In addition to the previously mentioned mistakes, from an economist perspective it would be more accurate to use a ‘continuing value’ after using a ‘discounted cash flow’ for post 2029 profits, adding the lifetime of average foundation owned businesses. This would likely change results (possibly dramatically) while making them more accurate. Your BOTEC stops when BOAS reaches higher profitability in 2029, which is when most of the impact is just starting.
Again, this should be discounted for the risk, which your model has done (accidentally twice, which needs to be adjusted).
@Patrick Gruban 🔸 could you run the model with continuing values for stock market and BOAS, and remove double risk counting? I can check the BOTEC after to make sure it’s actually accurate.
My short Claude prompt was only intended as a conversation starter, so I’m happy this worked. I’m not considering investing, but if potential investors would like to carry this on and share here, this might be useful.
@Kevin Xia 🔸 thanks for pointing out the mistake too.
In addition to the previously mentioned mistakes, from an economist perspective it would be more accurate to use a ‘continuing value’ after using a ‘discounted cash flow’ for post 2029 profits, adding the lifetime of average foundation owned businesses. This would likely change results (possibly dramatically) while making them more accurate. Your BOTEC stops when BOAS reaches higher profitability in 2029, which is when most of the impact is just starting.
Again, this should be discounted for the risk, which your model has done (accidentally twice, which needs to be adjusted).
@Patrick Gruban 🔸 could you run the model with continuing values for stock market and BOAS, and remove double risk counting? I can check the BOTEC after to make sure it’s actually accurate.
My short Claude prompt was only intended as a conversation starter, so I’m happy this worked. I’m not considering investing, but if potential investors would like to carry this on and share here, this might be useful.