FCF
First Commonwealth Financial Corporation
stock NYSE

On the investment book: if you strip it out, do both halves. Value the listed stakes at market (people often haircut 20-30% for the holdco discount and tax on a sale) and take that off EV, and also remove the equity-method income from the earnings/FCF you're capitalizing, otherwise you count it twice. Then rerun the reverse DCF on the core business alone. You can also flip it: fix growth at a fade from \~11% and solve for the discount rate the price implies. That number is your China risk premium.

PEP's problem isn't the price, it's that volume growth has stalled while the dividend keeps eating the FCF. Cheap on yield doesn't mean cheap on fundamentals. I'd want to see organic volume turn before calling it value.

My model says some optimism is already priced into Micron Technology.
At $1,074.89, today's price only works in my model if cash flow grows about 11.2% a year for the next 10 years. Recently, reported FCF grew about 108.6% a year (FY2023-FY2026). The hurdle uses unlevered cash flow; the historical figure above measures reported FCF.
Two operating details behind the valuation:
\- Q4 FY2026: Micron Technology's latest-quarter revenue grew 379% year over year, compared with 346% year-over-year growth in the previous reported quarter.
\- Micron Technology's reported FCF margin is 44.3%, up from 10.1% in the oldest comparable period.
The price is above my $974 base case but below my $2,070 bull case. There may still be upside, but the company needs to beat my central case to justify it.
Model assumptions: 11.8% discount rate and 2.5% long-run growth. These are assumptions, not a forecast of the share price.
What could break the case: Semiconductors are cyclical.
Is there enough upside left for the risk?
The video goes through the assumptions behind the range, the stress test, and what would change my conclusion. I broke down the full case in a video: [https://youtu.be/d-thEVfEcTc](https://youtu.be/d-thEVfEcTc)
Snapshot: 2026-10-03. Disclosure: I built the model; video production is AI-assisted. Not financial advice.

Capitalize Owners Earnings at 10% (based on normalized FCF + growth capex)

The Teamsters aren’t responsible for the company choosing to cut corners on aircraft and truck maintenance, nor are they responsible for cutting corners on safety issues or redirecting planes transporting F-35 parts to China. Same goes for not spending all that FCF in an intelligent manner. The problems with UPS start at the top - Carol. The fish rots from the head down.

Screening value names in HK/China, Tencent came up near the top of what cleared the filter: EBIT/TEV 98th percentile, FCF yield 88th, ROIC ~15% average over 4 years, Piotroski 7/9, Altman Z 4.1, Beneish -2.65 (peer set's a broad large-cap slice, not sector peers, fwiw). Trading around 421 HKD.
Three things before I'd size into this.
Reverse-DCF off the current price implies perpetual growth under -1%, basically flat. Revenue grew ~14% last year and averaged ~11% CAGR over the last three. That's the opposite of the usual value trap. The market's pricing this like a mature no-growth business, not one still compounding double digits. Is that a real discount for regulatory and export-control tail risk, or is the market just wrong here?
Tencent carries a large investment book, stakes in other listed and private companies, with equity-method income running through the income statement, and I'm not netting any of that out of enterprise value, just market cap plus debt minus cash. If you've actually modeled this name: do you back the investment portfolio out separately, and does it move the read much, or is it small relative to the core ads, games and fintech business?
Discount rate I'm using is CAPM off a beta of 0.74, landing around 8%. For a Chinese platform company with real regulatory tail risk, does that feel too low, and if so by roughly how much would you bump it?
Would be a real position, not a starter. What am I missing?

I'm horrified that the market chose to ignore the force majeure act of god warning from Oracle, which btw is due to a missing gas pipeline permit. Meaning their hideously expensive New Mexico data center will not be receiving fuel cell power anytime soon.
The newest warning sign, which will also likely be laughed off by AI tech bros is Amazon(who has gone completely insane btw) is exploring a spinoff to contain their disastrous purchase of $8b in Grace Blackwell chips from Nvidia. Hey yeah, let's spin that off into an SPV so we can warehouse those losses off the balance sheet.
Dafuq is amazon even doing?!? It used to be a book store...then it turned into a portal for everything consumers needed delivered quickly and cheaply. Now their prices are soaring, their services are sputtering, and their lunch is being eaten by Walmart. Seems like dumping all their FCF into AI buildouts is likely to cost them dearly. Bizarre behavior indeed.

've become more interested in FCF yield because earnings can sometimes look better than the actual cash generation of the business.
That said, I wouldn't replace P/E with FCF yield entirely. I'd probably use both and then investigate why they give different signals.

Yes, solid pick / discovery!
Market Cap: \~15mio
Total Assets: \~30mio
Total Equity: 22mio
Cash: 10.6mio
Cash + Inventory + Receivables: \~15mio
Total Debt: 3mio
D/E: 0,13 (compared to the industry average of 1.7)
Looks like Net Profit & FCF are a bit unstable though but nothing to worry abt (in my opinion).
I hope this helps. 😊

I'd watch 2026 FCF, adjusted EPS, and whether the $5.4B dividend remains comfortably below FCF. If FCF falls materially below ~$5.4B for a sustained period, the dividend risk becomes much more significant. I am concerned needless to say

Depends on your appetite for risk and your investing goals. Personally, looking at this, Nvidia and AMD are only going to be doing well if AI continues to do well. We've just got through one of the worst tech momentum sell offs on record and there's a lot of promising companies in the space that have been beaten down. I'd sell NVDA & AMD and put them into higher beta bets on the AI trade. AAOI, Nebius, IREN, CREDO are all higher beta and all have the potential to grow massively over the next several years as the AI buildout continues. Even if you dont want higher beta I'd say AMD has got to go - its at its own record premium valuation and looking at them with a 1T market cap with how little revenue they're looking to pull in has me scratching my head.
Apple has been a safe-haven for people not wanting to invest in a company nuking their FCF by investing into AI. I think the time that was useful is drawing to an end, I'd sell Apple and put it into Google. Google is the largest, most resilient and diversified tech company you can find, & the most able to weather a turn in the AI trade - you couldn't find a company in a better position to be going in heavy into AI while be insulated from a downtrend. A lot of companies in the space have had to leverage debt in this growth phase, which makes them extremely vulnerable if the music were to stop - these companies would go bankrupt, or get acquired by the larger players until the space consolidated into the last few left standing. I see the AI "bubble" popping as a bullish outcome for Google in the longterm - they'd weather the storm, acquire relevant players and assets for pennies on the dollar, and when the dust settles emerge far stronger in the AI market as it then recovers over the next several decades.

Great insight! Very appreciated comment.
At some point the valuation prices in a total collapse of growth despite the guidance and current performance not reflecting anything close to that projection. Even deaccelerated moderate growth could mean a good investment now when the buyback yield actually is increasing at lower FCF multiples.

The cash is clearly showing up, which is usually the first thing that breaks in a value trap: margins are about 88% gross and 65% net, with free cash flow of about $4.5B over the last 12 months.

On your DCF, one way I find useful is to split the price in two. Take owner earnings (I use FCF, about $12.90 a share) and assume zero growth forever at a 9% required return. That's worth about $143 a share. At \~$268, a bit over half the price is cash the business already earns, and the rest is a bet on growth. The price only needs roughly 6% a year for a while to make sense. Revenue has been growing about 30% a year.
So I think the real debate is durability, not cheapness: one engine (AXON), mostly gaming ad budgets, on Apple's and Google's ground, with debt above equity. How fast are you assuming it keeps growing after the first few years, and for how long?

If you want strong q3/4 dividends, invest in tanker stocks and energy stocks they're swimming in FCF

The thing I'd be most interested in is the definition of “true FCF.”
That's where screens can get deceptively precise. SBC, lease principal, capitalized software, restructuring, working-capital swings and acquisition-related cash costs can all change the answer depending on how you treat them.
I usually want the raw GAAP cash flow sitting next to the adjusted number so I can see exactly what was changed.
A 10% FCF yield is interesting. A 10% FCF yield that depends on three aggressive adjustments is a very different animal.

Haha sorry I'm just keeping my question short. But it does seem like compelling case.
It's continuing to grow (30% EPS) and trading at a low multiple (15x) and predicts $15B FCF in 2028.
If the robotaxi narrative is dragging them down, then I feel like that'll turn around. They're setting up lots of partnerships with AVs and are collecting data for the AVs to train on. I think these AV companies want to focus on the tech while licensing it out for companies like Uber to add to their fleet. They have the moat and all the routing infrastructure.
It wants to be the one stop shop for transportation needs. You can rent a car with the app now. They're starting drone deliveries with Uber eats. And the courier service can be pretty cheap when I've used it before.
But I don't own it yet. I just read those points a few weeks ago and have been watching the stock since then. Might enter soon though.

I stopped getting emotional about weedstocks a long time ago. Added some Cresco today. They've been beaten down and lost a lot of topline the last few years, but gross margins, SG&A efficiency and FCF are trending in a better direction. A fair bet, from my point of view. And if not, I'll just move the money somewhere else to keep it growing. It's just math.

Hi, I've modelled the FCF 3 years out, based on 3 scenarios with subscriber growth and pricing stability/hike assumptions and PE repricing in in bull and bear scenarios.
But I'm here for getting the vibes on it, to see on which side the model sways harder, rn I'm seeing an equal three way split (between perfectly priced, cheap, expensive) on the vibes front.

Briefly, I’m modelling Netflix’s FCF 3 years out.
Bear case - negative subscriber growth, flat subscription pricing, and margin compression.
Base case- 6-8% subscriber growth, no meaningful increase in subscription pricing, with margins broadly stable/improving through operating leverage.
Bull case- 15% subscriber growth, 10% annual pricing growth, strong growth in advertising cash flows, and continued share buybacks that reduce the shares outstanding.
The $25 price target also factors in a degrowth discount/repricing at 8-10 PE.

Plenty of companies have gotten by short term covering dividends with cash or from new debt. It's not as though the distributions for every company always comes from FCF generated in corresponding FY each and every year.
But that's no indiciation of cut or keep. My thoughts are they know if a cut was announced the stock would crash even harder, and they'd maintain it if possible.
Ironically they were on the brink of joining the dividend aristocrat club. But can't see any way they can justify a raise even if just the smallest.