teaklog2

teaklog2 t1_j8ivjfq wrote

all future income...discounted to present value at a discount rate...

yes, quite literally

So if the house generated $100,000 in rental income annually forever...and the appropriate discount rate is 10%, then yeah they would be on the hook for $1m

In the same vein that in a wrongful termination lawsuit you can receive not just the income from the period you weren't working, but to be compensated for expected future income based on a number of factors.

This isn't some crazy concept dude, its the foundation for valuing literally anything. If I burned down someones rental property I would expect to be on the hook for the present value of future cash flows. Things can be worth more than their material cost my guy. In a similar vein, say you're at a store and you break a lamp costing $10,000. It doesn't matter if the lamp's materials costed $1000...the expected future revenue from selling that lamp was $10,000 which is what you owe. You can't go into a store and break $200 headphones and tell them 'oh well, the material cost of the headphones were only $20 so I'm giving you $20 and we're even'

its literally one of the fundamentals of how you set a price for anything that generates cash flows

1

teaklog2 t1_iyfd6lv wrote

Going to jump in and argue the grammar here specifically, in an ‘or’ statement like that the ‘serious’ can also modify both things being listed.

‘i want to buy a red car or truck’ does not imply you want a red car or any colored truck

‘an accretive merger or acquisition’ - doesn’t imply you don’t care if the acquisition is accretive or not

unless you are saying if you want to say ‘I want to buy a red car, table, blanket, and shirt!’ you should instead say ‘i want to buy a red car, a red table, a red blanket, and a red shirt!’

if you want to remove that assumption from your sentence, you could instead say ‘a truck or a red car’ or ‘a red car or any colored truck.’

1