u/ValuEdge

I’ve been looking at Legal & General again and I’m a bit torn.

On paper, it looks like exactly the kind of UK stock income investors like:

Decent dividend.

Big established financial business.

Not exciting.

Probably not going anywhere.

But that’s also the problem.

I can never tell if LGEN is actually undervalued, or if it just permanently trades at a low valuation because the market doesn’t really believe in the growth story.

The numbers I’m looking at suggest it’s not screaming cheap right now. More like close to fair value.

Current price is around £2.89, with fair value coming out around £2.97.

So this isn’t really a “huge discount” situation.

What I do find interesting is the split between safety and growth.

Safety looks strong.

Growth looks weak.

Value looks okay, but not amazing.

And that kind of sums up the whole LGEN debate for me.

It feels like a stock you buy because you want income and stability, not because you expect some massive rerating.

But then I ask myself:

If the growth is modest and the stock is already near fair value, is the dividend enough of a reason to hold it?

Or is this one of those UK income names that looks attractive every year but never really compounds that well?

I’m not trying to make a bullish or bearish case here. I’m genuinely curious how UK investors think about this one.

For people holding LGEN:

Are you holding it mainly for income?

Do you actually expect capital appreciation from here?

Or is this just a “collect the dividend and don’t overthink it” type of stock?

Not financial advice.

just trying to understand the appeal beyond the yield.

I know CNR is probably one of the least exciting stocks you can bring up here.

No AI story.

No huge yield.

No crazy growth narrative.

No “this could 10x” pitch.

Just a railroad.

But I’ve been looking at it again and I’m starting to understand why some people like these boring Canadian compounders.

The thing with CNR is that it doesn’t need to become something new.

It already sits on infrastructure that would be almost impossible to recreate today. The network, land, routes, relationships, scale, and role in the Canadian economy are basically the whole thesis.

That doesn’t mean the stock is automatically cheap.

It also doesn’t mean returns from here will be amazing.

But I do think there’s a difference between a company that is boring because nothing is happening, and a company that is boring because the business model is already established.

CNR feels more like the second one.

The part I’m struggling with is valuation.

If I look at it as a slow-growth industrial, it never looks screaming cheap.

But if I look at it as a long-duration infrastructure asset with pricing power, dividends, buybacks, and a very hard-to-replace network, I can see why people are willing to pay up for it.

So I’m trying to figure out whether this is one of those stocks where waiting for an obvious bargain means you never actually buy it.

Curious how people here think about CNR:

Is it still one of the better Canadian long-term holds?

Or is it one of those “great company, okay stock” situations where the valuation usually eats most of the upside?

Not financial advice. Just trying to understand how others value boring Canadian quality.

Micron might be one of the cleanest examples of a stock where the business got better — but the stock may have gotten ahead of the business.

About a year ago, MU was sitting around the $100–$110 area.

At the time, the setup looked almost too hated.

Memory was still treated like a brutal commodity cycle.

Sentiment was weak.

The chart showed capitulation-type signals.

And the valuation work I was looking at suggested Micron was worth almost 2.5x where it was trading.

That was the easy part of the thesis:

The market was pricing MU like a normal memory-cycle stock.

But AI/HBM demand was starting to make the cycle look less normal.

Fast forward to today, and the setup has completely flipped.

Current price: $1,133.99

Estimated fair value: $389.80

DCF estimate: $443.34

The stock is up massively.

The intrinsic value has also gone up.

But the stock price has gone up much faster than the underlying value estimate.

That is the part I think is worth discussing.

This is not the same as saying Micron is a bad company.

Actually, it might be the opposite.

The business has genuinely improved.

AI memory demand is real.

HBM has changed the story.

Pricing power is much better than a normal downcycle memory company.

Margins have exploded.

Earnings have exploded.

Free cash flow has improved.

The company is no longer being valued like a broken commodity name.

And maybe that is correct.

But here is the problem:

At $100–$110, the question was:

“Is the market missing the recovery?”

At $1,133, the question becomes:

Has the market already priced in the recovery, the AI cycle, the margin expansion, and the next few years of perfect execution?

That is a very different question.

I think this is where a lot of investors get trapped.

They buy a stock because the thesis was right.

Then they hold forever because the business is still good.

But sometimes the thesis works so well that the risk/reward changes completely.

The stock you wanted to buy at $100 is not automatically the same stock at $1,100.

Even if the company is better.

Even if the narrative is stronger.

Even if the earnings are real.

For MU, I think the debate is now pretty simple:

Either intrinsic value has to keep rising aggressively to meet the price…

Or the price eventually has to come back closer to intrinsic value.

The bull case:

Micron is no longer a normal memory stock. HBM demand, AI data center spending, supply discipline, and pricing power could make current earnings more durable than past cycles. If that is true, the model may still be too conservative.

The bear case:

Memory is still memory. Cycles do not disappear just because the current cycle is beautiful. If margins normalize, demand slows, or AI capex expectations reset, the current price could be discounting too much too early.

That is why I think MU is no longer a simple “AI winner” discussion.

It is now a valuation discipline test.

The company can be excellent.

The stock can still be expensive.

The original thesis may have worked.

That does not mean the current thesis is still attractive.

My question for the group:

Does MU’s intrinsic value rise enough from here to justify the current price — or does the price eventually come back down to meet the value?

And more specifically:

Are you modeling Micron as a permanently re-rated AI memory compounder…

or as a cyclical memory business currently enjoying one of the best upcycles it has ever seen?

Not financial advice. Just trying to pressure-test the valuation.

ServiceNow is one of the more interesting large-cap software names right now because the stock action and the business performance are telling two very different stories.

​

The stock looks ugly.

The business does not.

​

Current price: $95.04

Estimated intrinsic value: $163.05

Implied gap: +71.6%

​

The chart looks like investors threw the whole SaaS basket in the trash.

​

RSI is oversold.

Price is down hard over the last 3 months.

Sentiment around enterprise software is clearly damaged.

​

But when I look at the actual business, I have a hard time calling this a broken company.

​

Latest quarter:

​

Total revenue: $3.77B

Subscription revenue: $3.67B

Subscription revenue growth: 22% YoY

cRPO: $12.64B

Total RPO: $27.7B

Now Assist customers spending over $1M ACV: up 130%+ YoY

​

That does not look like a company whose product is becoming irrelevant.

​

So the real debate with NOW is not:

“Is ServiceNow a good business?”

I think that answer is obvious.

The real debate is:

​

Is AI going to compress ServiceNow’s moat — or make the platform more important?

​

That is where this gets interesting.

The bear case is pretty clean.

Enterprise software is under pressure because investors are worried AI agents will reduce the need for traditional SaaS workflows, seat-based pricing, and expensive enterprise platforms.

​

If AI lets companies automate work outside of ServiceNow, then maybe the market is right to rerate the stock lower.

​

That is the scary version.

But the bull case is almost the opposite.

ServiceNow is not just another software dashboard.

​

It sits inside messy enterprise workflows: IT, HR, customer service, security, operations, compliance, approvals, ticketing, automation, internal processes.

​

That kind of system is sticky because it is embedded in how large companies actually function.

And if AI becomes useful inside enterprises, someone still has to connect it to workflows, permissions, records, approvals, audit trails, and business logic.

​

That is exactly where ServiceNow wants to sit.

​

So the question becomes:

​

Does AI replace ServiceNow, or does ServiceNow become the control layer for AI-driven enterprise work?

​

That is the whole thesis.

If AI weakens workflow platforms, NOW deserves a lower multiple.

If AI increases the value of owning the workflow layer, the current selloff may be an overreaction.

​

The valuation case depends on a few assumptions:

​

1. Subscription revenue growth can stay around 20% for longer than the market expects.

​

2. cRPO growth remains strong enough to support forward visibility.

​

3. Now Assist becomes a real monetization layer, not just an AI marketing label.

​

4. Margins stay healthy even with AI investment and acquisitions.

​

5. Enterprises keep consolidating workflows onto ServiceNow instead of fragmenting across AI tools.

That last point matters most to me.

​

The market seems to be pricing in a world where AI disrupts traditional SaaS.

​

But there is another possible world where AI makes fragmented enterprise workflows even harder to manage — and platforms like ServiceNow become more valuable, not less.

​

That is why I think NOW is worth looking at here.

Not because it is statistically cheap.

Not because the chart is oversold.

But because the market may be confusing software fear with business deterioration.

​

Those are not the same thing.

​

A falling stock price does not automatically mean a broken business.

​

Sometimes it means expectations got reset.

Sometimes it means the market is seeing something real.

​

The key question is which one this is.

For me, the NOW thesis comes down to one question:

Is ServiceNow just another SaaS company being disrupted by AI, or is it one of the platforms enterprises will use to operationalize AI?

​

If it is the first, the stock may deserve the punishment.

​

If it is the second, this could be one of the more interesting software dislocations in the market.

​

Curious how others are underwriting it:

​

Would you model NOW as a mature SaaS company with multiple compression risk, or as a workflow infrastructure platform that could actually benefit from AI adoption?

This is the kind of valuation that makes people angry.

Not because the company is bad.

​

Because the company might be extraordinary — and still be wildly overvalued on cash flows.

​

I’m looking at SPCX / SpaceX exposure, and the part that stands out is not the blended fair value number.

​

It’s the DCF.

Current price: $185.00

DCF estimate: $45.89

​

That means the current price is roughly 4x the DCF value.

​

Or said differently:

If the DCF is even directionally right, the stock is not “a little expensive.”

It is priced like the future has already gone almost perfectly.

​

And this is where SpaceX becomes one of the hardest assets to value.

​

Because the bull case is obvious.

Reusable rockets.

Launch dominance.

Starlink.

Government/defense demand.

Potential Starship optionality.

A founder-led execution culture that has already done things most people thought were impossible.

​

I get it.

​

This is not a boring company trading at 30x earnings with no growth story.

This is probably one of the most important private companies in the world.

​

But that is exactly why I think the valuation needs to be separated from the story.

A great story can make a multiple look reasonable.

​

A DCF forces a different question:

​

How much actual future free cash flow has to arrive to justify today’s price?

​

That is the part I think people skip.

​

For SPCX at $185, the bull case needs a lot to go right:

Starlink has to become a massive durable free cash flow machine.

​

Launch economics have to remain structurally superior.

Starship optionality has to become commercially meaningful, not just technologically impressive.

Capex cannot keep consuming the economics forever.

Competition cannot materially compress margins.

Private-market enthusiasm has to eventually translate into public-market cash flow discipline.

The company has to grow into the valuation without needing a heroic terminal multiple.

​

That is a lot of assumption stacking.

And to be clear, I am not saying SpaceX is a bad business.

​

Actually, the opposite.

​

I think the business quality is the reason this is so dangerous to analyze.

The better the company, the easier it becomes to justify almost any price.

That is usually where valuation discipline disappears.

​

The market does not seem to be pricing SpaceX like a risky cash-flow asset.

It is pricing it like a category-defining infrastructure monopoly with enormous embedded optionality.

​

Maybe that is right.

But if you are buying at $185 while the DCF points closer to $46, you are not really buying today’s cash flows.

​

You are buying the belief that the model is missing something very large.

That “something” might be Starlink scale.

​

It might be Starship.

​

It might be future defense contracts.

It might be global communications infrastructure.

It might be a monopoly-like launch position.

But then the investment thesis should be honest:

​

This is not cheap on DCF.

This is a bet that the DCF cannot capture the optionality.

​

That can be a valid thesis.

​

But it is very different from saying the stock is undervalued.

For me, the key question is:

At what point does “optionality” become an excuse for not underwriting cash flows?

​

Because if SpaceX eventually produces enormous high-margin free cash flow, today’s price may make sense.

​

But if the economics take longer, capex stays heavy, dilution continues, or margins normalize lower than expected, then the current valuation could be far ahead of the business.

​

My current view:

​

SPCX / SpaceX is probably a phenomenal company.

But based on DCF, the stock looks priced for a future that has to arrive nearly perfectly.

The debate is not whether SpaceX matters.

​

It clearly does.

​

The debate is whether paying $185 for something the DCF values around $46 is intelligent underwriting — or narrative-driven overpayment.

​

Curious how others would model this:

​

What free cash flow number would you need in year 5 or year 10 to justify today’s price?

And for SpaceX specifically, do you think DCF is the wrong tool — or is it the only tool keeping the story honest?

​

​

Fisr of all,I am truly sorry for last post formatting.

​

Now let's get into this:

I think AMZN is one of the harder mega-cap stocks to value right now because the simple bull/bear arguments both miss the real issue.

​

The lazy bull case is:

​

“Amazon has AWS, ads, Prime, logistics, AI, and retail scale. Just buy it.”

​

The lazy bear case is:

​

“It’s already a $2T+ company. The easy money was made.”

I don’t think either side gets to the real question.

​

To me, the AMZN thesis comes down to this:

​

How much future margin expansion is already embedded in the current price?

​

Amazon is not one business.

​

It is at least four different economic engines sitting under one ticker:

​

1. AWS — high-margin cloud infrastructure

2. Advertising — probably one of the most underappreciated profit pools in the company

3. North America retail — huge revenue base where small margin changes create massive operating income changes

4. International retail — historically lower-margin, but with meaningful optionality if scale and logistics efficiency improve

​

That is what makes the valuation interesting.

​

When people say AMZN is expensive or cheap, I do not think that means much unless they separate the margin assumptions.

​

The latest quarter was strong:

​

Net sales: $181.5B

Operating income: $23.9B

AWS revenue: $37.6B

AWS operating income: $14.2B

North America operating income: $8.3B

International operating income: $1.4B

TTM operating cash flow: $148.5B

​

The obvious takeaway is that AWS is still the profit engine.

​

But I think the more important question is whether the market is still underestimating the operating leverage in the rest of Amazon.

​

AWS gets most of the valuation discussion because it deserves it.

​

But the hidden swing factor may be retail margin.

​

If North America retail can sustainably move from “low-margin scale business” to a structurally better-margin business because of fulfillment efficiency, ads, Prime, logistics density, and higher-margin third-party seller services, then a lot of operating income can appear without requiring explosive revenue growth.

​

That is the bull case I find most interesting.

​

Not “Amazon grows forever.”

​

More like:

​

Amazon already built the infrastructure. Now the question is how much profit can be extracted from it.

​

The bear case is also pretty clean.

​

At this size, the market may already be assuming that:

​

- AWS keeps premium economics despite AI capex intensity and cloud competition

- Ads keep growing at high margins

- North America retail margins continue improving

- International becomes less of a drag

- Capex eventually converts into durable free cash flow

- The market keeps assigning Amazon a premium multiple

​

That is a lot to ask.

​

So I do not see AMZN as a simple “cheap stock.”

​

I see it as an expectations question.

​

If retail margins keep expanding and AWS growth holds up, the stock may still be undervalued even at this scale.

​

If AWS growth slows, AI capex stays heavy, and retail margins stop improving, then the stock can look fairly valued very quickly.

​

The part I keep coming back to is this:

​

A 1% margin change on Amazon’s revenue base is not small.

​

That is why I think retail margin assumptions matter more here than most people give them credit for.

​

For me, the AMZN valuation debate is not:

​

“Is Amazon a great business?”

​

It obviously is.

​

The debate is:

​

What normalized operating margin are you willing to underwrite across the whole company?

​

My current view:

​

AMZN is attractive only if you believe the company is still early in its margin normalization story.

​

If you think today’s margins are already close to mature, the upside is much less obvious.

​

Curious how others are modeling it:

​

What operating margin do you assume for normalized Amazon?

​

And do you value AWS separately, or just blend the whole company into one DCF?

I know everyone is tired of NVDA posts.

​

That’s exactly why I think it’s still worth discussing.

​

The lazy bear case is:

​

“$5T company. Too expensive. AI bubble.”

​

The lazy bull case is:

​

“AI is the future. Just buy it.”

​

I don’t think either side is doing the real work.

​

The real question with NVDA is not:

​

“Is it expensive?”

​

Of course it’s expensive.

​

The real question is:

​

What has to be true for this valuation to still make sense?

​

And that’s where it gets interesting.

​

NVDA is not trading like a normal semiconductor company anymore. It’s trading like the toll booth for AI infrastructure.

​

Latest quarter was insane:

​

Revenue: $81.6B

Data Center revenue: $75.2B

Gross margin: ~75%

Next quarter guide: ~$91B revenue

​

That is not “cool GPU company grows fast.”

​

That is infrastructure-scale demand.

​

The bull case is simple:

​

If AI capex becomes a permanent line item for hyperscalers, enterprises, governments, sovereign AI projects, robotics, autonomous systems, and inference workloads, then NVDA may still have more room than people think.

​

Because in that world, NVDA is not selling chips.

​

It is selling the compute layer everyone else has to build on.

​

But here’s the bear case:

​

At this size, the market is already pricing in something close to excellence.

​

Not good execution.

​

Not strong execution.

​

Excellent execution.

​

For years.

​

That means the risk is not that NVDA suddenly becomes a bad business.

​

The risk is that the business stays amazing, but the expectations were even more amazing.

​

That’s the part people forget.

​

A great company can still be a bad stock if the price already assumes perfection.

​

So for me, NVDA comes down to 4 questions:

​

1. Can data center growth stay absurdly high without hyperscalers eventually slowing spend?

​

2. Can margins stay near current levels as competition, custom chips, and customer bargaining power increase?

​

3. Does inference create a second demand wave, or are we pulling too much future demand into today?

​

4. At what point does market cap become the constraint, even if the company keeps winning?

​

I’m not saying NVDA is a short.

​

I’m also not saying it’s an automatic buy.

​

I think NVDA is one of the best businesses in the world priced like one of the best businesses in the world.

​

The edge here is not having a strong opinion.

​

The edge is knowing what assumption would make you change your mind.

​

For me:

​

If revenue keeps scaling toward $100B per quarter while margins hold, the “too expensive” argument gets weaker.

​

If growth slows while the multiple stays rich, the stock can get punished even if the company remains dominant.

​

That’s why I think NVDA is not really a stock pick anymore.

​

It’s a test of one big thesis:

​

AI compute is becoming the next global infrastructure layer.

​

If that’s true, NVDA may still not be done.

​

If that’s false, the stock is priced for a future that doesn’t fully arrive.

​

Curious how others are valuing it:

​

Are you treating NVDA like a cyclical chip company, a platform monopoly, or an AI infrastructure utility?

I’ve been trying to value AAPL and I think it’s one of the harder mega-cap names to analyze right now.

Not because the business is bad.

​

Actually, the opposite.

​

The business quality is obvious enough that it becomes easy to skip the hard part: figuring out what is already priced in.

In the model I’m looking at, AAPL shows an estimated fair value of $210.78 vs a current price of $299.24, which makes it look about 29.6% expensive.

​

The interesting part is that both valuation methods are below the current price.

​

The DCF estimate is $154.69.

The historical multiples estimate is $229.47.

So this is not really a case where the DCF looks cheap but the multiple looks stretched.

​

Both are saying the stock is expensive, just to different degrees.

​

And that makes the real question harder:

What has to go right for AAPL to justify the current price?

Apple is not just one product.

You have iPhone, Services, Mac, iPad, Wearables, buybacks, ecosystem strength, and a lot of expectations around future AI integration layered on top.

​

So when someone says “AAPL is cheap” or “AAPL is expensive,” I don’t think that means much unless they explain the assumptions.

​

The real questions to me are:

What revenue growth are you assuming over the next 5–10 years?

How much margin expansion is still realistic?

How much value are you giving to Services growth?

Are buybacks enough to support EPS growth if revenue growth is modest?

What multiple should Apple deserve if it is already priced like a premium compounder?

​

The model I’m looking at shows AAPL above estimated fair value, but I’m not treating that as a sell signal by itself.

The business is still extremely high quality.

​

The question is whether the current price already assumes too much perfection.

​

Curious how others are valuing it.

​

What assumptions make AAPL look fairly valued at today’s price?

I’ve been trying to value AMZN and I think it’s one of the harder mega-cap names to analyze right now.

Not because the business is bad.

Actually, the opposite.

The business quality is obvious enough that it becomes easy to skip the hard part: figuring out what is already priced in.

Amazon is not one business.

You have AWS, which probably deserves a premium multiple.

You have retail, where small margin changes can make a huge difference to operating income.

You have advertising, which I think still gets less attention than it should.

You have Prime/subscriptions, logistics, third-party seller services, and a lot of AI/capex assumptions layered on top.

So when someone says “AMZN is cheap” or “AMZN is expensive,” I don’t think that means much unless they explain the assumptions.

The model I’m looking at shows AMZN below estimated fair value, but I’m not treating that as a buy signal by itself.

The real questions to me are:

1. What normalized operating margin are you assuming for retail?
2. What multiple are you assigning to AWS?
3. Are you valuing advertising separately or just blending it into the whole company?
4. How much future capex are you assuming for AI/cloud infrastructure?
5. What FCF conversion are you using?
6. How much margin of safety do you require for a business this complex?

This is where I think AMZN gets interesting.

The bullish case is that the market is still underestimating long-term margin expansion, advertising economics, and AWS durability.

The bearish case is that investors may already be paying for a lot of that improvement before it fully shows up in free cash flow.

So I’m curious how people here are thinking about it.

Would you value AMZN with:

• DCF
• Sum-of-the-parts
• FCF multiple
• EV/EBITDA
• AWS multiple + retail stub
• Or something else?

And what do you think is the biggest swing factor: AWS growth, retail margins, advertising, or capex?

Disclosure: holding AMZN

Not financial advice.