A company’s intrinsic value is what the business is actually worth: the value today of all the cash it will hand its owners over its remaining life. It is an estimate you build, not a number the market prints. The market price is what the stock costs; intrinsic value is your view of what it is worth. Investing on value is the practice of comparing the two.
A stock is a claim on a business, and a business is worth the cash it will produce. The economist John Burr Williams put it plainly in 1938 (The Theory of Investment Value): a stock is worth the cash it will generate over its life, discounted back to today — no more and no less. Every other valuation shortcut people quote is an attempt to approximate that one number quickly.
This is why a company with no profits can still be worth something (the market expects cash later) and why a profitable company can still be a bad buy (you paid more than the cash is worth). It is also why the P/E ratio is a shortcut, not an answer: it compares price to ONE year of accounting profit, while intrinsic value is about ALL the future cash, and cash is not the same thing as accounting profit.
Price is a fact — it is on the screen, and it is the same for everyone. Value is an estimate — it is in your head, and it differs between investors. Benjamin Graham’s famous image is "Mr. Market": an agreeable business partner who shows up every day and offers to buy your share or sell you his, at a price that swings with his mood. You are never obliged to trade at his price. You only benefit from him when his price and your value estimate diverge far enough to matter.
The practical consequence for a first-time investor: "the stock went down 20%" tells you nothing on its own about whether it is now a bargain. If the business is worth less than you thought, a lower price is correct, not cheap. Cheap means price below value — which requires you to have a view on value in the first place.
The most direct method is a discounted cash flow (DCF): project the cash the business will generate, shrink each future year back to what it is worth today, and add it up. That is the honest, first-principles way, and it is also the one that exposes how much you are assuming.
The quicker methods are all comparisons: a multiple of earnings (P/E), of book value (price-to-book), of sales, or of cash flow, benchmarked against the company’s own history or its peers. These are fast and useful, but they smuggle in an assumption — that the benchmark multiple is itself fair. In a bubble, every peer is expensive, so "cheap relative to peers" can still be expensive in absolute terms.
Example (illustrative — invented numbers chosen to show the mechanics, not a real company and not a recommendation). Suppose a small business reliably hands its owner $10 of cash every year, forever, and you discount that future cash at 10% a year — your required rate, the compensation you would have to be priced to receive before tying up money in something this risky. The value of a perpetual $10 stream at a 10% discount rate is $10 ÷ 0.10 = $100. That is your intrinsic-value estimate.
Now watch how fragile that is. Discount at 12% instead of 10% and the same $10 stream is worth $10 ÷ 0.12 ≈ $83 — the value dropped 17% without the business changing at all. Assume the cash grows 2% a year forever and the value becomes $10 ÷ (0.10 − 0.02) = $125. Two defensible assumptions, a $83–$125 range. This is not a flaw in the arithmetic; it is the honest truth about valuation, and it is exactly why the next section matters.
The first trap is false precision. A spreadsheet returns "$142.68" and the number feels earned, because you did the work. But as the example above shows, small, arguable changes to the growth rate or the discount rate move the answer by tens of percent. The number is only ever as good as the assumptions, and the assumptions are guesses about the future. Anyone quoting intrinsic value to two decimal places is telling you more about their confidence than about the company.
The second trap is motivated reasoning. Because you choose the inputs, you can always reverse-engineer the answer you already wanted: nudge growth up a point, shave the discount rate, and the stock you liked becomes "undervalued". A valuation you built after deciding to buy is not evidence. Write the assumptions down before you look at the price if you want the exercise to have any information content.
The third trap is the value trap: a stock genuinely cheap against your estimate, that stays cheap for years — or is cheap because the business is quietly dying and the market has noticed something you have not. "Undervalued" is a claim that the market is wrong; sometimes it is, and sometimes you are. That asymmetry is the reason Graham insisted on a margin of safety rather than trusting the estimate.
Be clear about what our forecast is and is not. Quantustik’s model forecasts the probable range of the PRICE over a chosen horizon — it is a statement about market behavior, not an estimate of intrinsic value. It does not compute a DCF, and it does not tell you what a business is fundamentally worth. Fundamental data (margins, cash flow, growth) feeds it as quality and value scores, not as a valuation verdict.
The two views answer different questions, and a serious investor uses both: intrinsic value asks "is this business worth owning at this price?", and a price forecast asks "what is this stock likely to do over the next few months, and how wrong could I be?" A cheap business in a falling market is still a losing position in the short run; an expensive business can keep rising for years. Neither view rescues you from the other.
What a business is really worth, based on all the cash it will generate in the future, valued in today’s money. It is an estimate you build from assumptions — not a number the market publishes.
Price is what the stock costs right now and is the same for everyone. Intrinsic value is your estimate of what it is worth and differs between investors. A stock is only "cheap" when price sits below value — a price fall alone tells you nothing.
Most directly with a discounted cash-flow (DCF) model: project the cash the business will produce, discount each future year back to today, and add it up. Faster shortcuts compare the price to earnings, book value, sales or cash flow, but those assume the benchmark multiple is itself fair.
No. Our model forecasts the probable range of the price over a horizon — a statement about market behavior, not about what a business is fundamentally worth. Fundamental data feeds the model as quality and value scores, not as a valuation verdict.
Because the answer depends on assumptions about future cash flows, growth and the discount rate, and small, defensible differences in those inputs swing the result by tens of percent. Any honest intrinsic value is a range, not a point.
Browse all S&P 500 tickers to see this metric applied to individual companies.
Educational research only — not investment advice.