sell it. Price fluctuations in between your purchase date and maturity date matter zero unless you're trading and plan to sell the bond before maturity. &#x200B; >If you hold an ETF for its effective duration you probably should not lose money in most cases. What? no &#x200B; >Saying that individual bonds are safer because they don't lose value isn't really true, they 100% do lose PV just like bond funds, you just may not "see" it You definitely should "see" it - custodians value their bonds every day - unrealized G/L shows up on your statement and in your holdings info like any other security. And as above, it is true that they are safer IFF there isn't a default or credit event. So your biggest risk with single bonds is credit risk whereas it's interest rate risk in funds b/c even a default or two in a fund won't crash the fund but if the single bond you selected defaults, you're done.

ectivER

You can check monthly returns on [PV](https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=4&startYear=1985&firstMonth=1&endYear=2022&lastMonth=12&calendarAligned=true&includeYTD=false&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=0&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=4&rebalanceType=1&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&leverageType=0&leverageRatio=0.0&debtAmount=0&debtInterest=0.0&maintenanceMargin=25.0&leveragedBenchmark=false&reinvestDividends=true&showYield=false&showFactors=false&factorModel=3&portfolioNames=false&portfolioName1=Portfolio+1&portfolioName2=Portfolio+2&portfolioName3=Portfolio+3&symbol1=USFR&allocation1_1=100&symbol2=SGOV&allocation2_2=100) Compare them with 13 week treasury bills: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5Eirx/

SirGlass

> for example, BND, which has lost 15%!! YTD, vs getting just a regular treasury bill which I can hold to maturity and not lose value. So with a bond fund you just see the price in real time, if you hold an individual bond it will have the same somewhat valuation . If you bought a 10yr bond back in Jan of 22 that bond would have lost 15+% as well , you may just not see this as easy. If you hold an ETF for its effective duration you probably should not lose money in most cases. An ETF is most like a bond ladder . Saying that individual bonds are safer because they don't lose value isn't really true, they 100% do lose PV just like bond funds, you just may not "see" it

MrPopanz

Sadly they lack a lot of ETFs and functionality is worse than PV.

leapinleopard

When this thing does bottom, buy the shit out of solar. The new world will be solar-powered. " Renewables are set to account for almost 95% of the increase in global power capacity through 2026, with solar PV alone providing more than half." https://www.iea.org/news/renewable-electricity-growth-is-accelerating-faster-than-ever-worldwide-supporting-the-emergence-of-the-new-global-energy-economy

theoryofliving

Thanks for the summary here. At the end of the day, we can summarize a framework of stock price impact and come up with our own version of where stocks will go based on interest rates (which, who knows what will happen here). D / (r - g) is how we should look at valuations. Let's say D = 100, g = 2%, and r = 4%, then the PV of cash flows would be 5,000. Let's say expectations for rate hikes go up and r now equals 5%, then PV becomes 3,333, or a 33% drop in present value. Now what happens if g (long term growth) moves around? This is a rough frame work, but hopefully helps isolate out the components of where stock valuations should move over time, depending on interest rates.

Wrisles

The approval came out after hours, and it was a risky gene therapy for a company with really bad cashflow focusing on rare genetic ailments. However, securing the FIRST and ONLY possible treatment for any disease is a biotech company's dream, no one else is really developing anything targeting these types of neurological developmental diseases. Additionally, they also have approval for two drugs in the EU market that they just announced entry into, supposedly with secured funding this time. FDA also just announced a partnership with private and public stakeholders improving funding for the research of rare genetic diseases in hopes of progressive and offshoot discovery (think NASA and PV Solar Cells). No announcements on who these stakeholders are, however with two FDA approvals within a month, and a large amount of positive response by the FDA Panel, I'd be inclined to believe BLUE is one of them. Additionally, there was a presumable combination of the market-wide dump, with "buy the hype sell the news." These had an exponential effect on the stock on Friday, causing big paper hand shedding. BLUE has its first presser on Tuesday and it's purported to be explaining its path to retail profitability. I expect somewhere between a 9-11 high by Wednesday (as hedge bets flood the market), returning to around 8 after Thursday's J Powell conference. Anyone who did their DD on Lenti-D knew this was going to be approved, so some movement would've been priced in already.

Sweet_Dreams_777

If you follow the vault numbers, they are collapsing in real time from here in the COMEX to London’s LBMA vaults. There are about 400 million ounces above ground (roughly 5 month supply) and much less available for sale. COMEX is down to 45 million ounces registered silver down from 150 million ounces 18 months ago. My guess is the war in Ukraine. The stocks in London really started falling this past March and April. Every cruise missile needs silver. Every anti radiation missile needs silver. Every javelin needs silver. Lots of silver getting vaporized on a daily basis. Looking forward, PV applications are not only doubling, but they are tripling in real time. Efficient solar needs more silver, not less silver. They will tell you they can use more copper, but the efficiency plummets. In order to get the most bang, you need to increase the silver content in solar panels. This is already happening. Europe is willing to do anything to generate more electricity right now. The whole world is. So the question of 3 digit silver is only pertaining to ‘when’. Definitely by next summer, maybe fall. The Comex will break long before that. All of that changes “economic viability” to mining silver.