📚 CSL Limited (CSL.AX) — Rational Compounder research
Hand-covered research: fundamentals, value vs book, retained-earnings test, earnings trends, cost of capital and fair value — published as written, last updated 2026-09-19.
Author's research notes
| Management Reputation | High |
| Debt Exposure | Low |
| Legal Exposure | Low |
| Inflation Exposure | Medium |
| Business Understanding | High |
| Value Prospect | High |
| Progress Prospect | High |
| Wealth Prospect | High |
| Market Sentiment | Fear |
| Risk | Low |
| Insights | High |
| Stability within Industry | High |
| Ability to Change Pricing | Yes |
| Market Activity | High |
| Public interest? | Yes |
| OK when inverted? | Yes |
| Great company at a fair price? | Yes |
| True earnings? | Medium |
| High fixed charges? | Medium |
| Would hold through a bear market? | Yes |
The Business & Its Moat
Market Reality: CSL operates in a fundamentally non‑bubble, demand‑driven plasma therapeutics industry, where growth is supported by real medical need rather than speculation, with global plasma markets expanding at roughly mid‑single to high‑single digit rates driven by chronic and rare disease demand. The company’s core products, particularly immunoglobulins, are not flatlining but structurally growing, supported by increasing diagnosis rates and long-term treatment needs, even though short‑term volatility (such as inventory adjustments or competition) can create temporary softness . CSL is also actively exploring adjacent and alternative markets, including recombinant technologies, gene therapy, and vaccines, while continuing to invest heavily in its plasma base (e.g., manufacturing expansion), indicating a strategy of extension rather than replacement. From a financial community perspective, the broader biopharma industry is viewed as“cautiously optimistic” but under pressure, with strong innovation and deal activity balanced by pricing pressures, regulatory uncertainty, and intensified competition , and CSL itself is seen as a high‑quality player in an oligopolistic industry with resilient demand, though its outlook has been tempered due to recent setbacks such as impairments and weaker margins . Overall, market sentiment can be characterized as“optimistic but uneasy”, reflecting recovery from a prior downturn alongside lingering concerns about valuation sustainability, regulatory shifts, and margin compression in the sector .
Challenges: *CSL’s primary challenge is not the one-off impact of Vifor, but the risk that ROIC stabilises at a structurally lower level (~11–13% vs historical ~20%+). While Vifor itself appears to have a limited direct impact (~‑1–2%), the real concern is a permanent shift in business quality, which could re-rate CSL from a premium compounder to an average-quality pharma company with lower long-term returns.
*Donor supply and compensation are driven by external labour market conditions, making this a systemic and largely uncontrollable risk. CSL has taken strong steps to mitigate this through scale, retention, and efficiency improvements, but the donor system remains human-driven and inherently volatile. Prolonged cost pressure or supply imbalance could materially compress margins, especially given CSL’s heavy exposure to the US.
*The plasma industry operates under tight supply–demand conditions where small imbalances can significantly impact pricing and profitability. Excess supply may lead to pricing pressure, while shortages increase costs. This dynamic introduces cyclical variability in earnings and makes margin stability dependent on maintaining equilibrium in a constrained global system.
*CSL operates in a concentrated market with a few large competitors (e.g. Grifols, Takeda). While this structure supports scale advantages, it also introduces the risk of aggressive competition, particularly in donor incentives or pricing during periods of supply stress. Competitive behaviour can amplify industry pressures and lead to temporary margin declines.
*The Vifor acquisition raises concerns not about the deal itself, but about the potential for repeated capital allocation mistakes. Leadership transition adds another layer of uncertainty, as strategic direction and discipline may vary with management. Future decisions around M&A and investment will be critical in determining whether CSL maintains its historical capital efficiency.
*Emerging therapies such as gene therapy and recombinant antibodies represent a potential long-term threat to plasma-derived products. CSL is investing in these areas, but remains heavily dependent on plasma. While disruption risk is low in the next decade, it is the most significant structural risk over the long term if alternative therapies scale.
*Regulation is likely to increase over time and can raise costs and operational complexity. However, CSL has historically managed these challenges well and often benefits from them due to its scale and compliance capabilities. The main risk would come from unexpected regulatory changes that alter the economic foundations of the plasma model rather than standard tightening.
Trademark Product / Differentiator: CSL qualifies as a strong “Trademark Product” business, but unlike Coke or See’s Candy, its advantage comes from supply control, regulatory barriers, and behavioural inertia rather than branding, making it highly durable but more exposed to cost pressures than demand erosion. CSL qualifies as a strong Trademark Product business, but its advantage comes from supply control and behavioural embedding rather than branding or technological dominance, making it highly durable but sensitive to cost pressures rather than demand erosion.
Advantage of Scale: CSL’s bureaucracy is visible in real actions such as large-scale restructuring, R&D consolidation, asset write-downs, and operational simplification efforts, showing that its scale and complexity have introduced inefficiencies that require periodic, significant corrections rather than continuous fine-tuning.
Specialised Within Its Ecosystem: CSL is a highly specialised, well‑respected business with a durable core franchise that remains intact despite recent strategic and operational missteps, making it a classic case of a strong underlying business facing a combination of temporary disruptions and structural adjustments rather than permanent impairment.
Circle of Competence: It’s outside my circle of competence however I do undertand the business model and the overral operations
Big Wave to Ride: CSL is not riding a speculative wave but a structural demand wave constrained by supply, where success depends on maximising plasma volume and minimising cost, supported by behavioural and regulatory advantages, while current underperformance reflects a reset phase rather than a breakdown of the underlying system.
The 2025 report confirms that CSL is explicitly pursuing a dual strategy of maximising plasma volume through network expansion and yield improvements while minimising cost per litre through operational integration, efficiency programs, and organisational simplification, directly targeting the key variables that drive its long-term economics.
Source of Income: • Segment: CSL Behring | % Revenue: ~72% | Sells: Plasma therapies (immunoglobulins, albumin, clotting factors), gene therapies | Customers: Hospitals, specialists | Revenue Type: Recurring medical treatments (chronic use)
• Segment: CSL Seqirus | % Revenue: ~14% | Sells: Influenza vaccines (FLUCELVAX®, FLUAD®) | Customers: Governments, health systems | Revenue Type: Contract / seasonal revenue
• Segment: CSL Vifor | % Revenue: ~14% | Sells: Iron deficiency & nephrology drugs | Customers: Hospitals, clinics | Revenue Type: Chronic treatment pharmaceuticals
Small & Promising, or Large & Ordinary: Large, high-quality, moderate-growth — not small and promising.
Risk & Inversion
Inversion Angle: REFER TO TABLE ON GENERAL CALCS
-Vifor is one of the main risks to CSL at the moment. This risk has been magnified for the size of the impairements without real correlation to the actual impact on the CSL overral financials. Preliminary calculation show that not even total write off of Vifor will affect ACSL to a point of no return. Vifor restructuring could get the company back on track. This will hurt CSL but not to a point of no return.
-Labor cost spiral can really hurt CSL. However the probability of this event to happen is quite low being 14 % the highest which involves the combination of labour, inflation and demand. None of the combinations will represent a damage to CSL beyond repair.
-Regulatory rightening is likely to affect CSL. This event has 50%+ chance of happeningover the next 10y however CSL has had a 100% success rate for this scenario over the past 100y. There is a 80% chance that it will suceed the upcoming regulatory tightening that the company will be facing on the cominh 10y.
-CSL exposure to supply chan third party failure is high however the chances of success to the core events with this are high. Unlikely to have a big effect on CSL to hurt the business beyond repair.
Conclusion: CSL is unlikely to fail catastrophically, but its true risk is becoming a lower-quality, slower-growing business, which can materially reduce investor returns even if the company remains fundamentally sound.
Breakeven Price: Behring - 73-97k
Seqirus - 14-16k
Vifor 162-1470K
No Brainer Question: *If the economics of plasma collection worsen (cost ↑, supply volatility ↑) and Vifor does not recover, do I still believe CSL will generate high returns (ROIC ≥ 14–15%) over the next 10 years? I calculated 13-14%
*If this were my entire net worth, and plasma economics got worse, would I still be comfortable owning CSL? Yes, this is criticalproduct for society.
*What would have to happen for CSL to earn only average returns (ROIC ~11–12%), and is that more likely than I think?It could happen in the future but it will be temporary. I calculated a probability of 10% for this event.
*Do I truly understand how plasma collection costs and donor dynamics affect margins and ROIC? Yes.
*Am I attracted to CSL because it used to be a great compounder, rather than what it is today? I'm atracted because of the discounted values it's trading today does not match the penalisation the market has given to it. As a minimum there is a high chance of high return in the medium term.
*Is CSL still a high-quality business with durable advantages, or just a historically strong one facing pressure? Still quality but it is facing pressure from different directions
*If CSL underperforms for 3–5 years due to cost pressures, am I comfortable holding it? Yes likely to be temporary
*If this were my entire net worth, would I still be comfortable owning CSL given its dependence on plasma economics? yes but still will diverisfy my portfolio
1 Foot Fence, Big Reward the Other Side: It does look like a 1 foot fence with big rewards on the other side, reasons:
*The company operates in a oligopoly.
*Market has overpenalised it for a capital allocation error but it has taken the right correcting measures. This increases the chances of entry on a low price. Market is likely to hace overreacted due to Deprival-Superreaction Tendency and Social-Proof Tendency.
*ROIC is likely to reduce from the average 20% to somewhere close to 14% which is still high. CSL still has the potential of full recovery to the previous numbers over the long term.
*Product is essential to treat diseases which makes it very valuable for society. Financial woes won;t change the importance of this product.
*Management is taking the right steps towards restoring the erros made in the past.
IT BECOMES A 1 FOOT FENCE DUE TO THE INTENSE MISSPRICING CSL HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO. THIS INCREASES THE CHANCES OF A LOW ENTRY WITH A GOOD RETURN IN THE FUTURE. PRICR TO FORWARD EARNING IS AROUND 11 WHICH IS QUITE LOW.
Probability & Decision Trees: Step 1 | Is core business intact? | Yes → Step 2 | No → Avoid
Step 2 | Will ROIC ≥ 13% long-term? | Yes → Step 3 | No → Avoid
Step 3 | Is plasma system stable (no structural breakdown)? | Yes → Step 4 | No → Avoid
Step 4 | Is current valuation cheap (P/E ~11–13× vs base case 15–18×)? | Yes → Step 5 | No → Hold
Step 5 | Is there behavioural mispricing (Lollapalooza: social proof, deprival, authority)? | Yes → Step 6 | No → Hold
Step 6 | Can you tolerate 3–5 years of slow/flat returns? | Yes → Step 7 | No → Small position
Step 7 | Is bureaucracy being addressed (restructuring, Seqirus, cost control)? | Yes → Step 8 | No → Hold
Step 8 | Is external ideology/policy risk manageable (donor system intact)? | Yes → BUY | No → Avoid
Psychology & Munger Tendencies
Sauerkraut Effect: On Price - CSL is a textbook example of the Sauerkraut Effect (Cook-style), where investor behaviour shifted not because of careful reasoning, but because of price and social signalling, creating a new belief that may overstate the long-term deterioration of the business.
On Product - CSL’s core products benefit strongly from the Sauerkraut Effect, as doctors and healthcare systems are deeply conditioned to use them, creating powerful inertia that protects demand and slows competitive disruption.
CSL’s products benefit from a powerful combination of habit, social proof, and authority bias, where elite medical usage reinforces widespread adoption, creating strong resistance to change and highly durable demand.
Lollapalooza Effect: CSL represents a classic Munger Lollapalooza on the downside: multiple psychological tendencies are aligned negatively, increasing the likelihood of mispricing and creating a favourable setup for disciplined investors. Deprival (lost premium status, Social proof (price momentum), Authority (analyst shifts), Contrast (vs past performance) and Lollapalooza (all combined)
CSL products exhibit a very strong product-level Lollapalooza Effect, where multiple psychological biases—authority, social proof, habit, and loss aversion—combine to create highly durable demand and resistance to change.
Ideology Affected: CSL is not broadly driven by political ideology, but it is critically exposed to ideological shifts around plasma donation and healthcare policy, which can directly impact its core supply system and cost structure. However, CSL is well prepared for this with deep experience on managing regulation changes. They also seem product that is critical to society, this leaves it on a good position to face these any exposure to ideology.
Multidisciplinary Approach: CSL is a multidisciplinary system where several distinct fields interact to create both its strength and its risks. Biology and medicine form the foundation by ensuring constant, non‑discretionary demand for life‑saving therapies, while behavioural science—through doctor habits, treatment protocols, and institutional learning—locks this demand in place and creates powerful inertia against change. Supply chain and operations are the company’s critical edge, as control over plasma collection and processing determines how much product can be produced and ultimately drives profitability. Regulatory and compliance disciplines act as both a barrier to entry and a constraint, protecting CSL from competition but also limiting flexibility and pricing. Economics translates all of this into investment outcomes, with ROIC and margins largely determined by plasma costs, making this the key pressure point. At the same time, technology and biotech R&D support incremental growth and long-term relevance, though they are less central than in other biotech firms, while political and policy factors influence the rules of supply through donor regulations and healthcare pricing. Finally, competitive strategy within an oligopolistic structure stabilises the industry but can amplify cost pressures during stress periods. Together, these disciplines create a business that is exceptionally durable on the demand side but structurally sensitive on the cost side, meaning CSL’s long-term success depends not on a single factor, but on how these interacting forces remain balanced over time.
The most critical disciplines to complement CSL’s current system are those that strengthen its weakest link—plasma collection economics—particularly automation, data-driven optimisation, and regulatory strategy, while capital allocation discipline and innovation capabilities ensure the long-term durability and relevance of the business.
First Principles: Yes to all
Tendencies - Market/Product 1: 21)Authority misinfluence tendency
Tendencies - Market/Product 2: 15)Social proof tendency
Tendencies - Company 1: 14)Deprival superreaction tendency
Tendencies - Company 2: 21)Authority misinfluence tendency
The Investment Case
Why Is This a Good Investment?: CSL is a good investment because it combines a mathematically reasonable return profile with strong common-sense business fundamentals, limited downside risk, and highly predictable human behaviour, while its advantage over competitors comes from a unique combination of supply control, regulatory barriers, and behavioural lock-in that is difficult to replicate.
Buffett Tenets: Simple and understandable? → ⚠️ Medium — core model (plasma collection → therapies) is clear, but operational, regulatory, and multi‑segment complexity reduces simplicity
ROE / ROIC → ✅ Medium–High — ~11–12% currently, ~13–15% expected, below historical peak (~20%) but still solid
Intrinsic Value → ✅ High — undervalued vs fundamentals, ~9–10% earnings growth with ~69% recovery probability and discount valuation
Rational Management → ⚠️ Improving — past capital allocation mistakes (Vifor, CEO removal), but strong corrective actions (leadership reset, board upgrade)
Favorable long term prospects → ✅ High — structural demand (aging, chronic disease, plasma scarcity) supports durable growth
Candid management → ✅ High — transparent about underperformance, explicit CEO replacement and restructuring acknowledgment
Profit margin → ✅ High — strong segment margins (~40–50%) with cyclical compression from plasma costs, not structural decline
Stock vs Bond Comparison: CSL is expected to outperform a bond not only on average but even in the lower‑probability scenario, making it a favourable asymmetric investment: based on your probability model (~69% chance of full recovery delivering ~7–10% returns and ~31% chance of slower recovery delivering ~5–6% returns), the worst realistic outcome still matches or slightly exceeds bond returns (~3–5%), while the base case provides a clear equity premium, resulting in a probability‑weighted return of ~6.5–8.5% versus bonds at ~3–5%; this implies that the downside is not a capital loss scenario but rather a period of bond‑like returns with volatility, while the upside remains meaningful through margin normalisation, ROIC stabilisation (~13–15%), and sentiment recovery, meaning CSL offers a “heads you outperform, tails you still do reasonably well” profile, with the main risk being timing and delayed recovery rather than permanent impairment.
Which Famous Investors Hold This?: AFIC → ✅ Added / holding — increased exposure and continues to treat CSL as a core long-term position (~8.1% portfolio weight); no recent selling signal [csl.com], [csl.com]
Argo Investments → ✅ Holding steady — CSL remains a top portfolio position (~5.2%), with no evidence of recent selling activity [csl.com]
Washington H. Soul Pattinson → ⚠️ Holding — no specific CSL trades disclosed; activity focused on broader restructuring (no selling evidence) [tipranks.com]
Netwealth → ⚠️ Passive holding — no disclosed buy/sell activity; likely client allocation driven rather than conviction-based [glassdoor.co.in]
Chart Analysis: Yes
Speculation / Investment Type: Analyst's Investment/Growth Investment
Popular?: Popular
Any share buybacks?: Yes, CSL has an active on-market share buyback program of up to A$750 million running from September 2025 to June 2026, and it forms part of a broader strategy to improve returns, simplify the business, and signal confidence in its long-term value.
Forecasted earnings possible/plausible/probable?: • Test: Possible | Before: High | After: ✅ Very High
• Test: Plausible | Before: High | After: ✅ Very High
• Test: Probable | Before: Medium | After: ✅ Medium → Medium-High
Financial Diligence
Have You Checked the Taxes?: Yes. CSL’s FY2025 effective tax rate of ~15.8% makes economic sense, is consistent with prior years, and supports the view that its earnings are of high quality without relying on aggressive tax optimisation. CSL pay taxes on multiple countries
Earning Forecast: 9% This includes baseline of industru growth, restructuring effect and future expansion prioducts
If a Private Business, How Would I Measure It?: As a private owner, the single most important variable to measure CSL is Return on Invested Capital (ROIC), because it captures the overall efficiency and value creation of the business, supported by cost per litre of plasma as the key operational driver that determines whether ROIC can be sustained or improved.
CSL’s key variables show a business where plasma volume continues to grow steadily and ROIC remains solid at ~13–14%, but margin compression confirms that rising plasma costs are the central issue; the investment case therefore depends on whether cost pressures stabilise rather than on demand or growth failing.
Management & Context
CEO Time With Company: 30 Years
How Old Is the Business?: 110 Years
Competitors Analysis 2: Plasma
-CSL operates less centres than Grifols however it porduces almost the same amount of plasma than Grifols through superior operational efficiency, advanced collection technology, and strong vertical integration, allowing it to maximise output per location rather than relying purely on network size.
-CSL has the largest concentrated fractionation capacity (over 10 million litres annually at a single facility), Grifols operates a similarly large but more distributed network of plants totalling roughly 9+ million litres, while Takeda’s disclosed facilities are smaller (around 2 million litres per site), indicating comparatively lower visible processing scale.
-Yield per litre of plasma of both of them is smilar for the three of them.
-CSL net profit, ROIC and debt is better than the other three.
Vaccines
-CSL is not the strongest in innovation and research, GSK and Sanofi is the strongest. However it has had some breakthroughs that can keep them competetive in the market. It's unlikely that CSL will lose its market share if innovation its kept at the current pace.
-CSL Seqirus has the strongest and most entrenched government relationships due to its role in pandemic preparedness and long-term supply agreements, which create high switching costs and deep strategic partnerships. Sanofi follows with extensive global relationships through large-scale public procurement systems, giving it broad international reach. GSK also maintains numerous government contracts, but these are more transactional and subject to competitive tendering, making them comparatively less secure.
-CSL Seqirus demonstrates the strongest production reliability due to its hybrid manufacturing model combining traditional egg-based and modern cell-based technologies, allowing for both stability and rapid scalability. Sanofi remains highly reliable due to its large-scale, well-established egg-based production system, though it is slower and more vulnerable to supply constraints. GSK has strong manufacturing capabilities but has experienced past capacity bottlenecks, making its production reliability comparatively less consistent.
-CSL delivers fastest, Sanofi delivers the most, GSK delivers broadly.
-CSL has a huge opportunity to gropw into 60b market that it's unexplored for them so far. 10% of this market will double their revenue for this sector.
Iron/Nephrology
-Fresenius owns the patient, CSL Vifor reaches the patient — together they control the pathway. CSL has smallest reach to patients however, they are in JV for dialisys. This moves CSL to a good position from a not that good position for patient access.
-While CSL’s differentiation lies in superior therapeutic products, Fresenius differentiates through system-level clinical management, making the two approaches complementary rather than directly comparable. This is why that JV is a great strategy.
-CSL demonstrates significantly higher profitability than Fresenius Medical Care, with net margins of around 19–20% and ROIC of approximately 10–12%, compared to Fresenius’ net margins of around 4–5% and ROIC of 4–6%. This difference reflects their fundamentally different business models: CSL operates in pharmaceuticals, benefiting from high pricing power, scalability, and intellectual property protection, while Fresenius operates a capital-intensive healthcare service model with lower margins and regulated pricing. As a result, CSL is more efficient at generating returns on capital, while Fresenius trades profitability for direct patient access and scale.
-
Employees: CSL has strong employee development programs and generally competitive remuneration, offering structured graduate pathways, career progression, continuous learning, and benefits such as bonuses, equity participation, and wellbeing support, and employees consistently value the purpose-driven nature of the work, the scientific environment, and the opportunity to build skills in a complex industry; however, both internal reviews and external feedback (Glassdoor/Indeed) clearly show that employee satisfaction is mixed, not because of compensation or development, but due to execution and management inconsistencies, with repeated complaints about uneven leadership quality, unclear expectations, communication gaps, and high workload or staffing pressure, reflected in relatively modest overall ratings (~3.3/5) and low management scores (~2.7/5), where employees report examples such as “lack of expectations from person to person,” inconsistent leadership behaviour, and limited HR follow‑through on workplace issues; these issues are not just anecdotal but corroborated at the corporate level, where CSL has recently undergone a significant leadership transition, including the abrupt departure of its CEO following underperformance, with the board explicitly stating that leadership “didn’t have the skills” needed for the company’s next phase, alongside large restructuring programs involving cost cuts, headcount reductions, and operational simplification efforts aimed at addressing margin pressure and execution shortcomings, which together illustrate a business that is not failing structurally but undergoing organisational strain and transformation; overall, CSL’s workforce is highly capable and well-supported in terms of development and compensation, but the key internal risk lies in management consistency, organisational complexity, and execution discipline, meaning the company’s future performance will depend less on talent quality (which is strong) and more on whether leadership can stabilise operations, improve communication, and execute strategically without recurring disruption, a conclusion that aligns closely with the broader investment thesis that CSL is a high-quality business facing execution rather than structural challenges.
CSL HAS CHANGED THEIR ENTIRE LEADERSHIP INCLUDING CEO, CFO, CCO AND BOARD TURNOVER WITH MORE PHARMA PARTICPATION.
Fundamentals
| Price to Sales ratio | 3.80x |
| Total Current Assets | $16,608,481,967 |
| Inventory | $9,302,265,759 |
| Working Capital | $9,093,114,934 |
| Tangible Asset Value | $7,499,925,350 |
| Market Cap/Tangible Asset Value | 11.21x |
| Income Tax Expense | $-1,519,732,699 |
| % Income Paid on Taxes | 26.9% |
| Book Value Per Share | $47.80 |
| 1.5xBV | $71.69 |
| Interest Coverage | 9.34x |
| Working Capital to Debt | 0.66x |
| EV To Free Cash Flow | 24.86x |
| Net Income Ratio | -16.1% |
| Free Cash Flow Yield | 4.7% |
| Intangibles To Total Assets | 32.6% |
| Price to Equity Ratio | 3.67x |
| Return on Tangible Assets | -11.2% |
| ROE | -15.1% |
| Operating Income Ratio | 25.6% |
| PFCF Ratio | 21.49x |
| ROIC | 10.0% |
| Debt to Assets | 32.4% |
| Quick Ratio | 0.97x |
| Current Ratio | 2.21x |
| Debt to Equity | 0.74x |
| Covariance (SP500) | 24,224.96 |
| Correlation (SP500) | 0.22x |
Value vs Book
| Share Price | $175.59 |
| 52 Week High | $222.47 |
| 52 Week Low | $90.00 |
| Free Cash Flow (TTM) | $4,810,000,000 |
| IV/BV | 4.64x |
Retained Earnings
| Share Price | $175.59 |
| 52 Week High | $222.47 |
| 52 Week Low | $90.00 |
| Market Cap (TTM) | $84,098,233,318 |
| EPS (TTM) | $-7.43 |
| Dividend (TTM) | $1.81 |
| Ratio P/(E-D) | -15.33x |
| Dividend Yield (TTM) | 2.3% |
| Retained Earnings (TTM) | $-9.24 |
| 10Y Retained Earnings (From Last FY) | $32.97 |
Earnings Trends
| 10y Average Earnings | $6.25 |
| 4y Average Earnings | $7.38 |
| Max Earnings | $8.71 |
| Min Earnings | $-7.43 |
| 10y EPS Variance | 211.0% |
| 10y EPS SD | $1.45 |
| 4y EPS SD | $0.90 |
| 10y AVG+SD | 7.71x |
| 4y AVG+SD | 8.28x |
| Average 10 Year Growth | -9.3% |
| 10Y Growth (3Y AVG) | -32.3% |
| PE Ratio Average | 32.36x |
| PE Ratio Average 3 Years | 58.80x |
| ETP% Vs AA Bond | 1.7% |
| AVG PE 3Y*PTB Ratio | 238.06 |
Cost of Capital
| Market Cap (TTM) | $84,098,233,318 |
| Enterprise Value (TTM) | $97,269,074,548 |
| Long Term Debt (TTM) | $13,691,610,437 |
| Interest Expense (TTM) | $604,989,134 |
| ROIC (TTM) | 11.0% |
| Income Before Tax (TTM) | $-5,639,944,678 |
| WACC | 9.2% |
| Total Investments (TTM) | $446,373,607 |
Fair Value
| Factor of Safety Buffet | 1.59x |
| Forecast EPS 1y | $-5.64 |
| Forecast EPS 5y | $-7.39 |
| EPS 5y Growth | 40.3% |
| Average P/E | 32.36x |
| Discount Rate | 9.0% |
| Owner Earnings Growth Rate | 7.0% |
| Share Price 10Y | $3.25 |
Public factual presentation only — the same view a signed-out visitor gets in the app; the News tab and anything owner/subscriber-gated never renders here. Research, not advice.