Read on Twitter
Some thoughts - Was just reading Valuation by McKinsey. Thought it would give me additional insight into DCF's (always try to sharpen your sword). In actuality it turned me off from the process (at least their complicated version of it). Thread below 
If we accept that a company only creates value when it can perpetually maintain ROIC over WACC, then basically you should spend all your time figuring out how long a company can do that (i.e. width of the moat in Buffett speak)
These days, a lot of the bull case I hear for FANMAG/Tech stocks is that DCF doesn't capture brand new cash streams/end markets...i.e. An $AMZN DCF 10 years ago would not have captured AWS, so you basically can't "value" these FANMAGs that way.
I think I broadly agree with that actually...but that doesn't make me want to buy FANMAG to take advantage of unknowable revenue streams, instead it makes me want to buy stocks where the CURRENT product has a 30-50 year runway and limited competition.
It makes me feel like rather than look for new stocks, I should concentrate on my largest positions like $TDG and $ROP, and just keep adding. Once $TDG gets a part on a plane, it has a 30 year runway to raise price MSD annually with zero competition.
I doubled my $TDG position in April 2020, and now it has run up so much that it seems optically expensive (esp in the context of the worst Aero downturn of all time). I haven't added any new capital to that position as it has run up...
But if i view it from the lens of 30 years of LSD/MSD growth virtually unreliant on volume because they can raise prices consistently...is it really that expensive? Why shouldn't i just keep adding to my $TDG position every month, near term valuation be damned?
I've already proven that I can hold the stock through the worst black swan bear case possible...So if my investment horizon is 30 years and it looks completely clear based on TODAY'S revenue sources, that are ALREADY locked in, it seems like a complete layup, even at a 3% FCF yld
Part of me thinks that Bull market thinking is poisoning my mind re:valuation. Entry price matters to forward returns. The Value guy in me feels uncomfortable thinking like this...but on the other hand DCA'ing into something i know will be successful for 30 years seems prudent
Any thoughts from the Twitter-verse? Not necessarily about $TDG specifically...but this line of thinking in general? In a way it reminds me of Stahl at @HorizonKinetics continually buying $TPL at seemingly any valuation. His results speak for themselves.
But curious what the smart minds here think of this type of thinking.
